Hubbry Logo
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity SphereGreater East Asia Co-Prosperity SphereMain
Open search
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
Community hub
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Part of a series on
Kokkashugi
Organizations
History
Principles
People
Media
Related
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
Japanese name
Kanaだいとうあきょうえいけん
Kyūjitai大東亞共榮圈
Shinjitai大東亜共栄圏
Transcriptions
Revised HepburnDai Tōa Kyōeiken

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (Japanese: 大東亜共栄圏, Hepburn: Dai Tōa Kyōeiken), also known as the GEACPS,[1] was a pan-Asian union that the Japan tried to establish. Initially, it covered Japan (including annexed Korea), Manchukuo, and China, but as the Pacific War progressed, it also included territories in Southeast Asia and parts of India.[2] The term was first coined by Minister for Foreign Affairs Hachirō Arita on June 29, 1940.[3]

The proposed objectives of this union were to ensure economic self-sufficiency and cooperation among the member states, along with resisting the influence of Western imperialism and Soviet communism.[4] In reality, militarists and nationalists saw it as an effective propaganda tool to enforce Japanese hegemony.[3] The latter approach was reflected in a document released by Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare, An Investigation of Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus, which promoted racial supremacist theories.[5] Japanese spokesmen openly described the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as a device for the "development of the Japanese race."[6] When World War II ended, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere became a source of criticism and scorn for the Allies.[7]

Development of the concept

[edit]
Main articles: Japanese nationalism and Propaganda in Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II
1935 propaganda poster of Manchukuo promoting harmony between Japanese, Chinese, and Manchu. The caption from right to left says: "With the help of Japan, China, and Manchukuo, the world can be in peace." The flags shown are, right to left: the "Five Races Under One Union" flag of China, the flag of Japan, and the flag of Manchukuo.

The concept of a unified Asia under Japanese leadership had its roots dating back to the 16th century. For example, Toyotomi Hideyoshi proposed to make China, Korea, and Japan into "one". Moreover, Hideyoshi had further plans to expand into India, the Philippines, and other islands in the Pacific.[8][9]: 99-100 

Monroe Doctrine for Japan

[edit]

In Autumn 1872, United States minister to Japan Charles DeLong explained to U.S. General Charles LeGendre that he had been urging the Government of Japan to occupy Taiwan and "civilize" the Taiwanese indigenous people just as the U.S. had taken over the land of the Native Americans and "civilized" them.[10] General LeGendre, the first non-Japanese person hired as a foreign policy expert by the Japanese government, encouraged the Japanese to declare a Japanese "sphere of influence" modeled on the Monroe Doctrine that the U.S. had declared for the exclusion of other powers from the Western Hemisphere. Such a Japanese sphere of influence would be the first time a non-White state would adopt such a policy [citation needed]. The stated aim of the sphere of influence would be to civilize the barbarians of Asia. "Pacify and civilize them if possible, and if not...exterminate them or otherwise deal with them as the United States and England have dealt with the barbarians," LeGendre explained to the Japanese.[11] Japan began invading Taiwan in 1874 and fought the Russian Empire for control of Manchuria starting in 1904.

Continuing this American policy, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt also secretly reiterated to Japan that, just as the U.S. under the Monroe Doctrine and its Roosevelt Corollary declared the Western Hemisphere as part its sphere of influence, Japan should create its own sphere of influence in the Pacific Rim. Teddy Roosevelt was encouraged by Japan embarking on Western ways and developing a modern military in the wake of the forced "Opening of Japan" by the United States that had begun with the Perry Expedition. Roosevelt envisioned demarcating respective United States and Japanese zones of military and economic dominance in the Pacific Rim. Roosevelt told the Japanese that they are more racially similar to Americans than Russians are, even though Russians are a White race, and that Japan should take its place among the great Western powers to dominate, among other areas, Korea and Manchuria, but that Japan must not encroach on U.S. possession of the Philippines.[12] In much the same way that Europeans used the "backwardness" of African and Asian nations as a reason for why they had to conquer them, for the Japanese elite the "backwardness" of China and Korea was proof of the inferiority of those nations, thus giving the Japanese the "right" to conquer them.[13] This mutual recognition of the U.S. and the Japanese zones of control in the Pacific would be secretly articulated in the Taft–Katsura Agreement of July 1905, essentially partitioning the Western Pacific Rim between the two powers.[14]

