💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › shusui-kotoku-imperialism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:04:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Imperialism Author: Shūsui Kōtoku Date: 1901 Language: en Topics: imperialism, anti-imperialism, Japan, Japanese Anarchists, history Source: Retrieved from *Monster of the Twentieth Century: Kōtoku Shusui and Japan’s First Anti-Imperialist Movement* by Robert Thomas Tierney and published by University of California Press. Notes: Translated by Robert Thomas Tierney. All footnote annotations of Kōtoku Shūsui’s *Imperialism* are by the translator. Note that Shūsui Kōtoku wrote *Imperialism* before he became an anarchist, so references to state power in the text should be read with that in mind.
From its inception, human history has always been a struggle between
faith and power. Sometimes faith defeats force, but force wins out at
other times. When Pilate ordered Jesus Christ to be crucified, force
triumphed over faith, but when Bishop Ambrose of Milan forced Emperor
Theodosius to make a public act of contrition, faith subjugated
force.[1] If faith governs force, the world is bathed in light, but if
force oppresses faith, the world is plunged into darkness. We live in a
dark age when force oppresses faith.
Throughout the Japanese Empire, there is not a single philosopher who
teaches the principle of world harmony, yet we maintain an army of
thirteen divisions that flaunts its weapons on every occasion. There is
not a single poet in our society to offer consolation for the distress
of the people, but we possess a fleet of warships of 260,000 tons
constantly prowling the coasts of our country and ready for war.
Disorder reigns in families, father and child are at daggers drawn,
brothers engage in bitter rivalry, and mother and daughter-in-law hold
each other in mutual contempt. At such a time, our country, dubbed the
land of the cherry blossoms in the Far East, takes imperialism as its
emblem and fancies itself a nation of gentlemen.
My dear friend, Kōtoku Shūsui, author of Imperialism, you have raised
your banner aloft in the literary world, although you are still a young
man. While you do not profess belief in the Christian faith, you hate
the charade that passes itself off as patriotism in our times. Although
you have never traveled to a free country, you are a fervent socialist.
I consider it an honor to count you among my friends and thank you for
granting me the privilege of introducing your original work to the
general public.
April 11, Meiji 34 (1901)
Uchimura KanzĹŤ, Tsunohazumura, Tokyo[2]
strongly every day. I alone calmly preach justice and virtue whereas the
most fervent patriots of our nation, their hair standing on end and
their eyes burning with hatred, strive for great feats of conquest. I
know that I will be treated as the butt of mockery, like the Chinese
sage who rescued the Confucian classics from the waves during a great
naval battle.[3] Nevertheless, I knowingly undertake this task because I
shudder to think of the horrors the next century holds in store for our
country. I ask both those who understand me and those who curse me to
read this book.
developed in insightful analyses by Western intellectuals. I have taken
up the most progressive theses propounded by renowned thinkers who hold
to the highest ideals, such as Tolstoy, Zola, John Morley, Bebel, and
Bryant.[4] For that reason, I do not consider myself an original author
but rather a commentator on other men’s ideas.[5]
am confident that I have set them down in broad strokes. If, upon
reading this book, uninstructed people open their eyes to the current
state of affairs and if this book makes a small contribution to the
establishment of truth and justice, I will have achieved my goals.
April, Meiji 34 (1901), the cherry blossoms in full bloom,
at the editorial office of the Yorozu ChĹŤhĹŤ[6]
Shūsui, a disciple.
Imperialism spreads like a wildfire in an open field. All nations bow
down to worship this new god, sing hymns to praise it, and have created
a cult to pay it adoration.
Look at the world that surrounds us. In England, both government and
citizens have become fervent acolytes of imperialism. In Germany, the
war-loving emperor never loses a chance to extol its virtues. As for
Russia, the regime has long practiced a policy of imperialism. France,
Austria, and Italy are all delighted to join the fray. Even a young
country like the United States has recently shown an eagerness to master
this new skill. And, finally, this trend has reached Japan. Ever since
our great victory in the Sino-Japanese War, Japanese of all classes burn
with fever to join the race for empire, like a wild horse suddenly freed
from its harness.
Long ago, Taira no Tokitada haughtily proclaimed: “Anyone who is not a
Taira cannot be considered a human being.”[7] At present, no politician,
of whatever stripe, can hope to be appointed as cabinet minister in any
national government unless he agrees to serve the cause of imperialism.
And no government that renounces imperialism will gain the respect of
other nations. But, in the final analysis, what virtue, what power, and
what value does imperialism possess, that it is able to inspire such
fervent devotion in its acolytes?
Ultimately, the main purpose of the nation-state is to ensure continual
social progress and to better the welfare of humanity. A state should
not aim just to create a brief show of prosperity but rather pursue
policies that result in continual progress over the long term. In
addition, it must adopt policies that lead to the happiness of all and
not simply secure the privileges of a small minority. In what way does
imperialism, now supported by all political leaders and nations,
contribute to the progress and the happiness of the human race?
I believe social progress must be based on true scientific knowledge and
human happiness and well-being must be founded on civilized morality. I
support the ideals of freedom and justice for all and the goals of
universal love and equality. Throughout history, statesmen who have
adhered to such principles have ensured that the prosperity of their
nation outlasted the pine and the oak tree.[8] However, those who have
ignored them have seen their nation perish as quickly as the dream of a
nighttime in spring.[9] If imperialism were truly based on a solid
foundation and served the cause of human progress, men would welcome it
as the glad tidings of heaven on earth. I would gladly become its
advocate and even its watchdog.
But, what if, to the contrary, the growing craze for imperialism is
based not on scientific knowledge but rather on rank superstition? What
if it derives from fanaticism rather than from civilized morality? And
what if it results in despotism, injustice, narrow-mindedness, and
conflict instead of freedom, justice, universal love, and equality? And
what if all nations of the world are ruled by these evil feelings and
embrace this vicious morality, in both the material and the spiritual
domains? How can one not shudder to think of the ravages that this
poison is spreading in the world today?
Oh, imperialism! Will you lift the world of the twentieth century to the
eternal light of the Pure Land, or will you plunge us into the hell of
no respite?[10] Do you represent progress or corruption, well-being or
catastrophe? Are you angel or devil?
The most urgent duty of thinkers called on to lead our twentieth century
is to expose the imminent perils of imperialism.[11] Notwithstanding my
own shortcomings, I have decided to undertake this mission on my own
since I can no longer afford to wait any longer as danger approaches.
“Let’s increase our population, expand the size of our territory, build
a great empire, raise the national prestige, and bring glory to our
flag.” This is the battle cry of the imperialists of every nation. The
imperialists have a deep, abiding love for their country.
England battles with South Africa, the United States invades the
Philippines, Germany seizes the region of Jiaozhou, Russia annexes
Manchuria, France conquers Fashoda, and Italy makes war on
Abyssinia.[12] These are the most striking manifestations of imperialism
in recent years. In every case, the advance of imperialist nations has
been accompanied by the deployment of military force and by aggressive
diplomacy backed by the threat of force.
However, let us look at the consequences of these invasions. Isn’t
imperialism derived from patriotism and militarism? These constitute the
warp and woof from which the fabric of imperialism is woven. Without a
doubt, patriotism and militarism constitute the foundation upon which
the imperialism practiced by the great powers of the present day rests.
Accordingly, before we judge the merits of imperialism, we must first
examine the nature of patriotism and militarism.
In fact, what is “love of country”? What does “patriotism” really mean?
Why do people feel an emotional attachment to their native land and
their country? Why do they have to love their nations?
I agree with Mencius that any human being would, without hesitation,
rush to rescue a child about to fall into a well. If patriotism were
nothing more than the natural empathy that motivated this generous act,
and if it were an emotion filled with the spirit of charity and love,
then it would be a beautiful and glorious thing. I would have nothing
more to say on the topic.
On second thought, however, a human being moved by such selfless love
and charity does not pause to think whether the child is a family member
or a close relative. When he rescues the child from danger, he does not
even ask himself whether the child is his own or belongs to another. For
the same reason, righteous and benevolent men in every nation in the
world pray that the people of the Transvaal will win their freedom and
that the people of the Philippines will gain their independence. There
are many such men even in England and the United States, even though
their countries are belligerents in these wars. How is it possible for a
patriot to adopt such a stance?
At present, nationalists and patriots in England denounce their fellow
countrymen who pray for their nation’s defeat in the Transvaal and decry
their lack of patriotism.[13] In America, patriots revile fellow
citizens who hope for the independence of the Philippines and condemn
their hatred of their own country. But even if these people are lacking
in love for their country, they are certainly filled with compassion,
charity, and generosity. For this reason, we can conclude that
patriotism is an emotion far removed from the profound feeling that
leads a human being to rescue a child from impending danger.
I am saddened that patriotism has nothing to do with compassion and
charity. In fact, the love a patriot feels for his country stops at
national borders. He only cares about the human beings who live in his
own country. A patriot who does not care for the people of other
countries and only loves his fellow countrymen is like a man who only
loves members of his own family and immediate relatives and is
indifferent to everyone else. He only seeks superficial glory and the
satisfaction of his material desires. How can we speak of public
interest in such a case when only a person’s private interests are at
stake?[14]
In addition, love of country can be likened to the nostalgia that men
feel for their hometowns. The nostalgia that fills a man’s heart when he
misses his hometown is a noble thing, but, at the same time, it is base
and contemptible.
A little boy mounts his hobbyhorse at a time when hair still covers the
nape of his neck, but does he really understand that he should love the
mountains and rivers of his country?[15] Is not the exact contrary true?
A man only longs for his homeland and the place of his birth after he
learns that there are foreign towns and countries. After he has wandered
around the world, experienced setbacks to his ambitions, and endured the
coldness of strangers, he fondly recalls the days of his boyhood and
youth and yearns for bygone times and familiar places. People
nostalgically recall their native land when they have trouble adjusting
to a different climate, getting used to exotic food, expressing their
thoughts in a foreign tongue, or living apart from their parents and
family members who might have soothed their pain.
Men become nostalgic not because they have love or respect for their
native land but because they hate other countries, especially when they
have been exiled from their homes due to circumstances beyond their
control. This nostalgia is not pure sympathy and compassion for their
own nation, but instead a hatred that they come to feel toward foreign
places. After seeing their dreams shattered or their hopes dashed, many
people begin to hate foreign countries and to long for their native
land.
Some assert that men who have met with adversity and disappointment
abroad are not the only ones to feel the love of country and that
patriots are also to be found among those who have been successful and
even built a fortune overseas. In fact, this is certainly the case. But
the feeling of nostalgia that successful people feel is especially
contemptible. All that they really want is to show off their success to
their family members, friends, and acquaintances in their hometown. This
spirit of ostentation merely reflects their vanity, pride, and
competitive spirit, and has nothing whatsoever to do with compassion and
sympathy for their homeland. People in ancient times said, “To become
rich and famous without returning to one’s hometown is like wandering
around in the pitch darkness wearing brocade robes.”[16] This saying
exposes the petty and shameful motives that lie hidden under their
pompous attitudes.
The citizens of a particular town demand that the government found a
university in their hometown or build a railway line that passes through
their district. Some even insist that the ministers and officials of the
national government must be from their own prefecture. Does such selfish
behavior have anything to do with sympathy and compassion for their
homeland, as opposed to personal interest and vanity? How can a man of
intelligence or moral probity feel anything but scorn for such ignoble
sentiments?
If patriotism and love for one’s homeland came from the same source or
were based on the same motives, then the rivalry between the Yu and the
Rui would offer the perfect model for the patriot to follow in the
settlement of disputes. And the fable of the warring kingdoms on the
horns of a snail would offer the patriot valuable lessons on the
pettiness of human war![17]
One must not laugh when Mr. Iwaya, who boasts of his “great services to
the nation,” promises a donation of a thousand yen to build a memorial
to commemorate the marriage of the crown prince but then forgets to
carry out his promise. There is only a minuscule difference between Mr.
Iwaya’s patriotism and that of other so-called patriots of the realm.
They only trumpet their love of country to better serve their own
selfish interests, pride, and vanity.[18]
“At that time not a single man stood for the interests of his party. All
men united in support of the state.” A poet of ancient Rome, carried
away by his emotions, once penned this panegyric to patriotism. But
perhaps the poet did not realize what he was saying. Perhaps the men he
referred to lacked the intelligence to organize a party and advance
their cause. Perhaps what brought them together and caused them to feel
unified was not their common membership in a nation, but rather the
existence of enemy nations. In the end, their unity probably resulted
from the superstition that drives men to hate adversary nations and the
enemies who inhabit them.
Consider the following: poor peasants of ancient Rome were mobilized
along with a small minority of rich patricians, who served as their
commanders, to fight in wars on behalf of the nation. These soldiers
demonstrated exceptional bravery on the battlefields: they advanced
fearlessly upon the enemy, fought with outstanding courage, and risked
their lives without a second thought. How can one not be moved by their
great show of loyalty and righteousness? But observe what happened after
the wars ended. When they returned to the safety of their homes after
winning a military victory for their nation, they quickly fell into
slavery because they had incurred large debts during their time of
military service. While the rich were off busy fighting wars for the
nation, they had slaves and servants tend to their fields, but the poor
had no choice but to let their fields go to waste. Upon their return,
they fell deeply into debt and were forced to sell themselves as slaves.
Who is to blame for such a catastrophe?
They hated the so-called enemies of the Roman nation. But these enemies
surely caused them no more harm than their rich fellow-citizens. During
the war, they faced multiple dangers: the enemy would deprive them of
their freedom, steal their property, or capture them, and sell them as
slaves. But how could they have guessed that their fellow citizens would
be the cause of their downfall? They could never have imagined such an
outcome was possible.
When the rich go to war, they increase the amount of their wealth and
add to the number of their slaves and servants. In contrast, the poor
draw no benefits from war; they fight only for so-called national honor.
After they have fallen into slavery, they console themselves by
recalling the heroic battles in which they defeated the enemy and the
services they rendered to their nation. They are filled with pride and
self-satisfaction when they recall these events. What foolishness! Such
was the patriotism of ancient Rome.
Let us next consider the condition of the slaves in ancient Greece, the
Helots. Depending upon circumstance, they either fought as soldiers or
worked as slaves. Their masters often massacred them if they grew too
strong or if they increased too rapidly in number.[19] But when they
fought for their masters, they were incomparable in their loyalty and
exceptional in their bravery; they never thought of turning their
weapons against their master to win their freedom.
Why did they behave in this way? They believed that the highest honor
and glory was to defeat the enemies of their nation whom they hated.
They failed to become aware of their own vanity and stupidity. Their
so-called patriotism was a hollow, vulgar superstition even more
incurable than that of the faithful of the Tenri sect, who drink putrid
water because they believe that it has mystical powers. In fact, their
superstition had far direr consequences.[20]
You should not be surprised that they feel such a deep hatred of their
enemy. These primitive creatures live lives that are close to those of
animals and cannot understand the noble ideals of universal love and
humanity. Since the earliest period of history, love and hatred have
been joined together like the threads of a rope or the links of a chain.
Look at the beasts. They are suspicious of one another and even devour
members of their own species; when they happen to meet a creature they
do not know, they are filled with terror and panic, which quickly turn
to envy and hatred. This hatred and envy give rise to growling and lead
them to attack the intruder. While they previously devoured animals of
their own species, now they join together with others to fight against a
common enemy. Once they face a common enemy, they start to feel a bond
of sympathy with their own species that holds them together. Do these
animals really feel a sentiment that we can call patriotism? People of
ancient times were not so far removed in their way of life from these
beasts.
Barbarians are tied closely to one another in their groups, unite in
their struggle with the forces of nature, and fight wars with the
members of different tribes. And they have a feeling that resembles what
we call patriotism. In fact, we must acknowledge that their unity,
friendship, and sympathy only derive from the existence of a shared
enemy and is merely an ancillary reaction to their hatred of the enemy.
Their compassionate feeling resembles the sympathy that patients who
suffer from the same sickness tend to feel for one another.
Following this chain of reasoning, so-called love of country is a
war-like feeling that incites those who feel it to consider it an honor
to subjugate foreigners and foreign countries. The love of war is an
animal instinct. For this reason, both the Buddha and Christ condemned
animal instincts and love of warfare, and all civilizations are united
in rejecting them as unworthy ideals or aims of human life.
How appalling! The people of the world, after spending the nineteenth
century competing with one another in accordance with their animal
instincts, are getting ready to enter the new world of the twentieth
century with exactly the same frame of mind.
As society has gradually evolved in accordance with the principle of
survival of the fittest and the means of communication and
transportation have unified the different regions of the world, the
members of other races and other villages who used to constitute a
common enemy have decreased in number and the hatred that united men
against them has started to lose its object. If they lose a common
target of hatred, then they can no longer find a common cause to unite
with their neighbors. At this point, their love for their country, their
community, or their village undergoes a change and simply becomes a
sentiment that they feel toward themselves, their families, and their
groups. At the same time, the war-like instinct that governed relations
between different communities or villages of the barbarians also changes
into competition among individuals, rivalry among political parties, and
struggle among the different classes of society. As long as we fail to
realize pure ideals and a noble morality [in our society], as long as we
fail to extirpate this animal instinct, then the people of the world
will be unable to live without having an enemy, without hating one
another, and without fighting wars. And they will dignify this atavism
with the name of “patriotism” and consider it to be honorable behavior.
