AHR Forum
Japan 1968: The Performance of Violence and theTheater of Protest
WILLIAM MAROTTIPolitical activity is whatever shifts a body from the place assigned to it or changes
a place’s destination. It makes visible what had no business being seen, andmakes heard a discourse where once there was only place for noise; it makes
understood as discourse what was once only heard as noise.
Jacques Rancière, Disagreement
THE ICONIC YEAR 1968 marks the 1960s as a global moment. People took to the streetsin nation after nation, their demonstrations recorded and distributed worldwide
through a variety of broadcast media in a montage of popular activism (or disorder,
depending on one’s perspective). For participants and sympathizers, the spectacleof mass protest made visible the international, shared nature of the political imperatives of the moment, and promoted the possibilities of direct action.
This backdrop of ubiquitous activism also reinforced one of the era’s key politicalcharacteristics: the blurring of conventional sociological categories and identifications as the basis for political transformation and reengagement.1 The porous divide
between political protesters and the larger, supposedly apolitical populace proved

I would like to thank Ned Alpers, Ra’anan Boustan, Ishiguro Kenji, Arthur Marotti, Judy Marotti,
Toshio Ochi, and my assistants Nobuko Anan and Norihiro Nakata, as well as the editors at the AHR
and my anonymous reviewers, for their encouragement and their contributions to improving this article.
Research was enabled by grants from the UCLA Senate (2008), the UCLA Paul I. and Hisako Terasaki
Center for Japanese Studies (2008), and the UCLA Department of History.
1 To take the case of France, Kristin Ross analyzes 1968 as “above all else a massive refusal on thepart of thousands, even millions, of people to see in the social what we usually see: nothing more than
the narrowest of sociological categories.” Kristin Ross, May ’68 and Its Afterlives (Chicago, 2002), 7. Thus,“what has come to be called ‘the events of May’ consisted mainly in students ceasing to function as
students, workers as workers, and farmers as farmers: May was a crisis in functionalism. The movement
took the form of political experiments in declassification, in disrupting the natural ‘givenness’ of places;
it consisted of displacements that took students outside of the university, meetings that brought farmers
and workers together, or students to the countryside—trajectories outside of the Latin Quarter, toworkers’ housing and popular neighborhoods . . . The logic of the police worked throughout this period
to separate students from workers, to prevent contact, to isolate students in the Latin Quarter, to prevent
student-worker interaction . . . May ’68 had less to do with the identity or interests of ‘students’ per se,
than with a disjuncture or fissure created within that identity” (25; emphasis in the original). Ross discusses in turn the consequent depoliticizing results of applying conventional sociological or biographicalmodes of analysis to these events—“confiscations” that reduce the very form of its politicality back tonormative categories (4). In the course of several years of teaching classes on “The Global 1960s,” whiledeveloping research on phenomena in 1960s Japan, I have become convinced of the cogency of thisapproach in addressing the central comparative dimensions of this global moment.

97

98

William Marotti

to be a major source of anxiety for various authorities, who discovered that theformer could be only incompletely described as “activists,” or in fact as any conventionally recognized social group. In case after case, the researcher of the 1960s
encounters people who, although self-identified as “nonpolitical,” were drawn into
committed activism, frequently through some key incident or encounter, in the process often examining and transforming their own social practices and identifications.
But instead of a switch from apoliticality to activism, such transformations challenged this very division, and enabled additional possibilities for social agency andradical social change.
In Japan, the term nonpori (a phoneticized abbreviation of the English word
“nonpolitical”) spoke to both this self-identification and its potential instability. The
term denoted an individual’s status outside standard political classifications. It thus
reflected a common view of the “political” as an overly narrow domain of government
action, party politics, or hierarchical protest networks marked by firm ideologicalcommitments. During the 1960s, however, nonpori came increasingly to designate
individuals who were likely to self-mobilize spontaneously. They occupied a kind of“not-yet” position that was of great concern to both committed activists and the state.
Rather than a contradiction in terms, however, the possibility of political engagement by the nonpori reflected an expansion of the field of the political itself as it cameto encompass a much wider range of potential issues, actors, and possibilities. The
apparent paradox of nonpori politics should actually alert us to an expansion of politics in practice that simply outpaced the conventional definitions of the term “political.”In the context of the campus mobilizations, the “ordinary student” [ippangakusei]
similarly came to denote the potentially mobilizable target of a variety of appeals
by both campus activists and authorities. Likewise, during street battles, the witnesses and, occasionally, participants or casualties were typically identified as “citizens” [shimin], a term associated with new urban living patterns since the late 1950s,
particularly the lives of those living in the new danchi housing complexes.2 “Citizen”
thus indicated a certain newness and an association with bourgeois comfort andcomplacency—but could also potentially denote the equally new “citizens’ movements” that originated during the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty (Anpo) protests of1960.3 According to Takabatake Michitoshi, “The term ‘citizens’ movement’ wasitself derived from the nature of its membership—normally apolitical people demonstrating in the streets on a part-time basis.”4 “Citizens” could therefore, depending
2 Danchi refers to clustered apartment buildings, and particularly to the high-rise residential complexes sponsored by the Japan Housing Corporation after its creation in 1955. In the 1960s, the danchi
were increasingly located on urban peripheries, leading to extended commute times. Although the danchi were initially emblematic of a promised lifestyle of modern comfort and convenience, residents found
the realities falling far short of such expectations.
3 Somewhat confusingly, “Anpo” conventionally refers both to the Security Treaty and to the protests against it, typically identified by the renewal year (e.g., Anpo 1960, Anpo 1970). The formal nameof the 1960 treaty is the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States andJapan; the previous treaty, signed in 1951 with ratifications exchanged on the day of its commencement,
April 28, 1952, was the Security Treaty between the United States of America and Japan, a much less“mutual” affair.
4 Takabatake Michitoshi, “Citizens’ Movements: Organizing the Spontaneous,” in J. Victor Koschmann, ed., Authority and the Individual in Japan: Citizen Protest in Historical Perspective (Tokyo, 1978),192. For an additional discussion of the ambiguous signification of “citizen” [shimin] and its consequent

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 196899

on the occasion, refer to anything from a sort of Nixonian “silent majority,” to observers of events, and finally to active participants and victims.5“Nonpolitical,” “ordinary student,” “citizen”: Jacques Rancière and Kristin Ross
alert us to see in these and other conceptual and sociological ambiguities the very
sign of an expansive and revolutionary politics.6 Categories that previously demarcated some degree of distance from political engagement come instead to identify
potentially subversive social agents. It is for this reason that such unexpected andemergent political identifications tend to be read as “spontaneous.” If the contemporaneous use of the term “politics” lags behind this expansion and revision of political boundaries, that too should come as no surprise. The unsettling of the “political” as commonly understood and practiced is for Rancière the sign and essenceof politics. But if politics is, as Rancière would have it, a struggle for visibility andvoice out of noise, a shifting of places and designations, then one must look for its
signs in a confluence of perceptual and practical transformations.
In Japan in 1968, as in so many other countries that year, the eruption of sucha politics was conditioned by the question of “violence” as illegitimate action andforce. The shifts in practice and perception that reveal and constitute this new politics were all hard-won—not only in the face of state opposition, but also against
conventional assumptions that such transformations were improper.7 This expansive
political practice that enabled the formation of new actors, practices, and possibilpolitical effectiveness, see Wesley Sasaki-Uemura, Organizing the Spontaneous: Citizen Protest in Postwar
Japan (Honolulu, 2001), 31–34, 177–178. The artist Akasegawa Genpei began his play with the ambivalent figure of the yajiuma [gawker or onlooker] during 1969 in manga works such as “Gendai
yajiumako៮ ” [Contemporary Gawker Mentality], published in the monthly popular journal Gendai no me[Contemporary Eye]; in elliptical prose and drawings conflating helmets, heads, and rocks, he asserted
a continuum of violence between apoliticality, government force, and activism. For Akasegawa, the roles
performed by people in their daily lives were scripted via the violence of the bureaucratic order, andthus were imminently connected to violence and suppression. Violent activism thus represented an
engagement with this situation at some fundamental level. At the time, Akasegawa was facing stateauthority himself, in the midst of a final appeal to the Supreme Court of his 1967 conviction for currency“imitation.”
5 In 1960, Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke identified a similar putative majority of silent supportersof the status quo as the “voiceless voices”—prompting the organization of the protest group Society of
the Voiceless Voices [Koe naki koe no kai] to contest his presumption. See George Packard III, Protest
in Tokyo: The Security Treaty Crisis of 1960 (Princeton, N.J., 1966), 245–247, 274 –276; Sasaki-Uemura,
Organizing the Spontaneous, 155–162. For both Kishi and, later, Nixon, “silence” was the converse of
reducing protest voices to inconsequential noise, and necessarily “spoke” for the status quo.
6 Jacques Rancière, Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy (Minneapolis, 1999), 28–30, 58–60; Ross,
May ’68 and Its Afterlives, 20–27, 56–61.
7 For the classic statement on the modern state as a relation of dominance inseparable from legitimated violence, see Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation,” in Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology, trans. and ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York, 1958), 77–128. In a lecture in
October 1958 serialized in the Mainichi Shinbun in January 1959 (and revised for book publication in1961), the prominent University of Tokyo political scientist Maruyama Masao linked the tendency forprotest to be described as “violence” directly to the narrowing professionalization of the political realm
and to an ossification of social roles. Maruyama declaimed the tendency for “political activities to become considered as the exclusive province of the ‘political realm,’ the groups of professional politicians,
and thus be restricted only to [activities] within the Diet. Thus political activities in the broader society
performed by those other than politicians come to be regarded either as acts transgressing one’s socialrole or as ‘violence.’ ” Maruyama Masao, “ ‘De aru’ koto to ‘suru’ koto,” reprinted in Maruyama, Nihonno shiso៮ (Tokyo, 1961), 172, 181–182. Sasaki-Uemura discusses this work and its context within theauthor’s contemporaneous texts, and within developing citizen protest movements in advance of 1960
Anpo; Organizing the Spontaneous, 187–192, 259 n. 126. While noting the piece’s fundamental antiauthoritarian perspective, Sasaki-Uemura critiques Maruyama’s exclusively state-centered conception

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

100

William Marotti

ities in 1968 in Japan emerged from a fitful negotiation by which—for a time—thecharge of “violence” was redirected away from activists, and onto the state.

IN JAPAN, THE YEAR 1968 SIGNALED a diversity of temporal references. Viewed as adecade, the 1960s had opened with mass protests and strikes against the renewal andrevision of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, and with the treaty set for automatic
renewal in 1970, the events of 1968 were read by interested observers forward andbackward, both in comparison with this previous high-water mark for postwar mass
activism and as portents of a possibly larger convulsion at the close of the decade—particularly in the context of an intensifying security relationship with an America
again at war in Asia. By the midpoint of the decade, 1965, there had been a massive
escalation of U.S. troop strength in Vietnam, the “Rolling Thunder” bombing campaign of the North had commenced, and Japan had finally concluded a normalization
treaty with the South Korean regime—a process interrupted by protests in bothcountries.8 America’s war on behalf of a U.S.-sponsored client government in a partitioned nation had brought together a confluence of troubling associations, including the Korean War, in which the United States’ actions had triggered direct military
conflict with China, massively enriched the Japanese economy, and enabled the perpetuation of repressive regimes in two former colonies of Japan: Korea (in the south)
and Taiwan (due to the interposing of the Seventh Fleet in the Taiwan Strait).
The year 1968 also marked the one-hundredth anniversary of the Meiji Restoration, the “return” of governance from the Tokugawa shogunate, which inaugurated
a modern, centralized state and located a supposedly primordial institutional authority in a “restored” imperial rule. The Occupation of Japan after World War II
saw the passage of a revised constitution that deprived the emperor of direct authority—and accountability—for state actions, but nonetheless retained the imperial
institution (and Hirohito himself) as the “symbol of the state and of the unity of thepeople.”9 Both the Occupation and the revised constitution exploited the emperor’s
potent symbolic authority—formalized under the Meiji Constitution of 1889, andof “citizen,” and his identification of the tendency to narrow political professionalization as “nonmodern.”
8 In Japan, this marked the first post-1960 resurgence of mass protest; in Korea, protest commencing in 1964 had been so extensive that martial law was declared. This treaty entailed the recognitionof the South Korean regime’s legitimacy (endorsing it both as the rightful government in Korea and in
the form of its government—Park Chung-hee’s repressive regime) and effectively constituted a peace
treaty with the southern half of Japan’s former colony. During the latter negotiations, Ambassador
Edwin O. Reischauer cautioned against a proposed tripartite meeting for its potential effects in Japan,
as “creating impression US ‘intervening’ directly in negotiations, which we still feel is most unwise”—
such a revelation would energize the left and hamper the government’s maneuvers. Telegram 641 from
Tokyo, August 20, 1964, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Md., Record
Group 59, Records of the Department of State, Central File 1964 –1966 [hereafter CF 1964 –1966], POL
JAPAN-KOR S, quoted in United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States,
1964 –1968 [hereafter FRUS, 1964 –1968], vol. XXIX, pt. 1: Korea (Washington, D.C., 2000), doc. 347 n.
4. The colonial past was especially hard to shake in 1965: thanks to the conventions of the sexagenary
cycle, the year name for 1965 coincided with that of 1905, when Japan first established its Korean protectorate.
9 The Constitution of Japan, chap. 1, art. 1, http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c01.html (accessed December 10, 2008), based on the English text furnished by the Government Printing Bureau.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

101

reinforced through decades of emperor-centered cultural practices—to facilitate
their implementation and limit political realignments.10 At once a national centennial and a link to an archaic (even allegedly eternal) national order, this anniversary
marked 1968 with yet another ambivalent relationship to a complex and troubling
past. While the state hoped to build upon its celebration of national progress since
the war in the 1964 Olympics—in anticipation, too, of Expo 1970 in Osaka—the
invocation of Meiji also brought to mind the specters of both political absolutism athome and imperialist expansion into Asia.11 The fixing of the official inaugural date
for the year’s observance on October 23—the date in 1868 when the era name wasofficially changed to Meiji in honor of the new monarch—directly invoked the temporality of imperial time.12 Its ambivalent prehistory in Commodore Perry’s forcible“opening” of the country received a contemporary echo in the continuing Americanrole in shaping the form and policies of a postwar Japanese state bound tightly to
the United States’ cold and hot wars in Asia and the world.13 As it happened, however, October 23 was overshadowed by other pressing events.

IN THE FALL OF 1967, A CHANGE OF TACTICS by a subgroup of student activists transformed the purpose and effectiveness of protests. Late the previous year, a coalition
within Zengakuren, the All-Japan Federation of Student Self-Government Associ10 Popular sovereignty, for example, was short-circuited by the inclusion of the emperor within thesovereign “people” (kokumin, itself a problematic term enabling the disenfranchisement of former citizens of the Japanese Empire after the war). See Koseki Sho៮ ichi, The Birth of Japan’s Postwar Constitution, ed. and trans. Ray A. Moore (Boulder, Colo., 1997), 122, 179–181; in the Diet debates on theConstitution, see, for example, Ray A. Moore and Donald L. Robinson, eds., The Japanese Constitution:
A Documentary History of Its Framing and Adoption, 1945–1947, CD-ROM, version 1.0 (Princeton, N.J.,
1998), RM322.AMPM.SP10.P2, RM325.PM.SP35.P1-3, RM329.AM.SP26-8, and RM329.AM.SP39.P2.
(The “RM id” reference system for this exceedingly convenient and easily obtained electronic document
collection is explained by Keith Handley in “Referring to These Documents,” ibid.) I discuss the returnof imperial authority and the complex use of the emperor for post–World War II state legitimacy withina larger study, Money, Trains, and Guillotines: Art and Revolution in 1960s Japan (forthcoming from Duke
University Press).
11 In his March 1968 presidential address at the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Association of
Asian Studies, John Whitney Hall discussed these differing interpretations of the centennial (including
accusations by Japanese historians of fascism, political manipulation, and historical distortion) in relation to the American practice of Japan scholarship. Responding both to the divergence between American and Japanese historical interpretations and in part to contemporary criticisms of “political bias”
in Asian studies (then dominated by modernization theory), Hall noted the shift from prior criticalreadings of the Meiji era to “the current rash of essentially optimistic interpretations of Japan’s modern
history,” and questioned whether “the ‘success story’ scenario is the natural, the objective, outcome of
adopting a ‘value free’ method.” Hall, “Reflections on a Centennial,” Journal of Asian Studies 27, no.
4 (August 1968): 718.
12 The October 23, 1868, designation of the “Meiji” era also began the practice of fixing a single
era name for the entire reign of a monarch. Previously, different eras might be proclaimed during thelife of an emperor, echoing the other cyclical temporal reckoning systems then in use. See Stefan Tanaka,
New Times in Modern Japan (Princeton, N.J., 2006), 11. Thus 1968 was also Showa 43 by the conventionof imperial era dating, connecting it both to Hirohito’s uninterrupted reign since 1926—and attendantfraught history—and to a differently periodized decade, the Showa 40s, which commenced in 1965 withresurgent activism energized by normalization with South Korea and America’s escalation in Vietnam.
13 Conversely, the prior commemoration of the Perry Centennial in 1953, according to Chizuru
Saeki, managed to celebrate the close relationship and the return of sovereignty following the Occupation without invoking the specter of the Cold War for most participants—this despite the ongoing
Korean War. See Saeki, “The Perry Centennial Celebration: A Case Study in U.S.-Japanese Cultural
Diplomacy,” International Social Science Review 80, no. 3– 4 (Fall–Winter 2005): 147.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

102

William Marottiations, united three groups in opposition to the quiescence of the majority Zengakuren group, Minsei, an affiliate of the equally quiescent Japan Communist Party(JCP).14 On October 8, 1967, activists in this Three-Faction Alliance, Sanpa Zengakuren, attempted to forcibly prevent Prime Minister Sato៮ Eisaku’s departure fromHaneda Airport for Saigon, part of his second tour of Southeast Asia.15 Helmeted
Sanpa members armed with lengths of timber and rocks fought riot police [kido៮ tai],
who were outfitted with their standard meter-long truncheons, duralumin shields,
visored helmets, tear gas guns, water cannons, and armored vehicles. On the threebridges that provided access to the airport, both sides also made aggressive use of
the security forces’ bus-sized vehicles.16 During the fighting on Bentenbashi Bridge,
where most of the members of the Nucleus Faction, Chu៮ kaku-ha, were initially concentrated, a Kyoto University student named Yamazaki Hiroaki was killed by oneof these vehicles, said to have been driven by a fellow student.17 In the end, the prime
minister departed for Saigon as planned; official figures indicated some 600 policeand 100 student injuries, and some 50 arrests.18
While Sanpa had been preparing for direct activism against the prime minister’s
fall trips since that summer, the decision to employ timber staves appears to have
14 Zengakuren is an abbreviation for Zen-nihon gakusei jichikai so៮ rengo. It is a federation of theself-government associations [jichikai] at the various universities, and provides resources therefore controlled by the groups that have succeeded on their campuses in gaining control over their local jichikai.
The three factions represented within Sanpa in 1967 were Chu៮ kaku (the Nucleus Faction, part of the
Marxist Student League), Shagakudo៮ (the Socialist Student League), and Shaseido៮ (the Socialist Youth
League; originally associated with the Japan Socialist Party, the breakaway, radical Kaiho៮ faction was
the one represented in Sanpa). This membership has shifted since the original formation of Sanpa in
the early 1960s, which included Furonto [Front] and an unfragmented Shaseido៮ without Chu៮ kaku. Sanpa
is also frequently rendered as Sanpa rengo៮ kei or Sanpa-kei zengakuren. As the decade progressed, thefactions within Zengakuren proliferated, confounding many outside observers—and prompting the publishing of identification guides detailing favored helmet colors, slogans, and clothing. Minsei is short for
Nihon minshu៮ seinen do៮ mei, the Japan Democratic Youth League. Allegedly it was a federation of
campus groups, although its JCP connection was a matter of common knowledge.
15 The trip to Saigon followed Nguyen Van Thieu’s September ascent to the presidency of South
Vietnam, a move initially greeted with qualified acclaim in the Japanese press as an emergence of popularly supported government, a view “immediately followed by pessimistic afterthoughts that the military
was still in power, the U.S. had helped bring forth the form of democratic government without thecontent, and deep divisions in the populace remained as before.” Memorandum, Leonard H. Marks to
Walt Rostow, November 13, 1967, National Security File, Country File: Japan, vol. VII, Box 252, Johnson
Library, Austin, Tex., 2, Secret. In addition to demonstrating support for the Thieu regime, Sato៮ wasunder pressure from the United States to step up economic aid to Southeast Asia, both to support theAmerican military commitment and to promote “stability” in the face of a perceived broadly active
Chinese threat to the region. For example, Sato៮ blamed Mao for the present violence in Burma. Memorandum of Conversation, Sato៮ ’s Visit to Southeast Asia (Part III of IV), November 21, 1967, CF 1967–
1969, Pol 7 Japan, 2, Secret. The trip was cut short by the death of former prime minister and Liberal
Democratic Party powerbroker Yoshida Shigeru, which caused Sato៮ to be recalled to Japan prior toplanned meetings with the American ambassador and General Westmoreland.
16 Kakumaru members also fought on one of the bridges; by contrast, the majority Minsei groups
sent only a handful of observers. Participants came from campuses throughout Tokyo and beyond, withmany gathering the night before at Chuo University before moving en masse to the airport. Kakumaru
developed separately out of another Mainstream group that had worked together with the Bund during
the Anpo struggles; its adoption of the title Kakumaru Zengakuren reflects its self-understanding as theproper ideological inheritor of the Mainstream tradition. Kakumaru was often criticized for insufficient
activist vigor and alleged bad faith; its violent conflicts with Chu៮ kaku are near-legendary—culminating
in a series of murders beginning in 1969.
17 Activists overran and captured several of these vehicles at one point during the struggle.
18 Telegram 02361, Ambassador Johnson to Department of State, October 9, 1967, Pol 23-8 Japan,
Limited Official Use, in Confidential U.S. State Department Central Files: Japan 1967–1969 [hereafter
Confidential Files: Japan], reel 10, 0226–0230.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

103

FIGURE 1: Sanpa Zengakuren members battle riot police on the Suzugamori Expressway ramp near Haneda
Airport, October 8, 1967. Photo courtesy of the Yomiuri Shimbun.

been made at the last minute.19 The front page of the July 31 issue of Chu៮ kaku’s
official organ, Zenshin [Advance], featured a long statement by Akiyama Katsuyuki,
the committee chairman of Sanpa, declaring that the struggle against the renewalof the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty was already under way. According to Akiyama,
Zengakuren would treat the upcoming confrontations as the year’s most important“test cases” [shikinseki]: Would they prevent the trips or not? While Akiyama speaksof their commitment to this struggle, and of their “combat units” [sento៮ butai], hedoes not directly indicate the means that would be employed.20
19 According to activist Fukawa Mitsuo’s recollections, the weapons used at Haneda were laid instore as a direct result of violent sectarian conflicts in the immediately preceding week. Bound stacks
of timber had been readied for use as staves by groups in conflict with Chu៮ kaku-ha, after a rescue of
three members from them at Ho៮ sei University the previous day. Chu៮ kaku-ha members also brought
staves to Haneda; Fukawa suspects that these, too, had been on hand for the ongoing inter-sect conflict.
The night of October 7, at the Bund [Bundo] meeting at Chuo University, it was resolved to bring thestaves to the site, but not specifically to use them on riot police. Fukawa relates hearing that the groups
set out for Haneda from Chuo the next day without the staves, but were brought them by latecomers
catching up to the main group. He also suggests that Kansai students (those from the south-central regionof the largest Japanese island, which includes the cities of Kyoto, Kobe, and Osaka) may have playeda key role, having been fired up by a speech the night before by Shiomi Tayaka—of later fame as afounder of the Sekigun-ha [Red Army Faction] of the Kansai Bund; he served nineteen years in prison
for his key role in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines airliner to North Korea from Haneda in 1970. Fukawa
Mitsuo, Za • 1968 (Tokyo, 2006), 309–310. The original Bund was the largest of the “mainstream”
anti-JCP groups opposing the Anpo treaty in 1960; after the defeat, it fragmented into a variety of smallergroups. The tendency of subgroups subsequently to claim the name “Bund” marks both an assertion ofpreeminence among the Mainstream factions and perhaps a latent desire for a return to greater unity—much like the various appropriations of “Zengakuren” in group names.
20 Akiyama Katsuyuki, “Zengakuren no hata sara ni takaku,” Zenshin, July 31, 1967, 1.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

104

William Marotti

FIGURE 2: Students are blasted by police fire hoses off of Bentenbashi Bridge into the river, October 8, 1967.
Photo courtesy of the Yomiuri Shimbun.

In a flurry of editorials and articles, newspapers roundly condemned the violent
tactics of the students, with some quoting Chief Cabinet Secretary Kimura Toshio’s
statement that Yamazaki’s death was the result of student groups’ rehearsal for violent revolution.21 The lead editorial in the daily Asahi Shinbun on October 9 accused them of attempting to deliver a “ ‘revolutionary’ appeal” through violent shocktactics, and thus “taking advantage of society’s beneficence toward students andabusing the right of free expression” in their attempt to gather attention. A sensational two-page illustrated spread proclaimed a “Deadly Clash, Outrageous Conflagration,” declaring that the violent action was premeditated (following a September 26 national appeal by Sanpa), and that female students had gathered stones
21

Ibid.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

105

for the stone-throwers.22 The daily Yomiuri Shinbun printed excoriations of the students under headlines labeling them “mere yakuza” and “thoughtless violent gangs,”
asking, “is this really a student movement?” Reducing the student voices to noise,
as a collection of screamed, empty insults, the paper reported the incident as theappearance of a “new violent gang rioting on the basis of a-theoretical, special rights
due to their freedom and youth,” “with faces like crazed wild animals, and smirking.”23
The newspaper Mainichi Shinbun pointed out that the violent tactics had originated in the factional disputes within the student movement, and in a journalist
roundtable, it asserted that such violence would garner zero support from the populace.24 A week later, Mainichi depicted a mini-drama on the streets of Osaka whena pamphleteering Chu៮ kaku student was spontaneously surrounded by critics. Passingout handbills in front of a sign proclaiming Yamazaki’s “slaughter by the police,” thestudent was confronted by a thirty-something businessman; their argument soon attracted “some seventy to eighty” scornful passersby. The accompanying photo perfectly dramatizes the article’s depiction of the student’s abjection in the face of ahostile public: overwhelmed by the throng, with his hand pressed to the side of his
jaw and his mouth open, the student submissively continues his explanations before
the stern face and crossed arms of an obviously unreceptive man in a suit.25
Writing in Zenshin, Honda Nobuyoshi, the leader of the Chu៮ kaku sect, lambasted
the double standard on violence behind journalists’ condemnations of their actions:26
The organs of the bourgeois press and their official critics . . . obscured [our] focus—“oppose
the Vietnam war, obstruct the visit”—with the so-called problem of violence, castigating the
Zengakuren struggle as a “violent demonstration” and “armed demonstration,” while simultaneously maneuvering to conceal and defend the fundamental problem of state violence . . .
On October 8, Zengakuren had its right to demonstrate stripped from it: wasn’t it police
headquarters and the public safety commission whose suppression through outrageous violence ensured that Zengakuren would be unable to exercise its right even to a one-meterlong march without forcibly breaking through the riot police’s obstructing line? And isn’t it
22 Asahi Shinbun, October 9, 1967, morning ed., 2, 14 –15. (Per current practice, shinbun—newspaper—is Romanized in this article with an “n,” although the credit lines in the illustration captions use
the established older conventional form shimbun to honor the terms of the publication agreements with
the newspapers.) Reflecting both the composition of the activist groups and contemporary assumptions
about them, the reported presence of women in a demonstration typically functioned as a marker for
its nonviolence (see the Asahi Journal ’s comments on the October 21, 1967, demonstration below). Thus,
women’s participation in violence—even in an indirect role—prompted comment. Both aspects werecomplexly negotiated in the figure of Kanba Michiko, the casualty of a police/activist clash on June 15,
1960, during the Anpo protests (see below).
23 Yomiuri Shinbun, October 9, 1967, 15.
24 Mainichi Shinbun, October 9, 1967, morning ed., 5; ibid., evening ed., 10.
25 Mainichi Shinbun, October 15, 1967, morning ed., 15. Visible in the background, beyond thehostile crowd, is a scrawled message proclaiming Yamazaki’s slaughter. The student’s expression appears
retouched in the photo.
26 Their official name is Nihon kakumeiteki kyo៮ sanshugisha do៮ mei zenkoku iinkai kakumeiteki marukusushugiha, the Japan Revolutionary Communist League, Revolutionary Marxist Faction. Honda
was killed in his apartment in 1975 by rival Kakumaru sect members, a casualty of a multi-year bloody
campaign of retaliatory sectarian warfare and murder. It was in fact in the course of sectarian warfare
that students first introduced helmets and staves (and face concealment with towels), during the invasionof a Kakumaru meeting in 1964 by rival sect members from Chu៮ kaku, Shagakudo៮ , Shaseido៮ , and Furonto.
Donald Frederick Wheeler, “The Japanese Student Movement: Value Politics, Student Politics and theTokyo University Struggle” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1974), 219.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

106

William Marotti

police headquarters and the public safety commission that for seven years since Anpo havemobilized the well-armed riot police against Zengakuren’s unarmed demonstrations, inflicting bloody oppression by blows, kicks, and arrests, causing near-fatal injuries for dozens?27
For one, the right to be armed and to strike, kick, and arrest; for the other, in order to declarean anti-war intent, the right to be struck, kicked, and arrested—only this is permitted. If thisisn’t state violence, what is? But on October 8, police headquarters and the public safetycommission usurped the right even to be hit, kicked, and arrested.28

