Ishikawa Noriyuki (Associate Professor, Department of Journalism, Nihon University College of Law)
1. Problem identification
During their tenure on the throne, Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko (now Emeritus and Emerita) made several visits to the sites of World War II battles to pray for the repose of the spirits of the fallen. For the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the war, they visited Iwojima (Tokyo Prefecture) in February 1994; for the sixtieth anniversary, they visited Saipan (US territory) in June 2005; and for the seventieth anniversary, they visited Peleliu (in Palau) in April 2015 and the Philippines in January 2016. Although it is well known that mass media reporting contributes to the formation of collective memory, the reporting of memorial journeys of this kind constitutes an opportunity for historical memories of the war as it took place on these Pacific islands to be passed on.
However, a general understanding has not necessarily been achieved with regard to fundamental questions such as why Japanese fought on faraway Pacific islands, or even why the Japanese made their southern advance to begin with. Nevertheless, there has been a small but steady amount of research produced on the southern advance from an academic perspective. First, this paper will provide an overview of the main results therein, followed by a discussion of its objectives.
1.1 Previous research
The most detailed prewar account of Japanese activities in the South Seas is Irie Toraji’s Hojin kaigai hattenshi (History of Japanese development overseas), (Ida Shoten, 1942).[1] After the war, various research on the issue took place, led by Yano Toru’s “Nanshin” no keifu (Record of the “southern advance”) and Nihon no nan’yoshi kan (Perspectives on Japanese South Seas history) (Chuo Koronsha: 1975, 1979).[2] Thereafter, research has continued to progress since the 1980s, with detailed analyses by region[3]. Recent years have included publications such as Goto Ken’ichi’s Tonan Asia kara mita kingendai Nihon (Contemporary Japan viewed from Southeast Asia) and Kindai Nihon no “nanshin” to Okinawa (Prewar Japan’s “southern advance” and Okinawa) (Iwanami Shoten, 2012, 2015), clarifying the status of Japanese immigrants in the region. As well, regarding the era of the “southern advance” policy on which Japanese relations with Southeast Asia were based, there is no shortage of research on the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.”[4]
In the area of media and journalism history, recent years have seen several reproductions of Japanese-language newspapers from the South Seas. In addition to the Sumatra Shimbun, reprinted in 2017 by Yumani Shobo, Ryuukei Shosha has already reprinted the Java Shimbun and is now publishing a reprint of the Borneo Shimbun. There have heretofore been few full-scale analyses of Japanese-language newspapers in the South Seas, but their content is gradually coming to light through work including Tomizuka Hideki, “Taiheiyo sensoka ni okeru Nanpo shinbun seisaku”(Southeast Asia newspaper policy during the Pacific War), Hosei Ronso (Review of Law and Political Science) Vol. 39 No. 1, 2002) and Oda Yasutaka, “Nihon gunseika Java-to ni okeru senryochi toji koso to media” (An occupied territory rule design and the media in Java under the Japanese military administration), Media-shi Kenkyu (Media History) Vol. 42, 2017.
Machida Yuuichi has pointed out with regard to research of this kind on the region in question that while there is “a vast amount of research by region and field,” “there is no intellectual framework integrating this vast space,” and that in particular “the continuation and accumulation of clarifying research on migration [of people to the region —author] and Japanese society is essential.”[5] The author is also planning continued research on the region from the perspective of the history of journalism.
1.2 Objectives and methods of this paper
The objective of this paper is to clarify, based on contemporary media discourse, what ideas were held by Japanese of the time regarding the “South Seas” region during the process of adoption of the “southern advance” national policy. While it has been noted that “proponents of the southern advance proponents went through an effectively undesirable boom and burst during the early Showa period,”[6] what were the epoch-making events that spread the “Southern Expansion Doctrine” through Japanese society to such an extent? And what was the logic behind this doctrine in that context? As in the overview in the previous section, reams of research have been written on the area in question; however, studies focusing on the “Southern Expansion Doctrine” have generally concentrated on Shiga Shigetaka and Taguchi Ukichi in the Meiji era and Matsuoka Yosuke in the Showa era. While this research is undoubtedly significant, in order to grasp the dissemination of the “Southern Expansion Doctrine” throughout society at large, we must also pay attention to newspaper articles, the main media of the time, as well as articles by now forgotten theorists who conducted secondary and tertiary critiques of the issue. This paper views this media discourse as a textual expression of a part of the ideology generated within Japanese society of the time, and through its analysis approaches the public perception of the South Seas as it formed at the time.
The methods used include a quantitative analysis of the number of articles on the South Seas and the southern advance in central newspapers (the main newspapers published in Tokyo). Here, an increase in the number of articles is addressed as an increase in opportunities for readers to attain knowledge, with consideration of the period and events when the so-called “Southern Expansion Doctrine” was at its height (Section 3). Continuing, one example to be addressed of a contemporary magazine carrying South Seas discourse is Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, whose early Showa period “Southern Expansion Doctrine” logic is analyzed in the paper (Section 4). Through these analyses and discussion, the paper achieves its objectives.
