Abstract
Even as the terms of the Sino-Soviet Pact were being negotiated in Moscow in early 1950, Japanese were busy debating the likely objective of the alliance, its durability, and the symmetry of the relationship as defined by the new treaty. The consensus among journalists was that Sino-Soviet cooperation appeared ‘very solid for the time being’, but that this was only because of Beijing’s current economic dependence on Moscow. Citing Mao Zedong’s unprecedented two-month stay in the Soviet Union as evidence of difficult relations, many predicted that Titoisation was only a matter of time.1 Leftist intellectuals like Iwamura Michio, director of the pro-Beijing Chugoku Kenkyujo (China Research Institute), denounced such prophecies of ‘rifts’ (tairitsu) and ‘discord’ (fuwa) as the ‘bad miscalculation… [of] Western European propaganda’.2 Indeed, in contrast to the press, many intellectuals both ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’, claimed that the Chinese and Soviets were now a ‘strong coalition’ (teikei) and even of ‘one flesh’ (ittai). 3
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
1‘Chu-So dOmei wa Nihon ni do hibiku’ Daiyamondo (21 Feb. 1950): 12–13.
Iwamura Michio, ‘Chu-So joyaku to Nihon no tachiba’ Sekai Hyoron (Apr. 1950): 78–83.
3‘Chu-So joyaku to tai Nichi kowa’ Sekai Josei Junpo (Feb. 1950): 17–24; Hirano Yoshitaro, ‘Chu-So yuko dOmei joyaku no Nihon ni oyobosu eikyo’ Joseisen (Mar. 1950): 4–11; Kusano Fumio, ‘Chu-So dOmei to Nihon e no eikyo’ Kumiai Undo (Mar. 1950): 43–8; Takayama Goro, ‘Chu-So dOmei to Nihon no tachiba’ Jitsugyo no Nihon (Feb. 1950): 58–9.
Kusano also claimed that ‘Mao Zedong is not Stalin’s running dog (soku)’. Kusano (1950): 43–8.
Utsumi TeizO, ‘Chu-So joyaku no heiwateki kOka’ Daiyamondo (21 Feb. 1950): 13–14.
Asahi Shimbun (16 Feb. 1950). See also: Hongo Gaichi, ‘Soren to ChukyO no kyokuto seisaku’ Chuo Koron (Mar. 1950): 81.
Sekai Josei JunpO (1950): 17–24. See also ‘Chu-So domei seiritsu to Nihon’ Toyo Keizai Shimpo (25 Feb. 1950): 3–4.
Similar answers were received regarding the Alliance’s effect on maintaining peace in general. Tokyo Shimbun (26 Feb. 1950).
For example, on 29 December 1950, United Press cited ‘qualified sources in Tokyo’ who believed that China’s entry into the Korean War grew out of a political contest with Russia for control of the area north of the 38th parallel. Evening Post, 30 December 1950.
Bessho JirO, ‘Hokkaido “kaiho henku”’ Kaizö (10 Jan. 1952): 154–65.
‘Which of the two camps will be split first?’ ‘The Communists will split first’: 29.1%; ‘Democrats will split first’: 11.8%; ‘Others’: 16.9%; ‘Don’t Know’: 26.2%; ‘Don’t Know, Red China’: 15.5%. Sample: urban 1807; rural 1246. Reply: 87.2% (rural data weighted double in original survey). ‘The World and Japan’ (15 August 1953), Enc. in Berger to DOS, 611.94/9–2253, NA.
SatO Shinichiro, ‘Shiteyarareta no wa Soren ka Chukyo ka’ Nihon Shuho (5 Dec. 1952): 7.
Sekai Mondai Kenkyiikai, ‘Bei-So sekai seisaku no shindankai’ Chuo Köron (Apr. 1953): 65–74.
Tange Goro, ‘Chukyo no kogyo kensetsu no hOkO o saguru’ Ekonomisuto (6 Mar. 1954): 24–7.
Hirasawa Kazushige, ‘Chu-So wa dO deru: shinsekai senryaku e no tenkan’ Daiyamondo (11 Oct. 1952): 48–50.
bhira Zengo, ‘Katayotta Chukyokan o hai sum’ Jiyu no Hata no Moto ni (Mar. 1953): 52.