Consider the nineteenth-century civilization of the countries of the
West. On the one hand, human beings have become cold and vicious as a
result of the prevailing cutthroat competition that sets them against
one another; on the other, they proclaim their faith in the highest
ideals of justice and endeavor to free the world of evil. How can one
not tremble from fear when one considers the future prospects of our
civilization? Unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of every
opportunity, adventurers in search of glory, and capitalists greedy for
profits proclaim in unison: “Look at the borders of our nation. Powerful
enemies threaten us on all sides. The people must end their squabbles
and join forces on behalf of the nation” In fact, they seek to divert
the hatred that individuals feel toward one another onto foreign enemies
in order to derive profit for themselves. They reproach anyone who
refuses to go along with this project by saying: “You are an enemy of
the nation, a traitor”
The popularity of imperialism in the world today is really based on the
manipulation of such feelings. It depends ultimately on the incitation
of a patriotic spirit of the people, that is to say, on the deliberate
provocation of animal instincts.
One must love one’s family and hate all others, love one’s fellow
countrymen and hate those that live in other lands, love the country of
gods [Japan] and China and hate Westerners and barbarians.[21] For the
sake of those whom one loves, one should attack those one hates. In a
nutshell, this is the logic of patriotism.
Indeed, if patriotism were not a pitiful superstition, then it would be
a spirit of belligerence. If it were not a spirit of belligerence, it
would be an ostentatious display of vanity, like an advertisement for a
commercial product. In addition, this ideology offers a useful
instrument that enables authoritarian leaders to achieve their ambitions
and acquire fame.
Ancient Greece and Rome enjoyed no monopoly on these worn-out and empty
dreams. The manipulation of popular patriotism in modern society is even
more outrageous than that of antiquity and the medieval period.
Recall the article of the late Morita Shiken in which he suggested that
the mysterious eagle discovered over the Yellow Sea was not a living
spirit of the emperor.[22] For this offense, he was widely reviled and
attacked as a traitor. When Kume Kunitake wrote an article in which he
held that the Shinto religion derived from ancient sun worship, he was
forced to resign from his university post.[23] When Count Saionji tried
to introduce a cosmopolitan curriculum to the public schools, he was
nearly fired from his position as minister of education.[24] When
Uchimura Kanzo refused to bow in worship before the Imperial Rescript of
Education, he was dismissed from his job as teacher.[25] When Ozaki
Yukio pronounced the word “republic” in a speech, he lost his post as
government minister.[26] All of these men were condemned for the crime
of lese majeste and antipatriotism. So much for the manifestations of
patriotism of the Japanese people in this holy period of Meiji Japan.
This is what the patriotism of the people leads to: anyone who
challenges the conventional wisdom of the day is muzzled and forcibly
restrained. Patriots even try to put the private thoughts of people
under surveillance, to interfere with their religious beliefs, to forbid
historians from conducting research, to prevent scholars from examining
sacred texts, and they are determined to destroy any science that stands
in their way. Such behavior is an insult to the morality of a civilized
society, but the patriot considers it to be his pride and glory.
Such patriotism is not unique to Japan. In modern times, England claims
to be the freest nation in the world and a beacon of peace and humanity.
However, even in England, when patriotism has been aroused among the
people, those who demanded freedom or proposed social reforms or
defended universal suffrage were all attacked as rebels and traitors to
their country.
In the modern period, the best example of the ravages of patriotism is
the attitude of the English during the war against the French. This war
began in 1793, at the time of the French Revolution, and then, with a
few minor interruptions, stretched on until the fall of Napoleon in
1815. The period in question is close to our own and the mentality of
the people is not very different from that of people today. In addition,
the patriotism of the English closely resembles that of people today,
both in its wide popularity and in the particular forms in which it
manifested itself.
“The War against France.” This was the only thing that mattered and the
term became the catchphrase of the times. It was impossible to probe
impartially into the causes of the war, to consider its consequences, to
debate its costs and benefits, to discuss its rights and wrongs; anyone
who attempted to do so was immediately branded a traitor. For a period
of time, the will to reform, the motivation to oppose the government,
and the critical spirit all went on vacation, or rather they were
banished, while all debate among political parties within the country
came to an abrupt halt. Even a man like Coleridge, who had criticized
the war at the beginning, ended up praising God for using the war to
forge a spirit of unity among the English people.[27] In spite of this
atmosphere, Charles James Fox remained intransigent in his support of
the principles of peace and freedom.[28] Realizing that he could not
sway other members of parliament to his side, he refused to take his
seat in the chamber. Even though there were other men who opposed the
war, the members of the parties in parliament engaged in no political
debate on the matter. At that time, England truly experienced a sacred
unity of the people, such as Japanese politicians are so fond of
acclaiming today, and the words of a Roman poet, “all were for the
state,” captured the popular mood.
But behind this mobilization of the English people, what ideal, what
morality, what emotion, and what “nation” lay concealed? What mobilized
the English, what made them fanatical was only a hatred of France, a
hatred of the revolution, and a hatred of Napoleon. They began not
merely to hate any form of the revolutionary spirit and any thought
connected to French ideals, but vied with one another to insult and
vilify them and poured all their energy into repressing any expression
of such ideals.
Let me note that when patriotic mobilization against foreigners reach
this level of intensity, the evils that it causes in the internal
politics of a nation also reach their zenith. We need only look at what
happens once war ends and the tide of patriotic fanaticism begins to
ebb.
After the war ended, the hatred that many felt toward France lost some
of its sting and the government cut its military expenses. During the
conflict, demand for English products had fallen because business in the
countries on the European continent had suffered from the turmoil. As a
result, both English industry and agriculture fell into a sharp
recession, leading to impoverishment and famine among the lower classes
of English society. At this moment, did the wealthy and the capitalists
prove they were true patriots? Did they show any mercy or compassion to
their fellow citizens, or experience a sacred unity of the people? They
were hardly more moved at seeing their fellow citizens die of starvation
than they had been at seeing enemy soldiers fall on the battlefields.
Indeed, the hatred they felt toward the poor people of their own country
surpassed in intensity anything that they had felt toward the French
revolution or Napoleon.
How can one keep silent in the face of the outrageous Peterloo incident?
Only a short time after they defeated Napoleon’s army at Waterloo, the
English army massacred a large group of workers assembled in St. Peter’s
Field to demand a reform of parliamentary representation. The massacre
was named Peterloo in ironic reference to the Battle of Waterloo. The
patriotic troops, who had defeated the enemy army at Waterloo, now
turned their arms against their own people and massacred them at
Peterloo.[29] Is such patriotism truly a love of one’s fellow citizens?
What benefits do the sacred union and great patriotic concord of the
nation confer upon the citizens once the foreign enemy has been
defeated? The blade of the bayonet that cuts off the enemy’s head serves
just as well to spill the blood of one’s fellow countrymen.
Coleridge thanked God for unifying the nation to wage war, but in the
final analysis, what happened to those who were joined together in
warfare? The emotion of hatred can only give birth to more hatred,
hatred of the foreign enemy is an animal instinct that changes into
hatred of one’s fellow countrymen, the heart that produced Waterloo
quickly becomes the heart that leads to Peterloo. What hypocrisy this
so-called patriot unity is![30]
Let us put England aside and consider the case of Germany. The late
Prince Bismarck was the personification of the patriotic spirit and the
German Empire is the Mecca of patriotism. If one wishes to commune with
the luminous spirits of the patriotic cult, one must undertake a
pilgrimage to Germany.
Patriots of every country in the world, including members of the
aristocracy and teachers in Japan’s military academies, take German
patriotism to be the standard and the model to be imitated, but is
German patriotism any less superstitious and vacuous than that of
ancient Greece and Rome or that of modern England?
The late Bismarck was truly a genius in the art of political oppression.
Before his rise to power, the disunity of the states of northern Germany
was the source of despair to every imperialist, who held that a people
who spoke a common language ought to be united in a single nation.
Because he succeeded in forging the different states of Germany into a
unified nation, Bismarck enjoys an enormous prestige that continues to
shine throughout the world even today. Nevertheless, we must recognize
that the imperialists did not forge these different states into one
nation simply to bring peace and well-being to their citizens. Rather
they sought first and foremost to make Germany a militarily powerful
country. Heroes who embraced the principles of liberty and equality
looked with envy at the splendid spectacle offered by the French
Revolution and hoped to unify the different states of Germany in order
to end their petty squabbles, bring peace and well-being to their
people, and defend them against foreign invasion. Nevertheless, the real
history of German unification was a total betrayal of their hopes and
desires.
If the unification of Germany truly served the interests of the
different states of northern Germany, then why did they not also unite
with Austria, where the majority of the people also spoke German? The
real motives for unification were different. Bismarck sought to increase
his personal power and glory and that of Prussia, not to establish a
brotherhood of all the Germanic peoples or to create a peaceful
confederation of states.[31]
Men of a belligerent turn of mind not infrequently resort to tactics of
union and cooperation to satisfy their ambitions. Let us say that one is
the friend of A but the enemy of B. Perhaps the reason why one courts As
friendship is from hatred of B. Similarly, if a nation cultivates
friendly relations with another, it may do so not because it is
genuinely interested in establishing a lasting peace, but because it
desires to increase its own hegemonic power. Prince Bismarck was a
brilliant strategist who thoroughly understood human psychology. He
stirred up the animal instincts of his own countrymen and manipulated
them with great skill and mastery. In other words, he roused the
patriotism of the people, sent them to fight in wars against foreign
enemies, and crushed any expression of opinion in his own country that
opposed his policies. In order to create this patriotic cult that he
desired, he provoked a series of senseless wars.
This unifier of Germany, the apostle of bestial violence, the ideologue
of “iron and blood,” deliberately launched a war against his nation’s
weakest enemy as a way to accomplish his plans. Victory in this war
induced a state of euphoria among the people and whipped up their
superstition, vanity, and animal spirits; people vied with one another
to join his political party. This was the cause of the unity of the new
German Empire and the starting point of the new patriotism of Germany.
In a subsequent stage, he started a second war with another neighboring
country. This time he picked a fight with an opponent much stronger than
the first one, but he was able to take advantage of his enemy’s lack of
preparedness at the time of the war.[32] Once again, patriotism and the
spirit of national unity flourished on this new battlefield. Bismarck
used and directed this movement skillfully in order to expand the power
of his own country, Prussia, and that of its king.
He did not unify the states of northern Germany simply to further the
cause of justice and humanity. He did not permit his own state of
Prussia to be swallowed up and to disappear in the new unified country.
What he sought was simply a unification that would take place under the
leadership of Prussia and a merger of German states that would make
Prussia’s king the kaiser of the glorious German Empire. While some
contend that a popular movement of the German people caused the
unification of Germany, I would argue that it came about because an
ambitious man skillfully manipulated the patriotism of his people and
channeled their superstition and vanity in order to establish his own
name.
The ideals that Bismarck stood for are not really different from the
primitive ideals of feudal times. And he owed his success in carrying
out his barbaric and corrupt plans simply to the fact that the majority
of the people were not able to free themselves from the mentality of
this bygone period, either ethically or psychologically. In other words,
the morality of the majority of the population is still the morality of
the feudal period and their mentality is still primitive. They
hypocritically conceal their primitive mentality under a thin veneer of
modern science in order to deceive themselves and others.[33]
Bismarck had already provoked two useless wars and won spectacular
victories in both. To prepare for the third, his military sharpened its
claws and bided its time, waiting for a favorable opportunity to present
itself. When the opportunity came, he attacked a strong country that was
not militarily prepared for battle. This was the Franco-Prussian War.
This war was a dangerous gamble and the stakes were high, but for that
very reason, Bismarck’s victory was all the more spectacular.
The Franco-Prussian War was fought by a confederation of northern German
states placed under the boot of Prussia and led by the king of Prussia,
whom all states venerated as the emperor of Germany. It benefited the
king of Prussia and served the interests of Bismarck, but it did not
bring any happiness to the German people. Consequently, I assert that
the unification of Germany was not founded on compassion for fellow
human beings or on a demand for justice. If the German people succeeded
in the great task of unifying the nation by piling up mountains of
corpses and shedding rivers of blood, it was thanks to the mobilization
of hatred toward enemy nations and the vain self-intoxication with its
war victories. Are these sentiments what one would expect from a
gentlemen and a great man?
In addition, the majority of the Germans proudly proclaimed that Germany
had won its victories through the grace of God and imagined that Germany
was far superior to the other nations in the world. Many people in other
countries in the world started to admire Germany’s greatness and to take
it as a model to follow. The most decorated members of the Japanese
nobility vied with one another to imitate this model, each one striving
to become the Bismarck of the Orient.[34] The great prestige that
England enjoyed in the world because of its constitutional government
was supplanted suddenly by the military power of the Prussian army.
The inebriation of a people with the glory and prestige of the nation is
like that of an individual who has had too much alcohol to drink. Drunk,
red-eyed, hot behind the ears, and over-excited, they do not pay the
slightest attention to the horrible piles of corpses they trod over or
notice the filth of the river of blood they wade through. Confident of
themselves and arrogant, they are not even cognizant of the evil they
have caused.
In addition, nations that strive to achieve fame by their superior
military power and battlefield victories are like people who seek to
master and earn a rank in the martial arts. They are like the sumo
wrestlers who strive to reach the top rank of yokozuna. The martial arts
disciple and the sumo wrestler can only show off their technique by
defeating their rivals; if they lacked opponents, what gain or fame
would they obtain from fighting? The pride of German people is based
only on winning victories over their enemies; if they lacked enemies,
what gain or fame would they obtain from fighting wars?
When we see a martial arts disciple or a wrestler who has had a drop too
much to drink and boasts of his technique and his strength, is it
possible to have confidence in his talent, his understanding, or his
virtue? When the people of one nation, inebriated with their military
victories, brag of their great glories and successes, should people in
other countries believe that their political, economic, and educational
systems are an index of their civilization and well-being? I have the
deepest respect for German philosophy and literature, but I cannot sing
the praises of German patriotism.
Today, both Bismarck and the German emperor he faithfully serves are
already creatures of the past. Nevertheless, this emperor still has the
ideology of “blood and steel” lodged in his head and continues to
stupefy himself with the brandy of patriotism. Fond of war, oppression,
and vainglory, he is far worse than Napoleon I and even inferior to
Napoleon III. The vast majority of the great German people continue to
shed their blood in the name of national unity and to submit themselves
to the exactions of this young oppressor. Today, this patriotism remains
a powerful force. But will this phenomenon last forever?
Consider that the evils caused by patriotism are also at their height.
But just as the Birnam Wood moves toward Dunsinane Castle in which the
tyrant Macbeth is hiding, a strong enemy that strikes terror into the
heart of present-day world leaders is already on the move in our
countries.[35] This dangerous enemy is not superstition but reason; it
is not tradition but modernity; it is not fanaticism but organization.
And its aim is to completely eliminate the religion of patriotism and
the evils that it has wrought. This enemy is called modern socialism.
The fanatical, barbaric patriotism of the ancient world has gained a new
lease on life and is sapping the moral foundations and undermining the
noble ideals of modern civilization. We must wait until the middle of
the twentieth century to see whether Bismarck’s successes will endure.
Thanks to the sudden rise of the socialist movement in Germany and its
fierce resistance against patriotism, we realize clearly that a
patriotism based only on an empty pride in military victory and a hatred
of enemy nations can only be a hindrance to the mutual respect and
spirit of brotherhood among the different peoples of the world.
Not the least of the great crimes committed by Bismarck is that of
making this most philosophical of nations enact the most
antiphilosophical policies in his name, as if there were not far
worthier political ideals! If only Bismarck had never existed! Who knows
what great progress Germany might have accomplished and what noble
ideals it might have realized; and not only Germany would have
benefited, but all the other nations of Europe, which worship everything
German in literature, the arts, philosophy, and ethics. How is it
possible that at the dawn of the twentieth century we still live in a
world in which the different nations devour one another mercilessly like
wolves and wild dogs?
The emperor of Japan is different from the callow German emperor. He
prefers peace to war and values freedom over oppression. He takes no
pleasure in the barbarian vanity of his own nation, but desires to
spread the benefits of civilization to all nations. He is different from
the so-called patriots or imperialists. However, in present-day Japan,
any man who is not a patriot is as rare and solitary as the last star
shining in the sky at dawn.
Since I cannot bring myself to extol the love of country that arises
when men are led to hate and attack their enemies, as is the case with
the patriotism of all times and places, I also reject the patriotism of
the Japanese people.
The late Count GotĹŤ once rallied the Japanese people and called upon
them to confront the imminent perils that threatened their survival and
awaken their patriotism. In response to his call, patriotic men
throughout the nation, as numerous as a field of grass bending to the
wind, raced to gather by his side. However, the count suddenly decided
to join the government and his call for a grand coalition of the people
vanished like the dream of a spring night.[36] Was the patriotism of the
Japanese at that time actually nothing more than a love for the person
of the count?
No, it was not a love for the count, but rather a hatred for the
government by the Satsuma and Chōshū clans. Their love of country was
really just a form of hatred. On board a ship in a storm, even sworn
enemies act like brothers, but who would think to praise them as models
of brotherhood?
The patriotism of the Japanese rose to fever pitch during the
Sino-Japanese War, and this patriotism had no precedent in the past. No
words can do justice to the contempt, envy, and hatred that the patriots
felt toward the Chinese people. They were prepared to massacre 400
million Chinese down to the final white-haired, elderly man and the
tender babe less than three feet in height. What is one to think of
their hearts filled with vanity? Is this emotion not a form of
fanaticism and cruelty? In what way does it differ from bestiality?
In the final analysis, were they truly motivated by a desire to bring
happiness and advantages to the Japanese nation and people? Were their
hearts filled with compassion and pity for the Japanese people? No, they
only took pleasure in killing as many of their enemies as possible and
in seizing as many treasures and lands as they could get their hands on.
They sought to show off the superiority of their bestial natures before
the eyes of the entire world.
When our emperor led his troops into battle in ancient times, he truly
aimed to subdue barbarian peoples and to serve the cause of world peace,
humanity, and justice. The true nature of the patriotism that was
mobilized to achieve these ends in our times, however, was hatred,
contempt, and vanity. It is likely that the leaders of Japan did not
give a thought to the material and spiritual effects that the
Sino-Japanese War would have on the general population.
On the one hand, millionaires make huge donations of money to support
soldiers on the war front, but, on the other, they sell them canned
goods tainted with sand. While military leaders exhort the soldiers to
sacrifice their lives on the battlefield, they regularly receive bribes
from merchants. This is what they dare to dub “patriotism.” How can one
be surprised that such bestial and murderous instinct, given free reign,
inevitably brings a flood of crimes and misdemeanors in its wake? Is
this the will of the emperor?
It is praiseworthy that the Japanese soldier is imbued with feelings of
loyalty and respect toward the emperor. However, the real issue is
whether his loyalty and respect for the emperor contribute in any way to
the progress of civilization and the welfare of humanity.
During the rebellion of the Boxers, our soldiers suffered great
hardships on the dangerous route from Dagu to Tianjin.[37] Some men,
shedding tears, said that they would prefer to die than endure such
suffering if it were not for the sake of the Emperor. No one who heard
these words could restrain his tears. I also wept for them.
How can one utter a word of reproach to these pitiful soldiers who are
fighting in the name of the emperor for justice, humanity, and their
fellow citizens? Indeed, from their most tender years, whether at home,
at school, or in the barracks, they have been indoctrinated with the
teaching that they must lay down their lives in service to the emperor
and they know no other perspective. The Helots of Sparta were ignorant
of freedom, human rights, or happiness. Whether they were whipped by the
master, sent to die in wars, or simply massacred if they survived the
wars, they proudly thought that they were serving their country. When I
read accounts of their history, I cannot restrain my tears, just as I
shed tears when I think of the fate of our soldiers today.
However, we are no longer living in ancient Sparta. How could our
emperor, who values freedom, peace, and humanity, want his subjects to
receive the same treatment meted out to the Helots of ancient times? I
am convinced that if our soldiers proclaimed that they were fighting for
humanity and justice, rather than merely in service to the emperor, the
emperor himself would endorse their statement. In this fashion, they
would manifest their true loyalty toward the emperor.
Some people go so far as to commit theft or prostitute themselves to
provide for their poor parents or to help their brothers and sisters.
They run great dangers and destroy their reputation but they succeed in
supporting their family and protecting the lives of its members. Since
ancient times, such conduct has been upheld as a model of morality. The
standard bearers of morality and civilization do not condemn this
conduct: instead they praise the state of mind that motivates it and
express compassion for the foolishness of those who practice it. People
who claim that they act from a spirit of loyalty and for the sake of the
emperor but know nothing of justice and humanity display the patriotism
of a barbaric country and a superstitious loyalty. It is not unlike the
filial piety that leads others to theft and prostitution.
I am greatly saddened that the feeling of loyalty and love of country of
our soldiers is far from being a civilized and noble ideal and is no
better than the mentality of people in the ancient world.
If one wants proof that the feelings of loyalty and patriotism that the
military takes pride in are far removed from the basic humanity that one
owes to fellow human beings, one only needs to consider the fashion that
they treat war correspondents. During the Boxer Rebellion, the military
authorities dealt with journalists attached to the army with great
cruelty. The soldiers did not give a thought to the fact that
journalists lacked food, lodging, or medical care when they fell ill.
Not only did they insist that the journalists were no concern of theirs,
but they insulted them and reprimanded them, treating them as if they
were servants or enemies.
Soldiers claim that they are fighting for the nation. But are not the
journalists also members of the same nation? Are they not fellow
citizens? Why do soldiers lack any sense of duty to offer them care and
protection? They seem to think that the nation consists only of the
emperor, the soldiers themselves, and of nobody else.
As forty million of their fellow citizens followed the progress of the
army and waited impatiently for every piece of news and every report of
victory from the front, the journalists who covered the war at great
risk to their own lives sought to satisfy the thirst for information of
forty million people rather than simply to increase the circulation of
their newspapers. The military authorities that consider this type of
work useless do not feel a speck of sympathy for their forty million
fellow citizens.
The warriors of the feudal period thought the nation was their own
private property. They used their power to shape the nation in their
interests while they considered that other classes of society—farmers,
artisans, and merchants—had neither rights nor duties. Today, the
military thinks of the nation as belonging to the emperor and to the
military itself. Although they claim to love their country, they have no
concern for any compatriots who do not belong to the military.
Consequently, one can say that their patriotism is a blend of hatred for
the enemy and an absence of love toward their fellow citizens.
They increase the military budget by sacrificing the blood and tears of
the masses, dilapidate the productive capacity of the nation in wasteful
expenses, and exacerbate the rise in prices by their excessive imports.
And they do all of this for the sake of the nation. And these are the
result of their glorious patriotism!
They kill many of their enemies, seize their enemies’ property and land
for their own use, but they also double and triple the expenses of the
government. And they do this for the sake of the nation. And these are
the fruits of their glorious patriotism!
From my foregoing explanation, I believe that the reader will have
gained a general idea of so-called patriotism and love of country. In
brief, it is an animal instinct, a kind of superstition, a sort of
fanaticism, a type of vanity, and a belligerent posture.
One must not view patriotism as an ineradicable instinct and part of
human nature. Consider that the true reason for human progress is that
man can protect himself against the various poisons produced by nature.
Water goes bad when it stops moving and stays in one place: that is
nature. Should we reproach those who launch public works to make water
flow and prevent such stagnation because they are going against the
course of nature? People naturally age and fall sick: that is nature.
Should we prohibit the dispensing of medicines that cure illness because
they violate the natural way of life? The beasts, birds, and plants all
entrust their lives to nature and they die in accordance with natural
law. Whether they progress or regress, they do not do so through their
own efforts, but they simply abandon themselves to the flow of nature.
If man had simply followed the course of nature throughout history, he
would not be any different from the beasts, the birds, and the plants.
Human beings have made progress because they have striven to remedy the
evils of nature. The people who have achieved the greatest progress in
morality are those who are best able to control their natural desires.
The people who have made the greatest material progress are those who
can transform the products of nature. One who wishes to enjoy the
benefits of civilization must not blindly follow the course of nature.
Know that we must give up superstition and acquire knowledge, renounce
fanaticism and perfect our ability to reason, free ourselves from vanity
and search for truth, abandon all thoughts of war and attain universal
love. This is the royal road to progress for the human race.
Know as well that nations that fail to free themselves from this bestial
instinct and submit to manipulation by patriotism have a vile and
constricted nature and do not deserve to be called a highly civilized
people.
Know at last that those who strive to sacrifice politics, education, and
industrialization on the altar of patriotism are traitors to
civilization and enemies of progress and one should consider them as
criminal offenders against the human race. Since the middle of the
nineteenth century, they have not only attempted in the name of a blind
patriotism to enslave anew the majority of humanity, who had only
recently thrown off their shackles, but they have also reduced humanity
to the condition of bestiality.
Consequently, I assert that the justice and humanity of world
civilization must not permit patriotism to spread and should do all that
is necessary to extirpate this evil. Moreover, this contemptible
patriotism has given rise to militarism and to imperialism, and is
spreading throughout the world. I will next consider how militarism is
destroying world civilization and constitutes an obstacle to the
happiness of humanity.
In the entire history of mankind, the trend toward militarism has never
been as strong as it is at present. Militarism is truly at its zenith.
It is impossible to calculate the expenses, whether in treasure or in
lives, that the great powers devote to the expansion of their military
power. Why are these military efforts not confined to what is required
to defend the nation against the usual foreign threats or to prevent
internal conflicts, and why do they vastly exceed what is strictly
necessary? The defense budget imposes an enormous burden, at once
material and moral, on the entire nation in order to allow the expansion
of the army. The causes and objectives of this expansion must be sought
for outside the usual reasons of defense or self-protection that are
generally invoked.
The real motives for military expansion are to be found elsewhere. They
are none other than fanaticism, vanity, and a belligerent love of
country. However, the expansion of armaments is also promoted by
military officers who amuse themselves dreaming up new stratagems and
new military gadgets and by the greed of capitalists who seek to gain a
monopoly on the enormous profits that accrue to suppliers of weapons and
provisions ordered by the armed forces. In the case of England and
Germany, these latter factors play an especially important part in
bloated military budgets. However, what enables military men and
capitalists to gratify their greed is the possibility of stirring up a
jingoistic and arrogant patriotism among the vast majority of the
population.
The people in country A say, “We desire peace, but the people in country
B want war.” The people in country B say, “We desire peace, but the
people in country A want war.” What are we to make of such reasoning?
Nevertheless, the people of every country in the world delude themselves
with this nonsense.
In this way, the citizens of every country in the world compete to build
the most elaborate weapons and the biggest warships just as little girls
and boys vie to assemble the most beautiful dolls and toys for the
festivals of March 3 and May 5.[38] They compete with each other not
because they believe they face an imminent danger of being invaded by
their enemies or because they must prepare for a sudden dispatch of
troops overseas. Superficially, this competition resembles a game of
children, but what can we say of the terrible tragedies that lurk
beneath the surface?
The late General Moltke said, “World peace is only a dream, an illusion,
and it is not even an especially beautiful dream.”[39] The general may
think that the dream of peace is ugly, but he is nevertheless just as
much a dreamer as those he criticizes. Even though he defeated France
and was rewarded with an indemnity of five billion francs and the
provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, the business enterprises of France
have since enjoyed great prosperity while victorious Germany has been
plunged into economic depression. This economic situation is the clear
realization of the general’s beautiful dream. The results of such
dreaming have been quite sobering.
The Sociology of Barbarians In retaliation, General Moltke plans to use
his great army to administer a crushing defeat on France and plunge her
into a decadence from which she will not soon recover. This is a
political ploy in which the general hopes to bring economic prosperity
to his fellow citizens by winning another military victory. If we adopt
this way of thinking as a twentieth-century ideal, how can we escape
from an archaic ethics or free ourselves from the sociology of
barbarians?
However, General Moltke has become a model and an ideal figure in an age
of rising militarism. All over the world, little Moltkes have hatched,
just like spring shoots proliferate after a rain shower. Little Moltkes
are already on the march in this small nation of East Asia.
People mock the emperor Nicholas II, who has called for restrictions on
military spending, by labeling him a dreamer, and they ridicule Peace
Conferences. While they usually claim to desire peace, they also promote
military preparedness and proclaim the necessity of war. I will not harp
on the contradictions in their arguments, but what reasons do they give
for claiming that armaments and war are necessary?
Currently, there is no greater authority on military matters than
Admiral Mahan.[40] He is the recognized expert among the militarists and
imperialists of England and the United States, his writings are widely
circulated, and he has avid readers in Japan as well, as can be seen by
the spate of advertisements for translations of his books. Consequently,
all supporters of imperialism cite his views and believe they must read
him.
No one has made a stronger and more eloquent case for the virtues of
military preparedness and conscription than Admiral Mahan. He says:
Everyday, our ears are assailed by speakers pointing out the
shortcomings and damage caused by the build-up of military forces: it
wrecks the economy by cutting the production of goods and imposes a
harsh burden on the lives and the time of human beings. I have nothing
new to add on this score.
However, if we look at this issue from a different point of view, can we
not reply that these disadvantages are more than compensated for by the
benefits it confers? At a time when authority is weakening and morals
are in decline, can we say that the youth of our country are wasting
their time to learn order, obedience, and respect in the school of the
army, where they develop their physiques systematically and are
inculcated in the basic virtues of the soldier, such as courage,
self-control, and firmness of will? Many young men leave their villages
and towns and form a single mass, where they associate with elders who
have received a higher education. By joining their spirits together and
acting as one, they learn to respect the nation’s constitution and
imbibe political principles that remain with them after they return to
their hometowns. At a time when religious belief is in rapid decline, is
this not a valuable thing? If you compare fresh soldiers who have not
experienced conscription with a company of veterans who have completed
their training, you cannot fail to be impressed by their difference in
demeanor and attitude. The superiority of the latter to the former is so
great that no one can help but notice it. Military training is not
harmful to young men in later years when they lead active lives and
become the breadwinners of the family and it is certainly no more
wasteful of time and money than a university education. Since nations of
the world respect each other for their military power, they are able to
preserve peace and to cut down on the number of wars. When,
occasionally, a war suddenly breaks out, it is generally of short
duration and easily brought to an end. Can we say that this is without
benefit? In the past century, war was more like a chronic illness, but
today it is fairly rare, and, when it does occur, it assumes the form of
a sudden and acute attack. In the case of a sudden and acute outbreak of
war, soldiers who are well prepared, and confident that they are
fighting for a just cause, will be far more effective in battle and have
higher morale than an army of mercenary soldiers who lack a noble reason
to fight. In short, the soldiers in a modern army are the soldiers of
the people rather than the slaves of a despot or king.
Admiral Mahan is a clever writer who sets forth arguments in support of
his position in a plausible way, but I have noticed that the reality is
quite different from what he claims in his theories.
If we look closely at the theses of Admiral Mahan, we observe that he
asserts that young men learn respect for order and the virtue of
obedience by military training. He stresses the necessity of such
training at a time when political authority is weakening and moral
constraints are being relaxed. Furthermore, he argues that war is a kind
of illness, that it was chronic a century ago, but has become rare in
recent years now that all young men serve in the armed forces.
Consequently, when a war breaks out today, it is like an acute ailment.
In a period of general health one needs to pay attention to and be
prepared for the sudden outbreak of illness. The admiral argues that the
time when war was a chronic illness from which people suffered was also
a time when order was upheld and moral constraints were binding on
people, whereas he states that the period that we live in is a healthy
one in which “political authority is weakening and moral constraints are
being relaxed.” Is this not a strange way of reasoning?
Constraints
When the admiral speaks of the weakening of authority and the loosening
of morality, he specifically pins the blame for this state of affairs on
the birth of the socialist movement. Such ignorant rambling hardly
merits refutation. However, even if I were to concede, purely for the
sake of argument, that the restraints of morality have been weakened
over the past century and that present-day socialists work to undermine
so-called order and political authority in their societies, and that the
results of their activity are sapping the foundations of morality and
destroying religious faith, is he correct to argue that universal
conscription and military training constitute the most effective way to
cure these problems? Let us look at the facts.
Is it not true that the soldiers of the French army who fought on the
side of the Americans in the War of Independence found a powerful motive
to take part in the destruction of order during the French Revolution?
Did not the soldiers of the German army that invaded the city of Paris
become powerful agents for the spread of revolutionary thought
throughout the different city-states of Germany? Is it not a remarkable
phenomenon that the barracks of the European countries that have adopted
the system of universal conscription are a perfect breeding ground for
socialist ideas and an ideal school for the cultivation of rebellion
against present-day society? Since I favor the propagation and spread of
socialist thought and support institutional settings that serve this
purpose, I do not back the abolition of the barracks. However, I must
note that it is mistaken to think, as Mahan professes, that the barracks
are only a setting where soldiers are trained in obedience to their
superiors and in the beautiful virtue of respect.
The army of Caesar apparently had a measure of respect for the order of
the state. The army of Cromwell, who at the start brandished his sword
in the name of Parliament, later overthrew this same assembly. The
soldiers certainly recognized the authority of Caesar and Cromwell, but
they did not necessarily recognize the founding principles of state
order.
Do soldiers simply receive military training for the noble purpose of
fighting on behalf of the good? Are they simply applying their training
to the treatment of acute illness? If this were indeed true, will they
be content to continue their training patiently from start to finish,
and wait even if it takes a hundred years for a chance to bring their
remedy to bear on the acute illness? On the contrary, I believe that
they will be inclined to provoke the outbreak of illness in order to
exercise their own role as doctors.
Certainly, it is better for citizens to become soldiers rather than
servants of the kings and nobility. However, it is wrong to suggest that
the number of wars will decrease if the different countries of the world
respect one another’s military power. In the case of ancient Greece and
Rome, all the citizens were soldiers and not merely the servants of the
aristocrats, but that did not prevent the outbreak of war from becoming
a chronic condition. Since an army of mercenary soldiers proved adept at
conquering weaker countries, mercenaries have sometimes been preferred
over an army of purely conscripted soldiers. However, it is false to
claim that a system of universal conscription will effectively eliminate
war or reduce the frequency of its occurrence. The army of Napoleon was
an army of conscription, and in modern European history the wars between
Austria and France, the Crimean War, the war between Austria and
Germany, the Franco-Prussian War, [and] the Russo-Turkish War were all
tragic conflicts fought by conscripted armies.
The wars of modern times tend to end quickly not because all the
citizens in the nation receive military training, but rather because the
damages caused by war are too great and people are quicker to come to
their senses and reflect on the principles of human morality.
If the major powers, evenly matched in military power, have fought
almost no major wars since 1880, the reason is not that the people of
these countries respect the military power of their neighbors, but
rather because people reflect on the frightful consequence of war and
have become aware that war is a murderous form of madness.
France and Germany realize that they would both be ruined if a war were
to break out between them. Russia knows that it would fall into decay
and ruin if it fought a war with another great power.
This is the real reason why the great powers do not fight wars with one
another. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the spirit of respect
inculcated to soldiers by military training under a system of universal
conscription. It suffices to look at the ostentatious military power
that great powers flaunt in Africa and Asia. In short, military training
does much to rouse a soldier’s love of vainglory, belligerent spirit,
and animal instincts.
The militarists claim that just as steel must be tempered by fire and
water to make a sharp blade, a people will not become great until it has
been forged in the crucible of war. They also assert that the arts, the
sciences, and the manufacturing industry rarely attain a high level of
development unless they have been stimulated by war. They argue that the
periods in which the arts flourished since ancient times belong, by and
large, to the aftermath of military strife. Such was the case with the
age of Pericles, the epoch of Dante, or the Elizabethan period in
England. During the time of the Peace Conference, an influential
militarist from England defended this theory.
