Category talk:Japanese fascists

Misapplication of category

As our article on Japanese fascism explains, "The use of the term fascism in relation to Japan is contentious and disputed." This is corroborated and expounded upon further by the Wikipedia articles on fascism, Japanese nationalism, Japanese militarism, Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan, along with several others, and by a great many well-reputed formal scholarly works on the subject.

Thus, is it really appropriate to be labeling everyone involved in Japanese nationalism/militarism a "fascist"? Indeed, is it really appropriate to be labeling any Japanese at all fascists, outside of those who we explicitly know to have read and agreed with treatises on fascism by Italian political thinkers? LordAmeth 03:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. There are certain specific members of the pre-war Japanese government and military who promoted European-style fascism, or attempted to create a similar system modified for use in Japan. However, it appears that the Category:Japanese fascists is being misused recently by certain editors as a POV forum to label warime or prewar biographies of Japanese indiscriminately. Use of the category should be supported by evidence in the article in question, and misuse should be construed as vandalism and reverted. --MChew 03:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It shouldn't be used to refer to any Japanese nationalist or militarist. John Smith's 10:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better word to describe the politcial movement in Imperial Japan that led to Japan's strong nationalism and aggressive policies in Asia and the Pacific? I would think that there would be, because Fascism refers more to the political movement in Italy pre-WWII. There must be a better descriptive word for the Japanese political movement that contained some similarities. Cla68 10:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how fascism, Japanese nationalism, Japanese militarism, Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan corroborates and expounds on Japanese fascism being contentious or disputed?? I found no text stating such a thing about Japanese fascism in any those articles. Let me know what I'm missing here. Thanks.melonbarmonster 05:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that Melon; I just assumed that the articles would contain the appropriate information, and did not actually check for that. Still, for a solid, professional, academic treatment of the subject, I would recommend (if you have the time and interest) an article by Peter Duus and Daniel Okimoto entitled "Fascism and the History of Pre-War Japan - the Failure of a Concept." This is just one of many journal articles and other writings by a number of historians debating the applicability of the term to the Japanese case. This is likely the best one I myself have come across, in terms of giving a good overview of the various arguments on both sides, the history of the debate, etc. LordAmeth 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is a distinct political philosophy distinct from Japanese nationalism, ultranationalism, Japanese militarism, and/or Japanese imperialism. Certain Japanese politicians and military leaders, such as Seigō Nakano or Kuniaki Koiso or Hiroshi Ōshima, can undoubtedly be considered “fascists”. But this does not mean that every single political or military leader during wartime Japan, even if they advocated aggression and/or colonization against other Asian countries or even if they were motivated by racism, were by default all “fascists”. The political views of certain military leaders, such as Nagano Osami for example, were not publicly articulated, and (although it can certainly be argued that he was a militarist and a nationalist) there is little evidence to indicate that he supported fascism as defined in the wikipedia article fascism.

Also, in a side-note specifically for User:melonbarmonster, Togo Shigenori was found guilty of Counts 1, 27, 29, 31 and 32 at the Tokyo Tribunal. All are “crimes of aggression”. He was not charged nor found “guilty of crimes against humanity” and your categorization should be reverted. --MChew 07:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So shall we create a list of people who were fascists, so we can be sure which ones shouldn't be labelled that way? John Smith's 13:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that idea. If anyone has any insights into this - if you've done particular research on which members of the Meiji/Taisho/early-Showa government or military were directly involved in reading, writing, discussing or acting upon Italian fascist thought - a list could be of great use. Anyone up for it? LordAmeth 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism has some suggested guidelines on criteria on fascism per se, but not on Japanese fascism specifically. It also cautions that the whole issue can easily get bogged down into a POV debate. There is the widespread lack of knowledge by laymen on what defines a person as "fascist", the basic ambiguity of the word "Japanese fascist" to begin with, and the prevalence of the use of Fascist (epithet) as a slur to describe any right-wing person or movement. It is tempting just to eliminate the category altogether, especially if Fascist (epithet) is allowed to become a defining feature.--MChew 14:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We could have the category reviewed for deletion.... John Smith's 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What many of you seem to supporting is borderline original research in my opinion. Correctly or incorrectly, what's important for wiki purposes is the existence of the term "Japanese facism". What does this term mean, how did it come to exist and how is it used? The term may be a misnomer is your opinion but as long it exists in the real world, it should be documented.melonbarmonster 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not solely my/our opinion, it is the opinion of a great many well-regarded and prominent academics in the field. I have just completed a MA in Japanese history, including a course on modern Japanese historiography, and this is most assuredly the position of the majority of the scholars in the field - that "fascism" is either a misnomer entirely, or a point of contentious debate. This is not original research on the part of us Wikipedians. LordAmeth 07:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And that is just the point. If the term is going to be used at all, it should be used only where applicable. Not every hate group, not every nationalist group, and not every totalitarian group -- indeed, not every totalitarian nationalist hate group -- is necessarily fascist. When it is used as a blanket term for every government and political leader in Japan during World War II just because they did "bad things" to the peoples of Asia, this becomes Fascist (epithet) and is not appropriate. When it is documented that the person in question actually belonged to a political party or organization that identified itself as “fascist” – such as the Tōhōkai, Sakura Kai, etc. (and was not “fascist” simply because WE think that they were bad guys and hate them), AND that the person in question advocated political AND economic goals in line with such an organization – then I have no issue with the categorization.

To use an example, I believe that an argument can be made to categorize Konoe Fumimaro as a “Japanese fascist” due to his involvement with the creation and leadership of the Taisei Yokusankai, which advocated a political/economic structure based on tenets very similar to Italian fascism. However, no one has bothered to include this information into his article and I would therefore oppose (and probably revert) any simple addition of Category:Japanese fascists without any mention or reference to this in the article. Was Iwane Matsui a “Japanese fascist”? I see no reference to anything about his political affiliation in his article – only his military career and role in the Nanking massacre. It does not matter how many war atrocities he may have been responsible for. He should not be categorized a “Japanese fascist” until or unless such can be documented in the article. --MChew 08:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's original research to work out if someone is not a "Japanese fascist", then it is also OR to say they are a "Japanese fascist". You can't have your cake and eat it - either people can decide how the category is used or they can't. John Smith's 08:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a MA in Japanese history but from my conversations with friends who have MA or PhD in East Asian history is that academia is far from being a respite from Japanese POV and revisionist biases. The fact it's contentious or your personal observation is that most academics view this as being an incorrect term doesn't mean that it's invalid for wiki purposes. What matters is that it exists. Furthermore, the article states that it is controversial so I see absolutely no problem with the existence of this article or the use of the term.

And while I do think that documentation is helpful for application of correct categories, I'm not sure if the same referencing rules that apply to text of the article applies to the addition of categories. I would have to look into this more in WP:REF but from looking at other categories in other articles, categories aren't necessarily documented but applied more loosely.melonbarmonster 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that we are debating whether or not to delete the article “Japanese fascists” but the application of the categorization “Japanese fascists” to certain biographical articles. Obviously, the term creates a tremendous lot of controversy and loose application of the term can easily be construed as a derogatory epitaph based solely on POV rather than a legitimate categorization with historical basis. This is why good documentation is essential in this category. If the category degenerates to no more than a personal “hate list” of “perfidious Japanese” then it has no place in wikipedia.--MChew 08:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)