Chapter 1: Background to Japanese Migration

In 1633, attempting to isolate the country from external political influence, the Shogunate reversed the previous policy and the process of Japan’s isolation from the rest of the world was begun. In 1635 it became a capital offence for any Japanese to attempt to leave the country or, having left it, to return.³ Japan became virtually closed to foreign contact for over 200 years. But by the mid-nineteenth century, European, Russian, British and American commercial and strategic interests were expanding in the Far East, and Japan was forced to open trade with the West in 1853.⁴ Japan’s abandonment of its policy of seclusion also eased restriction on movements out of the country. In 1866 the death penalty was removed, and Japanese people could apply for passports for the purposes of study or trade overseas.⁵ In the same year, the Japanese government signed commercial treaties with the United States, England, France and Holland. Under these treaties, Japanese were theoretically allowed to leave the country if they were employed by interests from those four countries.⁶ The new exemptions were granted to very few, but included some government officials, students and merchants. They were allowed to go only to the United States, China, France, England, Germany, Holland and Russia.⁷

In 1868 the Tokugawa Shogunate was overthrown and Imperial rule was restored. Japan entered the modern age during the Meiji Era (1868–1912). The new government encouraged the nation to adopt Western ways under the slogan, “Enrich the nation and strengthen its arm”. To build up Japan’s military power and to gain equality with Western powers was the most urgent desire of the Meiji leaders. The Emperor Meiji encouraged the nation to seek knowledge throughout the world. He stated in 1871:

My country is now undergoing a complete change from the old to the new ideas … During youth time it is positively necessary to view foreign countries, so as to become enlightened as to the ideas of the world: and boys as well as girls, who will themselves become men and women, should be allowed to go abroad, and my country will benefit from their knowledge so acquired.⁸

Between 1868 and 1875, 4,637 passports were issued to Japanese for travel to the Asiatic mainland, and over 1,100 for the United States and Europe.⁹ These were mainly for government-sponsored students. Yet the Meiji government was reluctant to allow emigration to Western nations for the first 15 years after the restoration.¹⁰ According to Irie, this reluctance was an indication of the legacy of the seclusion period where the social mobility of the people was completely suppressed.¹¹ At this time many countries, including the United States, Holland, Spain, Australia and Peru, approached Japan for cheap labourers. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected all their requests.¹² Some people did leave illegally, including poor farmers, theatrical performers, peddlers and prostitutes. Their destinations were usually mainland Asia and islands in Nan’yo.¹³

By the 1880s, Japan had more or less rebuilt its political and social frameworks and was increasingly confident of its place in the world. Japan had ambitions to match the Western powers in territorial expansion. The Western powers were actively expanding in the South Seas and the Pacific. For example, England colonised Fiji in 1874, and in 1877 France colonised Tahiti. In 1885 Germany took over the Marshall Islands and in 1884 eastern New Guinea was divided by England and Germany.¹⁴ The Meiji government lifted the ban against emigration as part of its strategy towards becoming a world power. Overseas emigration became vigorous by “the introduction of Malthusian fears of population growth and by a general admiration for Western overseas expansion”.¹⁵ Japan’s population expanded from about 36 million in 1870 to close to 44 million in 1900 and to 55 million in 1920.¹⁶ The Meiji government carried out modernisation and industrialisation at the cost of primary industry, which occupied 77 per cent of the Japanese population.¹⁷ There was a surplus of labour which could not be absorbed by urban industry, but people from poor villages were still willing to leave home to find a secure living.¹⁸

In 1883 the Japanese government permitted 37 people to go to Australia to work for an Australian pearler, Captain J. A. Miller. Japanese had worked as pearlers in Australia before, but this was the first contract approved by the Japanese government for Japanese labourers to work in a Western country.¹⁹ In the following year, Hawaii’s minister plenipotentiary came to Japan to negotiate for labourers to work on sugar plantations. Of the 28,000 people who applied, 945 were chosen. They reached Honolulu in February 1885 and were followed by another party of 989 a few months later.²⁰ These labourers were poor peasants, mostly men, from the prefectures of Hiroshima and Yamaguchi. For them, leaving the country was an attractive option with the offer of free passage, food, lodging, medical care and relatively high wages. Irie wrote that early emigration schemes were initiated by receiving countries and if the Japanese government had accepted other invitations in the early years of Meiji, more desperately poor people would have been able to migrate.²¹ The emigration to Hawaii stimulated national interest in further migration and was the vanguard of a movement to the United States, Canada and other areas.²²