It is true that the people of the times of Pericles, Dante, and
Elizabeth all knew the experience of war. In fact, the history of the
world is filled with wars and the periods of great cultural flourishing
are far from being the only ones to have known war. However, most
periods that experienced war did not later go on to develop brilliant
literature: how, then, can one conclude that literary achievement is a
legacy of war?
It is a gross distortion to claim that literature began to flourish in
the aftermath of war and flawed logic to argue, based on a handful of
cases, that there is a causal relationship between war and literature.
Among the city-states of ancient Greece, Sparta was the one fondest of
war and had the greatest experience of fighting. Yet who can recall the
name of a single outstanding individual in the fields of science,
literature, or philosophy from ancient Sparta? During the reigns of
Henry VII and Henry VIII, England was embroiled in a violent civil war,
but there was no particular development in the fine arts worth
mentioning. Since the literary revival during the Elizabethan period was
already well underway before the defeat of the Spanish armada, one can
hardly argue that Spencer, Shakespeare, and Bacon appeared thanks to
war.
The Thirty Years’ War caused cultural decline and destruction in
Germany. Whereas the arts and sciences in France flourished after Louis
XIV acceded to the throne, they later fell into decline as a result of
his military adventures and revived only toward the end of his reign. Is
it not the case that French letters have tended to flourish more after
the nation’s military defeats than after its war victories? The
assertion that the literature of Tennyson and Thackeray and the
scientific theories of Darwin were the result of England’s victory in
the Crimean War would rightly be met with mockery. In modern Russia, who
would not laugh at the claim that the literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky,
and Turgenev was the product of Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War? The
great writers of Germany produced their works before the Franco-Prussian
War, not in its aftermath; the great period of American literature
occurred prior to the Civil War, not afterwards.[41]
As for the literature of Japan, it flourished during the peaceful Nara
and Heian periods and declined after the Hogen and Heiji
disturbances.[42] While literature experienced a short revival during
the serene reign of the HĹŤjĹŤ regents, it fell off once again when they
lost power in 1333, and for all intents and purposes it virtually
disappeared from the period of the Northern and Southern Courts, through
the Onin disorder, until the early sixteenth century.[43] During this
period, only the Zen monks of the Five Mountains kept a faint glimmer of
light alive, as anyone who has read the history of our country can
attest.
If the arts flourish after a war ends, the reason may be that artists
are able to lift up their heads once peace is restored whereas they are
oppressed and inhibited during the actual prosecution of war: it is
certainly not that they are stimulated by war itself. What did the
achievements of Murasaki Shikibu, Akazome Emon, or Sei ShĹŤnagon have to
do with war? What inspiration did Sanyo, Bakin, Furai, and Sorin derive
from military victories? What relation can one draw between warfare and
the works of ĹŚgai, ShĹŤyĹŤ, Rohan, and Koyo?[44]
I believe that war is only an obstacle to the progress of the arts and
of society and has never made a positive contribution to them or
furthered their development. Can we dignify with the name of art and
culture “Strike and Punish the Qing,” a famous war song that appeared
during the Sino-Japanese War?[45]
Whereas some writers have attributed the progress in the power and
accuracy of munitions and armaments to the requirements of warfare, I
would counter that such improvements owe much more to general scientific
and technical advancements that are the product of peaceful times. But
even if it were true that these improvements were the consequences of
war, how would such inventions contribute in any way to elevating the
level of knowledge and the morality of the people?
Indeed, militarism is certainly not an appropriate means to improve
society or to raise the level of civilization. Military maneuvers and
the military way of life do not increase a man’s intelligence or foster
virtues that can later be applied to the social and political spheres.
In order to offer evidence to prove this point, I will show that the
greatest military heroes throughout history, notwithstanding their
outstanding feats on the battlefield, have proved to be deficient as
political leaders and have few cultural accomplishments to their credit.
Alexander, Hannibal, and Caesar
In ancient times, the three leaders Alexander, Hannibal, and Caesar are
the most prestigious of all military heroes and every schoolboy learns
their names. However, while these men were true geniuses when it came to
destruction on the battlefields, they failed to leave behind a stable
foundation on which to build a new society. Looked at from a
geopolitical point of view, the empire established by Alexander was a
phenomenon that never should have come into being in the first place. It
was the product of a paroxysm of short-lived conquests and, as such, it
vanished just as quickly as it was created, in accordance with the
course of nature. Through a combination of military strategy and wise
planning, Hannibal subjugated Italy in fifteen years, but he failed to
establish his authority over the people of Rome and, in the end, was
unable to save Carthage from the madness of corruption. As a military
commander in the field, Caesar could be compared to a hungry tiger, but
as a politician mounting the podium, he was closer to an unseeing viper;
he only succeeded in pushing the Roman government into decadence and in
making it an object of contempt for the Roman people.[46]
Minamoto Yoshitsune was gifted in the ways of war, as were Kusunoki
Masashige and Sanada Yukimura, but who would dare to argue that they
excelled as political leaders? If they had become leaders of the nation
through their military exploits, would the HĹŤjĹŤ regents have held on to
power for nine generations? Would the Ashikaga have survived for
thirteen generations and the Tokugawa for fifteen?[47]
Xiang Yu won victory in seventy-four battles, both great and small, but
how can he be compared with Liu Bang who founded the Han dynasty and
codified the law in three chapters?[48] The eight divination techniques
of Zhuge Liang are not worth the first writings of the Emperor Wu on the
way of virtue.[49] The way that binds together the hearts of men living
in society and realizes peace on earth is not to be found in the power
to seize enemy banners or to defeat generals in battle. It must be
looked for elsewhere.
In the modern period, Frederick the Great and Napoleon were the two
military men who acquired the greatest political power. However,
Frederick from the start heartily detested the soldier’s life. He also
had the greatest difficulty learning how to fight wars and can hardly be
thought of as a suitable embodiment of the militarist ideal. Moreover,
after his death, he was unable to leave behind a solid foundation for
the state. As for the empire of Napoleon, while it glittered for a
moment like fireworks seen from the top of Ryogoku Bridge, it soon faded
away and disappeared.
Washington was a wise man. He began his career as a military general but
he ended it as a statesman. However, we should not regard him as a pure
specimen of the warrior type. He only waged war when he was compelled to
do so by the force of circumstances and he had no other alternative, not
because he took pleasure in fighting battles.
It is a noteworthy fact that, in the history of the United States, many
individuals with a military background are ranked among the finest
politicians of the past. Andrew Jackson was not the first soldier to
become president of the United States nor was his term as president the
first in which there was struggle for the spoils of political office.
General Grant is certainly one of the most highly respected of military
leaders in modern times. However, since the members of his party fell to
quarrelling among themselves, he did not make any great accomplishments
when he became president. He possessed great powers of endurance, plain
honesty, and a flair for war, but he was unable to apply these estimable
qualities to the tasks of running a civilian government.
Lincoln knew a great deal about military affairs and his understanding
of strategy and tactics compared favorably with that of the military
officers who served him, but this simply goes to prove that a truly
outstanding politician is just as capable of managing military matters
as he is of deciding political issues. As Confucius put it, an educated
man will necessarily be prepared to lead a military force. In fact,
Washington and Lincoln both provide examples of this general rule.
However, an excellent general will not necessarily prove to be a
competent politician, as is shown by the case of General Grant.
In the history of modern England, Nelson and Wellington are models of
the professional soldier on sea and on land, and are the objects of a
worshipful cult on the part of militarists throughout the world due to
their glorious achievements. While Wellington possessed political
talents that slightly exceeded those of the average politician, he did
not have the makings of a great leader who could inspire the masses and
resolve the great problems of his epoch. He opposed the creation of a
cheap class of service on the national railways because, as he argued,
it would only allow the “people from the lower classes to make
unnecessary trips throughout the country.” With respect to Nelson, there
is practically nothing to say about him since, apart from his skills as
a naval officer, he had nothing in particular to recommend himself as a
human being.[50]
Looking at our own country, why should we praise the talents of military
men? Admirers of Duke Yamagata, Baron Kabayama, and Count Takashima
worship them as the Moltke, the Nelson, and the Wellington of East Asia,
but what have they accomplished that deserves honorable mention in the
political and social annals of the Meiji period? Are they not guilty of
interfering in elections, buying off deputies, and plunging our society
into an abyss of corruption and decadence?[51]
You must not think that I am trying to place unfair blame on soldiers
and the army. Just as intelligent and wise men exist in other classes of
society, they are to be found among military men as well. I am more than
ready to pay my respects to such men.
However, these men do not acquire their wisdom and intelligence through
military training or the experience of war. Even without weapons,
epaulettes, or medals on their chest, a wise man is a wise man. Yet no
matter how intelligent or wise an individual officer may be, the
military profession and military form of training do not bring any
particular benefit to society as a whole.
We should not call for training in the spirit of unity. What is there to
admire about a unity that murders people? Nor should we call for mere
obedience to rules—what is there to respect about rules that dilapidate
our wealth? We should not call for the testing of bravery. What is there
to hope for from a bravery that only destroys civilization? Once the
soldier steps outside of the barracks, all of these things—unity,
obedience to rules, and bravery—vanish into thin air and leave no trace
behind. In their place we find only the evil customs of blind obedience
to the powerful and the humiliation of the weak.
Militarism and warmongering are not the only obstacles that block social
progress and civilization, but they are terrible poisons that bring
about great destruction and misery.
Militarists claim there is no distinction between the role of citizen
and soldier in the earliest civilized societies. To support this
argument, they adduce examples from ancient Egypt and Greece and contend
that military preparedness leads to advances in civilization. However,
they are mistaken. I believe that Egypt’s prosperity might have lasted
for centuries and its empire continued to exist for millennia if it had
refrained from military conquests and had avoided the decadence of the
military way of life. As for ancient Greece, it is worth taking a moment
to reflect on its history.
Not all of the city-states in ancient Greece had the same views on
military matters. Sparta was a thoroughly militarized society, military
training shaped its everyday life, and its economy was organized around
the prosecution of war. As for the contributions that Sparta made to
civilization, I have already noted that there is nothing worth
mentioning on that score. The city-state of Athens is a completely
different case. Pericles promised that he would show his mettle in the
case of a real emergency although he did not have to endure the
hardships of military training. He did not suffer by comparison with men
who devote their entire lives to military training to prepare for war, a
fact that proves that such training offers no great benefit. Do the
militarists of our time choose Sparta as their model or do they prefer
Athens?
No matter how ignorant or obstinate, they would hardly dare to praise
the barbaric militarism of Sparta and reject the economic prosperity and
civilization of Athens. However, if one looks closely at their pet
theories, it is clear that Sparta, rather than Athens, more closely
corresponds to their highest ideal.
The militarists will doubtless reply, “We do not wish to fall into the
excesses of Sparta, but we want to imitate the militarism of Athens and
learn from its noble qualities” In comparison with Sparta, the
superiority of Athens is undeniable. But even in the case of Athens, in
what way did its military preparations contribute to the improvement of
its political life? In what way did they help to better the social life
and improve the moral character of the people? Aside from urging the
citizens to fight in wars, what advantages could military readiness
possibly bring?
Athens fought in the Peloponnesian War for three decades. If militarism
truly had positive effects on the nation, one would expect that these
effects must have been at their peak during the Peloponnesian War.
However, contrary to expectations, the consequences of this war were
wholly negative ones, consisting mainly of corruption and decadence. If
one wishes to understand how the Peloponnesian War swept away the
morality of the Greek people, destroyed their religious beliefs, ruined
their rationality, and in general created a catastrophic situation, one
must read the account given by Thucydides in his great history of the
Peloponnesian War.[52] He writes as follows:
Revolts broke out in the different city-states and the spirit of
rebellion spread with the force oflife itself throughout the land,
destroying everything that existed. Men’s projects became ever more
violent and their acts of revenge ever more atrocious. The meaning of
words no longer corresponded to the reality of things and men simply
assigned them the sense that accorded with their desires. Impulsive
violence was praised as fearless, prudent and careful thought was
condemned as cowardice, moderation was treated as the mask of weakness,
and the sage who understood everything was unable to accomplish
anything. Manliness was thought to consist of fanaticism and violence
... Those who were most enamored of violence won the trust of other men,
but those who opposed it earned the suspicions of their fellows. Those
who did not wish to participate in the plots of the political factions
from the start were ostracized by the others, and were treated as
poltroons who feared the enemy .... Those who deceived the others with
criminal schemes were admired and those who incited them to commit
crimes were venerated .... Taking vengeance against the enemy became
more important than protecting one’s own life. Many of the different
parties came together to form a vast alliance in order to wield enough
influence to crush the other parties and to impose their draconian
policies and violence. A frightful spirit of vengeance gave birth to
other acts of vengeance in an endless cycle .... In these ways, all the
vices of the Greeks fermented amid these political revolutions. Candor,
a great element making up a noble disposition, was ridiculed and all but
disappeared, while an ugly spirit of contention and dispute thrived
everywhere. No one could pronounce a single word that would restore
harmony and no one could swear an oath that would win trust among the
people. The people who won the greatest success were those with the
fewest scruples.[53]
And these are the consequences of war, in a society where every citizen
was given military training, in ancient Greece, the most civilized
country of the ancient world, and also the results of the preparation
for war that our militarists glorify. Militarists in our own country of
Japan can discover the same state of mind among citizens of our society
in the wake of the Sino-Japanese War. What satisfaction can they derive
from it?
Let us look at the case of Rome. What sort of moral disposition did the
citizens of Rome acquire when they were robbed of their freedom and
persevered in war? What great virtues did they perfect? The country was
transformed into a slaughterhouse in which the worst massacres were
perpetrated, a Marius appeared on the scene of history, and then a
Sulla.[54] The civil republic degenerated into a regime of aristocratic
despotism and the citizens of Rome, who had prided themselves on their
self-rule, fell to the condition of miserable slaves.
The accusations of treason brought against Dreyfus in France, which have
aroused the conscience of people around the world, offer a compelling
example of the corruption that military interference in politics causes
in the life of civil society.
The trial was held in conditions of secrecy, the verdict was excessive
and cruel, and the rumors propagated during the affair were preposterous
and libelous. Because of legal irregularities, the public could hardly
help but wonder whether the top command of the French army was filled
with knaves and fools. There is no room to doubt that the organization
of the army offers an ill-intentioned man ample opportunity to work
mischief. What’s more, it has the perverse effect of causing men who
support justice in civilian society to be treated as fools. This is far
truer of the military than it is of any other institution in society.
The reason is that the internal organization of the army is a world of
oppression, a world where might makes right, a world of rigid hierarchy
and blind obedience. Those who enter this world must leave all thoughts
of righteousness and morality behind.
With the exception of the countries of the Far East, in which the
independence of the judiciary is incomplete, one can only find examples
of such corrupt proceedings and such a miscarriage of justice in the
trials of military tribunals. These procedures have nothing whatsoever
to do with usual judicial process or with the ordinary penal code.
However, many tens of thousands of brave fighters for justice stepped
forward to defend Dreyfus, to clear his name of the slanderous charges
leveled against him, and to demand a retrial. They insisted that one
innocent man should not become a scapegoat to conceal the ugly
corruption of the armed forces. And the writer Emile Zola came to the
fore and, in words that dazzled like a display of fireworks, led 40
million of his compatriots in a passionate and courageous battle to
rectify this miscarriage of justice.
If Zola had held his silence, the French army would never have budged
from its position and the retrial of Dreyfus would never have taken
place. However, in the end the determination of a single man of letters
overpowered the shamelessness, injustice, and cowardice of the army.
Does the training that soldiers receive include any moral instruction?
Mencius writes: “I refuse to yield even when millions oppose me if to
yield is to betray my conscience.” Why is it that one never encounters
such a courageous spirit, epitomized by the man of letters Zola, among
the splendid and imposing soldiers of the army?
Certain writers argue that soldiers in the army enjoy no freedom of
choice and must obey their superiors. With such reasoning, they seek to
justify the blind obedience that the soldiers of the French army showed
in the Dreyfus affair. I do not know if this is really the case, but if
they are right, it offers excellent proof of the moral corruption
rampant in the military.
Field Marshal Kitchener, who commands the British army at war in the
Transvaal today, is worshipped as a god by English militarists and
imperialists.[55] But he also took pleasure in desecrating the tomb of
the chief of the Mahdi during the battle to conquer the Sudan.[56] More
than two thousand years ago, when Wu Xiwu ordered the dead body of his
father’s enemy whipped to avenge his father’s death, he was condemned by
the thinking men of the time. What can we say about it when the same
thing happens at the end of the nineteenth century, in our civilized
period? To exhume the body of a great man called the “savior” or the
“barbarian saint” by the indigenous people is an unacceptable action on
the part of a commander who acts under the protection of the British
flag, a military man who, according to Admiral Mahan, should be
inculcated with the virtues of endurance and courage. What a frightful
picture: rousing the citizens of a nation, making them believers in the
cult of militarism, worshipping as an ideal the profanation of the tomb
of the Mahdi, and entrusting to the hands that committed such atrocities
the destiny of a nation.
Consider the cruel violence committed by the soldiers of the Russian
army sent to north China in recent days. In the region of Tongzhou
alone, they threatened and drowned over seven hundred women.[57] The
only possible purpose of this action was to terrify the innocent. If it
is true that military training and war preparations improve human
character and elevate the moral sense, then the Cossacks who have lived
and died in battle since the thirteenth or fourteenth century should be
paragons of morality and models of human character. However, the facts
show that the contrary is true.
If militarism truly fostered the wisdom and the virtue of the people of
a country and had the potential to improve its moral character, then
Turkey should occupy the first place among the European nations.
