Appendix SCAPIN 919, “Removal and Exclusion of Diet Member” May 3, 1946 a. As Chief Secretary of the Tanaka Cabinet from 1927 to 1929, he necessarily shares responsibility for the formulation and promulgation without Diet approval of amendments to the so-called Peace Preservation Law which made that law the government’s chief legal instrument for the suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and made possible the denunciation, terror- ization, seizure, and imprisonment of tens of thousands of adherents to minor- ity doctrines advocating political, economic, and social reform, thereby preventing the development of effective opposition to the Japanese militaristic regime. b. As Minister of Education from December 1931 to March 1934, he was responsible for stifling freedom of speech in the schools by means of mass dismissals and arrests of teachers suspected of “leftist” leanings or “dangerous thoughts.” The dismissal in May 1933 of Professor Takigawa from the faculty of Kyoto University on Hatoyama’s personal order is a flagrant illustration of his contempt for the liberal tradition of academic freedom and gave momentum to the spiritual mobilization of Japan, which under the aegis of the military and economic cliques, led the nation eventually into war. c. Not only did Hatoyama participate in thus weaving the pattern of ruth- less suppression of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of thought, hut he also participated in the forced dissolution of farmer-labor bodies. In addition, his indorsement of totalitarianism, specifically in its appli- cation to the regimentation and control of labor, is a matter of record. His recommendation that “it would be well” to transplant Hitlerite anti-labor devices to Japan reveals his innate antipathy to the democratic principle of the right of labor freely to organize and to bargain collectively through representa- tives of its own choice. It is a familiar technique of the totalitarian dictatorship, wherever situated, whatever be its formal name, and however be it distinguished, first to weaken and then to suppress the freedom of individuals to organize for 238 / appendix mutual benefit. Whatever lip service Hatoyama may have rendered to the cause of parliamentarianism, his sponsorship of the doctrine of regimentation of labor identifies him as a tool of the ultra-nationalistic basis as a pre-requisite to its wars of aggression. d. By words and deeds he has consistently supported Japan’s acts of aggres- sion. In July 1937 he traveled to America and Western Europe as personal emis- sary of the then Prime Minister Konoe to justify Japan’s expansionist program. While abroad he negotiated economic arrangements for supporting the war against China and the subsequent exploitation of that country after subjugation. With duplicity, Hatoyama told the British Prime Minister in 1937 that “China cannot survive unless controlled by Japan,” and that the primary motive behind Japan’s intervention in China involved the “happiness of the Chinese people.” e. Hatoyama has posed as an anti-militarist. But in a formal address mailed to his constituents during the 1942 election in which he set forth his political credo, Hatoyama referred to the attack on Pearl Harbor as “fortunately...a great victory,” stated as a fact that the true cause of the Manchuria and China “incidents” was the anti-Japanese sentiment (in China) instigated by England and America, ridiculed those who in 1928 and 1929 had criticized the Tanaka cabinet, boasted that that cabinet had “liquidated the (previous) weak-kneed diplomacy toward England and America,” and gloated that “today the world policy drafted by the Tanaka Cabinet is steadily being realized.” This identifica- tion of himself with the notorious Tanaka policy of world conquest, whether genuine or merely opportunistic, in and of itself brands Hatoyama as one of those who deceived and misled the people of Japan into militaristic misadventure. Political Reorientation of Japan, September 1945 to September 1948 (PRJ), Vol. II, pp. 494–495, in Hans H. Baerwald, The Purge of Japanese Leaders Under the Occupation, University of California Publications in Political Science, Vol. VIII, Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1959, pp. 22–23. Notes Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Sato Tomoyasu, Keibatsu (clans by marriage), Tokyo: Tachikaze Shobo, 1994, p. 260. 2. Ibid., p. 257. 3. Donald C. Hellmann, Japanese Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics: The Peace Agreement with the Soviet Union, Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1969. 4. John W. Dower, Empire and Aftermath: Yoshida Shigeru and the Japanese Experience, 1878–1954, Cambridge, Mass.: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1979; Chalmers Johnson, Japan: Who Governs: The Rise of the Developmental State, New York: W. W. Norton, 1995; and Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, New York: HarperCollins, 2000. 