カテゴリー: 論説

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

advisor

Nishikawa Kyoko

Japanese Version

The overpowering sense of existence of Prime Minister Abe being felt anew

It’s been a year since Prime Minister Abe was brutally shot to death. The tremendous sense of loss has been not a bit appeased all this while, and the greatness of his existence has been felt each day. As if in correspondence with the loss, it seems that the world is moving toward an undesirable and eerie direction. Once the world stood in the honeymoon mood between Prime Minister Abe and President Trump, without major conflicts and well-balanced with the leaders of advanced countries respecting each other. Only one country, China, tried to expand its military power, aggressively moving in the South China Sea, the East China Sea and around Japan. From that time onward, the U.S. China policy has been drastically changed and the sense of a threat coming from China has been rapidly spreading among the advanced countries.

Seeing such global circumstances, I cannot help but feel how great the presence of Prime Minister had been. In the strong and trustful relationship with President Trump, Prime Minister Abe supposedly told the U.S. President on every available occasion what a perilous threat China is and how dangerous China’s self-righteous political stand is. He probably informed him that at present, China’s expansionism constantly creates the threat of military invasion, regarding Japan as an imaginary enemy and that this situation is extremely dangerous to the United States.

In the postwar years, the United States policy toward China was consistently China-friendly, including the one of the Republican Party. China has been receiving enormous amounts of economic aid from both the United States and Japan and at present has acquired huge economic and military powers. China has now become a monster, nearly overpowering the United States and demonstrating its overwhelming presence to the world. The world owed much to Prime Minister Abe, who endeavored to let the major world leaders recognize the menace of China. But he is gone now. The war in Ukraine is getting more and more complicated and chaotic, Russia and China are getting closer to each other, and Japan finds itself in the extremely difficult position amid the two.

Non-commonsense claims rapidly spread today

In the world successively plagued by the corona-virus disaster and the war in Ukraine, the trend of globalism has become vividly conspicuous. Globalism, at the first glance, may look beautiful, but at its root, it is close to communism and is a movement aiming to steer things into one direction. It seems that the destination of globalism is rootlessness, confusion, emptiness and loss of identity as a human. Losing the sense of a state, more like in terms of reducing the state to individuals, individuals rather than the whole, minority rather than majority, extraordinary rather than ordinary, and so forth---the society that up to now has been well-balanced on such traditional relationships has recently changed into a society with the emphasis on just one side, putting ordinary existence and common sense into an awkward position. The mass media and those with social status cater today to people who loudly assert their non-commonsense claims, and their non-commonsense views are pushed aggressively to the center. I wonder since when have the Japanese people became such a deplorable nation. The Japanese people used to be very considerate of each other.

The typical incident riding on this recent trend was the enactment of the law to enhance the understanding of LGBT. I was totally appalled at the passing of this LGBT bill. The bill has been discussed and the attempt to enact the law has been made over the last seven years and while Prime Minister Abe was alive, the conservative Diet members of the Liberal Democratic Party had been fending off the movement. However, after Prime Minister Abe was killed, entering this year, suddenly and speedily, the bill was passed, led by supposedly conservative Diet members, ignoring many opposing voices within the Party. The excuse of those Diet members for leading the passing of the bill was that the LDP had taken over the opposition parties’ radical bill, considerably amending and correcting the wordings, in response to questions and concerns raised by the conservative group and simply held by the public. However, before such an excuse, there is a fact that even the United States has been very careful anticipating problems involved and has not passed the LGBT related bill at the Federal level. Why, then, did Japan pass the bill, in advance of the rest of the world? I feel that this is very dubious and inadequate. I would like to hear what Prime Minister Kishida really believes to be right.

The movement of the LGBT related legislation is advanced rather at the municipal level. Including Tokyo as a starter, fifty municipals across the country have enacted ordinance to prohibit discriminatory treatment based on sexual orientation or identity. The speed of the trend is amazing. The trend to enact this bill, using the “verbal tool” of anti-discrimination, further leads to the destruction of the marital system by the introduction of the partnership system. At the root of this chain of movements lies the promotion of political correctness, leading to the destruction of the entire order concerned with the identity of the Japanese people, such as Japanese traditions, culture, customs, common sense that have been nurtured over our long history. This is not a reform. A reform does not change the essential axis of the matter but changes the methods. However, the recent movement can be termed as white revolution, riding on the current of globalism. Without using arms, leading the human mind and thinking at the base of all the fields of human activities to a certain direction. I think this can be called mental revolution or a trend of thought control.

The Supreme Court should reach the judgment, considering the common sense of the public in the broad perspective

In less than a month after the LGBT bill was passed, on this July 11, the Supreme Court returned a verdict in the small court, recognizing the plaintiff’s complaint that the transgender worker of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry be allowed to freely use women’s restrooms in the workplace. It was reportedly the unanimous decision of the five judges. What can I say? I thought judges are to reach judgment, in consideration of the public common sense and in the broad perspective, but, alas, they are not. They seem to live in a narrow and small world.

This year, in Saitama Prefecture, which enacted ordinance related to LGBT in 2022, they conducted a survey of public comments on making the basic plan. A total of 417 comments were turned in, 80% of which were against the plan. I think this is the exact consensus of ordinary Japanese. I only hope that the education for understanding LGBT at schools may not go too far, ignoring what parents, pupils and students feel. I used to fight against people trying to promote extreme sex education in Tokyo Metropolis. I cannot help thinking that advocates of the LGBT movement seem to have the same ideas as those advocates of sexual education I met in the past.

From the ancient times, countries with monotheism like Christianity and Islam have been very strict as their precept in dealing with sexual matters and homosexuality used to be severely punished as a crime. Therefore, the movement of LGBT tended to be radical. Comparing with monotheistic countries, Japan has been worshipping nature gods, which can be termed as polytheism and this kind of matter must have been dealt with in an extremely lenient, generous and open-minded way. Throughout our long history, various people have coexisted in a properly harmonious way. Therefore, it is totally unsuitable that Japan, having a history of such mature and moderate sexual responses, was the first to enact the “Promotion of LGBT Understanding Law” in the world.

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories
Researcher

Haruka Ikeda

Japanese Version

Introduction

On April 3 and 24, 2023, at the House of Councilors Committee on Audit, regarding the so-called Nanjing Incident, Councilor Wada Masamune asked Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa about the grounds for the Government’s view posted on the website of the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs: “The Japanese Government thinks it undeniable that after the Japanese Army entered the city of Nanjing in 1937, there occurred murders and acts of blunder against non-combatants.” Consequently, Minister Hayashi’s answer revealed that there were no evidential documents on which the Government relied for its official view. According to Ara Kenichi, researcher on the Nanjing Incident, it was in 1982 that the Foreign Ministry came to admit the occurrence of the alleged Nanjing Incident. This decision was probably made, catering to the external pressure and public opinion amid the fading memory of the battleground.

Now, let us examine the ground on which the common theory that “there was Nanjing Incident” is based. The Nanjing Incident is believed to have really taken place primarily because of the third-party witnesses to the effect. At that time, those who condemned the Nanjing Incident through various media were Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing, and at the Tokyo Trials held after the War, the most powerful claims that the Nanjing Incident did happen were statements by the assumingly neutral third-party Europeans and Americans. After the War, those Chinese who suddenly came forth in their old age claiming to be victims associated themselves with the European and American records and asserted the authenticity of their own statements.

In such a verification process of the Nanjing Incident, although statements made by Europeans and Americans who were there in Nanjing at that time were decisively important, the studies on the nature of those statements are surprisingly few. So, this paper confirms the origin of those third-party statements based on the European and American documents at the time and indicates that those original sources were American missionaries who remained in Nanjing and clarifies those missionaries’ activities, intentions and backgrounds.

Hopefully, this paper will reveal the hidden truth of the Nanjing Incident and fundamental errors of the common theory and the Japanese Government’s view.

1. Examination of the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident   
2. Who were the third party remaining in Nanjing?

First, let us confirm the third party (Europeans and Americans) in Nanjing at that time.

In order to witness or examine an incident, one needs to be there on the spot. On December 13, 1937, when the Japanese Army entered the walled city of Nanjing, and for a while after that, there were 22 Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing. Among them, there were 14 Americans (the majority group) and all of them were missionaries. Besides them, there were 5 Germans, 1 Austrian and 2 White Russians, all of whom were in Nanjing on business. Besides these businessmen, there were 2 Europeans (1 Dane and 1 Briton), who temporarily came to Nanjing and left, and they were also on business. There were five newspaper correspondents (1 Briton, 4 Americans) who left Nanjing a few days after the Japanese Army entered Nanjing. On January 6, 1938, and thereafter, diplomats from respective countries returned to Nanjing, but there were no reports of their witnessing massacres. So, the civilians mentioned above were the third party who might possibly have seen the Nanjing Incident.