The government of Turkey is a military regime and its budget is a
military budget. If we consider its military power, then Turkey is
certainly not a weak country even though its hegemony has begun to
decline since the start of the nineteenth century. The Turkish army has
fought bravely at Nawalino, in Crimea, at Plevna, and Thessaly, and it
has never proved a pushover.[58]
In addition, the Turkish take pride in their military power, but are
they correct to do so? When one judges the corruption, violence,
poverty, and ignorance in this country according to the criteria of
civilization, then Turkey occupies the lowest rank among the nations of
Europe. The fate of this country, which Tsar Nicolas I has called the
Sick Man of Europe, can rightly be compared to that of a precarious
thread about to be cut off.[59]
Germany claims that, just as in the past, it remains a country in which
people have acquired a high level of education and in which the arts and
sciences flourish. But now that the militaristic policy of “iron and
blood” has swept away everything else in its path, what place is left in
this nation for noble thinkers and philosophers?
The nation of Germany was once the source of the highest ethical ideas
in Europe. The names of Kant, Schiller, Herder, Goethe, Richter, Fichte,
Marx, Lasalle, Wagner, and Heine are famous throughout the civilized
world, the influence and the authority of their thought can be described
as limitless, but where are their successors today? Many of our artists
and scientists have traveled to Germany to study philosophy and ethics
or reflect on the great problems of justice and morality, but are there
today any noteworthy figures among the Germans in literature or
religious thought?[60]
There is nothing mysterious about this. The phoenix and the qilin do not
thrive behind barbed wire.[61] In the world today, which idolizes Prince
Bismarck and General Moltke, it is pointless to expect that a Goethe or
a Schiller will be reborn. Pathetic militarists, how can you advance the
cause of civilization with figures like Wilhelm, von Bulow, and
Waldersee?[62]
Therefore I say that a day spent carrying out military policy means a
day of moral degeneration for the people. A day devoted to the exercise
of violence is a day in which theoretical thought goes extinct. Ever
since Germany became the Germany of Bismarck, it has given up the moral
influence that it used to exert throughout Europe in the past. In the
ten years that have passed since Wilhelm II acceded to the throne,
several thousand people have been punished for the crime of lese majeste
and among those arrested are many adolescents. And this is the nation
that the good people of Japan idolize and seek to emulate. The
militarists still hope to take Germany as a model, but how could one
find anything to admire in the politics of a militaristic country?
Among other tributes that militarists pay to the glories of war, they
say that the history of nations is a history of warfare. Just as duels
were formerly the final court of appeal in which disagreements between
individuals were settled, warfare now renders the final verdict that
resolves the disputes between different nations. As long as there are
different nations on earth, they will inevitably fight wars and
therefore need to build up their defenses as a preparatory measure. They
also state that military training helps people to develop strong bodies,
to learn the virtues of endurance, and to build firmness of character.
Wars develop boys with strong wills and high spirits. If war were
abolished, the world would become weak and effeminate. Is there any
truth to this argument?
I do not have time here to address the pros and cons of the duel as a
means to settle private disputes. But it is thoroughly illogical to
compare war that pits one nation against another with a duel between two
individuals. Whether it is a matter of duels in the nations of the West
or of personal vendettas in Japan, the objectives of such contests of
will were always to preserve the honor of the individual, to save face;
an exchange of arms between men took place on equal terms, and in broad
daylight. In addition, if one of the two combatants happened to be
wounded or killed in the fight, the dispute ended then and there. There
was no room left for the slightest resentment in the heart of the other.
In the case of war, however, the exact opposite is true. No questions of
honor are involved, the objectives are evil, and the means used base and
loathsome.[63]
In the past, war resembled dueling between individuals since it
consisted of a series of engagements between evenly matched warriors,
mounted on horseback, who announced their names before they started to
fight. However, it would be ridiculous to treat such cases as typical of
warfare in general. Wars inevitably involve guile and trickery. Wars
organized on equal terms and fought in broad daylight have been the butt
of laughter for the military since ancient times, as is proven by the
expression the “benevolence of Duke Xiang of Song.”[64]
In short, war is merely a contest in stratagems of cunning and the
development of war is the development of such stratagems. Barbarians in
primitive societies made great use of cunning: they struck at the enemy
when he least expected it, launched ambushes, attacked in the middle of
the night, cut the enemy’s supply lines, and set traps. In such fights,
those who have not developed the art of deceit to the requisite degree
are sure to lose their lives, have their goods stolen, and their lands
taken away. In this struggle for survival, only the craftiest and
trickiest contestant will survive. When ordinary machinations no longer
worked, the belligerents were faced with the necessity to train harder
and to develop more sophisticated weapons and stratagems. This has been
the general trend in the development and progress of military techniques
since ancient times.
Each and every step in the development of warfare has consisted only in
devising new ways of tricking and ensnaring the enemy. No matter how
ignoble the objective and however vile the means, planners of war
strategy have never wasted a moment submitting either ends or means to
the tests of ethics. How can one seriously speak of war as having
anything in common with the individual duel? How can one claim that it
resembles a contest in which two individuals match their strength,
endurance, and force of character, all considered to be manly virtues?
Whereas a private duel comes to an end when one of the parties defeats
the other, war is simply an ongoing disaster in which vengeance leads to
more vengeance.
Ultimately, war consists of plots, of dirty tricks, of effeminate
behavior, of crafty stratagems: it is not a fair or open contest at all.
For as long as society needs to indulge in and to prize warfare, mankind
will never be able to free itself from a crafty and effeminate morality.
In addition, in all the nations of the world, the vast majority of young
men are dragged off and thrown into the hell of military barracks where
they are taught to develop their animal nature so that they can take
part in contemptible and evil wars.
Look at the young conscripts as they leave their beloved villages and
part, in tears, from their beloved parents and families. Watch them weep
as they leave their farm animals and pets behind. They enter the
barracks far away from the lovely mountains, streams, and the peaceful
fields of their villages. Night and day, all they hear is the scolding
voice of their superior officers; the only sight they see are the cruel
and vicious faces of the veteran soldiers. Carrying heavy packs on their
backs, they race to the west and to the east. Enduring their great
fatigue, they turn to the left and march off to the right. Three
monotonous and painful years are wasted in such maneuvers.
They earn the daily pittance of three sen for their labor, an allowance
that is equivalent to the sum earned by a beggar. They can hardly afford
to pay for a pack of cigarettes or even a postal stamp, and on top of
that, they are regularly subjected to cruel and degrading treatment from
the veteran soldiers. They are unable to obtain money to purchase food
and drink and are not allowed to carry around with them the smallest
amount of spending money.
Even those from a wealthy background endure such treatment, but for
those who come from poor families, military service means three long
years of hunger and privation and the humiliation of being constantly
reprimanded by their superiors. In many cases, the wealthy can win
exemptions from military service in order to pursue higher education or
because they have frail and sickly constitutions. But the children of
the poor have no alternative other than to endure this cruelty and
suffering. The unfairness of the conscription system is public
knowledge. When I hear that a conscripted man has skipped his induction
calls, or fled the barracks, and then, driven to desperation by the
cruel treatment he received, ended up killing himself, I cannot blame
such a man for taking his life and feel the deepest sympathy for his
plight.[65]
After they spend three years in this way, what is left for them when
they return to their homes? Their parents have grown older and weaker,
their fields have been left untended, and they themselves have become
depraved by their experiences. How can one affirm that the nation
genuinely needs this system or speak of the call of duty?
We must stop glorifying military weapons and venerating the system of
military conscription. I have learned that the system of conscription
produces a wave of vagabonds and squanders the productive capacities of
the nation, and that many promising young lives are ruined by their
experiences in the military. The morality and the traditional customs of
regions of the country are corrupted when military barracks are built in
their proximity and the good citizens that live in the path of military
maneuvers often have to endure the excessive demands of the military.
Neither the building of weapons nor the system of conscription adds even
a single grain of rice to our food supply or contributes even a trifling
sum of money to the national income. Not only do they do nothing
positive to favor the sciences, the arts, or the noble ideals of
religion and morality, but they cause great harm and destruction to all
of these.
Ah, politicians and citizens of every country in the world, why do you
mobilize so many troops, deploy so many weapons and battleships, and why
have you for so long issued challenges to one another? Why don’t you
hurry to abandon this game in which you deceive one another like foxes
and devour one another like rabid dogs, and endeavor to reach the higher
realm of civilization and morality?
Even though men are well aware that war is a criminal act that causes
great hardships, they have no desire to see it disappear once and for
all. They are cognizant of the justice and the advantages that peace and
universal love would bring, but they have no wish to see these hopes
realized in the near future. Why do they hesitate to take decisive
action to abolish war preparations once and for all and enjoy in return
the benefits of peace and humanity?
People wish to increase the production of manufactured products at
affordable prices and to stimulate the growth of commerce with other
nations. And they know perfectly well that the military budget consumes
enormous amounts of capital and is an immense drain on the nation’s
productive capacity, that wars interrupt the smooth flow of commerce and
cause economic stagnation. Why do they not decrease military spending
and cut back on their armaments, using the money they save to invest in
industry and domestic enterprises?
Two years ago, the emperor of Russia proposed that a peace conference be
held to limit military expenditures; none of the great powers of the
world voiced the slightest objection to his proposal.[66]
Representatives of twenty countries participated in the conference,
including England, the United States, Germany, France, Russia, Austria,
Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Japan, and China. They issued a final resolution
at the Peace Conference that stated: “We recognize that it would be most
desirable to limit the crushing burden of military expenditures in
today’s world in order to advance the material and spiritual welfare of
mankind.” Furthermore, they also agreed on the criteria for the creation
of a court of arbitration to settle disputes between nations in a
peaceful manner: “We sincerely hope to act in cooperation with other
nations to maintain world peace and to work together to settle
international disputes in a peaceful manner.... Since we hope to
establish a firm international order founded on principles of justice,
we recognize the need to establish impartial and just rules by
international agreement in order to ensure the peace and welfare of the
people of the world” (Treaty for the Peaceful Resolution of
International Conflict). However, why do they not expand this resolution
to include the abolition of land and naval military forces throughout
the world?
Needless to say, governments would reply to my argument that the present
level of military expenditures is necessary to uphold world peace. But,
in light of their lust for fame and vanity, politicians and military
officials do not intend to allow their cannons to rust from lack of use
or to permit their warships to fall into disrepair. They are simply
waiting for an opportunity to put these weapons to use. They are like
drunken bullies, holding a sword in one hand and on the lookout for
someone to persecute. Only a thin line separates peace preservation from
disruption of peace, and they are always ready to cross it. Even if the
great powers of Europe endeavor to preserve the peace by maintaining
sufficient forces to preserve a balance of power, they abruptly change
and act to destroy peace in the name of imperialism once they encounter
a weaker and less populous nation in Asia and Africa. It suffices to
look at what they have done in China and South Africa. They have made
inconsequential and half-hearted gestures in favor of world peace but
they have hardly reduced the number of their weapons at all. How can
they hope to enjoy the fruits of peace unless they do away with their
armies?
Not only are they unwilling to contemplate dismantling their military
forces, but they devote great efforts to exhausting all the resources
and treasures of the country to reinforce them. Their conscience is
completely smothered by a desire for fame and material gain, a
belligerent spirit, and animal instincts. A spirit of empty ostentation
snuffs out their feelings of humanity, their sense of justice and
morality, and their reason is darkened by the powers of superstition.
While individuals in our societies have been deprived of weapons, states
remain armed to the teeth. Individuals are not permitted to settle their
conflicts by violence, but states retain the right to provoke wars. The
civilization of the twentieth century has transcended the morality in
which the strong prey on the weak. But the nations of the world are
still subject to the law of the jungle, with its wild beasts and poison
snakes. Is it not a bitter shame and a disgrace that people cannot live
in peace and security? Is this something that men of advanced social
views can afford to overlook or ignore?
The wild beast polishes its claws and nails and roars because it must
seek its prey to survive. Unable to free themselves from their bestial
nature, patriots bolster the military power of their nation and increase
its arsenal of weapons to satisfy their own vanity, belligerence, and
superstition. And they, too, must constantly search out new victims. For
that reason, it is hardly surprising that the policy of territorial
expansion assumes its full dimensions when patriotism and militarism
reach fever pitch. The end result is the popularity of the policy of
imperialism today.
Imperialism means the construction of a great empire, and the
construction of a great empire implies the acquisition of far-flung
territories. However, I am pained to note that the acquisition of new
territories can only take place at the cost of numerous crimes and
injustices, widespread corruption and degradation, and all kinds of
destruction and decadence. On what evidence do I base this judgment?
The building of an empire would be a wonderful thing if it consisted
only in the settlement and cultivation of virgin, empty, and wild
territories. However, are there truly any such empty, unused, and
undiscovered territories left in the world today when the rapid
development in the means of transportation has made it possible for man
to reach every part of the globe? If every part of the world belongs to
someone and is inhabited, how could one occupy even a square inch of new
territory without resorting to violence, declaring war, or employing
trickery and deception? The policy of territorial expansion, whether
practiced by the Europeans in Asia and Africa or by the Americans in the
South Seas, is always accomplished by the deployment of militarism and
the use of armed force.
In order to carry out this policy, the imperialists must spend millions
of dollars each day and lose hundreds of lives each month. In order to
implement their military strategy year by year, they fan the flames of
bestial patriotism among the masses, who are nevertheless the first
victims of these policies.
Think about it: in order to expand their military power and satisfy
their private interests, they invade foreign territories at will,
plunder the wealth and resources of these lands, and either massacre
their people or reduce them to a state of servitude. And then they
proudly proclaim before the world: “We are building a great empire.”
However, how does the building of a great empire differ from theft and
plunder?
Politicians advocating imperialism, lacking in any sense of justice or
righteousness, claim that this policy of theft and plunder is simply the
way of the samurai and they take pride in these actions. Many of the
actions committed by heroes and adventurers of the previous century and
earlier were hardly different from those of present-day conquerors. But
it is time for us to open our eyes. The heavens cannot help but be
angered by such injustice and villainy. What could prevent the fall of
empires in the past that were based on military expansion? The
imperialists stir up the bestial nature of the populace to invade and
conquer foreign countries in order to enrich themselves and to uphold
unity and social peace in the home country. But once they have seized
foreign lands and built a great empire, the people are deluded with
pride, the military gain influence and the new territories are plundered
and oppressed, the tax burden increases, and the finances of the colony
are ruined. Ultimately, in every case, the results are the devastation
of the new territories, growing poverty, inequality, and rebellion; in
the home country, the fruits are greed, corruption, and decadence. After
falling into decline, this old empire will in turn become the prey of
another rising empire. Without exception, the military empires of the
past have suffered this fate.
Gazing at the ruins of Carthage, Scipio the African lamented, “Some day
Rome will endure the same fate,” and history later proved him right.
What has become of the great empire founded by Genghis Khan? Or of
Napoleon’s empire? What about the lands annexed by the Empress Jingu? Or
the great plans of conquest of Toyotomi Hideyoshi? All these empires
have vanished like the morning mist, without leaving a trace behind. One
should not assert that the empires of Christian countries will last
forever: remember that in its final years the Roman Empire was
Christianized. One must not say the empires will not decline if they
liberate their slaves, since the great Spanish Empire fell after it
abolished the system of slavery in its territories. One must not say
that the industrialized empires will not in the end decline. Weren’t the
Moors and the Florentines industrial powers of their times?
The prosperity of the nation must not be based on theft and pillage, and
the greatness of a people can never be built on a foundation of plunder
and invasion. The progress of civilization will not occur under the
despotism of a single ruler and the welfare of society will not be
brought about by unification under a single flag. These goals can only
be achieved by peace, freedom, universal love, and equality. Consider
that the people of our country benefited from the peaceful rule of the
HĹŤjĹŤ and compare their fates to the soldiers of Kublai Khan. Today, the
people of Belgium enjoy more peaceful lives than the people of Germany
or Russia.
There is a famous slogan that “trade follows in the wake of the flag.”
The lessons of history show us clearly, however, that ruin follows in
the wake of the flag. Even though the cart in front has been overturned
in its tracks, the other carts behind follow in the same path. And the
lights of the revolving lantern turn endlessly. Today, I fear that the
present empires of Europe and the United States will meet the same fate
that Scipio lamented in ancient Rome.
Some imperialists concede that the great empires of the past were
established just to satisfy the private interests and the vanity of
kings and their political advisors. However, they argue, territorial
expansion today expresses the irrepressible need for expansion of the
citizens. In the past, imperialism was a private matter but today it is
a popular and national cause.
Is this really the case? Does imperialism today truly represent the
expansion of the people? Or does this expansion only serve the desire
for fame of a small number of politicians and military leaders and the
interests of a few capitalists and speculators? Consider that the
reverse side of this so-called expansion of the people is that the
struggle for survival grows more difficult every day for the vast
majority of people. Isn’t there a widening gulf between rich and poor, a
worsening of poverty and hunger, an increase in the number of
anarchists, and a worsening toll of crimes and other social ills? What
benefit do the masses derive from unlimited expansion?[67]
A small minority of military officers, politicians, and capitalists
block any improvement in the livelihood of the vast majority of the
population, destroy their meager savings, and even take their lives in
order to build their great empire. Not only do they sacrifice the
progress and welfare of the vast majority of their citizens, but they
also threaten and murder the poor and defenseless people in Asia,
Africa, and the Philippines. And they have the cheek to call this the
“expansion of the people” Even if the majority of the people benefited
from such a policy, it would still not represent any real progress,
since it is nothing more than a subtle manipulation of their bestial
love of war and an exploitation of their jingoistic feeling and
superstition and fanaticism. This policy causes damage and injustice
today much as the ancient empires did.