Ishikawa Shigeru, ‘Chu-So kankei o kettei sum yOin’ Soren Kenkyu (Sept. 1953): 21.
Takeda Nanyo, ‘Chukyo-Soren ippento no gendankai’ Soren Kenkyu (Aug. 1953): 36–46.
Sano Hiroshi, ‘Mosuko, Pekin, Tokyo rosen’ Nihon oyobi Nihonjin (Feb. 1954): 6–13; ‘Soren heiwa kOsei no seikaku to mokuhyO’ Nihon oyobi Nihonjin (Apr. 1954): 64–72.
Typically, one journal concluded, ‘One cannot help but think that Sino-Soviet unity was strengthened internally and externally by the declaration’. ‘Chu-So ryokoku no tai Nichi yobikake’ Sekai to Warera (Nov. 1954): 36–8.
Takahashi Masao, ‘Chu-So seimei to daisan seiryoku no tachiba’ Shakaishugi (Nov. 1954): 2–8.
Tachibana Yoshinori and Unno Minoru, ‘Chu-So sengen no hamon to Yoshida toBei no shukaku’ Jitsugyo no Nihon (1954): 50–6.
Hirano Yoshitaro, ‘Chu-So kyodo sengen to Nihon’ Ajia Keizai Junpd (Nov. 1954): 1–9; Maki Tadashi, ‘Chu-So no tai Nichi sekkin no shini’ Jikei (Dec. 1954): 82–5; Mainichi Shimbun (13 Oct. 1954).
According to a November 1954 poll, Communist China and the Soviet Union were ‘liked’ by 11.9% and 5.1% of respondents, respectively. They were ‘disliked’ by 21.3% and 37.3%. Jiji nenkan (1956): 320.
In June 1955, for example, a former vice-president of the Tda Kenkyujo (East Asia Research Institute) confidently predicted that ‘the time will come when China parts ways with the CPSU.’ Okura Kinmochi, ‘NitChu-so no kankei o meguri’ Soren Kenkyu (June 1955): 50. In contrast, a panel of well-known journalists concluded in August that ‘while Communist China may have become a considerable “burden” [to the Soviets] economically and politically…they are sworn friends, and it is inconceivable that they will part company under present conditions.’ Sakata JirO, et al., ‘Sobieto gaiko no teiryu’ Chud Köron (Aug. 1955): 67.
Taiken, ‘Chu-So kankei no kentO (2)’ Tairiku Mondai (Aug. 1956): 29. See Appendix 4 for a list of Taiken members.
Doi Akio, ‘Chukyo shisatsu hOkoku’ Tairiku Mondai (Nov. 1956): 9–12; ‘Sashimukai Mo TakutO’ Bungei Shunju (Nov. 1956): 194.
Takenaka Shigehisa, ‘Chugokujin no tai So kanjo’ Soren Kenkyu (Sept. 1956): 47.
Inoki Masamichi, et al., ‘Chugoku wa Soren to do chigau ka’ Chuo KOron (Nov. 1956): 327.
Yamakawa Hitoshi, ‘Shakaishugi e no michi wa hitotsu dewanai’ Chuo Koron (Dec. 1956): 153.
Maruyama Masao, Thought and Behaviour in Modern Japanese Politics (1963) London: 180–1, 212. Originally: “‘Sutarin hihan” ni okeru seiji no ronri’ Sekai (Nov. 1956), and postscript: Gendai seiji no shiso to kodo (30 Mar. 1957): 366.
Ono ShinzO, ‘Kuzureyuku Soren teikokushugi’ Nihon Shuho (15 Nov. 1956): 49.
Fujii Shoji, ‘Doyo sum Chukyo to Ri Shoban no hokushin’ Nihon Shuho (5 Dec. 1956): 53, 57.
Doi Akio, ‘NitChu-So no shOrai’ Nihon oyobi Nihonjin (Jan. 1957): 9–11.
Taiken, ‘MO TakutO no mujunron wa Kyosanken o yusubutte iru’ Tairiku Mondai (Oct. 1957): 35–6.
Hatano Kenichi, ‘NitChu-So boeki kyOtei o nerau?’ Nihon ShOhO (15 Feb. 1957): 16— 17. See also: Iwamura Michio and ROyama Masamichi.
