Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II

In Embracing Revolution, Dower discusses the public reception of Japan’s democratization initiative under American occupation. This discussion includes the perception of MacArthur as a de-facto leader of this program, the bottom-up response to these top-down political changes, political and media diversification, as well as the key changes in the Japanese language.

First, Dower describes Japanese society’s perceptions of General MacArthur. Even though Japan was defeated by America, many Japanese expressed their admiration for the leader of the occupation force. This attitude was particularly obvious when some Japanese supported MacArthur in his ultimately unsuccessful bid to become the 1948 Republican candidate for President. Dower explains:

This was dramatically reflected in the response to General MacArthur personally and to GHQ more generally. Japanese at all levels of society embraced the new supreme commander with an ardor hitherto reserved for the emperor, and commonly treated GHQ with the deference they had until recently accorded their own military leaders (227).

MacArthur also received many gifts, many of which he kept. All of this behavior fed his vanity.

Despite the excessive power that MacArthur wielded, Japan’s “structures of authoritarian control were undermined in fundamental ways” (244). Dower explains the seismic changes that the Japanese political scene experienced. Japanese workers obtained unprecedented basic rights. The legislature received bicameral reinforcement through the reform of the electoral system, and popular sovereignty arose from amending the constitution. Even the education system introduced more liberal curricula, which included coeducation egalitarianism. These measures were overseen by the SCAP—a “revolution from above” (211).

Japan’s political scene became more democratic and ideologically diverse. For instance, left-wing thought, including Marxism, attracted some Japanese. Grassroots movements included the unionizing of teachers in large numbers. One of the most significant unions, the Nikyōso, was linked to the Communist Party. Teachers disseminated new coursework in schools. Their initiatives were matched by the Japanese Ministry of Education, which released textbooks in 1946 emphasizing the extension of democratic ideals into daily life.

Public engagement also comprised letters to the editor. These diverse grassroots examples “reflected an impressive nationwide engagement with the meaning of ‘democratization’” (239). Radio was another medium of significance—as important as the printed counterparts. In 1946, radios were turned on for five hours a day. Even the growing concern for public opinion displayed the reach of ongoing democratization. There were also important shakeups in major Japanese newspapers, including Mainichi and Asahi.

The publishing industry continued to display a greater degree of cosmopolitanism described in the previous chapter. For example, the early issues of a publication called Sekai (World) featured the translations of several classic authors, including Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Plato, Hegel, and Marx. The intellectual community also underwent a dramatic transformation; few intellectuals expressed anti-war views in the late imperial era but rebranded themselves as the “community of remorse” afterward (233).

Dower also evaluates the changes in communication, which he calls a “revolution in everyday language” (251). The latter had a precedent in the 19th century when Japan opened up to foreigners and “[d]emocratizing everyday language” ranged in expression (250). For instance, the Japanese language assimilated a number of English neologisms, such as “money-moon” to describe the honeymoon of those married for materialistic reasons (252). Furthermore, during the war, the word hōkoku—meaning to “repay the country”—appeared in many variations, such as “public expression in the service of the nation,” genron hōkoku (252). In the postwar era, these expressions “have been obliterated by the atomic bombs” (253).

However, the nationwide democratization campaign, both top-down and bottom-up, was not always positive. The author provides several examples of the Japanese denouncing their fellow citizens; for instance, those with ultranationalist views. They also complained about those whom they perceived as anti-American or anti-democratic.

Chapter 8 focuses on the left-wing movements and popular protest in Japan under American occupation as well as their impact in the long term. The period between 1946 and mid-1948 saw a feverish socialist- and Communist-linked protest movement demanding basic necessities such as a living wage and access to food. This popular protest eventually met a conservative reaction and a crackdown by American authorities.

Dower details many left-wing initiatives that occurred at this time and points out that they “seemed threatening to the carefully controlled revolution from above” (254). The most significant popular protest was the 1946 Food May Day demonstrations across Japan with participants several million strong. May Day, an iconic labor holiday, was suppressed in Japan in the previous decade. Dower calls these grassroots events—in particular, the Food May Day in Tokyo itself—an “ideological crazy quilt” (263). In Tokyo, the crowd in front of the imperial palace was an estimated 250,000. Similar events include Tokyo’s Hibiya Park event, which gathered an estimated 70,000 attendees including various “labor-farmer” and “cultural” groups. At another event, police shot at the rowdy crowd—luckily with no serious injuries. At some of the May Day events, the crowd carried red flags, especially after the ban of the imperial Japanese counterpart. The author associates them with labor instead of outright revolt.

At this time, Japan was in a dire economic situation ranging from joblessness and homelessness to food shortages and hyperinflation. As a result, some of the May Day events’ participants demanded simply to be fed, hence the name Food May Day. Others demanded a living wage. The average railroad employee’s salary covered only a quarter of the necessary family expenses.

On May 22, 1946, Shigeru Yoshida, Japan’s Prime Minister, formed a new cabinet. For the first time, women exercised their right to vote choosing from 363 parties. Despite the perception of a revolutionary uprising in the year following Japan’s surrender, a coalition of socialists and more radical Communists did not form. The 1947 elections created a coalition cabinet led by the Socialists, albeit a short-lived one. When the planned 1947 general strike was crushed, it became clear that labor movements would not be equal participants in Japan’s new democracy. One of the greatest critics of American occupation was Yashirō Ii, the main left-wing coordinator of the planned general strike. He articulated that the American conqueror was not a liberator but rather a hypocrite. Later, Ii qualified American occupation as “deceiving the Japanese people with democracy only at the tip of their tongues” (270).

Within the context of the conservative crackdown, more radical forces, such as the Communists and labor organizers, became more disconnected from the American conquerors. By the summer of 1948, General MacArthur used his autocratic power to change the labor policy. He took away the right to strike from public employees. At the same time, MacArthur fostered the anti-Communist movement in order to decapitate labor—the “unmaking [of] the revolution from below” (267). Ultimately, the Left lost power in this way but still participated in “defining the contours of democratization” (272). For instance, some left-wingers, educated by Marxists in top universities, impacted public policy and embraced the necessity and desirability of active state intervention in the economy” (272).