In the following two decades, Japan saw an active period of emigration. In 1891 the Japanese government established the Department of Emigration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in 1893 created the Japan Colonisation Association.²³ The government also allowed private companies to facilitate and promote emigration and recruit migrants. The first emigration company was the Nihon Yoshisa Emigration Company which was formed in 1891.²⁴ In 1903, thirty-six emigration agencies were operating.²⁵ In 1896 the Japanese government introduced the Emigrants Protection Law, which supervised the activities of private companies and tried to prevent unlawful acts and put emigration under government control.²⁶ Under this law all emigration companies had to be registered. According to Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs statistics, by 1910 approximately 252,000 people had gone to North America, 20,000 to Central and South America, and 12,000 to the Nan’yo region, including Australia.²⁷

The increased interest in emigration from Japan coincided with growing resentment about non-white migration in countries of destination, including the United States, Canada and Australia. Prejudice had often been triggered by anti-Chinese feeling in the aftermath of gold rushes and the Japanese were often seen as part of the same threat to white values and lifestyles.²⁸

The United States was one of four countries to which the Japanese government officially allowed Japanese to go in 1866. In the period from 1866 to 1880 fewer than 400 went to the US.²⁹ Although some of the Japanese who went to Hawaii continued on to the mainland of the United States in the 1880s, not until the late 1890s did Japanese migration to the US mainland increase considerably. At first the Japanese were well-accepted in the US, both on the mainland and in Hawaii. Mostly young men, they were hard-working and compliant, gaining a reputation as ideal imported labourers. By 1904 there were 53,764 Japanese on the mainland, concentrated mainly on the west coast.³⁰ Because of the influx of Chinese during the gold rushes, there was already resentment against the Chinese. This resulted in a government policy to exclude Chinese from the country in 1882. Anti-Japanese feeling existed on a lesser scale as early as 1887 in San Francisco when the number of Japanese there was still as few as 2,000, but not until after the Russo–Japanese War (1904–1905) did considerable anti-Japanese sentiment begin to surface. Between 1900 and 1910, the Japanese population of California quadrupled. According to Daniels and Kitano, “this relatively tiny group became the focus of a mass movement whose international implications were serious enough to involve the diplomatic intervention of the President of the USA”.³¹ Front page headlines of the San Francisco Chronicle during 1905 included:

CRIME AND POVERTY GO HAND IN HAND WITH ASIATIC LABOR

HOW JAPANESE IMMIGRATION COMPANIES OVERRIDE LAWS

BROWN MEN ARE MADE CITIZENS ILLEGALLY

JAPANESE A MENACE TO AMERICAN WOMEN

BROWN MEN AS AN EVIL IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

ADULT JAPANESE CROWD OUT CHILDREN

THE YELLOW PERIL – HOW JAPANESE CROWD OUT THE WHITE RACE

BROWN MEN ASSUME NATIONAL PROPORTIONS

BROWN ARTISANS STEAL BRAINS OF WHITES³²

In 1907 the Japanese government signed a “gentlemen’s agreement” with the United States to restrict Japanese migration to family reunions. The 1920 census found 111,010 Japanese, alien and citizens, in the entire country and 71,952 of them in California.³³ In 1922 the United States government decided to remove the right to naturalisation for Japanese and in 1924 the Oriental Exclusion Act, a revised immigration policy, totally banned Japanese migrants.³⁴

Japanese migration to Canada began in 1877 and flourished in the 1890s.³⁵ For the most part the migrants came as indentured labourers to work in such industries as fishing, lumbering, mining, railway construction and farming. Anti-Japanese sentiment in Canada developed similarly to the United States and was also triggered by anti-Chinese feeling. By the 1890s there were several attempts to limit arrivals of both Chinese and Japanese and to restrict their employment,³⁶ and in 1900 British Columbia attempted to pass a restrictive immigration act aimed at these two groups. It was subsequently disallowed by the federal government.³⁷ In 1901, 4,738 Japanese were living in Canada, 4,597 of them in British Columbia.³⁸ Anti-Japanese feeling heightened with the sudden influx of Japanese when the United States stopped the entry of Japanese from Hawaii in 1907.³⁹ On 7 September 1907 an anti-Japanese rally in Vancouver became violent and a mob attacked “Little Tokyo”, where most Japanese lived.⁴⁰ The reactions of the press were strongly anti-Japanese. On 9 September the Vancouver Daily Province wrote:

We are all of the opinion that this province must be a white man’s country … We do not wish to look forward to a day when our descendants will be dominated by Japanese, or Chinese, or any color but their own … We are an out-post of the Empire, and that outpost we have to hold against all comers.⁴¹

Further xenophobic agitation caused the government to make an arrangement with the Japanese government to restrict further migration, although it fell short of total exclusion. In 1907 specific quotas were introduced for certain classes of migrants and the total number of migrants dropped from 7,601 in the year ending March 1908, to 495 in the following year.⁴² The agreement did not place any limit on the number of wives entering Canada and a large number of women came under the “picture bride” system,⁴³ which continued until 1928.⁴⁴ In 1921, of 15,868 Japanese in Canada, 5,348 were female.⁴⁵ According to Adachi, this altered the nature of Japanese settlement, from predominantly itinerant contract labourers to a more settled, family-based community.⁴⁶

In the decade before federation, the Australian colonies viewed Japan’s rise to international prominence with some concern. Although there had been racial resentment against the Chinese who came to Australia during the gold rushes earlier in the nineteenth century, Yarwood claims:

Neither miners’ riots nor quayside protest gave urgency to the parliaments … The initiative for the extension of the “White Australia” legislation of the nineties came not from popular demand, but from politicians, who, though primarily concerned with the Japanese question, took the opportunity of completing the statutory wall behind which an essentially Anglo-Saxon society could be nourished.⁴⁷

Australian legislators were more concerned with “potential rather than actual influx”.⁴⁸ Although there was awareness of the growing importance of trade links with Japan, racial enmity was predominant in discussion of future relations. Individual colonies proposed extension of their anti-Chinese legislation to include all “coloured races”, but the difficulty of coordinating these actions was a further, if not the main, incentive to federation.⁴⁹ Queensland allowed migration of Japanese to work on the pearling luggers and in the sugar cane fields and differed from the other colonies in trying to negotiate convenient arrangements with Japan to allow only migration which was seen as beneficial to its needs. Interpretation of this position caused confusion and disagreement between the Japanese and Queensland governments. With federation in 1901, the Commonwealth completely banned Japanese immigration. There was to be no “gentleman’s agreement” as with the United States and Canada.⁵⁰

The restrictions on migration to English-speaking countries caused a change in the destination of Japanese emigrants. The discriminatory barriers erected by the US and the British dominions led Japanese to seek admission to alternative destinations in Central and South America. From around 1910 to just before World War II, approximately 242,000 went to Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Argentina and Chile. The overwhelming majority, 188,986, went to Brazil.⁵¹ The first emigration to Brazil began with 781 farmers in 1908.⁵² Migration to Brazil flourished during the 1920s and 1930s as the Japanese government gave full sponsorship to emigration to ease unemployment. These Japanese went to work as labourers and farmers.⁵³ The second biggest group of Japanese emigrants, 33,070, went to Peru.⁵⁴ They laboured on sugar and cotton plantations.⁵⁵ According to Gardiner, for decades before World War II, anti-Japanese sentiment flourished in Peru and in 1940 an anti-Japanese riot occurred in Lima.⁵⁶ By 1934 no less than 34 per cent of all Japanese emigrants were living in Brazil and Peru.⁵⁷

Nan’yo also attracted Japanese emigrants. According to Yano, prostitutes and peddlers paved the way for later Japanese commercial activities and Japanese settlement in some areas of Nan’yo. Most prostitutes were young women from poor villages in Nagasaki who were smuggled out to work in brothels. Often peasants were forced to send out their daughters in search of some relief from continual poverty. Many young women were sold to brothels in Japanese cities or overseas to South-East Asia.⁵⁸ The women sold overseas were called “Karayuki”. Singapore, the transit port for many emigrants going to other parts of South-East Asia, had many Karayuki. According to a memoir written by a Japanese resident of Singapore, in 1896 the number of Japanese in Singapore was approximately 1,000, of whom 900 were women, and 99 per cent of these women were engaged in prostitution.⁵⁹ By the early 1900s, Japanese brothels were widespread in the Pacific Basin. In 1907, a peak of more than 22,000 Japanese prostitutes abroad was reached.⁶⁰ Although there was international pressure to reduce prostitution from the early twentieth century, the Japanese government was slow to respond. Japanese residents in Singapore took some action to restrict the trade and the Karayuki were forced to be less open in their activities. By 1929 numbers of Karayuki outside Japan had fallen to 4,748, but the trade continued until the outbreak of the Pacific War.⁶¹

By 1941, 88,176 Japanese emigrants had gone to various parts of Nan’yo, including 53,120 to the Philippines and Guam, 10,095 to Malaya and the Straits Settlements, 7,095 to NEI, 5,073 to New Caledonia, and 4,819 to Oceania.⁶² NEI was a traditional destination in Nan’yo for Japanese. In the early 1600s, Batavia was not only an important diplomatic and trade link between Holland and Japan, but also one of the places in the western Pacific where the Japanese established a Nihonjinmachi [Japanese Town].⁶³ In the late 1800s Japanese again began to be seen in the area. In 1897, 125 Japanese were living in NEI (25 males and 100 females) and in 1909 the number had reached 614 (166 males and 448 females).⁶⁴ Of the 166 males, about 50 per cent were engaged in commerce and another 26 per cent were probably connected with prostitution, while 80 per cent of the females were probably prostitutes.⁶⁵ By 1935 the Japanese population of NEI had grown to 6,598. This was largely due to the establishment of the Nan’yo Kyokai [Nan’yo Association] in 1915, which strongly promoted the development of commercial links with the area.⁶⁶ By this time prostitution had been suppressed and no Japanese women were officially recognised as being engaged in it. Half the male population was in commerce and others worked in fishery and horticulture.⁶⁷

Japanese emigration to New Caledonia began in 1900. Japanese emigration companies recruited workers for mines operated by British and French nickel companies. By 1911, 3,663 labourers had gone to work in these mines. Living conditions were extremely bad. According to a 1911 report on emigrants to the Pacific region by the Japanese Consul-General in Sydney, of these 3,663 labourers, 1,598 returned to Japan, 643 abandoned the work and disappeared, and 131 died. Most of those remaining were still working as miners.⁶⁸ After 1920 small numbers of merchants also arrived. According to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 5,073 went there between 1900 and 1940.⁶⁹ The number remaining in 1941 is not clear, but 1,124 were interned at the outbreak of the Pacific War.⁷⁰

Other South Pacific islands also attracted Japanese indentured labourers. From 1905 the British Pacific Phosphorus Company employed Japanese on 3-year contracts in the New Hebrides. In 1910, 350 Japanese were in the New Hebrides, all working either in the production of phosphorus or as carpenters, boat builders, engineers, cooks or blacksmiths.⁷¹ Numbers at the outbreak of war are not available, but in 1941, thirty-four were interned.⁷²

Nan’yo became increasingly important for Japan’s economic and territorial expansionism after World War I. In 1920 Japan claimed German-held Micronesia – the Marshalls, the Carolines, and the Marianas (excluding Guam) – under the auspices of the League of Nations.⁷³ The establishment of regional administrations in the area in 1922 led to increasing consciousness of the Japanese role, and by 1937 there were 50,657 Japanese living in these mandated territories.⁷⁴ Many of these settlers were from Okinawa,⁷⁵ an area which produced many emigrants. They were engaged in various industries in the region including mining phosphorus and bauxite, agriculture and fishing.⁷⁶

Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Japanese communities thus became well-established throughout the Americas and the Asia–Pacific region. In 1935 there were 1,146,462 Japanese and people of Japanese descent living abroad, excluding Formosa⁷⁷ and Korea, which the Japanese counted as colonies.⁷⁸ With varying degrees of local acceptance and policy, numbers differed widely from region to region. There were small numbers in the South Pacific islands where the reasons for settlement were limited. In areas such as the west coast of North America, there were well-established settlements with schools, Nihonjin-kai [Japanese Societies/Clubs], Japanese language community newspapers and commercial activities distinguished by a relatively Japanese lifestyle. Some communities had reached the stage of second-generation settlement, while others remained temporary addresses for those who intended to return home. It was not uncommon for the second generation to have Japanese language education in ethnic schools while they received local education in government schools. The immigrant parents hoped that the ethnic schools would be a means of maintaining contact between their children and their own language and traditions. For example, in most of these Japanese language schools in Canada, in Adachi’s words, “the courses of instruction were limited to reading and writing in the Japanese language, but a few schools … included intensive reading of Shuushin [ethics] and Japanese history and thus attempted to inculcate reverence for the Emperor and pride in serving Japan”.⁷⁹ Some of the second-generation Japanese in Canada and the US were sent to Japan for education. They were generally referred to as the “Kika Nisei” [returning second generation to Canada]⁸⁰ and the “Kibei Nisei” [returning second generation to the US].⁸¹ A similar pattern occurred in South American countries and Australia.