England conquers the Transvaal, deprives the Boer people of their
independence and freedom, takes control of their gold mines, seeks to
unify Africa under the British flag, and builds train lines across the
continent in order to allow capitalists, industrialists, and speculators
to satisfy their greed for profits, fulfill the ambitions of Cecil
Rhodes, and gratify Chamberlain’s desire for glory. For the attainment
of these useless objectives, how many horrible and astonishing
sacrifices have been made![68]
In the nearly five hundred days that have elapsed between the outbreak
of the war in the Transvaal in October 1899 and my taking up the pen to
write this manuscript, the number of British soldiers killed has reached
thirteen thousand and the number of wounded is even higher. In addition,
some thirty thousand soldiers have been released from military service
and returned to their homes as cripples. As for the number of the
indigenous dead, there is no way to calculate the real toll.
Moreover, think of the economic costs of war. In order to transport two
hundred thousand soldiers to distant battlefields, the nation dispatches
countless ships to places thousands of miles away, costing an estimated
two million yen per day. England has already squandered more than one
billion yen of its wealth to spill the blood of both peoples. In
addition, it has had to halt the extraction of gold from the mines
because of the war, costing an additional two hundred million yen in
lost production. This war has not only brought misfortune to the two
belligerent parties but has also had severe repercussions on the welfare
of the entire world.
The suffering of the indigenous people is truly to be pitied. The
English have taken countless prisoners and have deported some six
thousand to the island of Saint Helena, another two thousand four
hundred to Ceylon, while General Kitchener is about to send a further
twelve thousand to India. Both countries have almost run out of young
people to send to the battlefield, the fields are untended, and crops no
longer grow where the engines of war have passed. What blame do these
people bear for this war?
Considering these facts, how can one claim today that imperialism has
not resulted in injustice and corruption? How can one say that it has
not caused violence and destruction? How could a people with a high
moral sense permit it? How can the lands of civilization in the
twentieth century accept it?
If even England, a nation that cherishes liberty and loves peace,
behaves as I have described, then how can anyone be shocked that
Germany, the very incarnation of militarism, sacrifices untold wealth to
expand its army and navy? Last year, during the Boxer Rebellion, the
kaiser of Germany dispatched General Waldersee to East Asia and he
publicly proclaimed his intention to seek vengeance.[69] The Social
Democratic Party of Germany, at its congress in September the same year,
passed a resolution that unmasks the reality of German imperialism.
Resolution of the German Social Democratic Party Adopted at the congress
in Mainz:[70]
The policy of intervention in China adopted by the German imperial
government is the result of the frenetic pursuit of profits by
capitalists [and] militarist vanity to build an empire and a greed for
plunder. The aims of this policy are to occupy foreign territories by
force and to oppress their people. As a result of this ideology,
plundering armies have employed violence and war to inflict destruction
on foreign countries and satisfied their greed by annexing territories
by illegal and unjust means. The victims who have suffered from these
policies have inevitably been led to resist the aggressors. Furthermore,
these policies of plunder and aggression have roused envy and heightened
rivalries among the major powers. As a result, spending for naval and
land forces has imposed an intolerable burden on these countries. This
has heightened the danger of international conflict and the threat of
global chaos.
Since the Social Democratic Party is firmly opposed to the exploitation
and oppression of man by man, we strongly protest against these
predatory and aggressive policies. The aim of our party is to respect
and preserve human rights, freedom, and independence and to promote the
development of peaceful relations and exchanges among the countries of
the world based on the principles of modern civilization. The principles
that have been adopted by the bourgeoisie and the military powers of
these countries are a great disgrace to civilization, etc.[71]
Do not these just and impartial words rival the sun and stars in
illuminating our troubled world?
The imperialism of the European countries, which aims for territorial
aggrandizement through conquest and plunder, is truly a great insult to
civilization and humanity. However, I must acknowledge that U.S.
imperialism is also following the same iniquitous and immoral path.
The United States helped the Cuban rebels free themselves from the yoke
of Spain in the name of the principles of freedom and humanity. Some
people admire the justice and righteousness of America’s actions in this
case. Indeed, if the Cuban people had wanted to be placed under the rule
of America as an expression of its gratitude for America’s support, we
would have no reason to object to this annexation. We do not mean to
imply that Americans used deception to instigate the Cubans to rebel
against the Spanish. However, we cannot accept their conquest and
annexation of the Philippine archipelago.
Did the United States sincerely fight for the freedom of the Cuban
rebels? Why then have they cruelly suppressed the freedoms of the
Filipino people? If they really supported the independence and
sovereignty of Cuba, then why have they intervened to prevent the
independence of the Philippines? Against the will of the Filipino
people, they have invaded the country with military force, confiscated
their lands, and seized their resources. This action is the greatest
blemish on the glorious history of the United States since the founding
of its republic, which was based on the principles of freedom and
civilization. While the United States has earned profits from annexing
the land and the wealth of the Philippines, in what way do their actions
differ from those of military bands that pillage to enrich themselves?
What have they done to the achievements of their forefathers, their
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Monroe Doctrine?
Constitution?
How can one assert that a nation must expand its territories to survive
in today’s world? While the founders of the nation established the
nation in the name of freedom and humanity, why have they turned their
backs on this past and degenerated to the point that they allege that
territorial expansion is necessary for the existence of the nation?
Let us grant for the sake of argument that the United States would fall
into economic crisis if it did not continue to expand territorially.
Even if this were the case, the wealth and the profits that they gain
from the annexation of the Philippines would hardly suffice to overcome
such a crisis; it might allow them to improve the situation for a day or
so, but their ultimate collapse would only be postponed for a short
time. With their population and vast territory, their limitless supply
of capital and the power of their business enterprises, how can they
take seriously such imaginary dangers and fearful scenarios without fear
of becoming the butt of the world’s ridicule?
I believe that if the United States faces a crisis that threatens their
national survival in the future, this crisis will not be caused by the
smallness of their territory, but rather by their unlimited territorial
expansion. It will result not from their failure to exercise their
political power in the world, but rather from the corruption and
decadence that has infected their own society, not from the small size
of their market, but rather from the unfair distribution of wealth, from
the destruction of freedom and equality, and from the rampant spread of
imperialist and expansionist ideologies.
Consider for the moment the reason for the present prosperity and wealth
of the United States. Is it based on freedom or oppression? Reason or
violence? The strength of its economy or the power of its weapons? The
vanity of its expansionists or the diligence of its entrepreneurs?
Liberalism or imperialism? At the moment, the nation is starting to head
down an evil path, driven by a desire for glory and profits and a
fanatical nationalism. I not only fear the dangers that their future
holds in store, but I also feel deep anguish for the future of freedom,
justice, and morality.
Last fall, the Democratic Party of the United States passed a resolution
during a meeting held in the state of Iowa. I was deeply moved by the
following passage:
We are opposed to the conquest of the Philippines. In general,
imperialism implies militarism, militarism signifies a government by
force, and a government by force in turn means the death of
representative government, the destruction of economic and political
freedom, the murder of human rights and equality, and the abolition of
the democratic system of government.
In short, throughout the world, imperialism has brought in its wake a
host of injustices and disasters.
Imperialists in England and Germany both justify the need for the
construction of empire on the grounds that it permits people to emigrate
overseas. They argue that the population of their countries is growing
every year and that the number of the poor is constantly increasing. The
only way that this surplus population can hope to survive is to move
overseas through the expansion of territory. At first glance, such an
argument seems very reasonable.
I will concede that the population of England and Germany is increasing
and that the number of the poor is growing. However, is it true that the
growing number of the poor is caused by the increase in population? Is
there no other solution to the problem of poverty than to promote the
emigration of people to lands overseas? This is a question that deserves
a closer look. If we follow the reasoning of the imperialists to its
logical conclusion, then the more populous a country is, the poorer its
people will be, and inversely, the fewer people that live in a country
the richer it will be. However, this is an absurd argument. This
completely contradicts the great principle of social progress, the
conclusions reached by the social sciences and economics.
In a society based on hunting and fishing, people have to consume the
food that they find in nature. If the number of people increases, then
the amount of food per person will diminish following the unbending laws
of nature. However, man is also a productive animal who has the
knowledge and capacity to produce his own food and clothing by utilizing
the forces of nature. In addition, human beings improve their abilities
and increase their knowledge with each passing year, and from one
generation to the next, they make enormous strides. Indeed, ever since
the Industrial Revolution, the population of the world has been
multiplied several times over, but at the same time, the productive
wealth of the world has been increased several thousand times. And
England and Germany are two countries that monopolize the greater share
of the world’s wealth.
Since the riches of the world have grown enormously, the constant
increase of poverty in modern societies cannot be caused by the growth
in population, but must rather be attributed to some other factor.
Indeed, the increasing number of the poor is the result of flaws in our
social organization and economic system. It is due to the fact that
capitalists and landlords use their power to extort extraordinary
profits and rents from others, and because of the uneven distribution of
wealth in our societies. For that reason, I affirm that if we fail to
eliminate these evils by applying a truly civilized morality and
scientific knowledge to the problems of our society, then emigration can
be no more than a temporary salve that palliates the problem while
failing to deal with its root cause. Indeed, even if all the people in
the country were to move overseas, the problem of poverty would not
disappear.
For the sake of argument, I will concede that emigration is the only
effective solution to the problems of overpopulation and poverty. But
why would this fact justify the expansion of the nation’s territory? Why
would nations find it necessary to build great empires? Are those who
leave their country unable to live in any place except one in which the
flag of their mother country flies? Let us take a look at the facts.
It is said that the territory controlled by the British Empire grows a
bit larger with each passing day. Nevertheless, between the years of
1853 and 1890, a total of 8.5 million Irish and English emigrated from
their motherland to lands overseas. Out of this total, fewer than 2
million moved to territories controlled by their mother country, whereas
more than 5.5 million headed to the United States of America. Here is
the statistical breakdown of English emigrants by country of destination
for the single year 1895:
The proportion of emigrants to lands that are controlled by the home
country is less than one-sixth of that to lands not controlled by the
home country.
The emigrants choose to move to lands of freedom and they do not give a
thought to whether the land where they emigrate is a colony of their
homeland. From this example, you can see that when imperialists speak of
the needs of emigrants, they are merely creating vain excuses that are
not supported by a shred of evidence.
I do not think that emigration is to be condemned. By comparison with
the Helots of Sparta, who were killed by their masters when their
numbers grew too quickly, the fact that the poor today have the option
of emigration certainly represents progress. However, there are limits
in the extension of available territories in the world, whereas the
growth in population is limitless. If emigrants claim that the land they
emigrate to ought to belong to their homeland, should we just sit back
and let them do as they please?
Consider the reasoning of the imperialists: England and Germany at first
set out to search for unclaimed territories in Asia and Africa. They
then divided the lands among themselves and colonized them. However, as
emigrants settled in these lands and occupied all of them, they then
began to feel the need for other lands and they set off to expand their
territory once again. If this process continues, the people of different
countries will seize land from their neighbors and kill one another,
until at last, the country that possesses the strongest military power
takes control of and colonizes all the land. After another number of
years go by, this territory will also be filled with people as other
poor and desperate people from the home country settle there. This
process is the reasoning of the imperialists. The end they see in
emigration has no scientific basis.
Let us consider the case of France. France is truly relentless in its
campaign to expand the territory of the nation, but the population of
France is not growing at all. If we consider the fact that the
proportion of poor is relatively low in France, how can one argue that
France is extending its territories in order to promote the emigration
of its people?
Now the United States is also demanding to expand its territory. It is
evident in this case that its imperial expansion is not driven by the
needs of emigration. The land of the United States is vast in size, it
possesses great wealth of resources, and emigrants from all over the
world flock to it in an endless flow. Not only do vast numbers come from
England, but some 195,000 out of the 224,000 emigrants that left Germany
between 1893 and 1897 also went to the United States. In addition, large
numbers of emigrants from Switzerland, Holland, and the Scandinavian
countries head to the United States. Why would a country like the United
States, which welcomes emigrants from every country in the world, find
the need to encourage emigration to other lands?
In order to take over the resources and land of Abyssinia, Italy
squanders its wealth and the lives of its people in the hope of adding
to its colonial lands.[72] In spite of this, the vast majority of
Italian emigrants prefer to live under foreign flags in North and South
America.[73]
In fact, I can affirm, without the slightest hesitation, that the claim
by imperialists that they support territorial expansion to provide lands
for people driven by the need to emigrate is a totally erroneous notion.
In this case, they are merely using emigration as an excuse to deceive
themselves and to pull the wool over the eyes of other people. It is
hardly worth taking the time to refute their theories.
With a single voice, all imperialists proclaim that “trade follows the
flag” and assert the urgent need for territorial expansion to create new
markets for their nation’s commercial products.
I welcome the further development of the means of transportation
throughout the world and the future growth and prosperity of the trade
among the great powers. But must British merchants trade in markets
under the control of the British flag, or do German traders have to do
business only where the German flag flies? For what reason do nations
seek to impose their trade by violence and military power?
In the dark ages of history, the great military heroes would ordinarily
invade other countries, plunder their resources, and impose heavy taxes
upon their people in order to enrich their own country. The economic
policies of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane were of this type. When the
imperialists subjugate barbarian tribes, seize their lands, reduce their
people to servitude, and force them to purchase manufactured products
from the home country, how does their economic policy differ in the
slightest from that of the dark ages? How can modern civilization and
science permit such a system to exist?
Why is it that they must exploit new markets? They argue that their
economies suffer from a surplus of capital and an overproduction of
goods. Even though the capitalists and industrialists complain that they
suffer from so-called overproduction, their impoverished compatriots, by
the tens of millions, lack adequate supplies of basic necessities such
as clothing and food and tearfully bemoan their terrible destitution. If
it were not for the lack of demand, how could one speak of excessive
production? This lack of demand is due to the lack of purchasing power
of the majority of the population, the unjust distribution of income,
and the growing divide between the rich and the poor.
Consider that the growing disparities between rich and poor in the
Western countries have led to great concentration of wealth and capital
in the hands of a small minority and the severe reduction of the
purchasing power of the vast majority of the people. Both are the
results of the system of free competition in which a small group of
capitalists and industrialists enjoys a monopoly over capital and earns
excessive profits. In reality, the economic problems in the countries of
Europe and the United States today will not be solved by oppressing the
population of underdeveloped societies and making them buy their
manufactured products, but rather by greatly boosting the purchasing
power of the vast majority of people in their own countries. Boosting
the purchasing power of the masses can only be achieved by prohibiting
the excessive and monopolistic profits of the capitalists and by
establishing a fair distribution of income that will benefit the general
interests of the laboring classes. To create a just distribution of
income, we must radically reform the present system of free competition
and establish a socialist system.
If we succeed in establishing such a system, we will put an end to
competition among capitalists and eliminate monopolistic profits. When
these monopolistic profits no longer exist, then it will be possible to
make a fair distribution of the necessities of life to the masses and to
guarantee that they do not lack clothing and food. In that case, no one
will be able to speak of overproduction or to complain of its pernicious
effects. Also, there will be no need to plant the national flag in
overseas territories or to apply the rapacious principles of Tamerlane
to the management of the economy. This will be the triumph of
civilization and science as well as of morality.
However, since the politicians and capitalists in the Western countries
reject this project, they boast about their ephemeral victories and seek
to prolong their monopoly forever. They squander enormous sums of money
to steal vast new territories overseas from their rightful owners in an
insatiable quest for new conquests. And what are the consequences of
this policy? The national budget grows ever more bloated, more and more
capital is diverted to fund these ventures, capitalists become ever more
greedy for excessive profits, and the distribution of income ever more
skewed toward the rich. As the size of the empire and the volume of
goods traded increases, the number of poor people in the country swells
with each passing day. In the end this can only lead to bankruptcy and
to decadence.
Even if the imperialist powers succeed in staving off financial crisis
and bankruptcy brought about by their profligate spending for
territorial expansion, how will they manage to keep their frantic
competition within bounds when they run out of new lands and new markets
to capture? When they lose any room to maneuver, they will not be
content to stop and starve to death. Instead, the great powers will
attack and seize territory from one another. Nomadic tribes move from
place to place in accordance with the availability of water and pasture
but they cannot hope to survive when these resources disappear. If they
lack water and pasture, they kill one another in order to appropriate
the means of survival. Is not the economy of the imperialists similar to
that of nomadic tribes?
In fact, the new markets they crave have already started to become few
and far between and the great powers are starting to fight over these
few remaining spoils. The English claim that the Germans are the great
enemy they face in their markets and that they must crush them to
survive. The Germans reply that the English are their great competitors
and that they must be defeated. In the meantime, both sides hardly miss
a day when they do not add to their arsenal of weapons. How is it
possible that trade and commercial ties do not result in mutual
benefits, but instead make both sides seek to harm each other for the
sake of petty profits? Instead of competing peacefully in production,
these powers vie with one another in the exercise of military power.
Is not England already the largest commercial client of Germany, while
Germany is the third-largest customer of England? In the past decade,
bilateral trade between the two countries has grown by millions. The
total amount of the trade between England and Germany has already
attained a level equivalent to that between England and Australia, and
is far larger than the combined totals of its trade with Canada and
South Africa. In addition, Germany imports a very large amount of
capital from England and uses it to fund its own economic development.
If one of these two countries were to attack the other in order to
eliminate a potential rival, it would end up destroying a large
proportion of total world trade. In addition, the relations between the
other great powers resemble those between these two nations. If someone
were to speak of a businessman who planned to increase his sales by
killing off his largest client and stealing that client’s property,
everyone would find such an idea preposterous. But the great powers of
the world today practice exactly such a policy, inflicting pain on their
rivals in order to protect their own nation’s profits.
