Graduate Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies
5:1 (2007) 97-100
REVIEW
Paul H. Kratoska (ed.) Asian Labor in the Wartime Japanese Empire, Singapore
University Press: Singapore, 2006, xx + 433 pp., ill., maps, bibl., index (paper).
ISBN 9971-69-333-X.
THE ESSAYS in this volume address the abuse of Asian labour by Imperial Japan during the Pacific War of 1941‐1945. Editor Paul Kratoska, has succeeded in bringing together scholars working with oral sources and written documents in several different languages and geographic locations to tell, ‘compelling stories of a great human tragedy that force readers to consider the war and occupation in a new light.’ 1 The contributions to this collection are generally of a high quality, and will be of interest to specialists and casual readers alike. The book‘s small size belies its extensive coverage. Seventeen chapters (two by the editor) have been grouped into ten categories: Japan, Manchuria, North China, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaya, Philippines, Vietnam, and Memory and Reconciliation. Conspicuously absent from the above are Burma and Thailand, but interested readers should take special note of Nakahara Michiko’s chapter in the Malaya section and Bruce Reynolds’s chapter in the Memory and Reconciliation part for some discussion of these countries’ experiences. The title of Nakahara’s chapter, ‘Malayan Labor on the Thailand‐Burma Railway’, explains the categorization of her chapter and highlights the international character of Japanese labour mobilization, a theme which is shared by nearly all of the contributions to the present work. Indonesia clearly receives the most attention in the collection. It accounts for nearly one third of the material (even providing the toiling labourer that graces the front cover), making the book particularly valuable for scholars conducting research in this area. Kaori Maekawa writes a particularly balanced and well‐researched chapter on the Indonesian men who served as heiho (auxiliary soldiers) in the Japanese army and navy. Significantly, she notes that the heiho later ,‘became the nucleus of Indonesia’s national army and played an important role in the struggle for [Indonesia’s] independence.’ 2 This reminds us of the importance of recognizing both the influence that Japanese T
occupation had on later independence movements, and the need to acknowledge regional differences in the colonial encounter. Mayo/Review of Asian Labor in Wartime Japan 97
Remco Raben’s chapter from the same section on Indonesia does an excellent job of illustrating the extraordinary extent to which the intended and unintended effects of Japanese labour policies extended to even the most isolated regions. Raben concludes that, ‘voluntary employment, forced labor, and intensive recruitment for Japanese projects—the distinction is never altogether clear—were as frequent in large parts of the Outer Islands as they were on Java.’ 3 In this quote, Raben identifies one of the most vexing dilemmas for authors of the present work: the question of how to determine whether labour was voluntary, coerced, or forced. Do we accept that the distinction between different types of labour was never clear, or do we give our own interpretation of the data, as Ju Zhifen has done? She writes that labourers employed in North China on military projects were, ‘unpaid “voluntary” workers, in other words, forced labor.’ For labourers from North China in Mongolia‐Tibet who could not cross the border without a permit she also writes that, ‘those who went to Mongolia‐Tibet thus immediately lost their freedom and mobility and became forced laborers.’ 4 By categorically labelling voluntary workers, workers who never received their pay, and workers who lacked mobility as “forced labour”, Ju Zhifen collapses important distinctions between motivations for instituting a policy, the means of its implementation, and the final results. Perhaps these distinctions were more than mere euphemisms to the Japanese, and the labels (or lack thereof) may have had some effect on how the labourers were viewed or treated. This is a potentially fruitful line of inquiry that has not been sufficiently examined by any of the essays in the book. Labels also become an issue when we consider the reaction of contemporaries towards those who laboured for the Japanese. In an informative chapter about wartime mobilization in Taiwan, Hui‐yu Caroline Ts’ai writes that Taiwanese translators working in mainland China for the Japanese earned scorn from locals because they participated in intelligence work and functioned as liaisons between occupation authorities and residents. Labelled by the Chinese as, ‘”imperial military” (kōgun) or “running dogs” (zougou),’ for their wartime activities, the chapter also observes that, ‘after the war, people seeking revenge beat more translators to death than any other category of Taiwanese laborers.’ 5 From this, the reader may begin to contemplate less‐recognised atrocities related to the war. Unfortunately however, this issue is not explored in any depth. One naturally wonders about details such as the number of translators who were murdered, how many in all the categories of Taiwanese labourers suffered the same fate, and whether Chinese translators or other categories of Chinese labourers were also attacked. The same questions about revenge after the war could similarly be asked of 98 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps other areas covered by the collection. In a thought‐provoking examination of the, ‘parasitic colonization,’ that occurred when the Japanese, ‘exploited Indochina while keeping the French administration in place,’ Tran My‐Van describes a similar situation for non‐communist nationals whose deaths at the hands of their countrymen were, ‘very much related to their patriotism and to their collaboration with or reliance on Japan during the wartime occupation.’ 6 The reader is left with little doubt that atrocities occurred during and after the war, but human agency is curiously lacking, and if those who caused the suffering were more clearly identified and their motivations explored, then greater insights into conditions might be gained. Asian Labor in the Wartime Japanese Empire is a much‐needed contribution to the historical literature on this topic, because the authors are usually able to tell us something about why the Japanese instituted certain labour policies, what conditions were like under those policies, and the death, dislocation, and misery that resulted from them. However, these essays tell us very little about the elusive reason for Japanese mistreatment of their labourers. In his first chapter, Paul Kratoska nicely sums up the four most common explanations: First, corporal punishment was common within the Japanese military…Second, many of the people employed as guards or supervisors were poorly educated and of working‐class origins…To this must be added differences of language and culture, and misunderstandings arising from communication problems…Third, the tasks being done were ordered in the name of the emperor and treated as vital to the war effort…Finally, there can be little doubt that many people did not work particularly hard. 7 All of these are plausible enough, but without hearing more about the experiences of the Japanese who were involved with labour in the occupied territories, the story of what happened to Asian labourers in Japan’s wartime empire remains incomplete. The main contribution of the present work is that it makes research on several countries accessible to readers and speakers of English. It can only be hoped that the present work will, in the words of the editor, ‘prompt further study of the issues it raises.’ 8
Christopher M. MAYO University of Kansas NOTES Paul H. Kratoska (ed.) Asian Labor in the Wartime Japanese Empire, Singapore, Singapore University Press, 2006, p.xvii. 2 ibid., p.179. 1
Mayo/Review of Asian Labor in Wartime Japan 99
ibid., p.210. ibid., pp.75‐76. 5 ibid., p.111. 6 ibid., p.299. 7 ibid., p.4. 8 ibid., p.xvii. 3
4
100 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps