'The people will not be cheated': Domestic criticism of Japan's Siberian intervention and 'imperial democracy,' 1918--1922.

摘要

This is the first narrative of Japanese decision-making regarding the Siberian intervention from 1918 to 1922 either in English or Japanese. It is the first in English to examine domestic criticism of the intervention. Siberia was unique in the prewar period for receiving sustained criticism for its failure to conform to the "trends of the times," euphemisms for Wilsonian internationalism and democratic politics that achieved great popularity after the defeat of Germany at the end of the First World War.; The intervention and the "rice riots" both began in August 1918, helping propel Seiyukai party president Hara Takashi into the prime minister's office at the head of a party Cabinet that September. This began the period of party domination of Japanese politics that lasted until 1932.; The intervention was the nadir of army prestige and influence. The Hara cabinet and the Army General Staff battled over the conduct of the intervention, particularly the question of withdrawal after 1919. Stalemate resulted; the intervention dragged on but army plans for creating a buffer state in Siberia were thwarted.; The end of the intervention in October 1922, a decision by Prime Minister Kato Tomosaburo, navy admiral and the only non-party premier during the 1920s, foreshadowed the eclipse of political party dominance. The inability of the Seiyukai Cabinet to end the unpopular intervention help sour many Japanese on the utility of party cabinets and democratic politics to achieve desired ends.; Newspaper commentary on the intervention shows deep ambivalence or even hostility to the issue throughout, a marked contrast to their usual strong nationalism and jingoism. Magazines and journals show elite opinion criticizing intervention policy for failing to acknowledge the "trends of the tires."; Despite the popularity of the "trends of the times" most Japanese did not value internationalism and democracy for their own sake but to ratify their membership among the elite, modern nations of the day. As happened in Europe, when authoritarian regimes seemed to offer a better answer to the "challenge of modernity," democracy and the parties were abandoned. The post Cold War world may see nations develop in similar ways.