In Nan’yo, schools were established in the larger Japanese settlements. In NEI, for example, Japanese schools were established in Surabaya in 1925 and Batavia in 1928.⁸² In the Nan’yo region, education was increasingly coloured by the climate of Japanese nationalism and militarism during the period leading up to the outbreak of the war. This area was later to be included in official plans for southern expansion of the Japanese Empire. Education in these schools promoted regimentation, Japanisation and a sense of duty to the Emperor. The pupils wore the same school uniforms as in Japan.⁸³

In November 1940 Prince Fumimaro Koiso, Japanese Minister for Overseas Affairs, wrote to overseas Japanese about the celebration of the 2,600th anniversary of the founding of the Japanese Empire.⁸⁴ In the letter he indicated his concerns over second generation migrants:

One of the problems of overseas compatriots, which are of the greatest concern, is the problem of the second generation. We must at this juncture remove the defects in our emigration policy, which have brought about the result that overseas compatriots have been considered to be discarded citizens. I keenly feel that we must wisely inspire the children of overseas compatriots with the Japanese spirit, guiding them to be nationals of the second generation.

During the months before the outbreak of the Pacific War the Japanese government repatriated many overseas Japanese, mainly temporary residents and their families whose intention had been to return to Japan. The remaining residents and those who had established local family ties were left to their fate. At the outbreak of war between Japan and the Allies, most of them were interned.