• The examination of the original disseminators

Bearing those remainders in mind, let us now examine some of the well-known disseminators of the reports and statements related to the Nanjing Incident.

• The first news report of the Nanjing Incident

Articles written by those correspondents who left Nanjing on December 15, 1937 (The Chicago Daily News, the New York Times, etc.) are said to have been the first report. However, it is confirmed that the original source of these articles was the statement made by American missionary Miner Bates (1897-1978), through Missionary Bates’ letter.[i]

• The theory of 20,000 victims of the massacre stated by Koo Vi Kyuin at a League of Nations conference

At a League of Nations conference in Geneva on February 2, 1938, Chinese Delegate Koo Vi Kyuin (1888-1985) quoted from the Daily Telegram and Morning Post of January 28, 1938: “The number of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese in Nanjing was supposedly twenty thousand.” To confirm the newspaper’s article, it said, “One missionary estimates the number of Chinese slaughtered at Nanjing at 20,000.” As previously mentioned, since missionaries staying in Nanjing then were all American, the original disseminator of this article was an American missionary.

• Records of incidents by the International Committee and the Diaries of Rabe

For the protection and safety of civilians, the American missionaries established the Nanking Safety Zone and the International Committee to administer the safety zone. The records of incidents within the Safety Zone compiled by the Committee[ii] were filled with cases of atrocities committed by the Japanese military. But the Committee was under the control of the American missionaries who held the majority power among the remaining foreigners. Practically, the Committee report was disseminated by the American missionaries.

The Diaries of German John Rabe (1882-1950), who was set up as chairman of the International Committee, was published after the War.[iii] The diary contains many records of massacres committed by the Japanese Army submitted by various missionaries but no records of his own witnessing massacres. The records of massacres in Rabe’s Diary were also originally disseminated by American missionaries.

• Statements made at the Tokyo Trials

After the War, the Nanjing Incident was examined at the Tokyo Trials. There were three Westerners who appeared in the court in person and stated that the Nanjing Incident had taken place and they were American missionaries.

With what I have stated so far, I hope it is understood that the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident were entirely American missionaries.

• The reason why American missionaries disseminated the Nanjing Incident to the world

• The true purpose for the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone

The purpose of the American missionaries who remained in Nanjing was nominally to establish the neutral and demilitarized Nanking Safety Zone for the safety and protection of the citizens. However, during a meeting held to report on the plan for establishing a safety zone, missionary Mills stated to the contrary effect: “At our meeting Mr. Mills expressed the longing that instead of having all educated people trek westward that it would be far better for a group to go down and try to encourage and comfort the Chinese army and help them to see what disorder and looting among even a small group means to China.”[iv]

Missionary Mills was the central figure (Presbyterian) among the American missionaries in Nanjing and the mastermind of the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone.[v] Neutrality and one-sided support cannot stand together. From these words of missionary Mills, it becomes clear that the Nanking Safety Zone was established not for the protection of civilians but for the support and protection of the Chinese Army. In fact, there is record that within the Safety Zone, during battles, Chinese artillery operated[vi] and after battles, Chinese soldiers infiltrated into the safety zone and hid themselves there.[vii]

• The Nanjing Incident to justify the Nanking Safety Zone    

From these records, supposedly, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident by the American missionaries was part of protection and support measures for the Chinese Army. The missionaries needed to disseminate the Nanjing Incident. It was because the Nanking Safety Zone was not an officially acknowledged establishment, unlike the Shanghai Safety Zone, which was officially approved by both Japan and China.[viii]

Since the Nanking Safety Zone was dubious in terms of neutrality, the Japanese authorities did not recognize it but during battles, Japan would avoid attacking it so long as it was not militarily necessary. After the battles ceased, the unauthorized Nanking Safety Zone had no longer a reason to exist. After entering Nanjing, the Japanese Army immediately ordered the Zone to be dissolved, which the missionaries refused to follow. On the other hand, the missionaries decided to support and protect the Chinese Army within the zone as missionary Mills had stated and conveyed their intention to Huang Jen Lin (1901-1983),[ix] Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man. It was necessary for the missionaries to maintain the safety zone under their control in order to secretly protect Chinese soldiers in Nanjing. So, to make up a pretext for keeping the safety zone, they needed to fabricate a story of atrocities committed against citizens by the Japanese Army, namely, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident.