I am appalled to note that competition among nations for the capture of
new markets has degenerated into competition in the building of
armaments and that quarrels over tariffs and trade have resulted in open
military clashes. Intending to inflict great suffering upon others, they
end up hurting themselves. In order to ensure that others are deprived
of profits, people in many countries are willing to suffer from poverty,
hunger, corruption, and eventually death. For this reason, I denounce
the economy championed by imperialism as a barbaric economy on the model
of Tamerlane for its injustice, iniquity, and fundamentally uncivilized
and unscientific nature.[74] The politicians only pursue their vain
desires for glory and serve the desire of speculators for extravagant
and short-term profits.
Let us look now at the situation of the Japanese economy. The Japanese
economy is far worse than those that I have already described. Japan
uses military force to plant its flag in territories far from its
shores, but the Japanese people do not have a surplus of capital to
invest in these new territories or an abundance of manufactured products
to sell to these new markets. As the territories under Japanese control
grow in extent, so does the power of the military, which makes the law
there. The expense of ruling colonies imposes an increasing burden on
the Japanese people, the amount of capital available to support economic
growth diminishes, and the production of goods withers. Rather than
leading to progress, the imperialist policies of Japan cause the country
to regress in the ways that I have described.
Imperialists in Europe and the United States speak of surplus capital
and overproduction of goods as reasons to acquire colonies. But Japan is
in a completely different economic situation than these other nations.
Even though Western nations merely hasten their decline when they build
great empires, they still have the wherewithal to persist in this
foolishness for several more years and can take pride in the size of the
empire placed under their flags at least temporarily. However, as far as
Japan is concerned, can the nation seriously expect to maintain the
empire it builds any longer than a single day? Nevertheless Japan
maintains a huge army and an impressive navy in order to become an
imperialist nation. The foolishness of the Japanese imperialists exceeds
that of all their rivals.
An imperialist in England has said: “If we wish to build up impregnable
defenses to protect the homeland, we must unite all of our colonies into
a single community” This notion enchants war-mongering imperialists but
it is thoroughly absurd.
The reason why some English people are so frantically worried about the
deficiencies in the military defense of the nation is that their
territory has grown so large that it has become indefensible. Consider
that the people who have emigrated to the different colonies, unable to
make ends meet in the nation of their birth, moved to lands thousands of
miles away to live in freedom and to secure an adequate livelihood. In
each of these territories, they have succeeded in realizing prosperity
and attaining happiness. Why must they acquiesce to bearing the
oppressive yoke of the motherland or countenance its political
interference just to ensure the unification of the empire? Why must they
bear the extravagant costs of England’s military defense or be forced to
fight in its wars? Must they be drawn into the whirlwind of conflicts of
the great Western powers just because England happens to be embroiled in
them? The disadvantages and the dangers of such a course are great.
I have already explained why the exercise of armed power is useless and
immoral. But let us assume that military power is necessary to defend
the independence of one’s own country. In order to develop an adequate
defense of the country and to deter an enemy from attacking it, a nation
does not need to control a vast territory or to build a huge empire.
Consider that the England that defeated the great Spanish Empire at the
time of Philip II was still known as “little England.” The England that
trounced the great French Empire of Louis XIV was also called “little
England.”[75]
In fact, England dazzled the world with its military feats only when it
was still called “little England.” If imperialists today are so
concerned about the shortcomings of national defense, why don’t they
grant independence to all of the British colonies? If they did so, they
would be able to sleep more secure in the knowledge that they are well
defended; what’s more, inhabitants of British colonies would welcome
such a move with joy and at last be able to enjoy freedom and happiness.
Consider that the prosperity and development of England do not result
from the power of its arms but rather from the number of its coal and
iron ore mines, not from its military aggressions and plunder of foreign
lands, but rather from the peaceful development of its industries and
commerce. In the course of its development, England committed the error
of giving free rein to its animal instincts and following in the path of
the empires of antiquity by applying the ruinous economic policies of
Tamerlane to rule its colonies. But such policies provoked the United
States to rebel and break away from the mother country. Chastened by
this experience, England later adjusted its policies and permitted
self-rule in its colonies. As a result, England does not directly rule
these vast territories, which do not make up an “empire” in the sense
that imperialists tend to use this word. Rather, since the English are
linked to their former colonies by ties of blood, language, and culture,
they remain bound together by sentiments of mutual sympathy. Since both
sides benefit from commerce, their community will likely last forever,
bringing limitless prosperity to all.
Will England succeed in maintaining its greatness if it repeats its past
exploits and, drunk with vanity in its military force, extends its
influence on the European continent? England remains a great power
today, but if it continues in the future to oppress its colonies and
expose them to danger in the name of its national flag and the glory of
its military, it will in short time forfeit their sympathy and consent.
In that case, I believe that the break up of the British Empire will
simply be a matter of time.
The ambition of the present Prime Minister Chamberlain, as the heir of
the doctrines of Pitt and Disraeli, is to lead this great peaceful
people into the abyss of imperialism and militarism.[76] I can hardly
help but grieve for this honorable nation, which is set to follow
earlier military empires along the path to inevitable decline and
decadence.
To be sure, the military officers and politicians who seek fame and the
speculators who pursue profits in unexpected places are the ones who
deserve the blame for this situation. However, what is one to think of
poets and men of letters, who bear a great responsibility for the
spiritual education of the people. It is deplorable that many of these
men of learning and education have betrayed their mission and become the
champions of military expansion. In England, Kipling and Henley offer
the worst examples.[77]
They praise the hunt for new prey by the bestial patriots of their
country, the glory of the national flag, the merits of great men, and
the rise of national thought. Some take pride in being citizens of the
country that gave birth to Cecil Rhodes, while others pay homage to the
great achievements of Kitchener. The former expanded the borders of the
empire by a distance of several thousand leagues, while the latter wiped
away the humiliation that the British army suffered in Khartoum. They
justify these actions by claiming that these men implanted peace and
civilization in the place of savage and barbaric customs. However, if
the mission of imperialism were to institute peace and civilized rule by
subjugating and annihilating the barbarians, then it would have no
reason to last any longer than the period when barbarians ruled and
would come to an end with them. The hunter only continues to make his
living while there are animals and birds free to run and fly in the
fields and mountains.
As soon as South Africa is conquered, won’t Rhodes set off in pursuit of
some other South Africa? Once Sudan is subjugated, won’t Kitchener leave
to chase after another Sudan? When they reach the point where there are
no longer any barbarians to conquer, then the national flag will lose
its glory, the national thought will disappear and the deeds of great
men will go unrewarded and unrecognized. Is this the dismal fate that
awaits imperialism?
I consider that men like Kipling and Henley, who rant and rave to stir
up the belligerent feelings of the masses, are really just childish
thinkers. Those who truly desire to advance the well-being and
civilization of society will have to look elsewhere for their guiding
ideas.
If we consider the foregoing analysis, it is easy to understand the
present course of imperialism and to predict its future developments.
Imperialism is just a name that is given to a policy based on a
despicable patriotism and a reprehensible militarism. The predictable
consequences of such a policy are decline and destruction.
The construction of a so-called empire is not based on any real
necessity but simply on the free reign of greed, it confers no benefits
but results in disaster, it is not an expansion of the nation’s people
but an expansion of a small minority’s vanity and love of fame, it does
not develop trade but only stimulates speculation, it does not encourage
production but only pillage, it does not signify the implanting of
civilization overseas but rather the destruction of other civilizations.
Can this be the aim of a truly civilized society? Is this the real
objective of national governance?
How can people say that imperialism serves the cause of emigration?
Emigrants do not require that the national territory continue to expand
in size. How can people claim that it advances the cause of world trade?
The development of commerce does not depend on increasing the lands
controlled by the nation. The only ones who really desire the expansion
of national territory are the military caste and the politicians, who
feed their vanity by such exploits, the speculators who chase after
profits from gold mines and railroads, and the merchants who make their
living from catering to military procurement orders.
The affluence and the happiness of the people of a country bears no
relation to the size of its territories, but depends instead on the
nobility of its virtues; it is not decided by the strength of its
armies, but rather by the righteousness of its ideals; it has nothing to
do with the number of its warships and the size of its armies, but
rather with the abundant production of foodstuffs and clothing. The
prosperity and the well-being of England up until now were not caused by
its control of the enormous empire of India. Carlyle has not deceived us
when he asserts that a single line of Shakespeare is worth much
more.[78]
Sir Robert Morier has written of Bismarck that he made Germany into a
great nation but that he made the German people small.[79] In fact, the
greatness of a nation’s territories is inversely proportional to the
greatness of its people. The construction of a great empire is based on
the expansion of its armed forces and the incitement of animal instincts
among the masses. In order to make the country rich, Bismarck had to
impoverish the people. In order to make the country strong, he had to
make the people weak. To make the prestige and the influence of the
nation shine far and wide, he corrupted and depraved the people. That is
why Morier is correct to note that imperialism makes the nation look
bigger but it also makes the people small.
How can a nation hope to maintain its grandeur when the people who
inhabit it are diminished by the very policies that are intended to
enhance its greatness? Such grandeur can only be ephemeral, like foam on
the surface of the water, a tower standing in a void, a house built on
shifting sands. At the first gust of wind, it will scatter and disperse
like a cloud and it will vanish without leaving a trace behind. Since
ancient times, history offers countless examples that prove this general
rule. However, the great powers of the world today, which compete with
one another to add to their ephemeral expansion, do not realize that
they are thereby courting the danger of annihilation.
Now our country Japan has lost its reason and turned into a fanatical
adherent of this ideology. It already possesses an army of thirteen
divisions and a naval fleet of three hundred thousand tons, which is
certain to grow in the years ahead. It has recently annexed Taiwan to
the nation’s territory and dispatched an expeditionary force to repress
the Boxer Rebellion in China. It has undertaken all these actions to
raise the prestige of the nation, to project its power, and to decorate
the chests of our military officers with ribbons and medals. The
National Diet acclaims these actions and poets and men of letters sing
their praises. But in what way do these actions add to the grandeur of
our people? How do they contribute to the welfare and the well-being of
the masses?
A national budget that stood at 80 million yen only a few years ago has
since tripled in size, the expenses of ruling Taiwan have already cost
our nation 160 million yen, while the 200 million indemnity received
from China has already gone up in smoke. The finances of the nation are
in a parlous state, foreign imports grow uncontrollably, and the
government imposes one tax after another to pay for its current
expenses. Our markets languish in recession, public morality is in sharp
decline, and the number of crimes increases daily. In spite of this
disastrous situation, proposals for social reforms are met with ridicule
and dismissed with insults, and calls to expand the diffusion of public
education are greeted with cynicism. The life forces of the nation are
wearing out with each passing day while the life span of our people
grows shorter. If we allow this state of affairs to continue and fail to
reverse course, I firmly believe that this Eastern country, with a
monarchy two thousand five hundred years old,[80] will vanish like the
dream of Kantan.[81] This is the fate that imperialism reserves for our
nation.
Accordingly, I affirm that the policy of imperialism sacrifices the well
being of the majority to satisfy the appetites of a small minority. It
puts a brake on social progress by inciting barbarous emotions. It is a
scourge that destroys the liberty and equality of the human race, flouts
the justice and morality of society, and ruins the civilization of the
world.
Alas, the brave new world of the twentieth century! What can we do to
reform this world? We aim to establish world peace, but imperialism
provokes war between nations. We seek to foster a universal morality,
but imperialism puts morality to death. We wish for the realization of
freedom and equality, but imperialism destroys both. We hope for the
fair distribution of the fruits of production, but imperialism
exacerbates the inequalities in the world. There is no greater danger to
civilization than imperialism.
This is not merely my own personal view. Last year, the New York World
conducted a survey of thinkers in Europe and the United States on the
dangers facing the twentieth century. Among those who responded, many
denounced imperialism and militarism as the greatest peril of the day.
Frederick Harrison wrote that the buildup of excessive military forces,
whether on sea or on land, whether in terms of number of men or of
armaments, represented a political danger for the future.[82] He
asserted that political leaders and the people they represented would be
dragged into wars to establish hegemony in Asia and Africa as a result
of this arms buildup. Zangwill noted that the upsurge of reactionary
militarism, an ideology rooted in the archaic past, is the greatest
danger for the twentieth century. Keir Hardie called militarism the
greatest threat. Karl Blind stated that the greatest threat to the world
is imperialism.
Like the spread of plague, imperialism is truly a horrible disease that
infects everything that it touches. Indeed, so-called patriotism is the
microbe that causes the disease while militarism is the means by which
the microbe is transmitted. At the end of the eighteenth century, the
French Revolution, like a great purifying torrent, drove this infection
away from the lands of Europe and temporarily wiped it out. The
revolutionary movement was prolonged in the 1832 Reform [Act] in
England, the 1848 Revolution in France, the unification of Italy, and
Greek independence, and all of these events served to check the spread
of this epidemic.[83] However, this same historical period also produced
men like Napoleon, Metternich, and Bismarck, who have all spread the
microbe again and contributed to the outbreak that is occurring today.
The patriotic microbe today contaminates the government and the
opposition and indiscriminately infects the humble and the mighty. An
imperialist plague spreads throughout the entire world and is destroying
the civilization of the twentieth century. The time has come for
righteous and honorable men, who are still healthy and uninfected with
the illness, to mobilize their numbers and to minister to the sickness
of nation by undertaking social reforms.
But what are the projects and plans that will bring a remedy to our
current crisis? There is only one solution. We must launch a great
cleansing of the state and society, or, in other words, start a
revolutionary movement worldwide in scope. Let us transform the few
nations of the present time into a vast number, free the nation from the
iron grip of the army and navy and transfer it to the peasants, workers,
and merchants, reform our societies where an aristocracy rules
autocratically into one where the common people rule themselves, change
our economy, now monopolized by capitalists, to one in which the workers
own all in common. The spirit of justice and humanity will overwhelm
narrow chauvinism, scientific socialism will destroy barbaric
militarism, and cosmopolitanism and universal fraternity make it
possible to uproot and eliminate predatory imperialism.
Only by undertaking this task can we succeed in reforming our present
world, which is unjust, immoral, barbaric, and unscientific, ensure the
continual progress of society, and contribute to the general welfare of
humanity. However, if we fail to eliminate this scourge, let it pursue
its ravages, and do nothing to rectify it, then we face a future as
bleak as the darkest circle of hell in which demons prowl by night.
[1] Emperor Theodosius (346–395) submitted to Bishop Ambrose’s (332–397)
order in 390 and proclaimed Christianity the state religion of Rome in
392.
[2] Uchimura Kanzo (1861–1930) was a Japanese religious philosopher and
colleague of KĹŤtoku at the newspaper Yorozu Choho.
[3] Yasan (Gaisan in Japanese) was the site of a great naval battle in
1279 c.E. in which the Mongols defeated the Southern Song dynasty. The
minister Liu continued to instruct the young Song emperor in the
commentaries on the Great Learning (one of four Confucian classics) even
during the famous battle. In the end, when the Song forces were on the
verge of defeat, he drowned himself along with the eight-year old
emperor.
[4] John Morley (1838–1923), a leader of the liberal party in England,
opposed the Boer War (18891902) and later Britain’s entry into the First
World War. August Bebel (1840–1913), one of the historic founders of the
Social Democratic Party of Germany, was jailed for opposing the
annexation of Alsace-Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War. William
Jennings Bryan (1860–1925) a leader of the Democratic Party in the
United States, opposed the annexation of the Philippines.
[5] KĹŤtoku distinguishes between author (č‘—) and commentator (čż°).
Scholars have noted that he paraphrases and translates from J. M.
Robertson’s 1899 Patriotism and Empire.
[6] The Yorozu ChĹŤhĹŤ was an extremely popular and influential daily
newspaper established by Kuroiwa Ruiko in 1892 at which KĹŤtoku and
Uchimura both worked until 1903.
[7] Taira no Tokitada was a great counselor of state in the twelfth
century and younger brother of the wife of Taira no Kiyomori. This is a
citation from chapter 4, book 1 of the classic Tale of the Heike.
[8] Both were symbols of longevity.
[9] This image is taken from the opening Tale of the Heike in reference
to the Taira clan, whose precipitous decline is the central theme of the
epic. The proud are as ephemeral as “the dream of a nighttime in spring”
[10] In Buddhist iconography, the deepest hell is called muken no jigoku
or the hell of no respite. It is “an unremittingly scorching abode
reserved for individuals who have committed the most heinous offenses,
such as killing their parents or injuring a Buddha” Hirasawa 2008, 10.
[11] Literally, “to singe one’s hair and burn one’s face in order to put
out a fire,” an expression from the History of the Han Dynasty (Hanshu).
[12] The Boer War (1899–1902) was the longest and most expensive of
Britain’s colonial wars against the Dutch settlers of South Africa.
Britain crushed the guerrilla resistance after herding Boer women and
children into concentration camps, where 28,000 of them died of
starvation and disease. After winning the Philippines in its war with
Spain, the United States fought Filipino nationalists in a guerrilla
war. After the murder of a German missionary, Germany seized the port of
Qingdao and pressed for other concessions in China’s Shandong Province
in 1897. In 1898, the Russians obtained a twenty-five-year concession on
Port Arthur and Dalian to complete the Trans-Siberian Railroad.
In the diplomatic crisis of Fashoda (1898), France and Britain almost
came to war over competing claims to African territory. General Marchand
conquered this military base in southern Sudan for the French side, but
within a short time the British under General Kitchener forced the
French to evacuate the base.
[13] Transvaal and the Orange Free State were republics established by
Dutch settlers in South Africa.
[14] In traditional Confucian terms, KĹŤtoku condemns patriotism as a
narrow, personal and private “interest” rather than a broad, public
concern. Traditional morality stipulated that a man’s public duties
should take precedence over his private interest.
[15] In traditional society, it was customary for young boys to grow
their hair down to their neck collar.