While foregrounding the issue of state violence and the systematic obstruction ofprotest, Honda’s argument simultaneously demanded that the press recognize student actions as purposeful and serious rather than as incoherent or irrational rioting.
Sounding a similar note, Akiyama Katsuyuki denounced what he saw as efforts toslander and suppress such actions through demagoguery over “a small group of students run riot,” or “students killing students.”29 Both Honda and Akiyama wrote
from underground, however; in hiding from the police, they were hampered in theirattempts to counter criticism.
Violence in itself was not new to post–World War II activism in Japan. Past
protests had frequently turned into physical confrontations with security forces, mostmemorably in the May Day protests of 1952, when, a mere three days after the endof the Occupation, 5,000 Japanese police fought 6,000 workers attempting to occupy
a newly forbidden site for public protest, the “People’s Plaza” outside the Imperial
Palace in Tokyo. According to Takemae Eiji’s account, two workers were shot, 2,300
were injured, and more than 1,000 were arrested—a record for mass arrests thatwould stand until 1968.30 “Nonviolent” protests subsequent to the mass actions of1960 also frequently resulted in injured demonstrators. Contemporary sectarian
clashes between student groups often took the form of violent, even armed, conflict—a condition that Donald Wheeler argues was promoted by the very structureof Zengakuren, which fostered competition over local jichikai [self-government associations] with no mechanism for limiting conflicts.31 What was new at Haneda,
then, was the use of violence as a means to prevent the exercise of declared statepolicy—and consequently, the foregrounding of force itself in the confrontations
between protesters and the state.
Some reflection in the weeks following the incident included a bit more nuancethan in the initial press commentaries. The Asahi Journal issued a special section on
the “Haneda bloodshed” on October 22; the lead article, by Takahashi To៮ ru, proclaimed the necessity of “both considering the situation surrounding the [students]
and penetrating to their innermost thoughts.” Although critical, the section recogLiterally “demonstrations of spirit and flesh alone.”
Honda Nobuyoshi, “Haneda to៮ so៮ no igi to tatakai no tenbo៮ ,” Zenshin 337 (October 30, 1967),
reprinted in Honda, Honda Nobuyoshi Chosakusen I (Tokyo, 1975), 341–342.
29 Akiyama Katsuyuki, “Zennihon • zensekai no tatakau gakusei • ro
៮ do៮ sha jinmin e,” Zenshin, October 17, 1967, reprinted in Takazawa Ko៮ ji and Kurata Kazunari, eds., Shinsayoku riron zenshi, 1957–
1975 (Tokyo, 1984), 353.
30 Takemae Eiji, The Allied Occupation of Japan (New York, 2003), 494 – 495. Police records list 693
arrests, and 832 injuries among the police, of which 71 were serious and 8 life-threatening. Kaiso៮ : Sengo
shuyo៮ sayoku jiken (Tokyo, 1968), 134. In banning the protest, the newly independent Japanese government was determined to continue the policy set by the Occupation in 1951 of forbidding May Day
demonstrators from using the plaza.
31 Wheeler, “The Japanese Student Movement,” 222–224.
27
28

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

107

nized intent and significance in student actions that called for engagement and reasoned consideration, rather than sheer dismissal of what they were doing as animalistic violence. Takahashi acknowledged that the students had three central goals:
first, to forcibly oppose, out of an ethic of anti-imperialism, a trip connected to invasion and colonial domination in Southeast Asia; second, to protest the defeatism
and lukewarm response of the Old Left (the article notes that the JCP was busy
hosting a “picnic” on October 8); and third, to attempt through Sanpa to secure៮ehegemony over the student movement with a shift in tactics.32 The novelist O
Kenzaburo៮ and six others considered the meaning of the student’s death, the purposeand effects of the violent protest, and their relation to discourse and public opinion.
Mori Kyozo៮ ’s lead editorial, however, depicted the incident as a “nuisance . . .
harshly condemned in public opinion. Disconnected from the people, talk of shock
therapy, or of touching off a revolution, is meaningless . . . The response from abroad
was larger than depicted here: the student activists were likely well-satisfied. Yet
within Japan it will become another factor in a rightward shift in politics.”33 The
editors’ joint report on the First Haneda Incident in the next week’s issue stated thatthe event had failed to attract the interest not only of “average students” [ippangakusei], but also of student groups that were typically quick to respond, such as thestudent bodies at the universities that served as the home bases for the Sanpa and
Kakumaru [Revolutionary Marxist Faction] sects, and the College of General Education at Tokyo University.34 The report asserted that students were already turned
off by sectarian violence, and thus the Haneda events merely confirmed them in theirrejection of the activists. One student stated, “I see what they do every day [here],so it’s no surprise, really.”35 On the other hand, the editors identified how the intertwined interests of purportedly opposed established political entities conspired toprevent more troubling consequences. They noted the odd “duet” between the ruling
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the JCP: both parties together “denounced
running riot” [bo៮ so៮ hinan] and refused to consider the broader background to theincident.36 The Japan Socialist Party (JSP) and the Japan General Council of Trade
32 Takahashi To
៮ ru, “Haikei no ronri to shinjo៮ ,” Asahi Ja៮ naru 9, no. 44 (October 22, 1967): 3. The
JCP’s decision to hold an alternative October 8 protest event, the “Red Flag Festival,” by Lake Tama—some thirty-five miles from the confrontation at Haneda Airport—became for many a paradigmatic
instance of the party’s complacency and unwillingness to confront the state. It generated a possibly
apocryphal, though often repeated, tale: a young JCP member (likely part of Minsei) is challenged at
the picnic, “Aren’t you going to Haneda?” The JCP youth responds with satisfaction by pointing up in
the sky to where a red balloon dangles a streamer declaring “We Oppose Prime Minister Sato’s Visit
to South Vietnam.” Airgram A-11, Ambassador Johnson to Department of State, January 14, 1969, CF
1967–1969, box labeled “Politics and Defense: Pol 12-3 Japan to Pol 15-1 Japan,” folder Pol 13 Japan
1/1/67, 3, Limited Official Use. The JCP’s newspaper, Akahata [Red Flag], subsequently claimed thatsome 1,000 JCP demonstrators were at Haneda protesting on October 8, but the JSP’s Bureau of Citizen
Movements corrected this figure to “thirty at best.” See “Haneda no hamon wa naze chı៮sai,” Asahi Ja៮ naru
9, no. 45 (October 29, 1967): 15. The JCP called the students’ actions at Haneda a “clash of reactionary
and ultra-left counterrevolutionary Trotskyite forces,” and counterproductive to the group’s fight versus“American imperialist aggression in Vietnam.” Quoted in Telegram 02361, 2.
33 Literally “politics’ right wheel,” a military marching term. Mori Kyozo
៮ , “Fu៮ sokukei [WindGauge],” Asahi Ja៮ naru 9, no. 44 (October 22, 1967): 3. Mori was chief editor of the parent Asahi Shinbun;
his commentaries appeared on the third page of the journal well into the 1970s.
34 “Haneda no hamon wa naze chı
៮sai,” Asahi Ja៮ naru 9, no. 45 (October 29, 1967): 13.
35 Ibid..
36 This duet echoed a previous instance of bad faith on the part of the JCP during Anpo 1960,៮ shima Nagisa, and others.
variously observed by Yoshimoto Takaaki, O

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

108

William Marotti

Unions, So៮ hyo៮ , were similarly blamed for conservative tendencies contributing to the“stagnation of reform” that the editors identified as a major cause.37
It took another demonstration at the airport—the “Second Haneda Incident” ofNovember 12, 1967—before press coverage sporadically began to consider a broader“violence” through the figure of innocent “victims” from the vicinity, distinguishedfrom the students, who remained targets for journalistic vitriol. Once again the protesters’ immediate declared goal was to stop the departure of Prime Minister Sato៮ ,who this time was flying to the United States to meet with President Lyndon B.
Johnson. The protesters again hoped that the confrontation would ignite the underlying and potentially explosive political issues occasioning the trip. Despite popular reactions to the First Haneda Incident, the November trip seemed potentiallypromising: public expectations and concerns about the visit were high, anticipating
discussions in Washington, D.C., concerning the return of Okinawa from post-1945
American control.
By November, the central question addressed in the national debate in Japan waswhether Okinawa post-reversion would accord with the declared state policy forbidding the “introduction” of nuclear weapons, or if such weapons would be permitted at the U.S. military bases.38 In other words, both the Okinawa question andSato៮ ’s perceived pliancy toward American demands were linked to a larger debate
over Japan’s involvement in the United States’ cold and hot wars, including the potential for Japan to be drawn into a nuclear conflict.39 That summer, Japanese hadreceived a frightening and direct reminder of this peril in the form of newspaper
warnings in mid-June advising the use of umbrellas to protect against expected “hotrain” contaminated with radioactivity as a result of China’s June 17 atmosphericdetonation of a hydrogen bomb—a mere three years after the first Chinese atomic
detonation in 1964.40
Anticipating a repeat of October’s events, press editorials admonished the students against further violence; meanwhile, the authorities readied themselves. Met
by a vast deployment of police—5,000 in the immediate vicinity of Haneda alone—
the Sanpa students were beaten back with often indiscriminate force. Asahi reported
the next day that “average citizens” [ippanshimin] were caught up in the melee between students and police and, “mistaken for students,” were subjected to concerted
police beatings.41 The presumption that such acts were “mistakes” would, with subsequent demonstrations, become increasingly untenable. The press attention to cit“Haneda no hamon wa naze chı៮sai,” 15–16.
Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin, and William Burr describe Okinawa as “chock-a-block fullof nuclear weapons of all types until 1972.” Norris, Arkin, and Burr, “Where They Were: How Much
Did Japan Know?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 56, no. 1 (January/February 2000): 79.
39 Prior to February 1968, Kadena Air Force Base on Okinawa was in selective use as a weather
refuge for B-52 flights; this sporadic use nevertheless had generated 82 sorties to Southeast Asia fromthe base. Bombing strikes directly from Kadena began on February 15, 1968, and averaged 350 a month,with daily flights. “Fact Sheet: B-52 Basing in Okinawa,” March 7, 1969, 1, Secret, in “Japan and the
U.S., 1960–1976,” Digital National Security Archive, http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com [hereafter DNSA],
doc. JU01051.
40 Telegram 015852, “SSN Visit to Yokosuka—Siterep One,” Embassy to Department of State, June
19, 1967, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 2, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 019–020.
41 Asahi Shinbun, November 13, 1967, morning ed., 15. The paper’s term for this is fukurodataki,
which is typically associated with gang beatings.
37
38

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

109

FIGURE 3: Police lead beaten, bleeding demonstrators away to waiting wagons, November 12, 1967 (Second
Haneda Incident). Photo by Ishiguro Kenji.

izen victims of the state continued with an article in Yomiuri on November 14 criticizing the chilly response to citizens’ claims for damages inflicted by the police.42
This more careful scrutiny of state force perhaps had something to do with thepresence of groups other than the Sanpa activists—far more than during the October
8 action. In the vicinity of the airport, the actions of these groups included a sit-inby the Anti-War Youth Committee, Hansen seinen iinkai, composed of young workers.43 Although themselves nonviolent, the members of Hansen proclaimed thatYamazaki’s death was nonetheless “evidence of oppression directed at us.” Several
hundred JCP and JSP protesters were also in the vicinity; some 350 JCP-affiliatedZengakuren students held an energetic snake dance, with rank upon rank of participants linking arms and quick-marching in a zigzag pattern, causing a middle-aged
JSP activist to murmur: “Haven’t seen one of them in a long time.”44 One report
speculated on the presence there of former participants in the “Red Flag Festival”(the JCP’s own ineffectual “protest” on October 8, held some thirty-five miles from
Yomiuri Shinbun, November 14, 1967, morning ed., 13.
The group originated in 1965; organized by the JSP and So៮ hyo៮ , it had developed its own dynamics
by this time. See Takami Keishi, Hansen seinen iinkai (Tokyo, 1968).
44 The snake dance tactic was famously employed during the 1960 Anpo demonstrations. The linked
arms of the protesters, their erratic and quick movement, and the tendency for the front ranks to curl
back against the rearward ones make it difficult for police to disperse the protest or seize individual
members.
42
43

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

110

William Marotti

Haneda Airport at Lake Tama), noting a riot police official’s observation that “fromtheir docility, they’re probably Minsei.”45 While none of these other groups were in
the end directly assaulted by riot police, the palpable possibility brought to mind past
incidents in which nonviolence had offered no protection from state force.
In the November 26 issue, the Asahi Journal issued its own report on the Second
Haneda Incident. While renewing their objections to student violence, the editors
broadened their criticism to consider the rationale and justifications for their tacticalshift:And yet, students are private individuals. Riot police are public servants. Was there not a
private, personal element in the exercise of public authority by the police? . . . If we recall,during Anpo, students wore no helmets and bore no staves. Why, then, have these students
taken up weapons and brutally intensified their actions like this? There can be no doubt thata major factor was the expansion of the riot police subsequent to Anpo. If we consider theescalation from October 8 to November 12, does it really reflect an improvement in policing
in the long run? This is the question.46

The editors reflected back on a scene during the International Anti-War Day Joint
Action on October 21, when 2,500 unarmed (and unhelmeted) demonstrators fromsome forty citizen, student, and cultural groups were assaulted by riot police. According to the editors, half of those protesters were female students in skirts. Aftera lawyers’ group arrived on the scene to object to the assault and arrests of lawful
demonstrators, the police released their arrestees and apologized—but left in theirwake a road scattered with injured protesters. The group had wished to show that
Sato៮ ’s trip to America was not opposed only by Sanpa; readers were left to ponder
the possibilities for such protests in the face of this level of state response.47 Implicit
in such considerations, too, was the equivalence between “violent” and “nonviolent”
protesters confronted by state violence: both the helmeted Sanpa member and the“nonviolent” civic group would equally face club-wielding riot police.
The mood of the press had perhaps also been altered by the dramatic self-immolation of seventy-three-year-old Yui Chu៮ noshin in front of the prime minister’s
residence on November 11, the night before the second incident. He died in thehospital the next day, around the time the prime minister’s plane was departing
Haneda. Yui, who addressed Sato៮ as “Your Excellency” [kakka] in his suicide note,declared his intent to oppose with his death Sato៮ ’s commitment to a violence inVietnam that recalled for Yui Japan’s prior violence in China. Proficient in Esperanto and its longtime advocate, Yui had connections to the peace movement reaching back to the interwar period.48 He had recently taken to visiting the offices of the“Peace in Vietnam!” Citizens’ Federation, Beheiren [Betonamu ni heiwa o! shimin
45 “Sato៮ ho៮ bei soshi • sono hi no Haneda,” Asahi Ja៮ naru 9, no. 49 (November 26, 1967): 14 –15. The
LDP even managed to mobilize some 1,600 from its youth organization to demonstrate in favor of theprime minister. On the JCP’s “Red Flag Festival,” see note 32.
46 Ibid., 11. Esukare៮ to is a phoneticization from the English. The parallel to Johnson’s Vietnam
escalation is intentional and is marked by the use of the loan word.
47 Ibid., 14.
48 Yui’s Esperanto proficiency and age suggest a possible connection to the interwar leftist politics
and internationalism with which Esperanto had previously been associated.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