In an interview with the New York Times days later, Katsura explained that Japan's "policy in the Far East will be in exact accord with that of England and the United States." Japan will soon force "upon Korea and China the same benefits of modern development that have been in the past forced on us.... We intend to begin a campaign of education in [Korea and China] such as we ourselves have experienced [and to develop] Asiatic commercial interests that will benefit us all. China and Korea are both atrociously mis-governed...These conditions we will endeavor to correct at the earliest possible date--by persuasion and education, if possible; by force, if necessary. And in this, as in all things, we expect to act in exact concurrence with the ideas and desires of England and the United States."[15]

During the proceedings of the Lansing–Ishii Agreement, Japan explained to Western observers that their expansionism in Asia was analogous to the United States' Monroe Doctrine.[3] This conception was influential in the development of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity concept, with the Japanese Army also comparing it to the Roosevelt Corollary.[2] One of the reasons why Japan adopted imperialism was to resolve domestic issues such as overpopulation and resource scarcity. Another reason was to withstand Western imperialism.[3]

On November 3, 1938, Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe and Minister for Foreign Affairs Hachirō Arita proposed the development of the New Order in East Asia (東亜新秩序[16], Tōa Shin Chitsujo), which was limited to Japan, China, and the puppet state of Manchukuo.[17] They believed that the union had 6 purposes:[3]

  1. Permanent stability of Eastern Asia
  2. Neighbourly amity and international justice
  3. Joint defence against communism
  4. Creation of a new culture
  5. Economic cohesion and co-operation
  6. World peace

The vagueness of the above points were effective in making people more agreeable to militarism and collaborationism.[3]

On June 29, 1940, Arita renamed the union the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which he announced by radio address. At Yōsuke Matsuoka's advice, Arita emphasised on the economic aspects more. On August 1, Konoe, who still used the original name, expanded the scope of the union to include the territories of Southeast Asia.[3] On November 5, Konoe reaffirmed that a Japan–Manchukuo–China yen bloc[18] would continue and be "perfected".[3]

History

[edit]
Main articles: Japanese colonial empire and Military history of Japan § Shōwa era and World War II (1926–1945)

The outbreak of World War II in Europe gave the Japanese an opportunity to fulfill the objectives of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, without significant pushback from the Western powers or China.[19] This entailed the conquest of Southeast Asian territories to extract their natural resources. If territories were unprofitable, the Japanese would encourage their subjects, including those in mainland Japan, to endure "economic suffering" and prevent outflow of material to the enemy. Nonetheless, they preached the moral superiority of cultivating a "spiritual essence" instead of prioritising material gain like Western powers.[4]

After Japanese advancements into French Indochina in 1940, knowing that Japan was completely dependent on other countries for natural resources, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a trade embargo on steel and oil, raw materials that were vital to Japan's war effort.[20] Without steel and oil imports, Japan's military could not fight for long.[20] As a result of the embargo, Japan decided to attack the British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia from 7 to 19 December 1941, seizing the raw materials needed for the war effort.[20] These efforts were successful, with Japanese politician Nobusuke Kishi announcing via radio broadcast that vast resources were available for Japanese use in the newly conquered territories.[21]

As part of its war drive in the Pacific, Japanese propaganda included phrases like "Asia for the Asiatics" and talked about the need to "liberate" Asian colonies from the control of Western powers.[22] They also planned to change the Chinese hegemony in the agricultural market in Southeast Asia with Japanese immigrants to boost its economic value, with the former being despised by Southeast Asian natives.[4] The Japanese failure to bring the ongoing Second Sino-Japanese War to a swift conclusion was blamed in part on the lack of resources; Japanese propaganda claimed this was due to the refusal by Western powers to supply Japan's military.[23] Although invading Japanese forces sometimes received rapturous welcomes throughout recently captured Asian territories due to anti-Western and occasionally, anti-Chinese sentiment,[4] the subsequent brutality of the Japanese military led many of the inhabitants of those regions to regard Japan as being worse than their former colonial rulers.[22] The Japanese government directed that economies of occupied territories be managed strictly for the production of raw materials for the Japanese war effort; a cabinet member declared, "There are no restrictions. They are enemy possessions. We can take them, do anything we want".[24] For example, according to estimates, under Japanese occupation, about 100,000 Burmese and Malay Indian labourers died while constructing the Burma-Siam Railway.[25] The Japanese sometimes spared ethnic groups, such as Chinese immigrants, if they supported the war effort, whether sincerely or not.[4]