1.3 Establishing the concepts of “South,” “South Seas,” and “southern advance”
The limited range of meaning ascribed here to the words Nanpo (South or Southeast Asia), Nan’yo (South Seas), and nanshin (southern advance) ought to be specified at this point. According to Yano Toru, “before the war, ‘Nan’yo’ was the most legitimate expression, and eventually ‘Nanpo(ken)’ became equally familiar.”[7] This paper likewise does not strictly distinguish between the two. However, care is required when dividing the prewar use of Nan’yo into the “inner” (back) and “outer” (front) South Seas. The former refers to what is now Micronesia, the South Sea Islands which became a Japanese mandate after the First World War. The latter refers to the island region composed of the Philippines and the Indonesian islands including Borneo, Java, and so on. The area of the “outer” (front) South Seas is difficult to specify, as it often included parts of the Asian continent such as French Indochina and the Malay Peninsula as well.[8]
With regard to the “southern advance,” along with further confirmation below during the analysis of article numbers, one also finds the simple physical meaning of “moving troops toward the south” during the (First) Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars. However, this paper focuses on the so-called “Southern Expansion Doctrine.” This refers to the form of thought which viewed the “South Seas” region as an important vantage point for Japan and attempted to justify Japan’s advance therein, as well as the policy implemented on the basis of this diplomatic ideology. Although this form of thought can be observed from the Meiji period, this paper focuses mainly on the logic of the process by which it became national policy in the prewar Showa era.
2. Historical development of the “Southern advance
Before addressing this paper’s analysis, let us conduct an overview of how the so-called “southern advance” developed.
Yano Toru proposes “calling the overall natural relations of the Japanese with Southeast Asia ‘southern involvement,’ and with regard only to the aspects where it connected with national policy and took on undesirable tendencies, using the expression ‘southern advance’.”[9] Yano classifies “southern involvement” into the following three chronological categories.[10]
(1) The advance of the “female army” in the early Meiji era, and the primitive economic system parasitic therein
(2)The development of the commercial capital called “Toko Jepang” from the late Meiji era
(3)The “southern advance” national policy of the 1930s
In this context, the “female army” refers to the so-called karayuki-san,[11] workers at brothels that were opened in the South Seas region with variety stores attached, thus gradually forming a Japanese community, albeit economically immature. Thereafter, the scale of commercial activities expanded, creating “Toko Jepang” (“Japanese-run stores”), and trading companies and banks began to open local branches. The sea routes became established and shipping thrived as well; development based on this kind of utilitarian economic activity was prevalent in the Taisho period. In a shift from private-sector “southern involvement” of this kind, the “southern advance” policy came to the fore in national policy, developing into the concept of the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.”
The background for the increasing importance of the South Seas region from the standpoint of national policy was its appraisal as essential for both the economy and national defense, as Japan’s international isolation worsened after the Manchurian Incident. Japan’s southern advance first appeared in official national policy when it was proposed at the Five-Minister Conference (the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Finance, the Army, and the Navy) held by the Hirota Koki cabinet and accepted via a Cabinet decision as the “Basis for National Policy” in August 1936.[12] At this juncture, the policy stated that “While working to avoid provocation of other countries, we expect to enhance and reinforce our national power by planning our ethnic and economic development in Southeast Asia and the South Seas, particularly the outer South Seas, and the advance of our forces in peaceful increments, along with the completion of Manchuria.”[13]
At just the same time, the “Imperial Foreign Policy”[14] created “for opening isolated environments” described the position of the region, stating that “the South Seas is a key trading position globally, as well as an essential region for Imperial industry and defense,” and noting that “we must lay the groundwork for advances in terms of the natural locale for our ethnic development.” This clearly states the intent to pursue the region as part of foreign policy. However, as the “Basis for National Policy” cited above, the “Imperial Foreign Policy” also stated that “we must strictly avoid provoking behavior and work to dispel concerned countries’ misgivings on the Empire, promoting economic relations peacefully and incrementally.” At this stage, attention was paid to avoiding clashes with the UK, the USA, France, the Netherlands, and other countries with interests in the region. Thereafter, during the second Konoe Fumimaro administration, Japan set out on its “southern advance” as national policy. The context thereto included the need for Southeast Asian resources driven by the stagnating Sino-Japanese War as well as the opportunity presented for military advance in response to German military successes in Europe. Article 1 of the “Guidelines for Timely Measures in Response to Global Situational Trends”[15] adopted at the Imperial General Headquarters-Government Liaison Conference in July 1940 reads “… Regarding southern policy, we will work to use the changing situation to our advantage and move forward,” promoting action in Southeast Asia in accordance with the situation. Article 2-3 (a) reads “Regarding French Indochina (including Guangzhouwan), we expect that support for Chinese Nationalists will be thoroughly cut off, and that we will be rapidly permitted to take charge of supplying our military, move the military through, use airfields, etc.; we will work to obtain the resources needed by the Empire.” Based thereupon, it adds “Military force may be used depending on the situation,” going so far as to state that the national policy of “southern advance” may be accompanied by the use of armed force.
At the Four-Minister Conference (Prime Minister and Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Army and Navy) held on September 4, 1940, the range of the Greater East Asia new order Lebensraum posited by Japan was stipulated in secret: “In negotiations with Germany and Italy, the range to be considered as Lebensraum for the construction of the new order of Imperial Greater East Asia, centered on Japan, Manchuria, and China, is to be the former German Mandate islands, the French Indies and Pacific islands, Thailand, British Malaya, British Borneo, the Dutch East Indies, Burma, (Australia, New Zealand), India, etc.[16] On September 23, the Japanese army invaded North French Indochina, implementing the “southern advance” policy in a context of military force.
We have thus conducted an overview of the progress from Japanese “southern involvement” at the private-sector level to the implementation of the “southern advance” as national policy. The rest of the paper will consider how the Japanese understood the South Seas, and what the points of discussion with regard to the “southern advance” were throughout this process.
3. Salience of articles on the “South Seas”
This section clarifies the relations between the periods of attention to the South Seas in prewar Japan and the events there. The method used is a quantitative analysis of articles related to the South Seas in two central newspapers, thus extracting the frequency of salience of the South Seas as a timely issue/topic of discussion. This analysis clarifies how much information on the South Seas was provided at what time to contemporary newspaper readers, while at the same time presenting the issue of how much knowledge of the South Seas these readers were able to obtain in each period.