Okuma Nobuyuki, et al., ‘Sorezore no uketomekata’ Chuo Koron (Mar. 1957, special issue): 186, 192.
Komuro Makoto, ‘Chukyo-Soren kankei no jittai’ Soren Kenkyu (Nov. 1957): 14, 19. For a list of Soken members see Appendix 3.
According to a November 1957 poll, Communist China and the Soviet Union were ‘liked’ by 2.0% and 1.3% of respondents, respectively. They were ‘disliked’ by 3.7% and 30.5%. Jiji nenkan (1959): 158.
Mushakoji Kinhide, ‘The Changing Japanese Foreign Policy Attitudes in the 1960s’ Japan Institute of International Affairs Annual Review (1970): 7.
See, for example, ‘Namerareta Nihon’ Shukan Tokyo (5 Apr. 1958): 3–11.
Nanjo Tom, ‘Chu-So kankei no shindankai’ Soren Kenkyu (Sept. 1958): 5.
Amo Eiji, ‘Kyosanken kenkyu’ Soren Mondai (Dec. 1958): 16. AmO had been a viceforeign minister during the war, with earlier diplomatic postings to the Soviet Union and China, and authored the infamous ‘Amo plan’ for China of April 1934. Classified as a Class ‘A’ war criminal, he was never tried, and later headed Japan’s UN Association. See Appendix 5 for a list of founding Council of Sovietologists’ members.
Ishikawa Tadao, ‘Shakaishugiken ni okeru Chugoku no yakuwari’ Chuo Kdron (Nov. 1958): 89, 98.
Inoki Masamichi, ‘Chu-So no seiji kankei’ Soren Mondai (Dec. 1959): 65–88. Participants in the seminar included Yamada Junji and Matsui Hidekazu (Eastern Europe Desk) and Nishizawa Kenichiro (acting head of the China Desk) from MOFA.
Doi Akira, ‘Chukyo yukidoke ni noreru ka’ Keizai Orai (Nov. 1959): 125–9.
Sankei Shimbun (12 Sept. 1959) was unusual in emphasising that Moscow’s appeal for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian border dispute was an admonishment directed at Beijing, which showed that despite their close alliance the Communist powers were sometimes widely divided on important matters.
‘Fu shusho no Pekin homon’ Asahi Janaru (18 Oct. 1959): 29–31.
Takaichi Keinosuke, ‘Kakumei juichi nenme no Chugoku’ Sekai (Dec. 1959): 95.
Hayashi Takuo, et al., ‘Zuiko kisha no Ishibashi hO Chu hiwa’ Keizai Orai (Nov. 1959): 135.
Arai Takeo, ‘Chugoku ni do tai subeki ka’ Nihon oyobi Nihonjin (Dec. 1959): 15.
Suzukawa Isamu, et al., ‘Heiwa kyoson e no taido’ Gaiko Jihö (Nov. 1959): 20–1.
Harako Rinjiro, ‘Taigai seisaku o meguru Chu-So kankei’ Sekai Shuho (20 Oct. 1959): 32. See also Azuma Teruhiko, who related differing Sino-Soviet attitudes towards the status quo to their length of experience in building Socialism.
Marukawa Tatsuo, ‘Kewashii NitChu dakai e no michi’ Soren Kenkyu (June 1960): 54. Iwamura Michio clearly shared this view. Surveying the past decade of Sino-Soviet relations he anticipated no future problems. Iwamura Michio, ’ 10 nenrai no Chu-So kankei’ Kokusai Seiji (15 May 1960): 28–39.
‘Chu-So no kuichigai’ Chuo Koron (Apr. 1960): 217–9. Similarly, for a staff writer with Sekai Shieho, there was ‘no basic clash of interests between them’ even if there was ‘a conflict of opinion…regarding the easing of world tension.’ Inoue Shozo, ‘Chukyo to yukidoke no bimyona kankei’ Sekai Shuho (1 Jan. 1960): 47; ‘Sekai o tsukiageru Chukyo’ Sekai Shuho (28 June 1960): 44.
68 people replied of whom nearly half had also responded to the 1959 questionnaire. ‘Shinshun anketo’ Soren Kenkyu (Jan. 1960): 42–55.
