일본의 세계 제1차대전 참전 득실 평가(영문 축약)

Trade-off Evaluation of Japan’s Participation in World War I :

Beyond a National History to a Universal History

 

 

Suh, Sangmun(Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Military History, MND of Korea)

 

Foreword

 

 I would first identify the participation activities in war by Japanese military forces and based on the standard of achieving the goal of war participation, evaluate the trade-off that Japan achieved, also deal with how it influenced the domestic and overseas regions for Japan, and also discuss focused on the implications. The trade-off analysis of benefits for Japan is found on the position of Japanese government or the conservative political powers, and the first part would be suggesting about the relevant aspects and newly evaluate the peace and security, and historical development based on a ‘universal value.’ In the current paper, the definition of such ‘universal values’ would be the standard and the pursuing history would be called ‘universal history.’ The trade-off would need to be re-negotiated from the universal history of men in East Asian history and world history by broadening the perspective rather than from the viewpoint of Japanese history and Japanese government. From such move, a new horizon would begin from the participation of Japan which would be understood from East Asian history and furthermore from the viewpoint of world history, and not merely from the position of Japanese political leaders.

  

The Gains and Losses that Japan achieved from participating in the war could be organized into 6 gains and 4 losses.

  

1. Gains : First, Japan achieved the benefit of securing strategic bridgeheads by occupying several foreign areas. Qingdao, which Japan occupied on 7th November after causing the German army to surrender, was the first war booty. Second, Japan accomplished the purpose of taking part in the war that was so-called “improvement of the international position” such as raising Japan’s international prestige, sense of existence and image as the world power by contributing to the victory of the allied powers by carrying out various naval operations. When World WarⅠended with the victory of the allied powers, Japan could participate in Paris Peace Conference that was convened on 18 January 1919 as a member of five post-war allied powers for its contribution to victory. Third, Japan established the exclusive economic bloc in Asia-Pacific region with its power that was forged by dispatching its troops to Siberia and not withdrawing them and maintaining its military interference in Lenin regime. Fourth, Japan’s participation in the war had a great influence not only on the international community but also on Japan’s domestic economy and society. In particular, due to the post-war boom, there was an economic recovery. Fifth, Japan’s international balance of payments and government’s tax revenue other than trade also improved remarkably. Sixth, the group exchange had been carried out between German prisoners who were imprisoned in all parts of Japan and neighborhood residents through various leisure activities including music concerts, sports games, lectures, art exhibitions. By this group exchange, several kinds of European culture were propagated to Japan naturally.

  

2. Losses : First of all, the deterioration of Sino-Japanese relatios could be mentioned in the beginning. Moreover, since Japan was persistently trying to succeed the rights and interests from Germany in Shandong Province even during the Versailles Conference, the barraged mass were claiming for return of Qingdao in major cities all over the country and protested on unprecedented scale, which also transferred into boycott for Japanese products all over China.

  

Second, in the participation of war which was following the justification of British-Japanese alliance, Japan had caused diplomatic conflicts in the international arena and international isolation as it doubted and warned against Europe and American superpowers including the U.K. by carrying out resolute military actions such as Qingdao military occupation and also about the South Sea Islands occupied by Germany in the Pacific Ocean. the pending issue that could not be concluded in Paris Peace Conference because of China’s refusal of signing the treaty, which was Japan’s demand for ceding German leased territory to it unconditionally was not accepted in Washington Conference that was held in February, 1922. In other words, it was decided that Japan should return German rights on Shandong to China.

  

Thirdly, the participation of war became a motivation for Japanese economy to leap forward and achieve on a great scale, but it was not achieving positive results in all aspects for economic development. The prosperous condition due to the outbreak of war continued, but the benefits and losses from the growth did not contribute to the general public and concentrated on ‘zaibatsu’, the entrepreneurs, and the super-rich. As a result of excessive expansion related to prosperity, more extreme inflation was carried out which widened the wealth gap. The prosperity of economic condition caused rice soars in price which was the initial cause of inflation.

  

Fourth, after the world war there was a great depression in Japanese economy which could be mentioned as an evidence. The economic performance in war was just a special timing for war and after it finishes the fire also extinguishes. After the war finished, Japan had been engaged in an economic depression which was named as ‘depression in aftermath of war’ or ‘postwar depression in counter- reaction.’

 

Meaning and Evaluation of the Benefit Trade-Off that Japan Achieved

 

The trade-off analysis is all carried out from the position of Japanese government and the political leaders. Especially the gains could be highly possible for positive analysis from Japanese right-wing leaders who were largely nationalistic. Nevertheless, from the surrounding nations who were invaded or from the stance of Japanese masses, the assessment could be changed. The achievement of purpose for war participation and even the meaning of benefits or influence had been only important for the nationalistic Japanese class with vested rights and even had prospects for positive assessment as they were people who did not aim for universalistic values which were humanity’s peace and development.

 

Japan openly admitted on the aspiration of invading China and infringing international laws which reaped the results of Shandong peninsula occupation for Japanese army, and it was not limited to the strategic meaning toward China itself to secure military base for intervening Chinese domestic politics. It also had the aspect to consolidate the behind-security of Manchuria region and the Korean peninsula which was colonized with Japanese occupying Siberia.

  

The accomplishments that Japan got from Paris Versailles Peace Conference and Washington Conference had a point of intersection for gains and losses. For example in the Versailles Peace Conference, Japan joined the superpower league and winning country level, but on the other hand it was positioned in a passive stance as various media criticized on the occupation of Shandong by Japan. It was a great loss for Japan as ‘21 Demands’ were forced to seize soverignty of China and various economic rights which caused anti-Japanese sentiment in China and worsening relations between two countries. Moreover, the occupation of Shandong by Japanese army which enraged America had been considered in a historical flow as more negative. Consequently, Japan returned the rights of Shandong province to China with the pressure and constraint from the other superpowers. This had made Japan to adopt the policies to actively break down the Versailles system and Washington system after the war which it secured without escaping after World War I as an international background, and consequently Japan had moved on to a massive scale of war which was the initial fire for tragedy.