Obviously, it is not possible to discuss Japanese attitudes toward the South Seas at the time based on quantitative changes alone. This issue will be addressed in combination with the results of the discourse analysis in the following section. Here, the purpose is simply to grasp the characteristics of each period by demonstrating the changes in recognition levels over time as opportunities for the Japanese to encounter information on the South Seas through newspaper articles.
Some may argue that in historical research it is a faux pas to reference different social theories from the period advocated, but here I want to rely on the point made by McCombs et al.: “When the salience of a given issue increases, public knowledge thereof expands as well, creating stronger opinions.”[17]From the perspective of this paper as well, the salience of the South Seas in newspaper articles increased readers’ knowledge thereof and enhanced their awareness and opinions on the issue. Regarding the use of social theory in historical research, Peter Burke points out that “some of the concepts, models, and methods used in the discipline [of sociology] are likewise useful in research on the past, while case studies of modern society offer fruitful comparison with those of past centuries”;[18] the author shares this view in analyzing the salience of articles on the South Seas in prewar Japan.[19]
The analysis targets two newspapers, the Asahi Shimbun and Yomiuri Shimbun. Both are limited to their Tokyo editions. Some editions of the Asahi Shimbun from before September 1940 were entitled the Tokyo Asahi Shimbun, while the Yomiuri Shimbun was called the Yomiuri Hochi from August 1943; however, the basic names of each newspaper have been used here as above for convenience. Some explanation is required for the omission from the analysis of the Tokyo Nichinichi Shimbun (renamed the Mainichi Shimbun from 1943), the leading newspaper of prewar Japan. In order to observe changes over time, the analysis extracted articles related to the South Seas from the founding of the target newspapers through 1945, the year the Asia-Pacific War ended. Because the analysis of over 70 years of newspapers in hardcopy format would have been difficult, the databases provided by each newspaper company were used.[20] While the Mainichi Shimbun’s Maisaku database is an excellent online resource, it uses a clearly different algorithm from the other target newspapers with regard to the search function for the years of analysis, and was thus omitted from this study.
In addition, the two online databases used for the analysis adopt different search systems, making them unsuitable for simply comparing the number of articles in each newspaper. Here, the total number of articles obtained from each database is considered one part of the opportunities for readers of the time to encounter knowledge of the South Seas.
The graph in Table 1 shows the number of articles on the South Seas from 1874, when the Yomiuri Shimbun was founded, through 1945. Articles used for the Asahi Shimbun date back to the founding of the Tokyo Asahi Shimbun in 1888. The year with the most total articles was 1941, with 503, followed by 1915 with 421; next, years with over 300 articles were, in order, 1942 (377), 1939 (341), 1914 and 1933 (336), 1935 (335), 1919 (321), and 1936 (314).
Based on Table 1, this section discusses the periods when information on the South Seas in prewar Japan increased and became a topic of discussion. The following four chronological categories can be determined according to article numbers.
Period 1 Meiji through early Taisho era (1800s to early 1910s)
This period contains relatively few articles. According to Yano’s categories mentioned in the previous section, in the South Seas this was the period of “1. The advance of the ‘female army’ early in the Meiji era, and the primitive economic system parasitic therein,” with little news reaching Japan at all.
Even so, a thorough examination of the articles from the period finds several on the exploration of the South Seas. For example, there are articles discussing the establishment of Taguchi Ukichi’s Nanto Shokai or South Sea Islands Company and voyages to the South Seas. In 1889, when the shizoku jusan (samurai rehabilitation) system was wound up, Taguchi Ukichi, then deputy chair of the Tokyo Prefectural Assembly, founded Nanto Shokai as a trading company in the South Seas Islands, intending to make use of the rehabilitation funds issued by Tokyo Prefecture. The following year he himself traveled to the South Seas, contributing a travelogue to the newspapers.[21] Other similar travelogues appeared as well, including regular columns introducing the climate and indigenous culture of the South Seas.[22] In 1902, a fraudulent attempt to settle Rasa Island (Okidaitojima) made the news several times.[23] Overall, the newspaper articles from this period are characterized by their content regarding South Seas settlers.
Period 2 World War I through early Showa era (1914–1932)
In the South Seas, especially in the “outer” South Seas such as British Singapore and Dutch Java, this was the period defined in Yano’s classification as “2. The development of the commercial capital called ‘Toko Jepang’.” More active commercial activities led to more articles on economics, with interest in the South Seas rising sharply within Japan as well. For example, a column by Kinjosei titled “Nan’yo no ozei” (Trends of the South Seas)[24] in the Yomiuri Shimbun of 1913 gushed that “South Seas development is Japan’s ideal employment,” calling for “peaceful expansion” into the South Seas.
In 1914, Japan declared war on Germany in accordance with its alliance with Britain, attacking Qingdao in Shandong Province, Republic of China, which was a German concession, and occupying the German South Seas Islands. War reportage caused a sharp increase in South Seas-related articles that year. The number of articles also went up in 1919, the year after World War I ended, when the Paris Peace Conference was held. The former German South Seas islands north of the equator, which were occupied by Japan, became mandate territories based on the newly established Charter of the League of Nations. The mandate territories of the “inner” South Seas fell under full governance in March 1922, when the Japanese government established the headquarters of the Territorial Government of the South Seas on Koror in Palau, taking over from the temporary Navy South Seas Defense Garrison. Articles on the South Seas from this period include those on trade as well as those on the “inner” South Seas, a new focus of attention in its postwar management.[25]
Period 3 Early to mid-Showa era, prewar (1933–1940)
This third period and the fourth period discussed below, divided based on the progression in the number of article, fall under Yano’s category “3. The “southern advance” national policy.” They have been separated into two based on significant differences in the number of articles,
In 1933, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in response to its General Assembly’s vote on the Manchurian question. Because, as noted above, the South Seas Mandate was based on the League of Nations Charter, the Saito Makoto administration made a cabinet decision on the “Imperial Government Policy on the Return of the South Seas Mandate after the Empire’s Withdrawal from the League of Nations,” arguing that “the right of mandate to the former German-occupied islands was granted by the main allied nations, including the Empire, based on the decision of the Paris Supreme Conference of May 7, 1919, and not by the League of Nations”.[26] Ascribing the basis of the mandate to Articles 118 and 119 of the Versailles Treaty, they continued to govern the “inner” South Seas. In accordance with these diplomatic actions, the number of articles on the South Seas increased as well.