111

rengo៮ ], to discuss peace issues with young people and lead Esperanto practicegroups, according to Tsurumi Shunsuke in the Asahi Journal.49
In the December issue of the journal Gendai no riron [Contemporary Theory],
Nakajima Makoto put the Haneda events into a context that further legitimated theactivists. He reported a recent subtle shift in public opinion about Yamazaki’s deathin response to increasing foreign demonstrations against the war. “While still including criticism calling this a small group of students run riot, those who are insolidarity with the goals of peace and national opposition to war have gradually
begun to consider the meaning of meeting state authority with physical force.” In
contrast, he cited the Asahi Journal ’s characterization of the LDP and JCP conservative “duet” as evidence of a lack of conventional political options. Nakajima notedthat while some people distinguished the death of Yamazaki from that of Kanba
Michiko during the 1960 demonstrations, he did not: in Kanba’s case, too, the state
had strongly asserted that the direct cause of death was her fellow students, thus
obscuring the actuality of the confrontation with state force.50
Since his death on October 8, Yamazaki had in many ways stood in for the ambiguous political significance of the students’ actions themselves. While Mainichi ’s
editors had felt sufficiently assured to frame a street drama in Osaka around theangry reactions of passersby to claims of his martyrdom, others were less confident
in this image of a uniformly unreceptive public. Two days after Mainichi ’s article,
in a report to Washington on October 17, the American embassy predicted that the“Left [would be] unlikely [to be] able [to] use this death as martyrdom symbol as it
did death of girl student in 1960.”51 Despite this, the embassy warned that “in any
event incident will heighten emotional pitch of dispute over GOJ [Government ofJapan] policies in coming months. Following close on suicide of JDA [Japan Defense
Agency] official involved [in] Nike Hawk talks [EMBTEL 2355], student death ineffort [to] prevent Sato South Vietnam visit appears likely [to] create mood of emotional uncertainty concerning Sato handling of issues closely related to US-Japan
relations, regardless of tenuous nature of connections between these tragedies andsubstance of issues.”52 The embassy anticipated continuing, unpredictable, and ir49 “Daijin no minshu
៮ shugi to Yui Chu៮ noshin: Sho៮ shin de uttaeru to iu koto,” Asahi Ja៮ naru 9, no.
49 (November 26, 1967): 17–19. Tsurumi also appended to his report a personal observation on the First
Haneda Incident: he had been present at Bentenbashi, and had even seen the vehicle in question moving
along the bridge—although he had not witnessed Yamazaki being pulled beneath it. He wondered not
only how an eighteen-year-old youth could fail to avoid such a slow-moving vehicle, but also how—unlike
himself, a direct witness to the scene—the riot police could be so certain of the exact cause of Yamazaki’s
death. Ibid., 19.
50 Nakajima Makoto, “Haneda to៮ so៮ de no masu • komi to kokumin kanjo៮ ,” Gendai no riron 4, no.
12 (December 1967): 21–22.
51 The diminutive “girl” here is telling. Kanba’s status as one of the movement’s few women, as wellas her position as a Tokyo University student, contributed to her effectiveness as a symbol of martyrdom
against state force for years after Anpo. The immediate cause of her death also provoked a gendered
response, as even the official autopsy noted signs of pressure to her mouth, nose, and neck, indicating
a possibility of choking—while a JSP Diet member’s medical examination of the body strongly impliedstrangulation at the hands of the riot police. Kanba herself had allegedly joined the head of the Diet
incursion with the male students in an assertion of her duties as a Zengakuren officer, bringing her into
direct contact with the riot police. See Packard, Protest in Tokyo, 296 n. 109; Sasaki-Uemura, Organizing
the Spontaneous, 49. As Sasaki-Uemura has noted, rightist attacks on Anpo demonstrators (with clubs
and wooden swords) were observed to particularly target women marchers; ibid., 39.
52 Telegram 02361, 3– 4.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

112

William Marotti

rational consequences manifested in a “mood of emotional uncertainty,” but had noumbrellas to recommend against this public fallout.

THE ARRIVAL IN JAPAN OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS Enterprise had been publicly
anticipated since at least early 1966, when the topic was raised during several Diet
sessions. On February 2 of that year, Prime Minister Sato៮ was directly questioned
by JSP Upper House member Tsubaki Shigeo over the likelihood of ongoing government preparations for a port call in Japan by the Enterprise, or by any of the othernuclear-powered surface ships (NPSS) newly assigned to the Seventh Fleet.53
Tsubaki characterized the already ongoing—and increasingly routinized—visits to
Sasebo by nuclear-powered “fast attack submarines” (SSNs) as one part of Japan’s
increasing indirect aid to an aggressive and hazardous American strategy of preemptive war in Asia.54 He also directly raised the likelihood that the Enterprise would“introduce” [do៮ nyu៮ ] nuclear weapons into Japanese territory. In response, Sato៮ reiterated the government’s “three nuclear principles”—neither to manufacture, nor
to possess, nor to permit the introduction [mochikomi] of nuclear weapons.55 These
high-minded principles, which were part of the reason why Sato៮ was chosen to share
the Nobel Peace Prize in 1974, were actually an exercise in dissimulation, and perhaps willful misunderstanding, that even today is incompletely detailed within the
declassified archival record. By way of secret agreements to the Anpo treaty in 1960,
Japan explicitly permitted such transits.56 These arrangements, and the specific language for equivocating about them, had been further clarified in a discussion be៮ hira Masayoshi intween Ambassador Edwin O. Reischauer and Foreign Minister O
57
April 1963. Coupled with standard American statements—a refusal to discuss the
53 Tsubaki was well-informed: government consultations with the United States over a visit by theEnterprise had been ongoing since at least January. See Memorandum for the President, Undersecretaryof State Katzenbach to President Johnson, January 24, 1968, 2, Secret, Declassified Documents Reference System, doc. 1088.
54 “The gravest threat to Asian peace is at base the self-righteous fervor of America’s tactics inmenacing China with its military might by arbitrarily proclaiming that the Beijing government schemes
to advance militarily through Asia, and adopting a posture of preemptive war.” House of Councillors,
Plenary Session, Kokkaikaigiroku, 51-san-honkaigi-9 go៮ , February 2, 1966. Tsubaki began his comments
by questioning incidents demonstrating linkages between the ruling party and violent right-wing gangs,
and the use of anti-democratic tactics.
55 Ibid. Mochikomi is a nominalized form of the verb mochikomu, “to introduce.”
56 Sato៮ ’s commitment to these three principles was cited by both the presenter and Sato៮ himself
during his receipt of half of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1974. See Aase Lionaes, “Presentation Speech,”Nobel Peace Prize 1974, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1974/press.html, and Sato៮
Eisaku, “Nobel Lecture: The Pursuit of Peace and Japan in the Nuclear Age,” http://nobelprize.org/
nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1974/sato-lecture.html (both accessed December 10, 2008). As detailed ina declassified 1969 top secret paper on Japan policy, in a discussion of Okinawa reversion, “Japan now
acquiesces in transit by naval vessels armed with nuclear weapons. This right would extend automaticallyto Okinawa. (This is sensitive and closely held information.)” East Asia Interdepartmental Group,
NSSM 5: Japan Policy, undated, 25, attachment to Jeanne W. Davis, NSC Memorandum, April 28, 1969,
Top Secret, DNSA, doc. JU01061. See also the authoritative discussion of this topic, and remaining gaps
in the declassified record, in Robert A. Wampler, “Japan and the United States: Diplomatic, Security,and Economic Relations, 1960–1976: Essay,” DNSA, http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/collections/con
tent/JU/essay.jsp (accessed December 10, 2008).
57 As Reischauer’s memorandum reports, “I explained that our treaty made Japan a somewhat special case, and we had accordingly modified our standing position to extent of being willing say no rpt
no nuclear weapons had been ‘introduced’ in Japan or would be without prior consultation. I tookoccasion to make clear significances of our sticking to word ‘introduce’ as implying placing or installing

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

113

possible nuclear armament of any surface vessel (“neither confirm nor deny”) andpromises to “faithfully observe treaty commitments to Japan”—Sato៮ ’s three principles were in effect a doctrine of implausible deniability, sufficing nonetheless todeflect direct accusations of violation from the arrival of any particular ship—even
a fully provisioned aircraft carrier heading for a combat station in proximity to Vietnam.58
Such careful parsing of words was capable of backfiring spectacularly, particularly
when challenged. With the imminent arrival of the Enterprise, opposition parties inthe Diet questioned the government closely; in response, Foreign Minister Miki
Takeo flatly denied that the Enterprise was equipped with nuclear weapons—muchto the concern of Special Assistant for National Security Affairs Walt Rostow.59 The
embassy recognized the gravity of the situation and issued secret instructions to Rear
Admiral Horace Epes, Jr., and Captain Kent Lee of the Enterprise on how to handle
the upcoming arrival press conference with “the utmost care”—to expect loaded
questions that might make the standard “neither confirm nor deny” response damaging, and to instruct sailors, if pressed, to state, “I don’t know anything about nuclear weapons.”60 The ambassador would fly to the Enterprise immediately before its
arrival in port to elaborate these instructions and to coordinate the on-ship conference that day with members of the Japanese press and Diet; press would be managed through a Command Information Bureau established at the naval base Fleet
Activities Sasebo on January 16.61
on Japanese soil, and our previous assumption that Japanese had been intending [to] achieve same effectby their use of word ‘mochikomu.’ Ohira then remarked that under this interpretation ‘introduce’ would
not rpt would not apply to hypothetical case of nuclears [sic] on vessel in Japanese waters or port, andI agreed. He then said that while Japanese had not rpt not in past used mochikomu with consciousnessof this restricted sense, they would do so in future . . . he agreed that henceforth he and others in [theJapanese government] would follow line of asserting that they have full trust in our assurances that wewill live up to treaty; they would continue to use word ‘mochikomu’ for ‘introduce’ but would henceforth
understand by it what we mean when we say ‘introduce.’ ” Ambassador Reischauer to Secretary of State,
Cable 2335, April 4, 1963, Section One of Two, 2, and Section Two of Two, 1, Secret, Distribution to
Secretary of State, Eyes Only, DNSA, doc. JU00223. The document references the (still-)classified
record of discussions during the Anpo negotiations on January 6, 1960. See also Telegram 1282 to Tokyo,
November 10, 1964, quoted in FRUS, 1964 –1968, vol. XXIX, pt. 2: Japan (Washington, D.C., 2006), 46 n.
5 on standard responses. The need to preserve the secrecy of such arrangements by avoiding a written
record or dissemination to all but a few key individuals perhaps explains how easily misunderstandings
could occur—whether the one recorded above concerning American assumptions about the Japanese
government’s statements on mochikomu, or more serious ones such as Miki’s (see below).
58 The secret agreements concluded as part of the treaty enabled this to be a truthful statement. This
practice, too, is explicitly discussed in Ambassador Reischauer to State, Cable 2335.
59 House of Representatives, Special Committee on the Okinawan Problem, Kokkaikaigiroku, 57shu៮ giin-okinawamondai nado ni kansuru tokubetsu iinkai-4 go៮ , December 22, 1968. Rostow called theseaffirmative statements “the most serious element in the Enterprise visit,” even before he learned that៮ hira arrangements—and had made even broader
Miki and others were not aware of the Reischauer-O
categorical statements at odds with actual practice. Memorandum for the President, Visits of Nuclear
Ships to Japan, January 26, 1968, Secret, Sanitized, DNSA, doc. JU00882 (the paragraph that likely
discusses the reason why such statements are problematic is deleted in the released copy); Telegram
005074, Ambassador Johnson to Secretary of State, January 26, 1968, Top Secret, No Distribution,
Sanitized, DNSA, doc. JU00883.
60 Ambassador Johnson to Department of State, January 16, 1968, CF 1967–1969, in Confidential
Files: Japan, reel 3, 0310; Telegram 04686, “Enterprise Visit: Nuclear Weapons Aspect,” Embassy to USS
Enterprise, January 16, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 1–5, Secret, in Confidential Files: Japan,
reel 3, 019–020.
61 Command History, 1968, U.S. Fleet Activities, Sasebo, Japan, Annex J: Public Affairs Office, in

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

114

William Marotti

In this situation, the embassy was particularly concerned about the possible roleof the then-small anti-war Citizens’ Federation, Beheiren, which had recently acquired a larger public profile. Its 300-person march on October 7, 1967, had been
the first in years permitted by the Tokyo Public Safety Commission to take a route
past the American embassy. Beheiren was granted such permission “because [the]group was small and had a history of orderly demonstrations,” although Chairman
Oda Makoto had to threaten suit to compel this action. In the intensified atmospheresurrounding the First Haneda Incident, the march attracted “more than usual publicity.”62 In the context of the upcoming Enterprise visit, publicity about Beheiren’s
announcement the following month of the spectacular defection of four sailors fromthe aircraft carrier USS Intrepid caused real concern at the embassy over the possibility of a “fluke.” “If even one American navy ‘defector’ fell into clutches of Beheiren (anti-Viet peace group) [sic] and started sounding off about presence [of]nuclear weapons on Enterprise, a situation would be created that, depending on its
exploitation by opposition, could do considerable harm.”63 Ambassador U. Alexis
Johnson reported that Prime Minister Sato៮ shared these concerns.64 In the absenceof a “fluke,” however, both expected the visit to be a success—violence by “a verysmall handful of extremist students who enjoy no substantial support” would be deplored in the press, while the visit itself would deepen and strengthen U.S.-Japaneserelations.65 Nonetheless, thousands of riot police were mobilized from all over Japan,
while police closely surveilled the specific actions and movements of student leadersand notable members of Beheiren as they converged upon Sasebo.66
folder Sasebo, Japan Fleet Activities CH. 1968, Box 1558, U.S. Navy Operational Archives, Washington,
D.C., Confidential, unpaginated. The ambassador was accompanied by a delegation of some twenty
members of the Foreign Office, Diet, LDP, and Defense Agency, in a show of trust and welcome. USS
Enterprise Narrative Command History 1968, 1, and Historical Diary Information Chronology of Events
1968, 1, both enclosures to CO USS Enterprise to Chief of Naval Operations, OPNAV Report 5750-1,
July 1, 1969, Naval Historical Center, Washington, D.C.; Telegram 191926Z, USNIS Sasebo to USNISJapan, January 19, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 2, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan,
reel 3, 0362–0365.
62 Telegram 02379, “Demonstration in Front of Chancery October 7,” October 9, 1967, CF 1967–
1969, Pol 23-8 Japan, Unclassified, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 10, 0230–0231. Attention may also
have been drawn to the demonstration thanks to the August 31 torching of several cars in the embassy
compound when a Molotov cocktail was thrown by an unknown young attacker.
63 Telegram 4763, “Enterprise Visit to Sasebo,” January 17, 1968, 3, Secret, DNSA, doc. JU00876.
The other “fluke” possibility mentioned was the generation of a “ ‘martyr,’ especially in a fight involving
Americans”; ibid.
64 Ibid., 4.
65 Ibid., 1, 4.
66 For example, details of movements, plans for force and for a “Third Haneda Incident,” numbersof activists by university, and key leaders were communicated to navy investigators by the Japanese
government, as reported in Telegram 020939Z, U.S. Naval Investigative Service Sasebo, January 1, 1968,
CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 2–3, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0272–0274. Police
and the U.S. Naval Investigative Service (USNIS) also monitored the movements of alleged Chinese andSoviet agents to the area, without finding any direct connections to protest. Oda Makoto and Yoshikawa
Yu៮ ichi of Beheiren and Iwanami Publishing’s Yamaguchi Kazunobu (connected to reports on the desertions) are among those named specifically in surveillance of activists arriving in Sasebo. According
to USNIS, two police sergeants from the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Board “were assigned to Sasebo
specifically to work on Beheiren and related defector activities”; USNIS maintained close contact withthem. USNIS took particular note of suspected Beheiren members’ participation in Sanpa and JCP
events, and their connections with journalists. Their pamphlets, which encouraged all levels of resistancefrom letter-writing and token walkouts to desertion and filing for conscientious objector status, were readclosely. Telegram 191744Z, USNIS Sasebo to USNIS Japan, January 19, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

