Comments on: Movie: 2009 Lost Memories http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2004/12/movie-2009-lost-memories/ The Japan History Group Blog Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:45:05 -0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Francis Chin http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2004/12/movie-2009-lost-memories/comment-page-1/#comment-140112 Francis Chin Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:05:13 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/?p=28#comment-140112 Ito (born 1841) was one of the driving forces behind Japan's modernisation. He was described as cautious in his dealings with Western powers, having spent many years studying in Britain and Europe (Japan, A Modern History by James McClain, 2002). In fact, during his first study trip as a student in England, he rushed back home to warn his provincial overlord Prince Choshu about taking on the white man. When I first watched the movie, I was intrigued by the possibility that had Ito NOT been assassinated, his influence and caution would have ensured that Japan choose to be an ally of the US and Britain. However, on reflection, I think it doesn't matter whether Ito was killed or not. By 1909 when he was shot to death in Harbin, he had already retired from active politics. Many of his enemies -- such as Yamagata -- favoured a more Japanistic (i.e. Japan ruling East Asia) world view. Both the military and civilian leaders knew factually that in any contest of strength with the US, Japan was sure to lose; but knowing a fact is different from accepting and internalising it so that it guides one's future conduct. In the fateful 3 months of 1941 before Pearl Harbour, there were countless rounds of so-called imperial liaison conferences (with the emperor playing an umpire role) among top army and government officials to decide one simple question -- war or no war with the US. The US government made its position clear -- if Japan wanted to remain on friendly terms and continue to enjoy importing US oil, then it must give up ALL the territories it had occupied so far, including all of China, all of Korea and Taiwan. The US refused to negotiate on this. To all the Japanese political and military leaders, despite whatever violent disgreement they had among themselves, giving up their empire was unthinkable. So, despite the endless debates and the attempts at diplomacy, Japan had to go to war with the US. Even if Ito were alive in 1941 (he would be 100 by then) it would be impossible for him to think "outside the empire box". The idea of using a Hollywood-style action hero Inoue to alter history is childish. The script should have played out the argument of whether a non-assassinated Ito could influence the foreign and war policies of Japan such that the country ended up on the best of terms with the US. After all, Ito's real life was full of adventure (smuggling himself into a western ship to go abroad), and he faced many assassination attempts by his Japanese enemies. Anyway, I found the movie entertaining. Ito (born 1841) was one of the driving forces behind Japan’s modernisation. He was described as cautious in his dealings with Western powers, having spent many years studying in Britain and Europe (Japan, A Modern History by James McClain, 2002). In fact, during his first study trip as a student in England, he rushed back home to warn his provincial overlord Prince Choshu about taking on the white man.

When I first watched the movie, I was intrigued by the possibility that had Ito NOT been assassinated, his influence and caution would have ensured that Japan choose to be an ally of the US and Britain.

However, on reflection, I think it doesn’t matter whether Ito was killed or not. By 1909 when he was shot to death in Harbin, he had already retired from active politics. Many of his enemies — such as Yamagata — favoured a more Japanistic (i.e. Japan ruling East Asia) world view.

Both the military and civilian leaders knew factually that in any contest of strength with the US, Japan was sure to lose; but knowing a fact is different from accepting and internalising it so that it guides one’s future conduct. In the fateful 3 months of 1941 before Pearl Harbour, there were countless rounds of so-called imperial liaison conferences (with the emperor playing an umpire role) among top army and government officials to decide one simple question — war or no war with the US.

The US government made its position clear — if Japan wanted to remain on friendly terms and continue to enjoy importing US oil, then it must give up ALL the territories it had occupied so far, including all of China, all of Korea and Taiwan. The US refused to negotiate on this.

To all the Japanese political and military leaders, despite whatever violent disgreement they had among themselves, giving up their empire was unthinkable. So, despite the endless debates and the attempts at diplomacy, Japan had to go to war with the US. Even if Ito were alive in 1941 (he would be 100 by then) it would be impossible for him to think “outside the empire box”.

The idea of using a Hollywood-style action hero Inoue to alter history is childish. The script should have played out the argument of whether a non-assassinated Ito could influence the foreign and war policies of Japan such that the country ended up on the best of terms with the US. After all, Ito’s real life was full of adventure (smuggling himself into a western ship to go abroad), and he faced many assassination attempts by his Japanese enemies.

Anyway, I found the movie entertaining.

]]> By: Kmlawson http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2004/12/movie-2009-lost-memories/comment-page-1/#comment-76 Kmlawson Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:53:33 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/?p=28#comment-76 I was a bit confused at first too, but the "assassin's assassin" Inoue becomes 2nd governor of Korea after Itô and his knowledge of the future apparently is used by Japan to advise it in its future. So the importance of the 1909 seems to be important only in that it gives time traveller Inoue a trusted position as Itô's henchman. I was a bit confused at first too, but the “assassin’s assassin” Inoue becomes 2nd governor of Korea after Itô and his knowledge of the future apparently is used by Japan to advise it in its future. So the importance of the 1909 seems to be important only in that it gives time traveller Inoue a trusted position as Itô’s henchman.

]]> By: Jonathan Dresner http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2004/12/movie-2009-lost-memories/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Jonathan Dresner Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:09:36 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/?p=28#comment-75 Very interesting. At first I thought "not colonizing Korea in 1910 wouldn't result in Japan's not becoming totalitarian, besides, Korea was already a protectorate by 1905...." then I realized that Ito's survival is probably the key to Japan's shifted history, but I can't quite see that it wouldn't have involved colonizing Korea and becoming involved in China, which would lead to conflict with the US.... Very interesting. At first I thought “not colonizing Korea in 1910 wouldn’t result in Japan’s not becoming totalitarian, besides, Korea was already a protectorate by 1905….” then I realized that Ito’s survival is probably the key to Japan’s shifted history, but I can’t quite see that it wouldn’t have involved colonizing Korea and becoming involved in China, which would lead to conflict with the US….

]]>