We can judge whether the missionaries’ claim that the safety zone was necessary to protect citizens from the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army was reasonable or not, based on the situation after Nanking Safety Zone was dissolved. On February 4, 1938, the Japanese Army ordered the citizens within the Safety Zone to go home, and practically, the Safety Zone disappeared. On February 8, non-substantial International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone was renamed the Nanking International Relief Committee, having the term “the safety zone” removed. If the missionaries’ claim had been right, after the Safety Zone disappeared, Nanjing would have become a worse hell. However, on March 4, 1938, Chancellor Paul Scharffenberg for the German Embassy recorded, “...we no longer hear of atrocities, and order is also being restored in general.”[x] As a matter of fact, the missionaries’ assertions were not correct.

These documents indicate that the Nanjing Incident existed only when the American missionaries supported and protected the Chinese Army in the Safety Zone. Sabotages by Chinese soldiers hiding within the Safety Zone and fictions made up by the American missionaries in order to justify the existence of the Nanking Safety Zone were all that was to the alleged Nanjing Incident.

• The background for the creation of the Nanjing Incident

By the way, while French Catholic Father Robert Jacquinot (1878-1946), who established the Shanghai Safety Zone kept neutral, why did the American missionaries (Protestants) in Nanjing support and protect the Chinese Army? In the background, there was a resolution clearly showing the relationship between the Chinese Protestant Church and the Chinese (Chiang Kai-shek’s) government:

“Recognizing in the ideals of the New Life Movement many of the same objectives that Christians have always sought, Christians, whether individuals or church groups, be urged to co-operate in the New Life Movement program as far as possible.” (National Christian Council Biennial Meeting, May 6, 1937).[xi]

The National Christian Council is a body representing the Protestant churches in China. And the New Life Movement was substantially Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity for nation building. Therefore, this resolution stated the overall cooperation on the part of the Protestant churches in China as their consensus for the Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity in the name of the “New Life Movement.”

The slogan of the New Life Movement was the “three Life transformations,” namely, “Militarization of Life, Productivization of Life, and Aestheticization of Life [or Rationalization],” Productivization meant participation in productive activities and Aestheticization or Rationalization dealt with upbringing. However, clearly, it started with militarization which meant the movement anticipating the military mobilization of the people. In fact, after the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, the movement included the support for the Chinese Army.

And the missionaries knew that the New Life Movement was a dangerous activity ensconcing a military element.[xii] While they recognized well the military and political colors of the movement, they resolved to totally cooperate with it. The reason was evangelical motives. The missionaries regarded Chiang Kai-shek, who had converted to Protestantism after his marriage to Soong Mei-ling and reawakened to religious worship while he was held under detention during the Xi’an Incident, as a true Christian[xiii], expecting that if Chiang Kai-shek representing the Nationalist Party Kuomintang was to rule China, a Protestant State of China would be born. Thus, they resolved to fully cooperate with the New Life Movement, which was deeply tinted with the military color. In the extension of this resolution lied the American missionaries’ support and protection of the Chinese soldiers in Nanjing.

This relationship between the resolution made by the Chinese National Christian Council and the activities by the American missionaries in the Nanking Safety Zone can be clearly explained. The previously mentioned Mr. Huang Jen Lin, Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man, with whom missionary Mills shared the American missionaries’ plan to support and protect the Chinese Army within the Nanking Safety Zone, was fully in charge of the New Life Movement. The fact that the American missionaries’ support was carried out as a part of the activities to support Chiang Kai-shek’s New Life Movement by Protestants was proved by the very existence of Mr. Huang Jen Lin.

4 Conclusion

The Nanjing Incident was a complete fiction created by the American missionaries. The Nanjing Incident was created by the American missionaries pretending to be the third party who under the great policy of the Protestant Church to protect Protestant Chiang Kai-shek remained in Nanjing to support the Chinese Army. China merely used it.

The true players behind the Nanjing Incident were neither Japan nor China. They were American missionaries, who have been regarded as the third party so far. This is the reason why at the time the Nanjing Incident was widely reported in the United States, fully used by the United States, the victor of World War II, during the Tokyo Trials, and the truth about it remains still unrevealed to this day.

The Japanese Government of 2023 should seriously accept the truth about the Nanjing Incident, immediately remove the view that lacks any solid grounds posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and show the historical truth both at home and abroad for the honor of the Japanese people.