115

The visit of the Enterprise had originally been intended to alleviate, rather thanexacerbate, tensions over such visits. Japan’s perceived “nuclear allergy”—the curious aversion to nuclear weapons of the sole country ever to experience a wartime
nuclear attack—had been the subject of longstanding debate in official and popularcircles in both the United States and Japan. The two governments had together
embarked on an attempt at regularized therapy through the introduction of nuclearpowered vessels, beginning with a series of SSN visits that commenced in 1964.67
True to the therapeutic plan, protests had declined markedly in intensity since then,with the most recent—the June 1967 visit of the nuclear submarine USS Barb to
Yokosuka Naval Base—producing the smallest protest to date.68 According to anembassy report, “Opposition was able to mount only two significant demonstrations—2000 [participants] June 20 and approximately 5000 on June 25. Both demos
orderly and with significant decline in student participation . . . Although we have
not reached point where Yokosuka visits can be considered ‘routine’ emb[assy] believes significant progress was made in lessening public concern in SSN’s.”69 Even
the typically most radical of the activist groups, the anti-JCP Zengakuren students,
seemed to be losing steam. The U.S. Naval Investigative Service report commented
on the subdued nature and “relative ineffectiveness” of some 720 “Mainstream” oranti-JCP Zengakuren demonstrators against the USS Barb’s visit: “During previous
anti-SSN demonstrations, 720 of these youths could create far more public mayhem
than they did during this protest.” Here, however, they merely “staged snake dancing
tactics” for some thirty minutes, then headed for the main gate, at which point Japanese police split them into small and easily managed groups “without difficulty”—and without attracting notable media interest.70
Anticipating that the return of Okinawa would require continued nuclear basing
Japan-US, 3, Secret, Noforn [No Release to Foreign Nationals], in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3,0353–0355; Telegrams 201523Z and 201552Z, USNIS Sasebo to USNIS Japan, “Defector Siterep Five,”
CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 1–5, Secret, Noforn, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0366–0372.
67 Visits to Okinawa were already in progress, and in fact the first of these SSNs, the USS Seadragon,arrived from Naha.
68 The Yokosuka Naval Base was located in Tokyo Bay, south of Yokohama, in Kanagawa Prefecture. Although visits to Yokosuka by SSNs were not yet completely casual affairs, the U.S. embassy
had reported declining participation and media interest in rallies during the three prior SSN visits(the USS Snook in May–June 1966, the USS Seadragon in September 1966, and the USS Sculpin in
March 1967), and coupled with “little, if any, nation-wide interest” in the events, had thus anticipated“no political problems in connection with visit.” Telegram 10948, Ambassador Johnson to Departmentof State, July 13, 1967, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, Secret, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0005;
the report of “little, if any, nation-wide interest” addressed the March visit of the Sculpin, a Skipjackclass submarine like the USS Scorpion, which, when lost in May 1968, sank with two nuclear torpedoes
in its armament. Telegram 5790, USNIS to Secretary of State, March 6, 1967, CF 1967–1969, Def 7
Japan-US, 2, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0097–0098. The Japan Maritime
Self-Defense Force took advantage of the atmosphere to hold a forty-three-ship fleet review in Ise Bay
on November 5, 1967, the largest since World War II; the press dubbed it a “success,” although someobservers complained that the ships were small by comparison with those of the wartime navy. Airgram, American Counsel Nagoya to Department of State, “Maritime Self-Defense Force Holds Fleet
Review in Ise Bay,” November 13, 1967, 1, Limited Official Use, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 2,0284 –0285.
69 Telegram 025536, Ambassador Johnson to Department of State, June 29, 1967, CF 1967–1969,
Def 7 Japan-US, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0008.
70 Telegram 211112, USNIS Japan, “SSN Visit Yokosuka—Siterep Three,” June 25, 1967, CF 1967–
1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 2, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0012–0013. This accountperhaps underplays the vigor with which police routinely managed protests of this sort.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

116

William Marotti

rights, American and Japanese officials hoped that the visit of the Enterprise to
Sasebo—in Nagasaki Prefecture—could capitalize on and even perhaps encouragethese positive results in nuclear desensitization therapy, “conditioning the Japanese
to military nuclear matters.”71 Nonetheless, the arrival of the massive and probably
nuclear-armed Enterprise in the midst of a hotly debated controversy over the possible non-nuclear future of a reverted Okinawa posed a “calculated risk.”72 In fact,
the government’s determination to host the visit in the face of vigorous opposition energized public speculation about the exact reason for the visit, made all
the more curious by official statements on the need for supplies, rest, and recreation
for a ship less than two weeks out of port.73 In the context of the simultaneous pushby Sato៮ to heighten domestic appreciation for defense issues, many read the visit
as an attempt to overcome the “nuclear allergy,” thus throwing the issue into highrelief.74
The Enterprise would arrive at Sasebo from the United States, en route to Yankee
Station in the Tonkin Gulf, where it would recommence military operations against
North Vietnam—despite public assurances by Foreign Minister Miki in the Diet on
December 21 that the carrier would not directly proceed to combat operations (sincethat would amount to using Japan as a base for its operational activities and infringe
upon the prior consultation requirements of the Security Treaty).75 Even within thishaze of denials, the warship could not avoid being seen as the embodiment of allpressing military issues: a cartoon in the Nagasaki Shinbun on January 19, the dayof the Enterprise’s arrival, featured three “opposition party” members standing atop
a tiny Japan holding a “Smash the Anpo System” sign, while the Enterprise and its
escorts bear down on them, trailing smoke inscribed with the words “Okinawa Problem” and “Anpo Problem.”76
71 Action Memorandum, President’s Question about Visit of Nuclear Carrier Enterprise to Sasebo,
Japan, Philip J. Farley and Samuel D. Berger to Undersecretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach, January
22, 1968, 2, Secret, DNSA, doc. JU00877. The Enterprise, then the world’s largest aircraft carrier, displaced 75,700 tons and carried 70 to 100 aircraft and a crew of 4,674. The Enterprise group would also
include a second NPSS, the recently assigned cruiser USS Truxtun, of 8,200 tons displacement and witha crew of 496.
72 Telegram 4658, “NPSS Visit Sasebo,” Ambassador Johnson to Secretary of State, January 12,
1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 2, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0403–0406;
Telegram 4763, 3. Sato៮ ’s contemporaneous push to increase “defense consciousness” had also contributed to the heightened prominence of the visit. Ibid.
73 Enterprise left home port in Alameda on January 3, and Pearl Harbor on January 9. Historical
Diary Information Chronology of Events 1968, 1.
74 Telegram 4763, 4 –5; see, for example, Nagasaki Shinbun, January 19, 1968, 4.
75 USS Enterprise Narrative Command History 1968, 1–2. The Enterprise was delayed by the Pueblo
crisis but would attack Hanoi again on February 23. Although the Enterprise had been in operation
against North Vietnam in 1967, the visit was specifically arranged by both the American and Japanese
governments to catch the ship coming from the United States—instead of the Tonkin Gulf—to minimize
connections to the Vietnam War. Action Memorandum, President’s Question about visit of Nuclear
Carrier Enterprise to Sasebo, Japan, 2–3. The Diet exchange is recorded in House of Representatives,
Budget Committee Session, Kokkaikaigiroku, 57-shu៮ -yosan iinkai-6 go៮ , December 21, 1967. Here, too,Miki and Sato៮ both state that the introduction [mochikomu] of nuclear weapons would require priorconsultation, or else violate the treaty. Miki repeats this the next day; see House of Representatives,
Special Committee on the Okinawan Problem, Kokkaikaigiroku, 57-shu៮ giin-okinawamondai nado ni kansuru tokubetsu iinkai-4 go៮ , December 22, 1967.
76 Nagasaki Shinbun, January 19, 1968, 4. The cartoon appears next to the article “Okinawa andAnpo Entangled, Spurred by ‘Curing the Allergy.’ ”

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

117

FOR THE ACTIVIST STUDENTS, THE ENTERPRISE VISIT represented yet another showdownwith the state over its attempt to drag Japan further into the Vietnam conflict. Therefore they would oppose it with physical force. Meeting at Hosei University on December 17 and 18, the Mainstream Zengakuren national conference proclaimed thevarious groups’ intent to make the Enterprise visit to Sasebo Port in January into “theThird Haneda.”77 Intense media interest in the events at Sasebo was predicatedprecisely upon the possibility of a repeat of events at Haneda: retrospectively, theembassy reflected that, despite media disavowals of the students’ violent tactics, the“media interest in the possibility of another violent clash at Sasebo led to extraordinarily detailed reporting of the strategies and counter-strategies of both police andstudents.”78 Thus, while the student violence fell far short of achieving activists’ goalof sparking a general mass insurrection, it brought attention back to what had beena waning issue for both media and other protest groups, creating the conditions fortheir voices to initiate a public debate over state force and the connections between
internal suppression and support for war in Asia.
On January 15, police in Tokyo intercepted and skirmished with a number of
Sanpa students on their way from Hosei University to board trains for Sasebo, arresting 131 under the Assembly in Possession of Dangerous Weapons Law [Kyo៮ kijunbishu៮ go៮ zai], previously employed only against rightist mobsters; another 108
were similarly arrested on January 18 during a march toward the prime minister’s
office.79 This legal tactic was one of several coordinated enhancements of police
authority for the Enterprise visit, including the possible application of the Anti–Subversive Activities Law [Hakaikatsudo៮ bo៮ shiho៮ ], a matter under consideration since
the First Haneda Incident.80 The government’s sense of general public disapproval
77 “Undissuaded by the first and second Haneda, Japan’s ruling class has launched a grand provocation in bringing the Enterprise—and thus a portion of the Vietnam War—to this port of call. They
are once again attempting to drag the people into the war . . . We shall realize our proclaimed Third
Haneda at Sasebo!” Zenshin, December 25, 1967, 1. The photo of the meeting shows the speakers below
a banner proclaiming the slogan “Make Sasebo into a Third Haneda!” Mainstream Zengakuren is rendered as “Zengakuren shuryu៮ -ha” in their December 18 announcement; ibid.
78 Airgram A-1098, “The Enterprise Visit,” February 23, 1968, 6, Secret, in Confidential Files: Japan,
reel 3, 0318–0334.
79 Demonstrations against the visit of the Enterprise were not confined to Sasebo, or even Kyushu.
In Kansai, the Kobe and Osaka offices of the Consulate General were particularly targeted by demonstrations that ranged across six prefectures; police counted thirty-nine rallies and sixty-one demonstrations (with 18,661 and 18,233 participants respectively) between January 7 and January 23. Airgram
A-32, Consul General Stegmaier (Kobe-Osaka) to American Embassy Tokyo, January 26, 1968, CF
1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 1, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0292–0297. Student
actions were more frequent, with the Mainstream groups accounting for thirteen of the rallies andtwenty-four of the demonstrations. Ibid., Attachment 1, Tabulations of Mass Activities, 1. JCP actions
were largely separate from JSP and affiliated union actions. Several other “skirmishes” occurred inTokyo during the visit, including a confrontation in front of the American embassy on January 20 between riot police and around 100 students, as well as an “embarrassing” surprise occupation of theground floors of the Japanese Foreign Office by some 80 students (until they were extracted by police).
The same day, Hansen held a rally; turnout exceeded 10,000. Airgram A-1098, 4, 8. Their January 17
rally in Hibiya Park had drawn 7,600, according to USNIS; the JSP claimed 12,000. Telegram 182019Z,USNIS Sasebo to USNIS Japan, January 18, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 3, Confidential, in
Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0341–0345; Takami, Hansen seinen iinkai, 67.
80 Telegram 161507Z, USNIS Sasebo to USNIS Japan, January 16, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7
Japan-US, 4, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0302–0306; Telegram 191926Z, 3; Asahi
Shinbun, January 17, 1968, 9, notes that such charges were a first in the history of student activism. The
second group was also indicted under the Interference with Official Duties Act; as USNIS’s report notes,
the group included two women. The Mainichi Shinbun had declared its approval should authorities apply

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

118

William Marottiof student violence prompted it to grant the police latitude to take an even harsher
stance against the students—although what exactly had been green-lighted in Sasebo
would in retrospect become a matter of some debate.81
A wide variety of demonstrators converged upon Sasebo in mid-January, alongwith thousands of riot police from all over Japan. Pro–Security Treaty and pro-visit
demonstrators were mobilized by the ruling LDP, much as at Haneda in November;supporters also included rightists such as Akao Satoshi (a.k.a. Akao Bin) and his
Great Japan Patriotic Party [Dai nippon aikokuto៮ ], who commenced speechmaking
and leafleting on January 15.82 Business groups and local politicians also greeted theEnterprise, whose visit was expected to bring an additional $2.2 million to the local
economy, which was already closely bound to the U.S. naval base and ship visits. They
had been campaigning for the visit for two years, and were engaged in an extensive
pro-visit, pro–Security Treaty “propaganda campaign” in an attempt to counter opposition before and during the visit.83
The Enterprise had been delayed by a day; in consequence, many protest efforts
peaked on January 18, the day before its arrival.84 The joint JSP-JCP-So៮ hyo៮ Grand
Rally for Opposing American Aggression in Vietnam, for Petitioning for the Immediate Return of Okinawa to Japan, and for the Obstruction of Port Calls by NPSS
was set for 12:30 P.M. at the Sasebo City Municipal Baseball Stadium, and drew some
27,000 participants—the largest demonstration in the area in half a decade, and fourtimes the size of the largest anti-SSN demonstration in 1964.85 Ko៮ meito៮ (the Clean
Government Party), affiliated with the Buddhist organization So៮ ka Gakkai, held
multiple anti-visit rallies, attended by some 20,000 members; the January 15 pre-visit

the Assembly in Possession of Dangerous Weapons Law to helmeted students brandishing lengths oftimber. Mainichi Shinbun, January 17, 1968, 5. Calls in the Diet for its application continued with theSecond Haneda Incident, but investigations into its application had still not been concluded by the timeof the Enterprise visit. See House of Representatives Accounts Settlement Committee, Closed Session,
Kokkaikaigiroku, 56-shu៮ -kessan iinkai-hei 6 go៮ , November 13, 1967; Cabinet Committee Meeting, Kokkaikaigiroku, 56-shu៮ -naikaku iinkai—1 go៮ , January 18, 1968.
81 Telegram 4763, 2; Airgram A-1098, 0318–0334.
82 Rabidly anti-communist, with a long and notorious history, the party was linked with the assassination of JSP chairman Asanuma Inejiro៮ in 1960 (carried out by a young “ex-member”). Akao had
previously led fights against leftist protesters in Sasebo during an SSN visit. Scattered rightist attacks
occurred during the Enterprise visit as well. See Telegram 171945Z, USNIS Sasebo to USNIS Japan,
January 17, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 3, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3,0335–0337.
83 Approximately 10 percent of the local economy derived directly from the base and visits; in many
ways, the establishment of the base in 1946 continued the previous economic links to the imperial navy,
whose base here since the late nineteenth century had come to employ some 60,000 in Sasebo during
World War II. In 1966, U.S. military expenditures in Sasebo were $23.6 million, which exceeded theentire city budget of $18 million. The Chamber of Commerce, the Sasebo Citizens’ Council for Protecting
the Security Treaty, and other groups mounted an extensive “propaganda campaign” to promote thevisit and to counteract leftist arguments with leaflets, pro-visit demonstrations, a lecture series, andconservative governmental and legislative visits. Airgram A-5, “Sasebo Prepares for the Enterprise,”
January 11, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 1–3, 5, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel
3, 0391–0395. LDP propaganda in the area was coordinated by Diet members Sakamoto Misoji and Sato៮
Fumio. Telegram Fukuoka 30, “Impact of Enterprise Visit,” January 22, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7
Japan-US, 4, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0395–0398.
84 Airgram A-5, 4.
85 Airgram A-1098, 7. Nonetheless, this and other demonstrations organized by the JSP, JCP, andSo៮ hyo៮ fell short of their organizing goals, and were often hampered by police-student clashes (e.g.,planned parade routes to the base were interrupted). Telegram Fukuoka 30, 3.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