Furthermore, in accordance with the rising interest in the South Seas in the Taisho era, this period is characterized by discourse which we may call “South Seas fantasies”— unrealistic adventure stories or daydreams of undiscovered lands. For example, the writer Ando Sakan, who was then known as a South Seas buff, had a regular Yomiuri Shimbun column in 1933 called “Mysteries and Illusions of the South Seas,”[27] riddled with provocative phrases like “those who live by ‘sex’” and “the island where all men are welcome.”[28]
Period 4 French Indochina invasion to Asia-Pacific War (1940–1945)
The previous section covered the situation leading to Japan’s 1940 invasion of northern French Indochina; thereafter, the 33rd Imperial General Headquarters–Government Liaison Conference held in June 1941 decided the invasion of southern French Indochina, with “southern advance by military force” executed as national policy: “In the case that the French government or the French Indochina authorities do not respond to our demands, we will carry out our objectives with military force.”[29] Japan’s invasion of southern French Indochina solidified the US stance and negatively affected US–Japan diplomacy, leading to the opening of hostilities against the United States on December 8. In January 1942 Japan declared war on the Netherlands as well, occupying British Malaya and Singapore in the Malayan campaign and forging on to invade British North Borneo, Dutch South Borneo, Dutch Java, and Dutch Sumatra. Table 1 shows that this process caused a sharp rise in the number of South Seas-related articles in 1941 and 1942.
Thereafter, there was a steady decrease in article numbers through the end of the war; although probably related in part to limits on reportage as the war situation worsened, this is also thought to have been caused by reduced newspaper lengths due to newsprint restrictions. The paper restrictions meant that newspapers were already just four pages long as of the start of the war in 1941. By 1945, they had been reduced to a single front-and-back page.
This concludes the summary of the characteristics of the four periods shown in Table 1. Relying on the social theory that the increase in readers’ knowledge through media reporting contributes to the creation of stronger opinions on the relevant issues immediately calls to mind the rise of the “Southern Expansion Doctrine.” The increase in the number of articles on the South Seas, kicked off by World War I and the South Seas Mandate, was then influenced by the diplomatic issue of Japan’s international isolation and finally peaked during the development of the national“southern advance by military force” policy. The following section discusses the promotion of the Southern Expansion Doctrine in these contexts, with a political journal as its case study.
Table 2 also provides material for consideration of how the term nanshin (southern advance) was used by the Japanese of the time. A look at the actual newspapers shows that when the word nanshin was used amid war reportage on the Sino-Japanese, Russo-Japanese, and First World Wars, it referred to the physical context of moving troops southward, conforming to the literal meaning. However, the number of articles began to increase around the time when the “southern advance” became national policy, and the use of the word more often referenced the political sense of resource acquisition.
4. Perspectives on the “South Seas” in media discourse and the logic of the 1930s–1940s “Southern advance”
This section analyzes discourse on the Southern Expansion Doctrine in the magazine Nihon oyobi Nihonjin (Japan and the Japanese) and clarifies the logic therein. Naturally, the examination of a single given magazine cannot be considered representative of the Southern Expansion Doctrine of the time as a whole. While the text is treated simply as a part of the media discourse present at the time, it demonstrates a part of the attitudes toward the outside world shared by the people of that era. To take this view, however, we must first confirm the characteristics of the magazine itself to eliminate bias to the extent possible. Before analyzing the discourse, then, here is a brief discussion of Nihon oyobi Nihonjin itself.
In 1906, employees of Nippon Shimbunsha broke away and founded their own company in protest against the reforms made to the newspaper Nippon by Ito Kinsuke, who had acquired management rights from Kuga Katsunan. In January 1907, they merged with the magazine Nihonjin, published by Seikyosha, to create the magazine Nihon oyobi Nihonjin. Thereafter, Seikyosha published Nihon oyobi Nihonjin until internal conflicts developed over reconstruction after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923; Miyake Setsurei, who had been involved since the founding of the magazine’s predecessor Nihonjin, left to found Gakan, while Seikyosha published the later version of Nihon oyobi Nihonjin (Gekkan Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, or Japan and the Japanese Monthly) [30] under Inoue Kiroku. Regarding the post-split Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, the scholar of prewar Japanese literature Yamada Hiromitsu notes that “the right-wing leanings intensified after the split with Setsurei, succumbing to ultra-nationalism such as the mystical theory of the national polity as well as wartime cooperation. … Overall, there was a very strong ideological bias, with nothing in the literary section worth mentioning.”[31] In 1929, finding the management of Seikyosha difficult, Inoue Kiroku transferred management rights to Ioki Ryozo, well-known in political and financial circles, to acquire funding. Thereafter, the magazine became an organ for Ioki’s political activities.[32] For example, it led discourse for the campaign against the London Naval Treaty and the National Polity Clarification Movement.[33] After Ioki’s death in 1937, Saiga Rokuya and others took on management responsibilities. The magazine issued approximately 3000 to 4000 copies per issue.[34]
First, let us consider the view of the South Seas held by Japanese of the time as it is found within the magazine. Takei Tenkai (Juro) argues therein that “the concept of the South Seas held even now by people of the fatherland is that it is not so much a savage land as the epitome of a savage land.”[35] Tenkai had traveled to Java in the Dutch East Indies in 1906 and lived there until 1928. In Java, he had served as a correspondent for the Osaka Asahi Shimbun while also working as a contractor for the Dutch Indies Governor-General from 1908 to 1915.[36] In 1927, he critiqued the awareness of Japanese overseas by Japanese in Japan as follows.