An Investigation of Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus – a secret document completed in 1943 for high-ranking government use – laid out that Japan, as the originator and strongest military power within the region, would naturally take the superior position within the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, with the other nations under Japan's umbrella of protection.[26][5] Japanese propaganda was useful in mobilizing Japanese citizens for the war effort, convincing them Japan's expansion was an act of anti-colonial liberation from Western domination.[27] The booklet Read This and the War is Won—for the Japanese Army—presented colonialism as an oppressive group of colonists living in luxury by burdening Asians. According to Japan, since racial ties of blood connected other Asians to the Japanese, and Asians had been weakened by colonialism, it was Japan's self-appointed role to "make men of them again" and liberate them from their Western oppressors.[28]

According to Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō (in office 1941–1942 and 1945), should Japan be successful in creating this sphere, it would emerge as the leader of Eastern Asia, and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere would be synonymous with the Japanese Empire.[29]

Greater East Asia Conference

[edit]
Main article: Greater East Asia Conference
Attendees of the Greater East Asia Conference
 : Japan and colonies
   : Japanese allies and occupied territory
 : Territories disputed and claimed by Japan and its allies
The Greater East Asia Conference in November 1943. Participants left to right: Ba Maw, Zhang Jinghui, Wang Jingwei, Hideki Tojo, Wan Waithayakon, José P. Laurel, and Subhas Chandra Bose
Fragment of a Japanese propaganda booklet published by the Tokyo Conference (1943), depicting scenes of situations in Greater East Asia, from the top, left to right: the Japanese occupation of Malaya, Thailand under Plaek Phibunsongkram gaining the territories of Saharat Thai Doem, the Republic of China under Wang Jingwei allied with Japan, Subhas Chandra Bose forming the Provisional Government of Free India, the State of Burma gaining independence under Ba Maw, the Declaration of the Second Philippine Republic, and people of Manchukuo

The Greater East Asia Conference (大東亞會議, Dai Tōa Kaigi) took place in Tokyo on 5–6 November 1943: Japan hosted the heads of state of various component members of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The conference was also referred to as the Tokyo Conference. The common language used by the delegates during the conference was English.[30] The conference was mainly used as propaganda.[31]

At the conference, Tojo greeted them with a speech praising the "spiritual essence" of Asia instead of the "materialistic civilisation" of the West.[32] Their meeting was characterised by the praise of solidarity and condemnation of Western colonialism but without practical plans for either economic development or integration.[33] Because of a lack of military representatives at the conference, the conference served little military value.[31]

With the simultaneous use of Wilsonian and Pan-Asian rhetoric, the goals of the conference were to solidify the commitment of certain Asian countries to Japan's war effort and to improve Japan's world image; however, the representatives of the other attending countries were in practice neither independent nor treated as equals by Japan.[34]

The following dignitaries attended:

Imperial rule

[edit]

The ideology of the Japanese colonial empire, as it expanded dramatically during the war, contained two contradictory impulses. On the one hand, it preached the unity of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a coalition of Asian races directed by Japan against Western imperialism in Asia. This approach celebrated the spiritual values of the East in opposition to the "crass materialism" of the West.[35] In practice, however, the Japanese installed organisationally-minded bureaucrats and engineers to run their new empire, and they believed in ideals of efficiency, modernisation, and engineering solutions to social problems.[36] Japanese was the official language of the bureaucracy in all of the areas and was taught at schools as a national language.[37]

Japan set up puppet regimes in Manchuria and China; they vanished at the war's end. The Imperial Army operated ruthless administrations in most conquered areas but paid more favourable attention to the Dutch East Indies. The main goal was to obtain oil but the Dutch colonial government destroyed the oil wells. However, the Japanese could repair and reopen them within a few months of their conquest. However, most tankers transporting oil to Japan were sunk by U.S. Navy submarines, so Japan's oil shortage became increasingly acute. Japan also sponsored an Indonesian nationalist movement under Sukarno.[38] Sukarno finally came to power in the late 1940s after several years of fighting the Dutch.[39]

Philippines

[edit]

To build up the economic base of the Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Japanese Army envisioned using the Philippine islands as a source of agricultural products needed by its industry. For example, Japan had a surplus of sugar from Taiwan, and a severe shortage of cotton, so they tried to grow cotton on sugar lands with disastrous results; they lacked the seeds, pesticides, and technical skills to grow cotton. Jobless farm workers flocked to the cities, where there was minimal relief and few jobs. The Japanese Army also tried using cane sugar for fuel, castor beans and copra for oil, Derris for quinine, cotton for uniforms, and abacá for rope. The plans were difficult to implement due to limited skills, collapsed international markets, bad weather, and transportation shortages. The program failed, giving very little help to Japanese industry and diverting resources needed for food production.[40] As Stanley Karnow writes, Filipinos "rapidly learned as well that 'co-prosperity' meant servitude to Japan's economic requirements".[41]