119

rally by the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) and its allied union, Do៮ mei, mobilized
3,500.86 Police estimated some 46,000 total demonstrators in Sasebo.87
Despite these impressive turnouts, the hundreds of reporters, photographers, andtelevision crewmembers on hand in Sasebo were there principally to record the expected dramatic student-police clashes, which consequently received the lion’s shareof the publicity.88 Following weeks of anticipatory press and television reporting, thespectacle did not disappoint those expecting high drama and eye-catching news. According to the embassy’s report, on January 17,
as hundreds of reporters and cameramen looked on, about 375 plastic-helmeted, stave-carrying and rock-throwing [Sanpa] students charged about four times as many riot policemen
at a bridge directly in front of the US naval base. After taking the first student thrust, thepolice responded with their own billyclub charge, supported by tear gas and water cannons.
The peak of the clash coincided perfectly with the noon television news and millions of television viewers were permitted to see the full force of the police counteroffensive by direct
television relay.89

The police also hurled concussion grenades and spiked the water cannons with eyeirritant—but it was their generous use of tear gas, and above all the “liberal use ofpolice clubs,” that most excited commentary.90 Again, thanks to the timing, many
witnessed the events nearly live, and barely edited, through continuing television
coverage.91
As events unfolded, the neat boundaries between participants and observers soon
collapsed in a way that would prompt revisions in the press and popular attitudes.
Several correspondents on the scene subsequently testified about state violence after
experiencing it firsthand. Five members of the press, including a correspondent fromthe Asahi Shinbun, were vigorously beaten by riot police, with no regard for theirpress armbands or their cries of protest.92 The report in the evening edition of the
86 Telegram 171945Z, 2. The presence of Ko៮ meito៮ in the protests occasioned commentary (e.g.,
Asahi Shinbun, January 17, 1968, evening ed., 1) and governmental concern, although there appeared
to be some overlap between their protests and standard election rallies already planned for the area.
87 Airgram A-1098, 7. The math on the protesters’ numbers appears a bit suspect. There were tobe 5,500 police on hand to greet the expected 2,000–3,000 students, according to estimates on January
11; this was revised to 5,800 on January 12. Telegram 4596, Ambassador Johnson to CINCPAC, January
11, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 1, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0389–0390;
Telegram 4658, 3.
88 Airgram A-1098, 8. JCP, JSP, and So៮ hyo៮ protests in Tokyo were similarly ignored, even in thelocal papers, in favor of coverage of student-police confrontations, despite mounting “what were in fact
the most impressive Tokyo demonstrations in some time.” Ibid.
89 Airgram A-1098, 6. USNIS Sasebo estimated 720 students. Telegram 171607Z, USNIS Sasebo to
USNIS Japan, January 17, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 2, Confidential, in Confidential Files:
Japan, reel 3, 0338–0339. Efforts to deny stones to the students by paving the railway roadbed by thebase were apparently of limited success. Airgram A-5, 3.
90 Telegram Fukuoka 30, 2; Telegram 200311Z, USNIS Sasebo to USNIS Japan, January 19, 1968,
CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 2, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0356–0358; Telegram
171607Z, 2.
91 JSP Diet member O៮ ide Jun raised the matter in the Cabinet Committee meeting the next day.
Discussing the out-of-control police, he mentions having watched a televised scene that very morningin which a policeman clubbed a cringing, gassed, unmoving student, all the while ignoring a supervisor’s
baton taps on his police helmet and shouts to stop. Cabinet Committee Meeting, Kokkaikaigiroku, 56shu៮ -naikaku iinkai–1 go៮ , January 18, 1968.
92 The Asahi Shinbun’s evening edition reported their correspondent’s beating as part of their frontpage article on the day’s events, along with the hospital’s statement that he would require two weeks
of medical care for his lacerations; his account appears inside (see below). Asahi Shinbun, January 17,

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

120

William Marotti

FIGURE 4: Students battle massed riot police and water cannons on Hirasebashi Bridge adjacent to U.S. Fleet
Activities, Sasebo, January 17, 1968. Photo courtesy of the Asahi Shimbun.

Asahi on January 17 presented a firsthand account of a rather one-sided conflict, andmarked a real turnaround in the casting of the dramatis personae. Beginning with
1968, evening ed., 1, 9. The figure of five comes from the announced Sasebo police figures; see Nagasaki
Shinbun, January 18, 1968, 1.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

121

FIGURE 5: Students are hemmed in and assaulted by riot police outside the Sasebo Citizens’ Hospital while
staff watch from the windows, January 17, 1968. Photo courtesy of the Asahi Shimbun.

a front-page photo of a police pincer attack overrunning the grounds of the hospitalwhere the correspondent was beaten, the photographs sympathetically portray victims of police excess. (See Figure 5.) An image of an arrested student, his headbathed in blood, is featured above an image from the Sasebo Citizens’ Hospital[Sasebo Shimin Byo៮ in], where an activist student and a journalist sit side by side
receiving care from the white-attired young nurses. (See Figure 6.) Other images
show the massed protesters on Hirasebashi Bridge under fire from water cannon
blasts, and a mass of perhaps nine riot police clubbing a downed student on thehospital grounds.
The paper’s narrative of events echoes the photographs with depictions of solidarity, determination, and sympathy. The account begins with the students’ evasionof the police at the station via the railway tracks; they make their way to Hirasebashi
Bridge to face water cannons and tear gas in an attempt to cross to the base. They
shout their determination, urging each other forward against the water blasts andthe barricades, in a visual and auditory image of brave struggle. “Citizens” observe
the events with contorted faces, crowding the street near the bridge and watchingfrom open windows. Next, in a brief scene inside the nearby Sasebo Citizens’ Hospital, a female student receives treatment, while others pass lemons to arriving malestudents. The stricken students press the lemons to their gassed eyes, then pick up
their staves and rejoin the fight—a gendered image of care and heroism.93 Mean93 Lemons are typically squeezed into bandanas worn over the face to provide brief protection fromtear gas.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

122

William Marotti

FIGURE 6: Nurses at the Sasebo Citizens’ Hospital treat students and press afflicted by tear gas exposure,
January 17, 1968. Photo courtesy of the Asahi Shimbun.

while, the tear gas infiltrates the hospital, and numerous members of the staff andpatients soon require treatment—the first point at which “ordinary citizens” become
victims of the police action.94
As the line of students collapses under the gas assault and retreats from thebridge, a leader attempts to rally them in front of the hospital under a banner proclaiming “Freedom for the People of Vietnam.” With this, the assault by riot police
begins. Whereas descriptions of actions at Haneda often reduced the students’ voices
to animalistic noises, here it is the riot police who are portrayed either as a silent,
implacable menace or as violent attackers screaming meaningless epithets. They fallon the retreating students, who offer no resistance, display white handkerchiefs, andshout “Stop it!” as they are brutally clubbed by bellowing riot police. A citizen’s brave
intervention marks the first of many recorded acts of citizen heroism—and in effect,
the taking of sides.95 As if to highlight the author’s changing perceptions, the next
subsection is entitled “You’re Going Too Far! Police Actions Criticized by Citizens.”
Witnessing police dragging injured students from the Sasebo Citizens’ Hospital toinflict further group beatings, two “middle-aged gentlemen” step between the students and the pursuing riot police, “shouting ‘No more mayhem and violence[bo៮ ryoku]!’ and ‘What on earth are you doing?!’ ”96
Asahi Shinbun, January 17, 1968, evening ed., 9.
Ibid.
96 Ibid.; emphasis added. Literally “No wielding of violence by riot police!” [kido៮ tai wa bo៮ ryoku ofuru៮ na]. A final note to the article adds that police reports of thirty-two officers injured in a confrontation
on January 16 at the Hakata train station in Fukuoka with Sanpa members en route had been revised
later that day to four—all minor.
94
95

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

123

In “No Police Warning; Riot Police Beat Citizens As Well,” the injured Asahi
correspondent reports how riot police clubbed him and others on the hospitalgrounds.97 “It was completely out of the blue,” he begins, focusing on the failure bypolice to issue standard warnings of intervention or arrest procedures that might
have allowed citizens to retreat to safety. Without these cautions, observers had no
idea what was taking place until it was too late. Instead, a black wave of riot police
appeared, and citizens, unable to flee the scene, flooded into the hospital:
Those citizens last to run are brought down. Rising to flee, they are battered again. Ordinary
citizens [ippanshimin] without helmets or lengths of timber, they cringe, shielding their heads
with both hands. They are beaten, kicked with boots. With no way to escape, they press against
the wall of the hospital; again and again they receive heavy blows. Truncheon blows fall uponeven the motionless and cowering. I shouted “I’m an Asahi reporter!” Whether or not they
heard, the rain of blows did not abate. My protective helmet flew off. At that point, I thought
I’d likely die; I recall as many as four or five blows to my scalp. Diving through the legs ofa riot policeman, I attempted to escape, but was again beaten and kicked.98

Having finally escaped to the hospital, the reporter is treated in what looks like awartime triage full of injured students. His reporter’s armband and pants drip withblood.99
The Asahi ’s reporting of January 17 not only starkly records state violence, it also
portrays student activists sympathetically; meanwhile, it depicts citizen victimization
by, and outrage against, the illegitimate violence [bo៮ ryoku] of the police. Although
discussion in the Asahi Shinbun during the following days would shift back to a criticism of student violence, it would also note a shift in local public opinion against
the police and government.100 The Mainichi Shinbun similarly featured heroic, angry
citizens, “bystanders” transformed from spectators into actors: “From among thewatching citizens, angry calls of ‘That’s enough, stop it!’ fly. Citizens who until now
have been mere gawkers [yajiuma] find courage and, unable to bear it any longer,
step in among the police, calling out ‘That’s quite enough!’ ”101 The next day’s report
included text and a photo of an injured fifty-eight-year-old postal employee described as having been intentionally beaten by police, next to a report titled “Overexcited Truncheons: Sasebo.”102 While still decrying student violence, the paper recognized the support and sympathy of “citizens,” commending their interventions
between the combatants and decrying instances of their victimization by police.103
Accounts of police violence on January 17 in the local Nagasaki Shinbun paralleled the shifting perspective of the national newspapers, and included the paper’s
Asahi Shinbun, January 17, 1968, evening ed., 9.
Ibid. Reporters wore helmets similar to police helmets—although typically emblazoned with press
identifications. The next day, many wore gas masks as well.
99 Ibid. Such echoes of wartime scenes—and of imperial policing—troubled many observers. See
Airgram A-309, “The Japanese Student Protest Movement,” American Embassy Tokyo to Departmentof State, April 10, 1969, 19, Limited Official Use, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 3, Confidential, in
Confidential Files: Japan, reel 10, 0248–0278.
100 See, for example, Asahi Shinbun, January 23, 1968, 2, 14.
101 Mainichi Shinbun, January 17, 1968, evening ed., 9.
102 Mainichi Shinbun, January 18, 1968, 15.
103 Mainichi Shinbun, January 22, 1968, 15. See also ibid., January 20, 1968, 2. By contrast, the Yomiuri
Shinbun remains solidly critical of the students, and silent on both police excesses and the sympathy of
onlookers; e.g., January 18, 1968, 15.
97
98

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

124

William Marotti

FIGURE 7: Massed riot police beat two fallen demonstrators in Sasebo, January 17, 1968. Photo courtesy of
the Asahi Shimbun.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

125very first published statements of opposition to the Enterprise visit. As in the caseof the Asahi Journal ’s reporting of October 21, police malfeasance was indexed by
an attack on female demonstrators. “During the police action against the anti-war
demonstration the other day, riot police first took aim at the female students. ‘Ladies
first’ is perhaps fundamental to some other nations’ character, but it is an import not
to be borne in this form. Student violence is of course hard to excuse. It is equallyimportant to make certain that the government and law enforcement does not similarly run riot.”104 Extensive coverage the following day described mass beatings ofdowned students with the meter-long truncheons, and of a female student clubbed
down with a police duralumin shield. As the police pound the fallen students, an
onlooker shouts his astonishment that they continue to beat the unresisting.105
Even before the JSP addressed police misconduct in session at the Diet, Chief
Cabinet Secretary Kimura Toshio publicly announced an investigation into the “circumstances leading to injuries of news correspondents and bystanders,” saying that
Sasebo police “had been instructed to pay courtesy calls on citizens who were injured.”106 The mayor of Sasebo issued a public apology to the injured bystanders andgassed hospital patients; he had been a strong advocate for the visit, but was shaken
by the unfolding events. Chief of Police Kitaori Atsunobu declared that his forces
would subsequently minimize the use of tear gas bombs, and would not beat unresisting students; he had heard reports that dozens of policemen engaged in thelatter practice. His comments suggested that the beatings of reporters and prone
demonstrators were individual acts of excess, and would be responded to with individual admonishments. If these limited admissions were made in the hopes of deflecting the question of police violence as a systematic and chosen method of dealing
with protest, or of detaching such violence from the policies it supported, these hopes
proved in vain—at least in the short term.107
As the protests continued, authorities maintained their concern about Beheirenin the interest of preventing a “fluke.” Maritime Safety Bureau vessels kept thegroup’s rented water taxi at a sufficient distance to preclude sailors from reading
their placards (“Follow the Intrepid Four,” “Stop the Killing,” “Love Your Constitution,” and “Will Help You. Beheiren”).108 While leafleting and other efforts by
104 Nagasaki Shinbun, January 17, 1968, 1. The paper also reported the JSP’s condemnation of police“excesses” [ikisugi] and provocations.
105 Nagasaki Shinbun, January 18, 1968, 8. The same page relates the crash of a Lockheed Orion P-3A
from Iwakuni Air Force Base; such crashes, and the dangers they posed, would continue to energize
anti–Security Treaty and anti-base opposition as they reoccurred throughout 1968. Much of the subsequent reporting of events at Sasebo, like that in the Asahi, voiced criticisms of the students’ violence,but also continued to include accounts of the numerous citizen voices protesting police excess, andcitizens’ attempts to protect or aid injured students. See, for example, Nagasaki Shinbun, January 18,
1968, 9.
106 Telegram 182019Z, 2. Some 300 were affected by the tear gas, in addition to those who weredirectly beaten. Kimura’s admissions brought about an angry rebuke by other members of the government, including the transportation minister (and future prime minister), Nakasone Yasuhiro, for the“weak-kneed impression” of his statements that “might even be taken as a change in government policy,”
occasioning a public reaffirmation of the cabinet’s position that NPSS visits would be permitted. Airgram
A-1098, 9.
107 Telegram 182019Z, 2; Nagasaki Shinbun, January 18, 1968, 1.
108 Telegram 211118Z, USNIS Sasebo to Director, USNIS Japan, January 21, 1968, CF 1967–1969,
Def 7 Japan-US, 2–3, Secret, Noforn, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0378–0381. Judging from thesite reports, USNIS efforts focused principally on Sanpa- and Beheiren-related groups (such as the