[i] S. M. Bates, “Circular letter to friends,” April 12, 1938

[ii] “Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone” (1939), Kelly & Walsh

[iii] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1997), Hrsg. Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[iv] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[v] “Address of John Rabe at farewell party by staff of Nanking Safety Zone,” February 21, 1938

[vi] John Rabe, December 9, 1937

[vii] New York Times, January 4, 1938

[viii] “Telegram from American Embassy in Shanghai to Nanking Safety Zone Committee,” December 2, !937

[ix] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[x] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1977), Hrsg, Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[xi] “The China Christian year book 1936-37 (1937), Arthur H. Clark Company, p.77

[xii] Ronald Rees, “China Faces The Storm” (1938), Edinburgh House Press, p.61

[xiii] Ibid. Ronald Rees, p. 48

For details, refer to the book Primary Historical Sources Reveal the Truth about the Nanjing Incident, unraveling the Curse of the American Missionaries’ View of History written by Ikeda Haruka, 2020, published by Tenden-sha.

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Nakamura Satoru

日本語

The biggest crisis in Okinawa

Now, Japan is facing its biggest crisis in the postwar years over the issue of the national security. And Okinawa is the main problem. Not only is Okinawa exposed to a military threat from China, but it also is the subject of a history war. However, the Japanese Government has failed to effectively cope with the grave situation. Therefore, Okinawa has become Japan’s largest national security issue. Ever since the clashing incident of a Chinese fishing vessel off the Senkaku Islands took place in 2010, China has been continuously disseminating propaganda to the effect that “Ryukyu has been a member of the Chinese nation since ancient times and now is struggling for independence against the United States and Japan, which China should support.” China’s most important  basis for the claim is the historical view of the “Ryukyu disposal.” According to the Chinese propaganda view of history, Japan has kept Okinawa under its colonial rule ever since the “disposal of Okinawa” in 1879 (the twelfth year of Meiji). On the other hand, in Japan, in 2006, Suzuki Muneo, a member of the House of Representatives, submitted a statement of inquiry to the House of Representatives: “At the time when the Japanese name of era was changed to Meiji in 1868, did the Japanese Government recognize the Ryukyu Kingdom at that time as an indivisible part of the State of Japan? We ask the Government for a clear answer.” The response of the Government was, “Regarding Okinawa, it is difficult to definitively state since when Okinawa became part of Japan. But it is certain that Okinawa was part of Japan at the latest when early in the Meiji era, the Ryukyu Domain became Okinawa Prefecture.” This is extremely ambiguous and void of trustfulness, I must say. Such an ambiguous historical view is greatly favorable to China, which desperately wants Okinawa.

The positioning of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture among the Japanese people

Here, let us consider the position of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture, which is termed as “Ryukyu disposal.” The term “Ryukyu disposal” may give a negative impression as if the Ryukyu Kingdom was ruined. Certainly, in Okinawa, Ryukyu disposal generally meant that the Japanese Army came to Shuri Castle and forcibly took over the castle and sent the then head of the Ryukyu Domain, King Sho Tai, to Tokyo. But to be fair, it was not Okinawa alone that had its castle taken over but the same happened at Domains all over Japan. Castles of Kumamoto, Himeji and Matsumoto followed the same fate after the decree of “Abolishing Domains and Establishing Prefectures” was proclaimed and the respective Heads of Domain turned over their castles throughout Japan. Also, after the Heads of the Domain came to Tokyo, they were treated the same way and raised to the peerage. Currently, the present heads of the Shimazu Family and the Tokugawa Family are alive and so is the present head of the Second Shu Family, the descendant of the Ryukyu King. The Ryukyu disposal does not mean that people living in Okinawa were annihilated or the lineage of Ryukyu King had perished. Essentially, the construction of a modern state by the Meiji Restoration was the transition from the feudalistic system of ruling the country by a “family” to the modern ruling by the government. The rule by the Tokugawa Family was gone and in the 300 domains throughout Japan, the rule by the family of the domain head was abolished, and equally in Okinawa, the rule by the Sho Family ceased. And instead, prefectural governors sent by the Ministry of the Interior were placed in charge of the administration throughout Japan.

The Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa and ended with the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture

Looking at the Meiji Restoration from the perspective of Japan’s defense of Okinawa, we can find new significance. In the school history textbooks and history books on the shelves of bookstores, it is interpreted that the Meiji Restoration started with the arrival of the foreign black ships in 1853 at the end of the Edo period and ended with the Seinan Civil War in 1877, the 10th year of Meiji. And as the national border designated after the Meiji Restoration was completed, the Okinawa disposal (the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture) emerged. The Meiji Restoration and the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture were recognized as separate events, which led to the historical view that “as the result of the Meiji Restoration, the Ryukyu Kingdom perished,” and such a view supported the assertion made by a certain power that Okinawa was victimized by Japan or that people of Ryukyu-Okinawa are an indigenous people in Japan. In fact, however, the Meiji Restoration started in Okinawa, the stronghold of the national defense at that time. Patriots in the Satsuma Domain began to feel threatened by the Western Powers when they obtained information that the Chinese Qing dynasty was defeated by Britain in the Opium War in 1842. Two years later, the threat became real. In 1844, French battleship Arcmere came to Ryukyu and its crew demanded that the kingdom open its port. At that time, following the Treaty of Nanjing, the Qing opened her five ports to the Western Powers and Western ships came in a row, approaching Ryukyu. The five ports were Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, and Amoy. Look at the East China Sea on the map. On the way from these five ports to Japan, there is Ryukyu (currently Okinawa), which is best situated as the base for opening Japan to the world. The man who most seriously perceived the crisis and contemplated about what path Japan should follow was Lord Shimazu Nariakira of the Satsuma Domain. As soon as Nariakira became the Lord of Satsuma in 1851, he launched the Shusei-kan enterprise of building Western-style ships, reverberatory furnaces and blast furnaces, manufacturing land mines, torpedoes, glass, gas lamps and so forth in order to build a rich and strong military country by promoting modern industries. Two years prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga, the original framework of the policy to establish a rich and strong military state was implemented in Satsuma (presently Kagoshima), the southernmost part of Japan. The original idea was drafted by Godai Hidetaka, father of Godai Tomoatsu, who led Satsuma’s enlightenment policy after Shimazu Nariakira died. The afore-mentioned Arcmere left, predicting the reentry of a bigger battleship a year later. The Bakufu Government (Tokugawa Shogunate) ordered Satsuma to send guard soldiers to Ryukyu. A member of the personnel who were ordered to sail to Ryukyu asked how to solve the Ryukyu issue and Hidetaka wrote the “Ryukyu secret plan.” The plan specifically stated in the question-and-answer form how to cope with the French military pressure on the part of the Satsuma Domain. The gist of the plan was: in disposal of Ryukyu, implement two alternative policies of refusal and conciliation, 1) refuse to open the country, citing any thinkable excuses and 2) when refusal would not work, then open the country. But never resort to the means of war. And once Japan is opened, Japan must have more powerful military force than the Western countries. Ryukyu disposal was not a plan to destroy Ryukyu, but to protect Ryukyu. That was the root of the secret strategy--the idea of “open the country and become rich and strong military power.” Thus, the Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa.

Ryukyu Cannon Ship

There is a ship that confirms the fact that Shimazu Nariakira felt threatened with respect to the defense of Okinawa. That was the Shohei-maru. At that time, it was impossible to build a huge military ship. The Bakufu Government prohibited the building of large ships as one of the regulations of Buke Shohatto, laws prohibiting the military families from conducting several activities  in order to keep them under control. The laws did not change even when Western battleships started to appear along the coast of the Sea of Japan. Nariakira, worrying about the defense of Ryukyu, consulted with the Shogun’s senior councilor Abe and started building the “Ryukyu cannon ship” at Kinko-wan Bay (presently Kagoshima Bay) in 1853 in order to defend Ryukyu. It was three days prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga. Later, Nariakira remodeled the ship into a Western-style one, renamed it Shohei-maru and dedicated it to the Bakufu Government in 1855. Shimazu Nariakira’s policy of a “rich and strong military state” can be applied to the present-day Japan. As it was at the end of the Bakufu Government, at present, Okinawa is the front of Japan’s defense, and the present Government lacks the strength to protect Okinawa. At the end of the Bakufu Government, a political idea of opening the country and making it rich and militarily strong was born in the Satsuma Domain, which was held responsible for the defense of Ryukyu. Satsuma, after toppling the Edo Bakufu Government, became the center of the Meiji Government, built the Japanese Army, and implemented the policy of making the whole Japan rich and militarily strong, which was the meaning of the Meiji Restoration. Japan lost the power to protect Okinawa on her own, due to the defeat in the Greater East Asian War, and another restoration is indispensable so that Japan may be reborn to become competent enough to protect Okinawa once again. However, the Satsuma Domain does not exist anymore. Japan urgently needs to create a power capable of rebuilding the country’s capacity to defend Okinawa.

*Reference

Tha Secret Plan of Ryukyu [ Original Document ] [ Colloquial Translation ]