Living conditions were poor throughout the Philippines during the war. Transportation between the islands was difficult because of a lack of fuel. Food was in short supply, with sporadic famines and epidemic diseases that killed hundreds of thousands of people.[42][43] In October 1943, Japan declared the Philippines an independent republic. The Japanese-sponsored Second Philippine Republic, headed by President José P. Laurel, proved to be ineffective and unpopular as Japan maintained very tight control.[44]

Failure

[edit]

The Co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed with Japan's surrender to the Allies in September 1945. Ba Maw, wartime President of Burma under the Japanese, blamed the Japanese military for the failure of the Co-Prosperity Sphere:

The militarists saw everything only from a Japanese perspective and, even worse, they insisted that all others dealing with them should do the same. For them, there was only one way to do a thing, the Japanese way; only one goal and interest, the Japanese interest; only one destiny for the East Asian countries, to become so many Manchukuos or Koreas tied forever to Japan. This racial impositions ... made any real understanding between the Japanese militarists and the people of our region virtually impossible.[45]

In other words, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere operated not for the betterment of all the Asian countries but for Japan's interests, and thus the Japanese failed to gather support in other Asian countries. Nationalist movements did appear in these Asian countries during this period, and these nationalists cooperated with the Japanese to some extent. However, Willard Elsbree, professor emeritus of political science at Ohio University, claims that the Japanese government and these nationalist leaders never developed "a real unity of interests between the two parties, [and] there was no overwhelming despair on the part of the Asians at Japan's defeat".[46]

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere at its greatest extent

The failure of Japan to understand the goals and interests of the other countries involved in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere led to a weak association of countries bound to Japan only in theory and not in spirit. Ba Maw argued that Japan should've acted according to the declared aims of "Asia for the Asiatics". He claimed that if Japan had proclaimed this maxim at the beginning of the war and acted on that idea, they could have engineered a very different outcome.

No military defeat could then have robbed her of the trust and gratitude of half of Asia or even more, and that would have mattered a great deal in finding for her a new, great, and abiding place in a postwar world in which Asia was coming into her own.[47]

Propaganda efforts

[edit]

Pamphlets were dropped by airplane on the Philippines, Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak, Singapore, and Indonesia, urging them to join the movement.[48] Mutual cultural societies were founded in all conquered lands to ingratiate with the natives and try to supplant English with Japanese as the commonly used language.[49] Multi-lingual pamphlets depicted many Asians marching or working together in happy unity, with the flags of all the states and a map depicting the intended sphere.[50] Others proclaimed that they had given independent governments to the countries they occupied, a claim undermined by the lack of power given to these puppet governments.[51]

In Thailand, a street was built to demonstrate it, to be filled with modern buildings and shops, but 9⁄10 of it consisted of false fronts.[52] A network of Japanese-sponsored film production, distribution, and exhibition companies extended across the Japanese Empire and was collectively referred to as the Greater East Asian Film Sphere. These film centers mass-produced shorts, newsreels, and feature films to encourage Japanese language acquisition as well as cooperation with Japanese colonial authorities.[53]

Projected territorial extent

[edit]
A Japanese 10 sen stamp from 1942 depicting the approximate extension of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

Prior to the escalation of World War II to the Pacific and East Asia, Japanese planners regarded it as self-evident that the conquests secured in Japan's earlier wars with Russia (South Sakhalin and Kwantung), Germany (South Seas Mandate), and China (Manchuria) would be retained, as well as Korea (Chōsen), Taiwan (Formosa), the recently seized additional portions of China, and occupied French Indochina.[54]

Land Disposal Plan

[edit]

A reasonably accurate indication as to the geographic dimensions of the Co-Prosperity Sphere are elaborated on in a Japanese wartime document prepared in December 1941 by the Research Department of the Ministry of War.[54] Known as the "Land Disposal Plan in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" (大東亜共栄圏における土地処分案)[55] it was put together with the consent of and according to the directions of the Minister of War (later Prime Minister) Hideki Tōjō. It assumed that the already established puppet governments of Manchukuo, Mengjiang, and the Wang Jingwei regime in Japanese-occupied China would continue to function in these areas.[54] Beyond these contemporary parts of Japan's sphere of influence it also envisaged the conquest of a vast range of territories covering virtually all of East Asia, the Pacific Ocean, and even sizable portions of the Western Hemisphere, including in locations as far removed from Japan as South America and the eastern Caribbean.[54]