• Previous
• Home
• Next

Notes

1. Frei, P. H., Japan’s Southward Advance and Australia: From the Sixteenth Century to World War II, Melbourne University Press, 1991, pp. 9–12. ↩
2. Ibid., pp. 13–15. ↩
3. Adachi, K., The Enemy That Never Was, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1976, p. 4. ↩
4. Beasley, W.G., The Modern History of Japan, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1978, pp. 40–47 and 57. ↩
5. Sissons, D.C.S., Australian–Japan Relations: The First Phase 1859–91 (hereafter referred to as A–J Relations), Mimeograph, Australian National University, 1973, p. 12. ↩
6. Yano, T., Nanshin no Keifu, Chuko Shinsho, Tokyo, 1975, p. 31. ↩
7. Ibid., p. 30. ↩
8. Adachi, p. 8. ↩
9. Ibid. ↩
10. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Waga Kokumin no Kaigai Hatten: Iju Hyakunen no Ayumi, Tokyo, 1971, p. 54. ↩
11. Irie, T., Hojin Kaigai Hattenshi, Vol. 1, Hara Shoboo, Tokyo, 1981, reprint of original published in 1942, p. 1. ↩
12. Imai, T., “Kindai Nihon Saisho no Shudankaigaiiju to sono Hamon”, Iju Kenkyu, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), No. 17, 1980, p. 9. ↩
13. Yano, pp. 26 & 32. Nan’yo literally means the South Seas. According to Yano’s definition, it includes not only the South Pacific, but also South-East Asia. The term was used before and during the war and was replaced by South-East Asia and the Pacific Islands after it. ↩
14. Irie, p. 32. ↩
15. Myers, R. and Peattie, M., The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945, Princeton University Press, 1984, p. 174. ↩
16. Tachi, M., Jinko Mondai no Chishiki, Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, Tokyo, 1969, p. 98. ↩
17. Ibid, p. 97. ↩
18. Adachi, p. 15. ↩
19. Sissons, A–J Relations, p. 18. ↩
20. Irie, pp. 54–57. ↩
21. Ibid., pp. 2–3. ↩
22. Adachi, p. 9 ↩
23. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, p. 55. ↩
24. Ibid., p. 55. ↩
25. Kodama, M., “Shoki Imin Gaisha no Iminboshu to sono Jittai”, Hiroshima shi Kenkyu, No. 3, March, 1987, p. 43. ↩
26. Moriyama, A., Nichibei Iminshigaku, PMC Shuppan, Tokyo, p. 61. ↩
27. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, p. 137. The number of emigrants to the mainland China and Manchuria was not known as passports were not required to go there. ↩
28. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, p. 55; Hawkins, F., Critical Years in Immigration: Canada and Australia Compared, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1989, pp. 8–9, 11–21; Yarwood, A. T., Asian Migration to Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 91–96. ↩
29. Bahr, H., Chadwick, B. and Stauss, J., American Ethnicity, Massachusetts, D.C. Heath and Company, p. 84. ↩
30. Wakatsuki, Y. and Jooji Suzuki, Kaigai Ijuu Seisaku Shiron, Fukumura Shuppan, Tokyo, 1975, p. 61. This number includes those who initially went to Hawaii as contract labourers and moved to the mainland to earn better wages upon finishing their contracts. The number increased particularly after Hawaii was annexed by the US in 1898. ↩
31. Daniels, R. and Kitano, H., American Racism: Exploration of the Nature of Prejudice, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1970, p. 46. ↩
32. Ibid., p. 47. ↩
33. Ibid., p. 52. ↩
34. Wakatsuki and Suzuki, p. 62. ↩
35. Ibid., p. 62. ↩
36. Adachi, p. 41. ↩
37. Ibid., p. 43. ↩
38. Ibid., Table 3, Appendix. ↩
39. Ibid., p. 63. ↩
40. Ibid., p. 73. ↩
41. Ibid., p. 63. ↩
42. Ibid., p. 81. ↩
43. Ibid., p. 85. ↩
44. Ibid., p. 92. ↩
45. Ibid., p. 91. ↩
46. Ibid., p. 85. ↩
47. Yarwood, A. T., “The ‘White Australia’ policy: A re-interpretation of its development in the late colonial period”, Historical Studies, Vol. 10, No. 39, 1962, pp. 257–258. ↩
48. Ibid., p. 258. ↩
49. Ibid., p. 260. ↩
50. Ibid., p. 269. ↩
51. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, pp. 140–141. ↩
52. Irie, T., Hoojin Kaigai Hattenshi, Vol. 2, p. 1. ↩
53. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, p. 56. ↩
54. Ibid., p. 140. ↩
55. Gardiner, p. 4. ↩
56. Ibid., pp. 7–9. ↩
57. Thomas, B., International Migration and Economic Development, Paris, UNESCO, 1961, p. 17. ↩
58. Mihalapoulos, B., Japan’s Forgotten Commodities: The Karayuki, Honours thesis, University of Adelaide, 1983, p. 3. ↩
59. Konno, T. and Fujisaki, Y., eds, Iminshi, Vol. 2, Shinsensha, Tokyo, 1985, p. 26. ↩
60. Yamamoto G., “Overseas Prostitutes”, pp. 271–272, cited by Mihalopoulis, p. 24. In 1907 there were 16,424 Karayuki in China, 2,086 in Singapore, 980 in Batavia, 392 in Manila, 913 in Honolulu, 371 in San Francisco, 1,087 in Vladivostok. ↩
61. Mihalopoulos, p. 43. ↩
62. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, pp. 142–143. The others were 2,705 to British Borneo, 1,803 to Macao, 986 to India, 582 to Indochina, 541 to Tahiti, 243 to Siam, 90 to Fiji and 129 to other Pacific islands. ↩
63. Frei, pp. 14–15. ↩
64. Yano, p. 18. ↩
65. Jagatara Tomo no Kai, Shashin de Tsuzuru Ranin Seikatsu Hanseiki, Tokyo, 1987, p. 301. These figures are assumed from those listed as engaged in “other occupations”. ↩
66. Yano, p. 76. ↩
67. Jagatara Tomo no Kai, p. 301. ↩
68. Konno, T. and Fujisaki, Y., pp. 214–217. ↩
69. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, pp. 142–143. ↩
70. They were interned at the outbreak of war and were transferred to Australia. ↩
71. Konno and Fujisaki, pp. 224–225. ↩
72. AWM 54, 780/1/6, Vol. 1, p. 93. ↩
73. Myers and Peattie, p. 187. ↩
74. Konno, T. and Fujisaki, Y., Map of the world-wide distribution of Japanese abroad, Appendix. ↩
75. Yano, T., Nihon no Nan’yoshikan, Chuuoo Shinsho, Tokyo, 1979, p. 116. ↩
76. Ibid., p. 119. ↩
77. Formosa became known as Taiwan after World War II ↩
78. Konno and Fujisaki, pp. 236–237. ↩
79. Adachi, p. 128. ↩
80. Ibid., p. 174. ↩
81. Thomas, D. and Nishimoto, R., The Spoilage: Japanese–American Evacuation and Resettlement During World War II, University of California Press, 1946, p. 3. ↩
82. Yano, pp. 131–135. ↩
83. Myers and Peattie, p. 121. ↩
84. A 373, 10298 (hereafter referred to as “Thursday Island Material”), List 6. ↩

• Previous
• Home
• Next