[16] The expression is from a passage in the Records of the Grand
Historian (Shiji) of Sima Qian (145–86 B.c.E.) in the chapter on Xiang
Yu.
[17] According to the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian, the
Yu and the Rui fought over the ownership of arable land situated at
their border. They traveled to the country of Zhou to request the king
to arbitrate their dispute, but they were so impressed by the high
morality of the inhabitants of Zhou that they felt ashamed, ended their
quarrel, and left the disputed land fallow. The fable of the warring
kingdoms is mentioned in the Zhuangzi. Two countries situated on
different horns of a snail fought a war for two weeks at the cost of
many thousands of lives. The lesson of this fable is that, just as a war
between nations on the horns of a snail is a trivial matter for human
beings, human conflicts are insignificant when viewed from the higher
perspective of heaven.
[18] Iwaya Shōhei (1850–1920), a businessman born in Kagoshima,
established a textile business in the Ginza district of Tokyo and a
tobacco company known for its Tengu brand of cigarettes. Faced with a
competitor in the latter business, he defended a state monopoly in the
production and sale of tobacco. The expression “great services to the
nation” was an advertising slogan for the cigarettes he sold.
[19] The Helots were a serf class who worked for the free citizens of
Sparta and belonged to the state. Thucydides recounts an episode when
2,000 Helots were massacred in this way.
[20] A religious sect founded by Nakayama Miki (1798–1887).
[21] The movement to restore the Meiji emperor and overthrow the
Tokugawa bakufu was launched under the banner of expelling the
barbarians (that is, people from Western countries) from Japan.
[22] Morita Shiken (1861–97), journalist and translator, ridiculed war
hysteria in a poem written in 1894. During the war, an eagle flew to the
mast of the warship Takachiho, named after the mythical place where the
first Japanese emperor descended to earth. Sent as an offering to the
Meiji emperor, the eagle was taken care of and given the name of
Takachiho. This incident inspired several Chinese-style poems about the
eagle being a spirit of the imperial family, a notion that Morita
ridiculed.
[23] Kume Kunitake (1839–1931), a secretary during the Iwakura Mission,
became a founder of the school of historiography at Tokyo University. In
1892, he had to resign from his professorial chair after he published
the article “Shinto wa saiten no kozoku” (Shinto is merely old customs
for worshipping the heavens) in the history journal of record, Shigakkai
Zasshi. Adopting the methodology of the new discipline of comparative
religion, he analyzed Shinto as a primitive form of nature worship that
had not developed religious importance in the Western sense. Eventually,
under pressure from Shinto organizations and imperial loyalists, he
recanted and was dismissed from the university by government order. The
Kume case, which occurred shortly after the adoption of a Japanese
constitution vesting sovereignty in the emperor, was the first instance
of the suppression of historical research by government intervention.
[24] Prince Saionji Kinmochi (1849–1940) was a Japanese statesman and
served twice as prime minister. After spending several years in France,
he founded the Meiji Law School (later Meiji University). A close friend
of Nakae Chomin, he is considered the most liberal Japanese political
figure of his time. As minister of education under Ito Hirobumi
(1841–1909) and Matsukata Masayoshi (1835–1924), he tried to reform the
Japanese school curriculum, bringing it more in line with international
(Western) standards.
[25] Uchimura KanzĹŤ, a Christian teacher at the Imperial First Higher
School, was forced to resign from his position for refusing to bow to a
portrait of the emperor in a school ceremony on the grounds that such an
act of worship constituted idolatry. Journalists accused Uchimura of
disloyalty to the throne.
[26] Ozaki Yukio (1858–1954) was a liberal politician who served in the
Japanese Diet for sixty-three years. He was forced to resign from his
position as education minister in 1898 after he gave a speech in which
he was accused of advocating republicanism.
[27] Samuel Coleridge (1772–1834) was an English poet and critic.
[28] Charles James Fox (1749–1806), a prominent Whig statesman in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries whose parliamentary career spanned
thirty-six years. He supported the French Revolution and became an
outspoken opponent of Prime Minister Pitt’s policies toward France.
[29] This massacre occurred at St. Peters Field in Manchester in August
1819.
[30] The discussion in this entire part is closely based on pages 18–21
in Robertson’s Patriotism and Empire.
[31] “Brotherhood” appeared in the original using the borrowed term
burazaafudo.
[32] The two earlier wars were the Danish-Prussian War (1864) and the
Austro-Prussian War (1866).
[33] The analysis of the unification of Germany follows Robertson’s
Patriotism and Empire, 22–28.
[34] A likely reference to the Japanese statesman ItĹŤ Hirobumi.
[35] A reference to the downfall of the tyrant Macbeth in act 5 of
Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
[36] Gotō Shōjirō (1838–97) was a member of the early Meiji regime who
cofounded the Liberal Party along with Itagaki Taisuke in 1881. In 1886,
204 members of the party met in Tokyo to create a grand coalition (daidĹŤ
danketsu) to press for political change, but the coalition was dissolved
in 1889 when GotĹŤ reentered the government.
[37] The Boxer Rebellion (1900–1901) is generally referred to as the
North China Incident (Hokushin jihen) in Japanese language sources. Dagu
(a military fort) and Tianjin (a treaty port) were focal points of
growing competition among European powers for the control of China.
[38] March 3 (3/3) and May 5 (5/5) are two traditional public holidays
devoted to children. The former, which used to be known as Girl’s Day,
is today known as the Doll Festival (Hinamatsuri) during which many
families display hina-ningyo on a five or seven-tiered stand covered
with a red carpet. The latter, formerly known as Boy’s Day, was renamed
Children’s Day after the war. On this day, families with boys fly huge
carp-shaped streamers (koinobori) outside the house and display dolls of
famous warriors and other heroes inside.
[39] Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke (1800–91) was commanding general
of the Prussian and later of the German armies and led Germany to
victory in its foreign wars. A disciple of the great military thinker
Clausewitz, he wrote many works on strategy and military history.
[40] Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840–1914), author of The Influence of Sea
Power upon History, 16601783, was a naval officer, military strategist,
and educator. His views on the importance of sea power influenced naval
policy throughout the world, prior to the First World War. KĹŤtoku likely
encountered the passage cited in the next section in Robertson’s
Patriotism and Empire (83), which cites Mahan’s The Interest of America
in Sea Power, Past and Present (232–34).
[41] Kōtoku’s analysis of militarism and the fine arts borrows liberally
from Robertson’s similar discussion in Patriotism and Empire, 71–76.
[42] The Hogen (1156) and Heiji (1160) disturbances were military
skirmishes that signaled the collapse of the Heian period and the
beginning of a new feudal era.
[43] The HĹŤjĹŤ family controlled the post and hereditary title of shikken
or regent, who in fact wielded governmental power during most of the
Kamakura period (1185–1333).
[44] Murasaki Shikibu and Sei ShĹŤnagon are the authors of The Tale of
Genji and The Pillow Book, the two most famous masterpieces of the Heian
period (794–1185), while Akazome Emon was a prominent poetess. Rai Sanyo
(1786–1832) is best known for his Unofficial History of Japan (Nihon
gaishi). Takizawa Bakin (1767–1848), a great Japanese writer of the
later Edo period, is best known for the multivolume novel Nanso satomi
no hakkenden. Furai Sanjin (1729–80) is the pen name of Hiraga Gennai, a
scholar and gesaku writer. Sorin is the pen name of Chikamatsu Monzaemon
(1653–1724), the author of many plays for the puppet and kabuki
theaters. Besides pursuing a career as the surgeon-general of the
Japanese army, Mori Ōgai (1862–1922) was a prominent writer and literary
critic of Meiji period. Tsubouchi Shōyō (1859–1935) was a professor of
literature at Waseda University, critic, dramatist, and the first to
translate the plays of Shakespeare into Japanese. Koda Rohan (1867–1947)
and Ozaki Koyo (1868–1903) were both important novelists of the Meiji
period.
[45] The song in question is “Ute ya korase ya” and goes as follows:
“Strike and punish the Qing. It is the enemy of our sacred country, the
foe of peace in the Far East. Strike it to make it a proper country. An
obstacle to our country’s rights, strike this arrogant and rude enemy.
Ignorant of peace in the Far East, strike this ignorant and stubborn foe
...” The song and lyrics are reprinted, along with those of three
Sino-Japanese War songs, in Eastlake and Yamada 1897, 535.
[46] This passage is a paraphrase of Robertson 1899, 96–97.
[47] In suggesting that these legendary heroes lacked political sense,
KĹŤtoku seeks to dissipate the aura that surrounded them. Kusunoki
Masashige, a loyalist and fighter for the restoration of the emperor
during the period of the Northern and Southern Courts, was the object of
a cult on the part of nationalists during the Meiji period.
[48] The founder of the Han dynasty established a legal code in three
chapters, covering the crimes of murder, injury, and theft. This legal
code was simple and easy to understand and was contrasted with the
complicated code established by the earlier Qin dynasty.
[49] Zhuge Liang (181–234) was one of the greatest Chinese military
strategists; his achievements have been immortalized in the novel
Romance of Three Kingdoms. Emperor Wu (also known as Cao Cao) laid the
foundations for the kingdom of Wei and was famed both for his military
achievements and his patronage of the arts (155–220).
[50] Paraphrase of Robertson 1899, 97–100.
[51] Yamagata Aritomo (1838–1922) was an important Meiji statesman and
founder of the Japanese Imperial Army. Kabayama Sukenori (1837–1922), a
general in the Japanese Army and admiral of the Japanese Navy, led the
Japanese invasion force of Taiwan and served as Japan’s first
governor-general of Taiwan. Takashima Tomonosuke (1844–1916), a
lieutenant general of the Japanese army, later served as minister of war
and colonial affairs in the late 1890s. After the Japanese Diet was
established in the 1890s, bureaucrats and military officers attempted to
bribe diet members to pass legislation and interfered in elections.
[52] Thucydides wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War, a work that
recounts the fifth-century b.c.e. war between Sparta and Athens.
[53] This citation from Robertson 1899, 93–94.
[54] Gaius Marius (157–86 B.c.E.) was a Roman general and Lucius Sulla
(138–78 B.c.E.) a leader of a political faction and a subordinate under
the command of Marius. Sulla later opposed Marius, began civil war,
punished his enemies, and seized their properties. This civil war set a
precedent for the civil wars to come that led ultimately to the
destruction of the Republican form of government and the establishment
of the Roman empire.
[55] Horatio Kitchener (1850–1916) led the British forces that conquered
the Sudan, where he ruled between 1892 and 1899. He was also commander
in chief of the British forces in the South African War (1899–1902).
[56] Mahdi means redeemer. It was the religious title of Muhammed Ahmad
(1844–85), a Sudanese leader who declared a holy war against Egyptian
rule in 1881, defeated the Egyptian army in 1883, and later captured the
city of Khartoum and killed the British general Gordon. In the Battle of
Omdurman, Kitchener retook the city and desecrated the tomb to avenge
the death of Gordon. Robertson (1899, 109) mentions the desecration of
Mahdi’s grave in his Patriotism and Empire.
[57] This is likely a reference to an alleged massacre committed by
Russian Cossacks in the town of Blagoveshchensk, a city located at the
confluence of the Amur and Zeya rivers. According to a Japanese
intelligence report on July 16, 1900, Russians massacred 3,000 Chinese
civilians immediately after the occupation of Manchuria. This “Amur
massacre” became the symbol of Russian barbarism in newspapers. See
Kobayashi 2008, 226–27.
[58] These place names were the sites of battles between the Ottoman
Empire and the powers of Europe during the nineteenth century. A great
naval battle at Nawalino pitted the Ottoman Empire against France,
England, and Russia during the Greek War of Independence (1821–29). The
Crimean War (1853–56) was fought on the Crimean Peninsula between Russia
and the Ottoman Empire. Plevna was the site of a famous battle in the
Russo-Turkish War (1877–78). Thessaly was a battlefield in northern
Greece during the Greco-Turkish War of 1897.
[59] Tsar Nicholas I of Russia is said to have used the phrase “sick man
of Europe” to refer to the Ottoman Empire because it was falling under
the financial control of other powers and losing control of its
territories.
[60] Discussions of Turkey and Germany have close counterparts in
Robertson 1899, 110–17.
[61] Both are mythical Chinese creatures that are said to appear with
the arrival of a sage.
[62] Wilhelm II (1859–1941) was the final German emperor and king of
Prussia who ruled from 1888 to 1918. Berhard von Bulow (1849–1929), a
German statesman, served as foreign minister in the 1890s when he was
responsible for carrying out Germany’s policy of colonial expansion and
later as chancellor of the German Empire from 1900 to 1909. Alfred von
Waldersee (1831–1904) was the chief of the German general staff and
leader of the allied forces during the Boxer Rebellion (1900–1901).
[63] The Prussian thinker Clausewitz had defined war as a form of
dueling in On War.
[64] During the Spring and Autumn Period (770–476 B.c.E.), Duke Xiang of
Song spurned the advice of his subordinate who recommended that he take
advantage of the enemy’s lack of preparation to launch a surprise
attack. Xiang replied, “A gentleman must not inflict suffering on
another person when that person is in difficulty” Xiang, who waited for
the enemy to assemble his troops before attacking, ended up losing the
battle. The expression sōjō no nin has the meaning of “misguided or
useless benevolence.”
[65] Kōtoku’s teacher, Nakae Chomin, had argued that the conscription
system favored the rich, who were able to obtain exemptions, and that it
was too costly. Nakae 2001, 263–64.
[66] At the suggestion of Emperor Nicolai II of Russia, the First
International Peace Conference took place in The Hague in the
Netherlands in 1899. Some twenty-six countries participated, including
China, Japan, and the major powers of Europe. In their closing
resolution, these nations pledged to ban the use of poison gas and to
resolve international conflicts through peaceful means. A Second
International Peace Conference was held in 1907.
[67] Prior to 1905, KĹŤtoku often treated anarchism as equivalent to
poison and identified anarchists with fomenters of social chaos. In
Shakaishugi shinzui (Essence of socialism), he wrote: “Scientific
socialism is not anarchism. Desperate acts of violence by a militant few
are senseless. In order to achieve our goals, constructive political
action is necessary. Nor is scientific socialism to be confused with
nihilism. Riots and destruction are not the answers. In order to achieve
our goals nonviolent action is necessary” Kōtoku, “Shakaishugi shinzui,”
KSZ 4:514.
[68] Cecil Rhodes (1853–1902) was a legendary British businessman and
champion of imperialism. He founded the diamond company, De Beers, which
still markets more than a third of the world’s diamonds, and became the
founder of the state of Rhodesia. Joseph Chamberlain (1836–1914) was a
British statesman and colonial secretary during the Boer War.
[69] Alfred von Waldersee (1832–1904) succeeded General Moltke as chief
of Imperial German General Staff.
[70] At the 1900 Congress in Mainz, the German Social Democratic Party
adopted resolutions opposing increases in military spending and the
German military intervention in China.
[71] Here Kōtoku uses the term chūryū shakai, now used to designate the
middle class of Japanese society, to mean the capitalist class.
[72] In 1895, Italy invaded Ethiopia (Abyssinia) to strengthen its
foothold in East Africa, but it suffered a military defeat at the battle
of Adowa in 1896 and was forced to recognize Ethiopia’s independence.
This military defeat of a European power punctured the myth of the white
man’s invincibility in Africa.
[73] Kōtoku borrows these statistics from Robertson’s discussion of
emigration (1899, 173–77).
[74] Tamerlane (1336–1405), also known as Timur, was a Turko-Mongol
ruler who conquered much of western and central Asia and founded the
Timurid dynasty (1370–1405) in central Asia, which survived until 1857
as the Mughal Empire in India.
[75] Philip II (1527–97) ruled Spain at the zenith of the absolutist
period. Louis XIV, known as the Sun King, ruled France from 1643 until
his death in 1715.
[76] William Pitt (1708–78), also known as Pitt the Elder, was a British
statesman who contributed to the building of the British Empire, most
notably during the French and Indian War in North America. Benjamin
Disraeli (1804–81), a political leader during the Victorian period, was
an enthusiastic supporter of the expansion of the British Empire.
[77] Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936), English poet and novelist, was perhaps
the most celebrated literary champion of British imperialism. William
Henley (1849–1903) was a poet, novelist, and critic.
[78] Thomas Carlyle, English poet and critic (1795–1881).
[79] Sir Robert Burnett David Morier, English diplomat (1826–93).
[80] According to the early Japanese history Nihonshoki, the first
Japanese emperor Jinmu descended to the Earth and acceded to the throne
in 660 B.c.E. This date, marking the mythical start of Japanese history,
acquired an official status during the Meiji period.
[81] The “Pillow Tale” of Li Pi (722–89), better known as “Rosei’s
dream” in Japan, is the story of a poor student who goes to the capital
to make his fortune. He stops at an inn where he meets a sage, who gives
him a pillow. As his meal is cooked, he dozes off on the pillow and
dreams that he enters public life, is promoted, demoted, recalled to
office, endures the hardship of distant campaigns, is accused of
treason, condemned to death, saved at the last moment, and finally dies
at a great old age. Awaking from his dream, he discovers that his meal
is not yet cooked. Convinced that in the great world “honor is soon
followed by disgrace, and promotion by calumny,” he turns back towards
the village from which he came.
[82] Frederick Harrison (1831–1923), a biographer and critic,
established the English Positivist Association. Israel Zangwill
(1864–1926) was a British author, poet, and member of the World Zionist
Organization. Keir Hardie (1856–1915), a labor activist, founded an
independent labor party in England. Karl Blind (1826–1907) was a German
politician and writer who participated in the 1848 Revolution, was
imprisoned, and later found refuge in England. He wrote an anthology of
German folktales.
[83] The independence of Greece was officially recognized at the
Conference of London in 1830.