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

126

William Marotti

Beheiren members failed to yield any deserters, their waterborne tactics garneredrare news coverage, which was otherwise devoted virtually exclusively to confrontations between Sanpa and the police.109
On January 19, the day of the Enterprise’s arrival, the Nagasaki Shinbun reviewed
the nineteen visits to Japan by nuclear-powered ships over the previous three years,
noting that the visit of the Enterprise had awaited a diminishment of concern overnuclear “introduction” [mochikomi]. It characterized the purpose of the visit as a“spur” [hakusha] toward “curing the allergy,” and one thus entangled with Security
Treaty and Okinawa issues. This was the first time the paper had broached the question of nuclear safety in conjunction with the visit.110 The same issue gave a detailed
report on the events of January 18 in Sasebo: while describing scenes of policeinflicted violence (an unconscious female student, a male with a split brow smearedin blood), it noted the presence of some 10,000 citizen onlookers who reflected apolitically transforming populace. Some were heard not merely objecting to police
violence, but shouting encouragement and warnings to Sanpa students.111 The nextday, as the Enterprise arrived, the paper recorded a “trembling young housewife”
speculating aloud that “although it hadn’t crossed my mind with the submarines, isn’tsuch a large ship likely to be piled with terrifying nuclear weapons?” As the violence
continued, increasingly numerous onlookers [yajiuma] gave aid and encouragement
to the students—evidencing the eroding line separating such individuals from activists.112 A U.S. Naval Investigative Service site report on January 21 declared confidently that as a new tactic, “[Sanpa] students masqueraded as ordinary citizens . . .
[and] intermingled with the bystanders and threw stones from among the bystanders
thus adding to confusion.” It noted, however, that “it was obvious to observers thatpolice were significantly hampered in their efforts to control due to the presence oflarge numbers of bystanders and their attitude.”113 American officials were in close
touch with police, who themselves were well placed to monitor crowd attitudes
thanks to the intermingled presence of numerous plainclothes officers.114
In a report to the embassy, the American consulate in Fukuoka took note of theperceptual transformations under way:
media coverage of the dramatic scene of students repeatedly attacking massed police lines
and vehicles produced a curious shift of attitude among [the] local citizenry. Initial mood ofapprehension and annoyance at invasion of troublemaking students replaced by sympathy andFukuoka Tenth Day Demonstration Society), perhaps testifying to their assessment of the manageability
and unproblematic nature of other forms of protest.
109 Telegram 221202Z, USNIS Sasebo to USNIS Japan, January 22, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7
Japan-US, 2, Secret, Noforn, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0385–0387.
110 Nagasaki Shinbun, January 19, 1968, 4.
111 Ibid., 6–7. The report also discusses actions in Tokyo.
112 Nagasaki Shinbun, January 20, 1968, 5.
113 Telegram 211747Z, USNIS Sasebo to USNIS Japan, January 21, 1968, CF 1967–1969, Def 7
Japan-US, 3, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 3, 0375–0377. The Asahi Shinbun reported
a few days later that bystanders had themselves engaged in throwing rocks at the police; January 24, 1968,
14.
114 Such officers enabled the arrest of one of the Sanpa leaders. See Nagasaki Shinbun, January 19,
1968, 6.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

127

FIGURE 8: Citizens object to riot police tactics in Sasebo, January 21, 1968. Photo courtesy of Kyodo News.

even grudging admiration. [Sanpa] students’ fundraising campaign among townspeople reported surprisingly successful in collecting sympathy as well as money.115

This “curious shift,” inexplicable within the governing assumptions by which U.S.
and Japanese officials viewed these events, required explanation. Conservative Japanese observers advising American officials helpfully supplied one in the form of apatronizing culturalism: the shift was due merely to the “sentimentality of the average Japanese who tends to sympathize with [the] underdog without regard for
objective right or wrong.” The embassy repeated this conclusion to the equally curious State Department, adding that Japanese had a propensity to indulge students.116 While wishfully attributing these popular changes of heart to native romantic emotionality, the American consul in Fukuoka nonetheless concluded thatthe “main effect of week’s developments [is] likely to be [the] sharpening of public
115 Telegram Fukuoka 30, 3. The students and the riot police were largely not from Sasebo, so bothgroups were potentially recognizable as outside invaders. Interestingly, an article in the Nagasaki Shinbun, “Battery of Fallen Students,” notes that the riot police were “an elite chosen from Fukuoka,
Yamaguchi, Osaka etc.”—immediately before describing how five or six were clubbing and kicking afallen student in the head and stomach in front of the hospital. Nagasaki Shinbun, January 18, 1968, 8.
116 Telegram Fukuoka 30, 3; Airgram A-1098, 6–7. This sentimentalism contrasted with the assessment (by Ambassador Reischauer) in the wake of the first SSN visit to Sasebo in November 1964: the“increasingly mature and sophisticated Japanese public is no longer willing [to] respond willy-nilly toleftist and extremist alarmism and demands for show of mass force and even violence in demonstrating
opposition . . . [the] Japanese public simply refused to support such action.” Telegram 1724, Ambassador
Reischauer to Secretary of State, November 14, 1964, 1, Secret, Sanitized, in FRUS, 1964 –1968, vol.
XXIX, pt. 2: Japan, 44 – 46. Compliance with American wishes (and the wishes of their Japanese clients)
signifying maturity, dissent indicating thoughtless sentimentality: a perfect illustration of the conflationof developmentalist social analysis and American strategic objectives.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

128

William Marotti

debate on national defense and Security Treaty issues”—an impression confirmed
by a Nishi Nippon Shinbun poll of Sasebo residents conducted February 10–12.117
The embassy noted that similar attitude shifts appeared to have taken place not justin Sasebo, but nationwide.118

IN FIRE ACROSS THE SEA, AN EVOCATIVE and detailed account of Japanese protest
against the Vietnam War, Thomas R. H. Havens argues that “the rumpus at Sasebobrought the demonstrators much sympathy and helped to restore the peaceful imageof the antiwar movement. People all over Japan watched the daily coverage on television and were aghast at the ruthlessness of the police against the defenseless protestors . . . This support ebbed when student radicals began carrying staves on campus
later in 1968, but the antiwar movement itself stayed free of violence for the mostpart until the early 1970s.”119 Such narratives of promise and declension throughsubsequent violence are common enough in histories of the 1960s, and Havens’s
conclusions here match their typical level of distortion and reductivism. Yet violence
during this pivotal period played a much more ambiguous role, in many ways becoming the means of disclosing the incorporation of state violence in official policy,
and in so doing, closing the distance between “ordinary citizens” (and “ordinary
students”) and political activists.120 The heightened attention to the issues highlighted by activist confrontations in turn created the conditions for “nonviolent”
117 Telegram Fukuoka 30, 3; on the newspaper poll, see Airgram A-11, “Nishi Nippon Shimbun’s
Survey of Sasebo’s Reaction to Enterprise Visit,” American Consulate Fukuoka to Department of State,
March 12, 1968, Limited Official Use, CF 1967–1969, Def 7 Japan-US, 3, Confidential, in Confidential
Files: Japan, reel 3, 0276–0301. Reviewing the poll results, the consulate again called the locals “relatively
unsophisticated and sentimental.” Despite overwhelming disapproval of student violence (83.5 percent),
many had been won over by the students’ “pure feelings” of sincerity; their actions, the embassy nonetheless noted, had “jolted many Sasebo citizens out of their apathy and indifference and sensitized themto the security issue.” The Nishi Nippon Shinbun survey revealed other alarming opinion shifts, such asthat 70.7 percent of respondents now favored removing the base even if it meant Sasebo’s decline, and72.9 percent opposed the visits of warships, viewing them as a Japanese contribution to the war in
Vietnam; 83.1 percent indicated that reporting on the events “had opened [their] eyes” and prompted
them to “pay more attention hereafter to questions of war, peace, domestic and foreign situation.” The
Nishi Nippon Shinbun editors speculated that the Enterprise visit had “transformed the people of Sasebofrom mere residents into ‘thinking citizens,’” “moving in the direction” of “complete rejection of the
Security Treaty” (1–3).
118 Airgram A-11, 6.
119 Thomas R. H. Havens, Fire across the Sea: The Vietnam War and Japan, 1965–1975 (Princeton,
N.J., 1987), 149–150; emphasis added. Versions of this declension narrative repeat elsewhere in thework. His assertion that the students were unarmed on January 17 is belied by many accounts, as well
as by his own photographic illustration of the conflict on Hirasebashi Bridge, in which staves are clearlyvisible (149). Some participating groups did, however, attempt unarmed combat, a matter occasioning
debate among the students. See the accounts by Kaiho៮ faction members excoriating Chu៮ kaku’s January
19 weaponless combat—but also Chu៮ kaku’s opportunistic last-minute stave-waving on January 21: Zenshin, February 1, 1968, 2.
120 For criticisms of reductive declension arguments elsewhere, see, for example, Robert Cohen (onthe invidious comparisons between the earlier Berkeley Free Speech Movement and Columbia University in 1968), “The Many Meanings of the FSM,” in Robert Cohen and Reginald E. Zelnik, eds., The
Free Speech Movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s (Berkeley, Calif., 2002), 38–39, 52–53 n. 87.
For perhaps the most famous contemporary defense of armed “self-defense” (in the context of the 1961
nonviolent “Freedom Riders” actions) as a means to compel proper state law enforcement against violence by the Ku Klux Klan and to prevent bloodshed—and against an unacknowledged, omnipresent
institutionalized violence in the racist social system—see Robert F. Williams, Negroes with Guns (Detroit, Mich., 1998), 3–5, 76.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

129

FIGURE 9: Students battle riot police in Sasebo, January 21, 1968. Photo courtesy of Kyodo News.

protest to become effective. To put it crudely, “nonviolence” was enabled by violence, that is, by a violent display whose results revealed and delegitimated massive
state violence, while reenergizing and broadening political possibilities.
In an odd way, Honda was right: it had been the demonstrators’ role “to be struck,kicked, and arrested—only this is permitted.”121 Now, as a result of their shift intactics, the script for protests had been transformed. While there had been an escalation in the police response following Haneda, subsequent public disapproval andsensitization to protest issues brought about an entirely different situation, one thatboth constrained police action and focused public attention—a combination of circumstances that now made effective nonviolent protest possible. Whereas before
such approaches had generated little interest, and had occasionally been dealt withsummarily by authorities, now the imminent possibility of dramatic student involvement brought eager media attention.122 With attention and legitimacy conferred
upon protest issues, a much broader group of “ordinary” people were motivated tocommence activism, expanding the boundaries and possibilities of the political.
For the moment, too, police had retreated from their post-Haneda “aggressive
posture,” thanks to reactions against their overt brutality at Sasebo and the everpresent danger that an incident would spark a much wider conflagration.123 An analHonda, Honda Nobuyoshi Chosakusen I, 342.
Other factors in the wake of Sasebo included a reenergized JSP, newly focused and with greatly
reduced “internal strife.” See Airgram A-1098, 9.
123 Airgram A-309, 19. This chosen defensive posture was opposed by hawks within the LDP, who
121
122

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

130

William Marotti

ysis of the student protest movement by Columbia University’s James W. Morley inApril 1969 reflected that police overreach at Sasebo had “raised the spectre of prewar police brutality and so offended the public mores, which have been traditionallypermissive toward students, that for many months thereafter the police felt it wisest to
fall back on the defense, hoping thereby that a public backlash would develop, enablingthem to move out again forcibly later.”124
The beneficiaries of these new political possibilities frequently proved to be thenonsectarian groups, from Beheiren (whose numbers increased dramatically) to the
All-Campus Joint Struggle Committees [Zenkyo៮ to៮ ], that, emerging mid-1968 fromthe developing Tokyo University and Nihon University conflicts, proliferated acrosshundreds of university campuses to create more than 67 campus seizures or lockouts
by year’s end (and 127 in 1969)—their ranks swollen with participants from the nowactivist nonpori.125 Widening public concern and disapproval of the Vietnam War
and Security Treaty relationships created an atmosphere in which increasing numbers of “ordinary” people found the desire and the means for political engagement.126 The Japanese government took careful notice of this development, with theForeign Ministry, for example, observing in an internal report that during anti-U.S.
base demonstrations following the Enterprise incident, “the local people in the vicinity of the military bases concerned and ordinary students with no particular ideological leanings have come to be involved.”127
in March 1968 began to push for outlawing Sanpa under the previously unapplied Anti–Subversive
Activities Law of 1952—an approach rejected as likely to engender protracted litigation without immediate success, all the while inflaming protest. As a compromise, the LDP executive board decided in
September 1968 to apply the anti-riot provisions of the criminal code, setting the stage for events in
October. See Airgram A-309, 19–20. In many ways this restraint resembles that of the period between
December 1945 and May 1946 when the still largely intact Japanese police forces limited their own
responses to activism out of uncertainty over the possible Allied Occupation response—a self-restraintthat crucially contributed to creating an atmosphere in which union organizing, “production control”
incidents (where workers seized their places of employment, running them without owners or management), and protests could flourish. Repression speedily recommenced, with Occupation approval,
following the speech by General Douglas MacArthur on May 20, 1946, excoriating protesters’ “massviolence”—green-lighting suppression with language akin to the imperial state’s “peace preservation”
laws. See Mark Gayn, Japan Diary (New York, 1948), 231–240; John Dower, Embracing Defeat (NewYork, 1999), 254 –273.
124 Airgram A-309, 19; emphasis added. Morley was on hiatus as director of the East Asia Instituteat Columbia University for a two-year assignment at the Tokyo embassy, serving as Ambassador Johnson’s personal assistant “on a principal mission of liaison with the Japanese intellectual community.”
On Morley’s assignment in the Tokyo embassy to continue former Ambassador Reischauer’s “gains,”
see U. Alexis Johnson, The Right Hand of Power (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984), 455, and “Interview withProfessor James Morley,” March 21, 2005, http://www.japanconsidered.com/Interviews/050321Morley
James/050321MorleyJamesInterviewMain.htm (accessed December 10, 2008). Like many of the documents considered here, Morley’s confident account of police and LDP internal decision-making andattitudes in Airgram A-309 testifies to the degree to which he (and the embassy) maintained intimatecontacts with Japanese officialdom.
125 The figure is based on the Japanese academic year. Zenkyo
៮ to៮ had sprung up previously during
struggles at Keio and Waseda University, but it was only with the 1968 conflicts that students came torecognize it as a distinctive and potentially powerful form of activism. See Wheeler, “The JapaneseStudent Movement,” 131–132.
126 While it is true that many of the campus eruptions were triggered by local issues—including
massive misappropriation of funds by a repressive administration at Nichidai, and exploitative conditions
imposed upon medical students at Todai, for example—such particular stories cannot account either forthe rapid spread of campus eruptions across Japan or for the commonalities in the form and content
of activism.
127 Translated as “U.S. Military Bases in Japan,” enclosure no. 1, Airgram A-2080, Ambassador