5. Tetsuya Kataoka, The Price of a Constitution: The Origin of Japan’s Postwar Politics, New York: Crane Russak, 1991, p. 133. 6. Dower, op. cit., p. 275. 7. Kataoka, op. cit., p. 103 and Kataoka Tetsuya, Nippon eikyu senryo (perma- nent occupation of Japan), Tokyo: Kodansha, 1999, p. 251. 8. Ibid. (1999), p. 352 and (1991), p. 9. Gerald L. Curtis examines Ichiro’s bill in The Logic of Japanese Politics: Leaders, Institutions, and the Limits of Change, New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. 9. “Shuin no seshu giin” (hereditary Diet members in the HR), Chunichi Shimbun, June 25, 2000 and “Sanin no seshu giin” (hereditary Diet members in the HC), Chunichi Shimbun, July 29, 2001. 10. Robert Elgie, Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995, pp. 2 and 23; James MacGregor Burns, Leadership, New York: Harper & Row, 1978, p. 126; Robert Tucker, Politics as Leadership, Columbia, Miss.: University of Missouri Press, 1981, p. 11; and Harold D. Lasswell, “Political Systems, Styles and Personalities,” in Elgie, p. 316. For a detailed discussion of the definition, see Elgie, pp. 2–4. 11. Ibid. (Elgie), p. 5 and (Tucker), p. 14. Carlyle, quoted in Tucker. 12. Lasswell, op. cit., pp. 316–347. 13. Elgie, op. cit., p. 6 and Robert Tucker, Political Culture and Leadership in Soviet Russia: From Lenin to Gorbachev, New York: W. W. Norton, 1987, p. vii. 240 / notes 14. Tucker, op. cit. (1981), pp. 2–7. 15. Ibid., p. 14. 16. C. A. Gibbs, “The Principles and Traits of Leadership,” in C. A. Gibbs, ed., Leadership: Selected Readings, Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1969, p. 205. 17. Ibid., pp. 207–208 and 211–212; and R. M Stogdill, “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature,” in ibid, p. 127. 18. Ibid. 19. Burns, op. cit., p. 19. 20. Ibid., p. 63. 21. Elgie, op. cit., pp. 7–8 and 23–24. 22. Tucker, op. cit. (1981), pp. 14 and 31. 23. Mehran Tamadonfar, The Islamic Polity and Political Leadership, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1989, p. 2. 24. Abraham H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper Brothers, 1954 and Ike Nobutaka, Japanese Politics: An Introductory Survey, New York: Knopf, 1957, pp. 10–36. 25. John K. Galbraith, The Anatomy of Power, Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1983, pp. 38–71. 26. Burns, op. cit., p. 112. Chapter 2 The First Generation: Kazuo and the Meiji Government 1. John K. Fairbank, Edwin O. Reischauer, and Albert M. Craig, East Asia: Tradition and Transformation, Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, revised ed., 1989, pp. 486–500. For the historical background of this chapter, see also Robert A. Scalapino, Democracy and the Party Movement in Prewar Japan, Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1953 and Andrew Fraser, R. H. P. Mason, and Philip Mitchell, Japan’s Early Parliaments, 1890–1905: Structure, Issues and Trends, New York: Routledge, 1995. 2. Hatoyama Ichiro, Watashi no jijoden (Autobiography), Tokyo: Kaizosha, 1951, pp. 19 and 30–31. 3. Ibid., pp. 31–32 and Toyoda Jo, Hatoyama Ichiro: Eisai no kakei (Hatoyama Ichiro: An elite’s genealogy), Tokyo: Kodansha, 1989, pp. 31–34. 4. Ibid. (Toyoda) and Ike Nobutaka, Japanese Politics: An Introductory Survey, New York: Knopf, 1957, pp. 16–36. 5. Ibid. (Toyoda), pp. 16–36. 6. Hatoyama, op. cit., pp. 34–35. 7. Ibid., pp. 36–37. 8. Ibid., pp. 37–38 and 52, and Toyoda, op. cit., pp. 40–41. 9. Ibid. (Hatoyama), pp. 52–54. 10. Toyoda, op. cit., p. 117. 11. Ibid., p. 42 and Hatoyama, op. cit., p. 55. 12. Ibid. (Hatoyama), pp. 55–58. 13. Ibid., pp. 58–60. 14. Ibid., pp. 69–70 and 103, and Ito Hirotoshi, Hatoyama ichizoku (Hatoyama dynasty), Tokyo: Pipurusha, 1996, pp. 78–81. notes / 241 15. Ibid. (Hatoyama), pp. 70–71 and 80. 16. Ibid., p. 103 and Toyoda, op. cit., pp. 60–62. 17. Fairbank et al., op. cit., pp. 501–507. 18. Ibid., pp. 508 and 536–539, and Mark Borthwick, Pacific Century: The Emergence of Modern Pacific Asia, Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1992, p. 135. 19. Ibid. (Fairbank et al.), and Hatoyama, op. cit., pp. 60–62. 20. Ibid. (Hatoyama), pp. 103–104. 21. Ibid., pp. 62–63. Kato’s given name is occasionally referred to as “Komei”; however, the correct pronunciation is “Takaaki.” 22. Ibid., pp. 63–64. 23. Hatoyama Haruko (Haruko), Jijoden (Autobiography), Tokyo: Ozorasha, fukkoku-ban (reproduction, the original version was published in 1929), 1990, pp. 15–58. At the initial haihan chiken, in July 1871, there were 3 fu (Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto) and 302 ken, including “Matsumoto-ken.” They were restructured into 3 fu and 72 ken by the year end and Matsumoto-ken became “Chikuma-ken.” It was incorporated into the present Nagano-ken, with Matsumoto city as its capital, in 1888. 24. Ibid., pp. 19–42. 25. Ibid., pp. 42–54. 26. Ibid., pp. 54–66. 27. Ibid., pp. 66–67.