An analysis of postwar Japan’s opposition to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, exposing how left-wing intellectuals and political forces obstructed national independence under the guise of “total peace,” and how the same logic persists in modern security debates.

2016-02-23

What follows is a continuation of the previous section.

From Japan’s perspective, regaining independence as a sovereign nation by concluding peace treaties with “almost all of the countries of the world” and bringing the American occupation to an end was something for which it could only be profoundly grateful.

Nevertheless, there were strange movements within Japan.

Taking advantage of the fact that the Soviet Union and its satellite states—only three countries—opposed the peace treaty, there emerged forces within Japan that opposed the treaty Japan sought to conclude.

They labeled the peace treaty concluded with forty-nine countries as a “separate peace,” while calling a treaty that included the Soviet Union and its satellites a “total peace,” insisting that “our country must conclude a total peace.”

Watanabe

Calling a treaty concluded with “almost all of the countries of the world” a “separate peace,” and labeling the inclusion of only three socialist countries—the Soviet Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia—as a “total peace,” was nothing more than a play on words.

It was left-wing intellectuals, known as so-called “progressive cultural figures,” who indulged in such sophistry.

Kusaka

If I recall correctly, the secretariat of the total peace faction was located inside Iwanami Shoten.

Watanabe

It is said to have been on the second floor of Iwanami Shoten.

Kusaka

The then president of the University of Tokyo, Shigeru Nanbara, was also a proponent of total peace.

The call to “support total peace” was said to be Stalin’s directive, or at the very least, his wish.
Accordingly, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, and progressive cultural figures who believed socialism to be justice—all forces aligned with Soviet intentions—shouted “Oppose separate peace!” and attempted to obstruct the conclusion of the peace treaty.

They could be described as nothing less than traitors to the nation.

To insist that “a peace treaty without the Soviet bloc is unacceptable” during the era of the Cold War meant, in effect, not concluding a peace treaty at all.

That, in turn, meant choosing a path in which one did not wish for national independence, but instead accepted continued American occupation for decades to come.

It is well known that Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida sharply criticized University of Tokyo President Nanbara—who brandished the banner of “total peace” and obstructed Japan’s recovery of independence—by calling him a “kyokugaku asei no to.”

The phrase “kyokugaku asei,” meaning those who distort scholarship to flatter worldly opinion, became a buzzword at the time.

This is precisely the same pattern we are witnessing today.
So-called scholars suddenly appear on television, denouncing as “war legislation” laws that are entirely normal in every other country—laws designed to defend one’s own nation against states that, in fascistic or totalitarian fashion, initiate aggression against our territory or internationally recognized territorial waters, and to deter actions that violate established rules.
The scholars, media outlets, and political parties that continue to shout their opposition are identical in nature to those of that era, a fact that anyone in the world possessing ordinary intelligence should readily recognize.

To be continued.