It was also felt that China eventually followed Soviet policy changes, although recently their positions seemed to have reversed. Taiken, ‘Chu-So no tai Nichi seisaku’ Tairiku Mondai (May 1960): 81. See also K. Alexandrov.
See, for example, S. Labin and C. Emmet, ‘Is there a Sino-Soviet Split?’ Orbis (spring 1960): 28–38.
Kiga KenzO, ‘Chu-So no tairitsu to Nihon’ Ronso (Feb. 1960): 61–7. See also Kubota Yasushi.
Hamano Masami and Shishikura Toshiro, ‘Hyomenka shita Chu-So ronso’ Sekai Shuho (5 July 1960): 20–3.
Hamano Masami, ‘Chu-So rikan no ugoki’ Tairiku Mondai (Oct. 1960): 30–5.
Maeshiba Kakuzo, ‘Kaikyuteki shiten to jinruiteki shiten’ Ritsumeikan Hogaku (Sept. 1960): 214–38.
Eguchi Bokuro, ‘Tairitsu suru Chu-So no riron to genjitsu’ Asahi Janaru (18 Sept. 1960): 14–19.
For a list of official participants see Appendix 6. While the only bureaucrat included on this list was Okita Saburo, then a junior member of the EPA, the observers included a large number of government personnel. Obata Misao, ‘The Sino-Soviet Dispute’ Japan Quarterly (Jan./Mar. 1961): 26.
H.F. Schurmann, ‘The Third Sovietological Conference’ China Quarterly (Oct./Dec. 1960): 102.
The other papers by Japanese were: Inoki Masamichi, ‘Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought’; Miyashita Tadao, ‘A Comparison of the Chinese and Soviet Economies’; Muramatsu Yuji, ‘The Negotiation between Chinese Communism and Tradition During the Yennan Period’; Amö Eiji, ‘Is Intemational Communism Advancing in the Far East?’; Takahashi Masao, ‘Communism in Japan’; Ueda Toshio, ‘The “Two Chinas” and Japan’; Yamamoto Noboru, ‘Japan’s Communist bloc Trade’ and Itagaki Yoichi, ‘The Prospects for Nationalism, Democracy and Communism in South-East Asia’.
Onoe Masao, ‘Factors Binding the USSR and Communist China’, Unity and Contradiction, Kurt London (ed.) (1962) NY: 142–55; or in Japanese: ‘Chu-So kankei no ketsugoteki yOso’, Soren to Chukyo, Oa Kyokai (ed.) (1962): 734–53.
Hirota Yoji, ‘Chu-So kan no kiretsu ni tsuite’ in Oa Kyokai (1962): 220–42, 167–9.
Kiga KenzO, ‘Chukyo to Soren no aida no ketsugoteki yoso to taikoteki yoso’ in Oa KyOkai (1962): 539–61.
Ishikawa Tadao, ‘Chukyo no tai Nichi seisaku’ in Oa Kyokai (1962): 295–311.
P. Langer, ‘Moscow, Peking, and Tokyo’ in London (1962): 223–30. Such views were not uncommon amongst US experts at this time. A. Doak Barnett even suggested that the Communist powers had ‘closely coordinated the timing of their separate moves… toward…Japan’. A. Doak Barnett, Communist China and Asia (1960) NY: 371.
‘Chu-So kankei no kokusai zemi’ Asahi Janaru (9 Oct. 1960): 105. See also, Schurmann (1960): 111; Obata (1961): 28.
Obata (1961): 29. See also, Asahi Janaru (9 Oct. 1960): 104; Muramatsu Yuji, ‘Chukyo wa Yugo no michi o ayumu ka’ Keizai Oral (Nov. 1960): 65–71.
Taiken, ‘Chu-So kankei no kento’ Tairiku Mondai (Nov. 1960): 16–34.
‘Chu-So ronsO no honshitsu’ Sekai (Nov. 1960): 207–12.
Zhou Jingwen, ‘Chu-So tairitsu wa nai’ Sekai Shuho (1 Nov. 1960): 20.
Jin Xiongbo, ‘Chu-So no antO wa tsuzuku’ Sekai Shuho (6 Dec. 1960): 56–7.
Onoe Masao, ‘Hachijuikkakoku kyOsanto sengen to Chu-So ronsO’ Kyosanken Mondai (formerly Soren Mondai) (Jan. 1961): 17–18.