Overseas development does not simply mean migrant laborers scraping up money for family in the old country. It is an overall term for economic development in all senses. The nation and its people are diligent and considerate when encouraging overseas development, cheering you on. But once you actually go overseas, the nation and its people could not care less about you anymore. … The attitude of the people of the motherland toward these loyal overseas landsmen is unfeeling and undutiful, with no love for their compatriots or their fellow Japanese. They seem to consider themselves well rid of their overseas landsmen, whether viewing them as undesirables or as compatriots.[37]
Tenkai’s article suggests that the Japanese of the time subscribed to the stereotype that the South Seas was a savage land, and that they were so uninterested in it as not even to consider the Japanese living there.
It is thought that this positioning of the South Seas began to change when, as in the categories of the previous section, Japan’s international isolation worsened after the beginning of the Manchurian question. In an issue of Nihon oyobi Nihonjin from this period, an article by Shigematsu Kiyoyuki entitled “The New Japan and the Eastern and Southern Seas Economic Block” proposes that the block economy then being formed by Japan and Manchuria be expanded to include the South Seas region. The purpose thereof would be to obtain the abundant resources of the South Seas as well as to create a market for product sales there. To this end, he argues, doors must be opened to the Dutch and British territories in the South Seas. Below is an excerpt of the article:
We must free the countries of the East and South Seas from the bonds of the aging powers, with Japan becoming the leader of this alliance and the Japanese the leaders of their people, forming an East and South Seas economic block for the sake of their happiness, using the abundant raw materials produced by these neighboring lands to create products in our factories and provide them to the people of these countries at low prices, rescuing them from the exploitation of the onetime powers.[38] (Underlined by the author. Below likewise)
Manchuria has already made clear its open-doors policy at the start of its nation-building process. In accordance with existing policy, Japan is to carry out its beliefs in China and Manchuria; at the same time, the doors of the South Seas shall be opened for the sake of its peoples, based on humanitarianism and justice, to create a global free market in the South Seas as in Manchuria and China. If they fail to open the South Seas territories and deprive us of this equal opportunity, we have no obligation to extend tacit permission for their entry into Manchuria or for their oppression of China.[39]
The ethnocentric discourse indicated by the underlined section, stating that Japan should serve as the leader of the South Seas countries, was particularly notable here and there from this period. For example, Nanhisei’s “From a corner of our South Seas Islands” states that “the South Seas islands already belong to the Japanese, not the islanders … this should be child’s play for the Japanese on our mission to bring Imperial rule to the world in service to the Sacred Words”[40]; in a paper entitled “Management of Southeast Asia is the mission of the Imperially descended race,” the ethnologist Matsuoka Shizuo also states that “the management of Southeast Asia is a grand mission of the awakened Imperially descended race. The lands of the South Seas are vast, with many still unexplored areas. Our ancestral spirits are longing for us, their descendants, to bring prosperity to this land.”[41] The background to the increase in this kind of phrasing is thought to have been the influence of the contemporary National Polity Clarification Movement.
The November 1935 issue of Nihon oyobi Nihonjin which ran Matsuoka’s paper was a special edition on the “South Seas question,” with a half-title page headline reading “Reach for the South Seas!” and twelve articles and papers on South Seas issues. This was the first time the magazine had run a special edition on the South Seas, suggesting that the region was now the source of attention sufficient to lead to journalistic projects. The titles and authors of the articles in this edition are as follows.
“Nanpo keiei ha tenson minzoku no shimei” (Management of Southeast Asia is the mission of the Imperially descended race) by Matsuoka Shizuo (former Navy captain, ethnologist)
“Nan’yo no seijiteki josei” (The political situation in the South Seas) by Ide Teiichiro
“Nichiran mondai no saininshiki wo unagasu” (Calling for a reappraisal of the Japan–Netherlands problem) by Sosa Tanehiro (Navy Reserve Rear Admiral, author)
“Nan’yo gunto no kachi” (The value of the South Sea Islands) by Umezaki Unosuke (Navy commander)
“Yamada Nagamasa to sono gunkan” (Yamada Nagamasa and his battleships) by Arima Seiho (Navy Reserve captain)
“Wakana no uta natsukashi” (Remembering Wakana’s song) by Ogura Seitaro
“Tai Nan’yo yushutsu boeki no genzai oyobi shorai” (Present and future exports to the South Seas) by Yasumoto Shigeji (Deputy Director, Tokyo Municipal Institute for the Promotion of Commerce and Industry)
“Holland no shokumin seisaku to Indonesia” (Dutch colonial policy and Indonesia) by Saito Masao (president, Java Nippo)
“Nanpo keiei to jinruigaku” (South Seas management and anthropology) by Yawata Ichiro (archeologist, University of Tokyo lecturer in anthropology)
“Sekai seisaku ni yuhi shitaru Holland Toindo Kaisha” (The Dutch East Indies Company’s leap into global policy) by Itazawa Takeo (professor, Gakushuin University)
“Nan’yo homen in okeru waga ishokumin oyobi takushoku jigyo no gaiyo” (Overview of Japanese migrants and colonization policy in the South Seas), Kawamoto Kunio (clerk, Ministry of Colonial Affairs)
“Nagamasa jidai Nihon giyugun gyoretsu no zu” (Image of Japan’s volunteer army on the march in Nagamasa’s day) by Arima Seiho (Navy Reserve captain)
While popular interest in the South Seas was on the rise, there were also protests against the careless use of the term nanshin (southern advance). Yokota Takeshi, author of The Real Face of Our South Seas (Nan’yosha, 1933) among other works, called for caution with regard to the mounting South Seas boom: “A reporter from Nihon oyobi Nihonjin came and told me to write something about the colonial question in the South Seas, but to tell the truth, it isn’t a very good idea to address this issue at the moment. … Recently the phrase ‘southern advance’ has become a trend, but it’s all talk and almost no action.” He added “Migrants to the South Seas islands need the cooperation of the capitalists, and without that in hand, if they think they’re going to go out there empty-handed and succeed, they have another thing coming.”[42]
Furthermore, in the fourth period as described in the previous section, hardline theories appeared in the discourse on the South Seas. For example, in an article entitled “The Urgent Need to Ensure the South Pacific,” Sosa Tanehiro argued for a “bold advance” into the Dutch East Indies as follows.