  

Due to the constraint of the superpowers in the world, the direct and undisguised intention to invade China by Japan had been extinguished on a certain level, but as a return the existing colonial land such as Korea and Taiwan had their colonial rule fortified, and it can not be ignored that the road to imperialism has been more accelerated as a result.

  

Now let us move on to the evaluation of influence that the participation of Japan in First World War caused within Japanese domestic arena. The World War I had brought upon Japan’s major transformations in economic and social aspects. The participation of war by Japan and the foreign invasion had been temporary basis, but reviving the national economy and achieving economic development as well as becoming an industrialized nation could remain as the aforementioned factor.

 

However, the characteristic remaining an abnormal monopolistic capitalism and bringing the causes for ending up into foreign invasion in militarism could be problematic. In order to secure the overseas market for consuming industrial products, invasion was a pre-requisite. The fact that Zaibatsu and large conglomerates led the industries and overwhelming the small and medium-sized enterprises to play a pivotal role in economic development could not be neglected, but on the other hand it is true that the development of Zaibatsu and large conglomerates resulted in integration of productivity and the centralization of capital which contributed to the formation of monopolistic ruling system in light industries as well as heavy chemical industries. Moreover, the merger and acquisitions of the business and bankruptcies repeated and generalized the cartel among Zaibatsu companies which started in the 1890’s and formed all over the business areas in Russo-Japanese war period, and finally settled down as it passed World War I. The various rights and interests which brought economic prosperity and fruitful economic development from Japanese leadership’s foreign invasion had all been concentrated on the entrepreneurs. Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo and the established Zaibatsu which rose into power from the beginning of Meiji era and the rapidly grown Zaibatsu in the World War period such as Nissan and Shoden(昭電) had glorified prosperity in the end.

  

Such businesses gaining profits have been expanded into re-investment and beared circulatory conclusions in the expansion of economic size, but the general people became poorer and the quality of life had been worsened. The income gap between the wealthy class and the lower class reaching 10 times could prove this. Relatively, the lives of lower class laborers including the salary workers had their quality of life deteriorating. The soaring price of rice had pressured the lives of mass in a direct way, where in a national scale the ‘Rice Riot’ uprising incident has continued during July and September of 1918 which was the main period of special procurements from war. Due to the problem, there were frequent labor disputes arising from laborers requesting for raise of wages, and the most cases occurred between 1916~1919. The “Rice Riot” incident was also further integrated into massive scale of laborers who protested due to awareness of class system. According to the regions, the “Rice Riot” incident which was combined with labor protests caused serious political problems which departed the Hara Cabinet and caused retirement of Terauchi(寺內) warlords.

 

Conclusion

 

The conclusion that could be possibly derived from the research is as follows. Japan had achieved various purposes that it aimed for in the beginning by joining the war. Nevertheless, from the position of the Japanese government, it was analyzed as fruitful and from the perspective of global universal history and East Asian regional peace by overcoming a nation’s level, it was considered as more of losing than winning in the end. The main reason was due to the starting point created from Japan directing its foreign invasion in a serious way because the military occupation of Shandong peninsula and Pacific islands owned by Germany led to deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations, breakout of British-Japanese alliance and worsening relations with the United States. Therefore, the participation of war for Japan and the World War I was evaluated as ignition which led Japan to be more engaged into imperialism and militarism after the Sino-Japanese war.

  

The ranking of Japan among the imperialistic powers could mean that Japan’s national fortune could be raised for the conservative right-wing force which was in support of Japanese government, but for the nation which was attacked by military force and its ethnic groups, it was more of a painful history full of shame, unforgettable from their point of view. Therefore, the participation of war by Japan was a tragedy from the perspective of East Asian history and universalistic aspects such as the world history, and the Japanese political leaders who carried out the resolution were disturbing and destroying peace. Moreover, from the position of Japanese government or the right-wing political force’s position, the so-called gains related to various improved conditions in both home and abroad could not be considered as welcoming from Japanese citizens’ position who wished for peace. For example, the special procurements from joining the war could only feed the few super-rich class and Zaibatsu in the form of abnormal monopolistic capitalism, and other majority of Japanese people had experienced steep inflation, riots from soaring rice price, and serious wealth gaps which worsened their lives. Moreover, after the war was more large-sized economic depression which was called ‘postwar depression’ was also one of the influence from the participation of war.

  

The century has changed and it has already marked the 100th anniversary after the breakout of World War I. Currently, the Japanese political leaders are showing very similar political path compared to the days in the 20th Century. They are attempting to transform Japan into a ‘normal country’ that could enforce war abroad, and they have displayed justifiable act for ‘making a strong Japan, contributing to the maintenance of peace in the international society’ in order to amend the ‘peace constitution’ which is hindering the decision of foreign war and the dispatch of troops for self-defense army. This could be perfectly corresponding to the justification that the predecessors used in order to join the world war in the past. Nowadays, there are problems lying in the path of Japan just like the old times, such as boosting the national prestige, territorial problems, national interests, grasping the hegemony of Asia, and military cooperation with the United States. In the political, territorial, and military situation of Japan which is showing anti- historical path in past affairs problems, ‘enforced military sex slaves’ issues, and other problems such as territory rights, it is up to the Japanese political elites who would decide whether to sustain the peace and prosperity in East Asia including Japan or else return to the era before a century ago.