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968131

By year’s end, Asahi chief editor Mori was even willing to entertain the claim thatstudents’ use of force might constitute anti-violence. In his column “The Ethics of‘Gewalt Staves,’ ” he considered the cogency of the activists’ language: “what newspapers write of as lengths of timber [kakuzai] are called Gewalt Staves [geba-bo៮ ] by
the students. At base is their sense that their acts of Gewalt are not violence but
rather anti-violence.”128 Mori recognized that the choice of the German Gewalt—
meaning variously force, violence, and power—involved a reconceptualization of thescope and purpose of force, and an attempt to distinguish it from the violence[bo៮ ryoku] that students associated with the state. “The thinking of the Sanpa-faction
Zengakuren appears to be to break the law as a declaration of their intent to resist,and to thereby put their case before the general public. However, rather than being
prepared [to accept] punishment, they view [the state’s] right of punishment itself
as violence, and repudiate it. According to them, Gewalt is neither terror, nor coupd’état, nor guerrilla warfare. It is seen as a political means. They strongly reject thestereotypical view that violence is the enemy of democracy, and is in contradiction
with peace.”129 Force remained a complex component in all of these struggles. Students from Nihon University, for example, earned heroic acclaim and a reputation
for toughness through their savage combats with police and rightist groups.130 Meanwhile, anxious American officials worried that activists would provoke the involvement of U.S. military police or martyrdoms during Okinawan demonstrations, fearing that a nationwide conflagration might result.131
Certainly the possibility of such a conflagration was always imminent. Events suchas the eruption of the Tet offensive at the end of January (including the brief occupation of the U.S. embassy in Saigon) and President Johnson’s March 31 addresssuspending the bombing of North Vietnam and renouncing his reelection bid continued to raise doubts about the war and about Sato៮ ’s notable support for American
policy.132 The seizure by North Korea of the USS Pueblo during its surveillance op-

Johnson to Department of State, October 1, 1968, 3, Confidential (encl.) / Secret (Airgram), DNSA, doc.
JU01001.
128 Asahi Ja
៮ naru, December 15, 1968, 3.
129 Ibid.; emphasis added. Even if he ultimately remained concerned about the possibility of violence
becoming an end in itself, Mori’s engagement with activist claims marks a notable broadening of public
acceptance of such claims.
130 This was a tactic largely thrust upon them by necessity: the Nihon University students faced violent
opposition for attempting to protest at a university that prided itself on the mass production of graduates
free from political activism. The notorious president of the Board of Trustees, Furuta Ju៮ jiro, had in fact
boasted to the American embassy in September 1960, in his capacity as chairman of the Private Universities Deliberation Council, that Nihon University students had not taken part in Anpo demonstrations. He suggested that the U.S. lend support to such private institutions as a bulwark against politicalactivism (which he said ought to be banned outright at all schools). He also urgently recommended
revision of the constitution and the police law to allow for martial law in similar circumstances. Memorandum, Ju៮ jiro Furuta to Ambassador MacArthur, “Summary of My Private Opinions,” enclosure no.
1 to Dispatch 323, American Embassy Tokyo to Department of State, September 16, 1960, Confidential,
National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Md., Record Group 59, Box 69, 350 Demonstrations 1960–61 SECRET.
131 Memorandum, “B-52 Operations,” Richard L. Sneider to William P. Bundy, February 17, 1968,
Secret, Exdis [exclusive distribution], DNSA, doc. JU00900. “B-52 operations are becoming increasingly
publicly visible,” noted Sneider, suggesting that flights be reduced to three or four times a week.
132 See discussions in telegrams 07136 and 07158, both American Embassy to Department of State,
April 4, 1968; and in Memorandum, Rostow to President Johnson, April 5, 1968 (enclosing Memo-

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

132

William Marotti

FIGURE 10: Sanpa students—many carrying geba-bo៮ timber staves—march along the railway tracks on their way
to Hirasebashi Bridge, January 17, 1968. Photo courtesy of Kyodo News.

erations, along with border incursions and an alleged assassination plot against South
Korean president Park Chung-hee, for a moment made the sudden advent of a second Korean War conceivable, one that would immediately involve Japan directly.133
Although this disaster never materialized, the events surrounding the seizure of the
Pueblo demonstrated the degree to which Japan’s security commitments and arrangements could bring about sudden participation in American wars, current andfuture. The ingredients were all there: the Pueblo had sailed from Sasebo in early
January, as of course had the Enterprise, itself diverted en route to its Vietnam station
to command the task force responding to the Pueblo situation.134 Of the planes dispatched to the Western Pacific in response, Kadena Air Force Base on Okinawa
received fifteen B-52s. Beginning February 15, these Kadena-based B-52s commenced regular bombing runs of North Vietnam, averaging 350 sorties per month.135
randum from Under Secretary Nicholas deB. Katzenbach to President Johnson), April 5, 1968, all Secret,Exdis, DNSA, docs. JU00927, JU00928, JU00929, and JU00930.
133 This fear is explicitly discussed in Airgram A-1098, 15.
134 A top secret CIA memorandum had anticipated the risk, noting the distinct possibility of North
Korean action against the Pueblo, “in view of the current hostile attitudes and activities of the North
Koreans along the DMZ and against South Korean vessels off its coast.” R. J. Smith, Deputy Director
for Intelligence, Memorandum for Director of Central Intelligence, JRC Monthly Reconnaissance
Schedule for January 1968, January 2, 1968, 1, Top Secret, Sanitized, http://www.foia.cia.gov, doc.
0001458144 (accessed December 10, 2008).
135 “Fact Sheet: B-52 Basing in Okinawa,” DNSA, doc. JU01051. In June, the Okinawan high commissioner reported that “newspaper articles seeming to confirm officially and for the first time that the

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968

133

When thousands of students took to the streets by Shinjuku Station in Tokyo thefollowing October, however, police were able to regain some of their lost initiativeand reduce the possibility of a wider domestic eruption. On October 8, 1968, theone-year anniversary of Yamazaki’s death, some 6,000 to 8,000 students, Hansen
members, and their sympathizers again joined in a massive inter-sect attempt to halttransshipments of military jet fuel through this central commuting nexus. The protesters’ preparations—achieving a massive turnout, a new high point in inter-sectcooperation, and careful coordination of squads of 150 or so students that brought
protesters directly to the tracks—were bested by a centrally coordinated responseby the police. Their deployments, water cannons, clubs, and tear gas were enhanced
by a concerted attempt to dramatize restraint on their part so as to yield negative
press publicity for the protesters.136 The success of this performance—most papers(with the exception of the Asahi ) followed this lead, turning against the students intheir portrayals of events—perhaps conditioned the events of October 21, whichbegan with a peaceful So៮ hyo៮ protest involving between 35,000 and 55,000 participants, but ended with attacks on Shinjuku Station and wide-ranging street battles.137
The participants were largely some 6,000 to 7,000 members of Chu៮ kaku and Shagakudo៮ (the Socialist Student League), joined by some 12,000 to 14,000 locals. The
latter, however, were characterized not as “citizens” but rather as a disreputable
crowd of opportunists and hoodlums from Shinjuku, and their violence returned tothe criminalized, illegitimate category of bo៮ ryoku. The police response included thefirst invocation of the anti-riot law since the confrontations of May 1952, a move that
met with virtually universal press approval. In contrast, the press rejected activist
rationales about the station’s involvement in jet fuel shipments destined for attacks
on Vietnam.138

planes stationed at Kadena were used to bomb North Vietnam further inflamed opposition.” In FRUS,
1964 –1968, vol. XXIX, pt. 2: Japan, 287 n. 8, citing Telegram HC–LN 816605 from the High Commissioner, June 14, 1968. Such events added to the potential volatility of the political situation: theairstrikes against North Vietnam were not announced but were “patently known”; their increasing public
visibility could provoke protests that might finally overwhelm the limited Okinawan police forces andbring about battles with American military police, or even a martyrdom—something that authorities
feared as a potential political “trigger” for Japan as a whole. Memorandum, INR-Thomas L. Hughes
to Acting Secretary, “Conservative Control of Okinawan Government in Jeopardy,” April 12, 1968, 3,Secret, Noforn, DNSA, doc. JU00934; Sneider to Bundy, “B-52 Operations.” The other risk was of ageneral strike in Okinawa: even if short-lived, it would “prove in public what the US, the [governmentof Japan] and the Okinawans have known all along: that regardless of treaty rights, the US cannot have‘free use’ of its Okinawa bases if the population is hostile.” It might also provide material for successfully
depicting Okinawa as a military occupation. Memorandum, INR-Thomas L. Hughes to Secretary ofState, “Brinksmanship in the Okinawan Reversion Movement,” February 3, 1969, 1–2, Confidential,
Noforn, DNSA, doc. JU01044.
136 Telegram 12817, Ambassador Johnson to Secretary of State, October 9, 1968, 1–2, CF 1967–1969,
Pol 23-8 Japan, Confidential, in Confidential Files: Japan, reel 10, 0316–0317. Police made 819 arrests,
although only 42 were indicted, and of those, only 7 were charged under Article 106’s anti-riot provisions—a measure of restraint that Morley attributes to lingering caution on the part of police andprosecutors. Airgram A-309, 20. By this point police were implementing a policy of long-term preventive
detention, particularly against identified leaders of the activists. This, too, was enhanced by the achieved
shift in public opinion: as Morley notes in his analysis, “as the public temper has risen, the courts havebeen willing to extend the period of detention of suspects in jail and have warranted police searches more
freely”; ibid.
137 Smaller groups also made forays against the Diet and the Defense Agency.
138 Telegram 13148, Ambassador Johnson to Secretary of State, October 22, 1968, 1–3, CF 1967–

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

134

William Marotti

FIGURE 11: Photographers capture rough arrest of demonstrator by riot police near Haneda Airport, November
12, 1967 (Second Haneda Incident). Photo by Ishiguro Kenji.

The events in Shinjuku established a new equilibrium between state violence andpublic opinion, restoring legitimacy to police suppression, and threatening to once
again reduce activists’ voices to mere noise. Morley’s extensive analysis of the student
movement in April 1969—an analysis that anticipated the approaching Security
Treaty struggles of 1970—concluded that “repeated incidents of student violence,
crescendoing to the riot at Shinjuku on October 21, have produced the backlash thepolice had hoped for.”139 New confidence by police and courts in public support
against “protester violence” enabled escalated measures, including mass arrests, extended pretrial detentions, searches—even on university campuses without the acquiescence of their presidents—and finally, full-scale assaults against barricaded
campuses.140 Without another transformation of public perception, the decision by
1969, Pol 23-8 Japan, reel 10, 0305–0307. Again, police and prosecutors had been planning to apply theanti-riot law since September and were awaiting an opportunity; see Airgram A-309, 19–20.
139 Airgram A-309, 20; emphasis added.
140 Ibid. As Morley’s embassy report notes, assaults on seized campuses followed soon after the
Shinjuku events (Sophia University in December 1968 and Tokyo University in January 1969)—and thegeneral public acceptance of these measures encouraged other university administrations to seek suchassistance. While it is not the case that every subsequent act of police or judicial repression met withacclaim in the subsequent years of struggle, the police were never again put on the defensive by the levelof overwhelming nationwide disapproval that followed the Enterprise visit, and that had enabled 1968’slong interlude from the usual “law and order” perspective. This ultimately provided an outer limit, evena level of containment, for subsequent political confrontations—one visible only in retrospect. The specter of this prior public backlash—in part, as a harbinger for a nationwide “conflagration”—nonetheless

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009

Japan 1968135

some opposition groups to meet this force with force could only play into the handsof the police, hardening the categories through which such opposition was dismissed,and collapsing the possibilities for other forms of protest and political engagement—
possibilities that had first been enabled, nonetheless, through the unpredictable results of transformative violence.141 For the brief period during 1968 in which thepress widely portrayed student actions as heroic resistance (or at least as the politicalacts of rational people), dramatizing “citizen” outrage and intervention against an
omnipresent and indiscriminant police repression, the borders of the political radically expanded to open up a wealth of unforeseen possibilities and actors.

continued to haunt American and Japanese governmental assessments both of continuing military arrangements and of possible countermeasures against this insurgent politics.
141 To take an iconic, even overdetermined, case, Yoshikuni Igarashi discusses the origins of theUnited Red Army in the declining effectiveness of performative violence in “Dead Bodies and Living
Guns: The United Red Army and Its Deadly Pursuit of Revolution, 1971–1972,” Japanese Studies 27,
no. 2 (September 2007): 122–128. On their embrace of weaponry and illegality—and the interesting
repetition of corporate organizational forms—see also Patricia G. Steinhoff, “Hijackers, Bombers, andBank Robbers: Managerial Style in the Japanese Red Army,” Journal of Asian Studies 48, no. 4 (November 1989): 724 –740. On the spectacular standoff at Asama Cottage in 1974, the record-breaking
marathon televising of the event (and equally record-breaking 98.2 percent television viewership), andits transformation of viewers of activist films, see Abé Marcus Nornes, Forest of Pressure: Ogawa Shinsuke
and Postwar Japanese Documentary (Minneapolis, 2007), 150. This latter work provides a broad consideration of the role of contemporary activist filmmaking in representing, critiquing, shaping, and promoting political action in a counterpoint to the mass media. On the police use of selective Anti–Subversive Activities Law prosecutions against group leaders to tar entire organizations as criminal anddeviant, see, for example, Patricia G. Steinhoff, “Student Conflict,” in Ellis Krauss, Thomas P. Rohlen,
and Patricia G. Steinhoff, eds., Conflict in Japan (Honolulu, 1984), 194 –195. Steinhoff’s discussion hereof the application and acceptance of “labeling” might be profitably reconsidered within the Ross/Rancière problematic of the centrality to 1960s politics of the escape from determinative sociological categories.

William Marotti (Ph.D. 2001, University of Chicago) is an Assistant Professor
in the Department of History at the University of California, Los Angeles. He
specializes in modern and post–World War II Japanese history, with an emphasis on everyday life and cultural-historical issues. His first book, Money,
Trains, and Guillotines: Art and Revolution in 1960s Japan (forthcoming fromDuke University Press), is an investigation of the post–World War II politics ofculture and the everyday via avant-garde artistic production and its confrontations with the state.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEWFEBRUARY 2009