The Dutch East Indies are Japan’s lifeline not only in national defense but also in trade, industry, and resources; superiority on this line can significantly influence our national fortunes. Therefore, if we do not immediately ensure our grasp on the South Pacific, we will regret it in a century; if we make our move, we will be able to defeat our enemies without a fight. What we must do is, of course, to make the first move: this is an inarguable condition. If Japan braces itself and makes a bold advance to action, America will have no option but to resign itself. Burma will then become independent, Thailand will form a military alliance, and French Indochina will become a part of the Co-Prosperity Sphere, while Chiang [Kai-shek] will see the light and bow his head. …
Not just for our national defense and for industry resources, we must set free 60 million Indonesians from the chains of the white man and seize this land.[43]
Sosa’s argument seems unduly optimistic on some points, such as the United States being forced to resign itself to Japan’s “southern advance,” but it is notable that, in addition to the establishment of national defense and economic zones, he mentions freeing the Indonesians from white domination as the objective of the “southern advance” The concept of the so-called Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is narrated not only to explain Japan’s national benefit but as an ideal ensuring its legitimacy.
5. Conclusion
This paper’s analysis focuses on the awareness of the “South Seas” in prewar Japan and on the development of the Southern Expansion Doctrine as national policy in the early Showa period. This process is an attempt to clarify the details of the formation of Japanese attitudes toward the outside world, namely the so-called South Seas. Research on the Southern Expansion Doctrine so far has focused on the people who took leading roles or contributed to theory formation. Based on knowledge gleaned from these studies, this paper has attempted to shed light on the process through which forms of thought on the “southern advance” spread through society via media discourse and became generalized attitudes. Thus while research on the advocates of the doctrine is also important, the significance of this paper is in its focus on the social role of the media in reproducing and spreading their arguments. In lieu of a conclusion, I will here reflect on the work and discussion so far and organize issues for the future.
First, in section 1, the paper notes its stance on the problem, reviews existing research, and defines the scope of the arguments.
In section 2, with reference to Yano Toru’s groundbreaking chronological categories, the paper organizes the eras to undergo analysis through pursuit of diplomatic documents, etc.
In section 3, through the quantitative content analysis which is one of the paper’s analytical tasks, the salience of articles related to the South Seas is extracted by year and the periods and events leading to attention to the South Seas in Japan are clarified. Specifically, based on trends in article numbers, four categories are derived and their characteristics are examined. The term nanshin (southern advance), examined by period and frequency, is found to have increased sharply in usage after the advance into the South Seas became national policy.
In section 4, with reference to the categories extracted in the previous section, the paper clarifies the specific “views on the South Seas” and discussions of the “southern advance” found in magazine discourse.
This work has illustrated the formation of awareness of the South Seas by the Japanese of the time. However, various issues still remain. The analysis in section 4 of the paper focused on a single magazine as a fixed-point observation. The author feels that this method is significant in itself, but a comprehensive examination of different media would certainly enable more elaborate analysis work. As well, this analysis targeted discourse within Japan; in order to pursue the South Seas question comprehensively, the Japanese society on the ground there must also be addressed. The author looks forward to opportunities to address these issues in future research.
[This study is a partial outcome of the FY 2018 Nihon University Undergraduate Integrated Startup Research Fund.]
Endnotes
[1]The author referred to a reprint (Vol. 1 and 2, Hara Shobo, 1981). See also Irie Toraji, Meiji nanshinshi ko (Papers on the Meiji-era southern advance), Ida Shoten, 1943. Nihon oyobi Nihonjin (Japan and the Japanese), discussed in Section 4 of this paper, also includes submissions from Irie: “Nanpo hatten no senkusha retsuden”(Legends of the forerunners of southern development), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, July 1936, “Nanpo hatten reimeiki no kaiko” (Memoir of the earliest period of southern development), September 1936.
[2]The author referred to a reprint (two volumes as an omnibus, Chikura Shobo, 2009).
[3]For example, books on Indonesia include: Goto Ken’ichi, Showa-ki Nihon to Indonesia (Showa-era Japan and Indonesia) Keiso Shobo, 1986; Kindai Nihon to Indonesia (Prewar Japan and Indonesia), Hokuju Press, 1989; Kurasawa Aiko, Nihon senryoka no Java noson no hen’yo (Changes in Javanese farming villages under the Japanese occupation), Soshisha, 1992. Regarding the Philippines, we have Ikehata Setsuho ed. Nihon senryoka no Philippines (The Philippines under Japanese occupation), Iwanami Shoten, 1996 and Hayase Shinzo, Philippines kingendaishi no naka no Nihonjin (The Japanese in modern Philippine history), University of Tokyo Press, 2012. Books on British Malaya include: Hara Fujio, Eiryo Malaya no Nihonjin (The Japanese in British Malaya), Institute of Developing Economies, 1986; Akashi Yoji ed. Nihon senryoka no Eiryo Malaya/Singapore (British Malaya and Singapore under Japanese occupation), Iwanami Shoten, 2010, etc.