‘Chu-So no tairitsu wa kaisho shita ka’ Asahi Janaru (11 Dec. 1960): 77–9.
‘Chu-So ronsO no tOtatsuten’ Ekonomisuto (10 Jan. 1961): 6–16.
Kiuchi Nobutane, ‘Gaiko no kokorogamae to kichO ni tsuite’ Keizai Rondan (Feb. 1961): 10.
‘Shinshun anketo’ Soren Kenkyu (Jan. 1961): 34–41.
Oki Masato, ‘Chu-So ronsd to Nihon teikokushugi’ Keizai Hydron (Jan. 1961): 50–61.
Sato Noboru, ‘Taisei no henkalai to heiwa kyoson’ Sekai (Feb. 1961): 28–38.
Matsumoto Shigeharu, et al., ‘Kawariyuku sekai to Nihon’ Jiyu (Apr. 1961): 5–6.
Matsumoto Shigeharu, ‘Gendai Nihon to kokusaiteki chii’ Chuo Koran (Oct. 1961): 35.
Doi Akio, ‘Mondai no oi ChU-So kankei’ Tairiku Mondai (May 1961): 8.
Harako Rinjiro, ‘Chu-So ronso no shindankai’ Sekai Shuho (5 Dec. 1961): 30–5.
Harako Rinjiro, ‘Chu-So kankei no jurokunen’ Chuo Koron (Mar. 1962): 125, 132.
‘Shinshun anketo’ Soren Kenkyu (Jan. 1962): 20–9. Unfortunately, the journal ceased publication in November 1962.
Watanabe Mikio, ‘Fushigina sankaku kankei’ Keizai Orai (Feb. 1962): 92–3.
JTW (17 Mar. 1962). The JCP had expelled another ten prominent intellectuals in early February. See Chapter 6.
William Ballis, ‘A Decade of Soviet—Japanese Relations’ Studies on the Soviet Union (1964): 152; ‘Odoroki awateru Gaimusho’ Shin Shukan (17 May 1962): 26.
Pravda (27 Aug. 1963) cited in D. Petrov, ‘Japan and the Mao Group’s Foreign Policy’ International Affairs (Moscow) (Dec. 1968): 32–3.
Asada Mistuteru, ‘Chu-So ronsO to Nihon no sayoku’ Ronso (Apr. 1962): 84–91.
Kusano Fumio, ‘Chu-So no ronsO to keizai kankei’ Ronso (Mar. 1962): 30–7.
Sekido TatsuzO, ‘Chu-So ronsO ni kanren shita Chu-So no tai Nichi doko to sono eikyo’ Tairiku Mondai (Oct. 1962): 20–9.
Sakarnoto Koretada, ‘Chugoku ni okeru kyosanshugi to minzokushugi’ Chuo Kdron (June 1962): 88–9.
Onoe even mentioned the possibility of a new Comintern being established to maintain unity. Onoe Masao, ‘Chu-So riron toso no hitsuzensei to genkai’ Kokusai Seiji (Apr. 1963): 68–70.
Iwamura Michio, ‘Chu-So ronso no ichikosatsu’ Ajia Kenkyu (July 1962): 1–20. In March, Sekai had reprinted an article on the dispute by these famous American Socialists. In it they declared: ‘we have no doubt whatever that the Russians are right and the Chinese wrong.’ And although they blamed the US for China’s condition, the latter was nevertheless diagnosed as suffering from ‘dogmatic leftism’ and hence, ‘the world should be grateful that China’s foreign policy is subject to the moderating influence of the Soviet Union.’ L. Huberman and P. Sweezy, ‘The Sino-Soviet Dispute’ Monthly Review (Dec. 1961): 337–46. Reprinted as ‘Chu-So ronso kakushin’ Sekai (Mar. 1962): 64–71.
Harako Rinjiro, ‘Chu-So maboroshi no wakai’ Jiyu (July 1962): 58–65.
Robert Scalapino, ‘The Left Wing in Japan’ Survey (Aug. 1962): 110–11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 C. W. Braddick
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Braddick, C.W. (2004). Wishful thinking: Japan’s public debate on the Sino-Soviet relationship, 1950–62. In: Japan and the Sino-Soviet Alliance, 1950–1964. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005693_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005693_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51369-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-00569-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)