[4]While a complete listing is not possible here, research from the viewpoint of the history of diplomacy includes: Imaizumi Yumiko, “Nihon no gunseiki Nan’yo gunto toji” (Governance of the South Seas Islands during Japanese military rule), Kokusai Kankeigaku Kenkyu (Study of International Relations) Vol. 17 appendix, 1990; Hatano Sumio, Taiheyo senso to Asia gaiko (The Pacific War and Asian diplomacy), University of Tokyo Press, 1996; Mori Shigeki, “Sujiku gaiko oyobi nanshin seisaku to kaigun” (Axis diplomacy, the southern advance and the navy), Rekishigaku Kenkyu (The Journal of Historical Studies) Vol. 727, 1999; Tomatsu Haruo, Nihon teikoku to inin toji: Nan’yo gunto wo meguru kokusai seiji 1941–1947 (The Japanese Empire and mandate governance: International politics concerning the South Seas Islands 1941–1947), Nagoya University Press, 2011. Research from the viewpoint of economic history includes: Kobayashi Hideo, “Daitoa kyoeiken” no keisei to hokai (The formation and collapse of the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”),Ochanomizu Shobo, 1975, expanded version 2006; Hikita Yasuyuki, “Nanpo kyoeiken”: Senji Nihon no Tonan Asia Keizai shihai (The “Southeast Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”: Wartime Japan’s economic domination of Southeast Asia), Taga Shuppan, 1999; Yamamoto Yuzo, “Daitoa kyoeiken” keizaishi kenkyu (Study of the economic history of the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”), Nagoya University Press, 2011; Kawanishi Kosuke, Teikoku Nihon no kakucho to hokai: “Daitoa kyoeiken” e no rekishiteki tenkai (Imperial Japan’s expansion and collapse: Historical development leading to the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”), Hosei University Press, 2012; Adachi Hiroaki, “Daitoa kyoeiken” no keizai koso (Economic concepts of the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”),Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2013; Kawanishi Kosuke, Daitoa kyoeiken: Teikoku Nihon no Nanpo taiken (The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere: Imperial Japan’s Southern experience), Kodansha, 2016. Regarding cultural history, see Ikeda Hiroshi ed. Daitoa kyoeiken no bunka kensetsu (Cultural construction of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere), Jinbun Shoin, 2007, etc.
[5]Machida Yuuichi, “Nanpo Nihonjin shakai kenkyu no kanosei” (The possibility of Japanese social history of Southeast Asia), Japanese ‘Southward’ Media and Japanese Society in the First Half of the 20th Century symposium, March 1, 2019.
[6]Yano Toru, “Nanshin” no keifu: Nihon no nan’yoshi kan (Record of the “southern advance”: Perspectives on Japanese South Seas history), Chikura Shobo, 2009, pp. 43, 227.
[7] Yano, ibid., p. 9.
[8]During the late Qing dynasty in China, its seacoast regions such as Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong Provinces were called the South Seas; if we consider that this appellation was used for everything south of this region, it makes sense that “outer (front) South Seas,” would mean everything that was not the “inner (back) South Seas,” and might include parts of the continent.
[9] Yano, ibid., p. 9.
[10] Yano, ibid., pp.107–108.
[11]On karayuki-san, see: Shimizu Hiroshi and Hirakawa Hitoshi, Karayuki-san to keizai shinshutsu (Karayuki-san and Japan’s economic advance)Commons,1998; Takemoto Niina, “Karayuki-san”: Kaigai <dekasegi> josei no kindai (“Karayuki-san”: Prewar women working overseas), Kyoei Shobo, 2015; James Francis Warren, Ah Ku and Karayuki-San: Prostitution in Singapore, 1870–1940, Oxford University Press, 1993.
[12]Ikei Masaru, Nihon gaikoshi gaisetsu 3-tei (Overview of the diplomatic history of Japan, 3rd edition), Keio University Press, 1992, p. 208.
[13]Five-Minister Conference “Basis for National Policy,” Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, Ref. B02030157900, Teikoku no taishi gaiko seisaku kankei ikken (Matters regarding Imperial foreign policy with China) Vol. 6, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Archives.
[14]Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Imperial Foreign Policy,” Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, Ref. B02030155800, Teikoku no taishi gaiko seisaku kankei ikken (Matters regarding Imperial foreign policy with China) Vol. 6, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Archives.
[15]Imperial General Headquarters–Government Liaison Conference, “Guidelines for Timely Measures in Response to Global Situational Trends,” Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, Ref. C12120237300, Juyo kokusaku kettei tsuzuri (Important national policy decisions) Vol. 1, Imperial General Headquarters–Government Liaison Conference Minutes, July 1940 to February 1941, National Institute for Defense Studies.
[16]Four-Minister Conference “Reinforcing the Japan–Germany–Italy Axis,” Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, Ref. C12120358600, Kaisen ni chokusetsu kankei aru juyo kokusaku kettei bunsho (Important national policy decision documents directly related to the outbreak of war), National Institute for Defense Studies.
[17]Maxwell McCombs et al., Contemporary Public Opinion: Issues and the News, Routledge, 1991 (Japanese translation by Otani Yutaka)
[18]Peter Burke, History and Social Theory, Cornell University Press, 2005 (Japanese translation by Sato Kimihiko)
[19]Regarding the framework of this analysis, see Ishikawa Noriyuki, Nichiro kaisen katei ni okeru media gensetsu (Media discourse in the process of the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War), Ohmon Shobo, 2012.
[20]The online databases used were the Yomiuri Shimbun’s Yomidas Rekishikan and the Asahi Shimbun’s Kikuzo II Visual.
[21]Yomiuri Shimbun, December 16, 1890, morning edition p. 2.
[22]Ariga Bunpachi, “Nan’yo Sowa” (South Seas Miscellany) 1–7, Yomiuri Shimbun extra section, October 29 to November 9, 1892.
[23]“Osagishi Yamada Tamekichi Fu: Nan’yo no Rasajima kaitaku jiken” (Conman Yamada Tamekichi Appendix: The settling incident of Rasa Island in the South Seas) 1–6, Yomiuri Shimbun, July 25 to August 9, 1902.
[24]Kinjosei, Nan’yo no ozei (Trends of the South Seas)” 1–27, Yomiuri Shimbun, August 11 to October 5, 1913.
[25]For example, after the establishment of the Territorial Government, salience increased as articles on its budgeting and bureaucracy did likewise.
[26]“Determining Imperial Government Policy on the Return of the South Seas Mandate after the Empire’s Withdrawal from the League of Nations,” Official Documents Vol. 57, 1933, Vol. 15-2, External Affairs, National Archives of Japan.
[27]Ando Sakan, “Kaiki to genso no Nan’yo” (Mysteries and illusions of the South Seas) 1–30, Yomiuri Shimbun, January 27 to March 8, 1933. For more information on Ando Sakan, see Aoki Sumio, Horo no sakka Ando Sakan to “Karayuki-san” (The vagabond writer Ando Sakan and the “karayuki-san”) (Chubu University, 2009).
[28]The Yomiuri Shimbun of this period was notable for sensational articles intended to increase readership, in accordance with the “erotic grotesque nonsense” trend of the times. See Kurokawa Kozaburo and Ishikawa Noriyuki, Nihon no journalism (Journalism in Japan), Ohmon Shobo, 2013.
[29]“The Matter of Promotion of Southern Policy,” Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, Ref. C12120202400, Juyo kokusaku bunsho: Renraku kaigi gijiroku (Important national policy documents: Minutes of the Liaison Conference), June 25, 1941, National Institute for Defense Studies.
[30]The magazine was titled Gekkan Nihon oyobi Nihonjin (Japan and the Japanese Monthly) on its cover, but because it was published twice a month for a long period of time, this article refers to the magazine after Miyake Setsurei left the company as the later version of Nihon oyobi Nihonjin for convenience.
[31]Yamada Hiromitsu, “Nihon oyobi Nihonjin,” in Nihon kindai bungaku daijiten” (General Dictionary of Prewar Japanese Literature)Vol. 5, Kodansha, 1977, pp. 306–307.
[32]For Ioki Ryozo, see this author’s “Ioki Ryozo no ‘sekai sogoron’” (Ioki Ryozo’s ‘world integration theory’) in Seikei Kenkyu (Studies in Political Science and Economics) Vol. 52 No. 2, 2015, etc.
[33]Ishikawa Noriyuki, “Seikyosha no London Kaigun Joyaku hantai undo ni kansuru ichikosatsu” (A study of Seikyosha’s anti-London Naval Treaty movement), Seikei Kenkyu (Studies in Political Science and Economics) Vol. 51 No. 2, 2014.
[34]Kobayashi Masaki ed., Zasshi shimbun hakko busu jiten (Dictionary of magazine and newspaper copy numbers), Kanazawa Bumpokaku, 2011.
[35]Takei Tenkai, “Mazu Nan’yo no shotai wo shire” (First learn about the actual South Seas), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, November 1, 1929 issue, p. 93.
[36]Goto Ken’ichi, Showa-ki Nihon to Indonesia (Showa-era Japan and Indonesia), Keiso Shobo, 1986, p. 195.
[37]Takei Tenkai, “Nan’yo yori mitaru sokoku no kiki” (The mainland crisis as seen from the South Seas), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, January 1, 1927 issue, p. 93.
[38]Shigematsu Kiyoyuki, “Shinko Nihon to Tonan Ryoyo keizai block” (The new Japan and the East and South Seas economic block), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, July 1, 1934 issue, p. 17.
[39]Shigematsu Kiyoyuki, “Kaiho no Toyo to heisa no Nan’yo” (The open East and closed South Seas), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, September 15, 1934 issue, p. 6.
[40]Nanhisei, “Waga Nan’yo gunto no ikkaku yori” (From a corner of our South Seas Islands), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, November 15, 1934 issue, p. 55.
[41]Matsuoka Shizuo, “Nanpo keiei ha tenson minzoku no shimei” (Management of Southeast Asia is the mission of the Imperially descended race), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, November issue, 1935, p. 56.
[42]Yokota Takeshi, “Nan’yo imin imadashi” (Not yet the time for South Seas migration), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, December 1936 issue, pp. 34–35.
[43]Sosa Tanehiro, “Minami Taiheiyo kakuho no kin’yosei” (The urgent need to secure the South Pacific), Nihon oyobi Nihonjin, January 1941 issue, p.22.
（本文は、石川徳幸「戦前期日本の「南洋」認識とメディア言説」『政経研究』第56巻第2号所収〔日本大学法学会、2019年7月〕の英語版です。日本語論文はこちらからご覧いただけます。）
https://www.publication.law.nihon-u.ac.jp/pdf/political/political_56_2/each/18.pdf
（日本語論文掲載雑誌（目次）全体へのリンクはこちら）
https://www.publication.law.nihon-u.ac.jp/political/political_56_2.html