Although the projected extension of the Co-Prosperity Sphere was extremely ambitious, the Japanese goal during the "Greater East Asia War" was not to acquire all the territory designated in the plan at once, but to prepare for a future decisive war some 20 years later by conquering the Asian colonies of the defeated European powers, as well as the Philippines from the United States.[56] When Tōjō spoke on the plan to the House of Peers he was vague about the long-term prospects, but insinuated that the Philippines and Burma might be allowed independence, although vital territories such as Hong Kong would remain under Japanese rule.[32]

The Micronesian islands that had been seized from Germany in World War I and which were assigned to Japan as C-Class Mandates, namely the Marianas, Carolines, Marshall Islands, and several others do not figure in this project.[54] They were the subject of earlier negotiations with the Germans and were expected to be officially ceded to Japan in return for economic and monetary compensations.[54]

The plan divided Japan's future empire into two different groups.[54] The first group of territories were expected to become either part of Japan or otherwise be under its direct administration. Second were those territories that would fall under the control of a number of tightly controlled pro-Japanese vassal states based on the model of Manchukuo, as nominally "independent" members of the Greater East Asian alliance.

German and Japanese direct spheres of influence at their greatest extents in fall 1942. Arrows show planned movements to the proposed demarcation line at 70° E, which was, however, never even approximated.

Parts of the plan depended on successful negotiations with Nazi Germany and a global victory by the Axis powers. After Germany and Italy declared war on the United States on 11 December 1941, Japan presented the Germans with a drafted military convention that would specifically delimit the Asian continent by a dividing line along the 70th meridian east longitude. This line, running southwards through the Ob River's Arctic estuary, southwards to just east of Khost in Afghanistan and heading into the Indian Ocean just west of Rajkot in India, would have split Germany's Lebensraum and Italy's spazio vitale territories to the west of it, and Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and its other areas to the east of it.[57] The plan of the Third Reich for fortifying its own Lebensraum territory's eastern limits, beyond which the Co-Prosperity Sphere's northwestern frontier areas would exist in East Asia, involved the creation of a "living wall" of Wehrbauer "soldier-peasant" communities defending it. However, it is unknown if the Axis powers ever formally negotiated a possible, complementary second demarcation line that would have divided the Western Hemisphere.

Japanese-governed

[edit]
  • Government-General of Formosa
Hong Kong, the Philippines, Portuguese Macau (to be purchased from Portugal or taken by force), the Paracel Islands, and Hainan Island (to be purchased from the Chinese puppet regime). Contrary to its name it was not intended to include the island of Formosa (Taiwan)[54]
  • South Seas Government Office
Guam, Nauru, Ocean Island, the Gilbert Islands, and Wake Island[54]
  • Melanesian Region Government-General or South Pacific Government-General
British New Guinea, Australian New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, the Ellice Islands, Fiji, the New Hebrides, New Caledonia, the Loyalty Islands, and the Chesterfield Islands[54]
  • Eastern Pacific Government-General
Hawaii Territory, Howland Island, Baker Island, the Phoenix Islands, the Marquesas and Tuamotu Islands, the Society Islands, the Cook and Austral Islands, all of the Samoan Islands, and Tonga.[54] The possibility of re-establishing the defunct Kingdom of Hawaii was also considered, based on the model of Manchukuo.[58] Those favouring annexation of Hawaii (on the model of Karafuto) intended to use the local Japanese community, which had constituted 43% (c. 160,000) of Hawaii's population in the 1920s, as a leverage.[58] Hawaii was to become self-sufficient in food production, while the Big Five corporations of sugar and pineapple processing were to be broken up.[59] No decision was ever reached regarding whether Hawaii would be annexed to Japan, become a puppet state, or be used as a bargaining chip for leverage against the U.S.[58]
  • Australian Government-General
All of Australia including Tasmania.[54] Australia and New Zealand were to accommodate up to two million Japanese settlers.[58] However, there are indications that the Japanese were also looking for a separate peace with Australia, and a satellite state rather than colony status similar to that of Burma and the Philippines.[58]
  • New Zealand Government-General
The New Zealand North and South Islands, Macquarie Island, as well as the rest of the Southwest Pacific[54]
  • Ceylon Government-General
Ceylon and all of India below a line running approximately from Portuguese Goa to the coastline of the Bay of Bengal[54]
  • Alaska Government-General
The Alaska Territory, the Yukon Territory, the western portion of the Northwest Territories, Alberta, British Columbia, and Washington.[54] There were also plans to make the American West Coast (comprising California and Oregon) a semi-autonomous satellite state. This latter plan was not seriously considered as it depended upon a global victory of Axis forces.[58]
  • Government-General of Central America
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, British Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, the Maracaibo (western) portion of Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and The Bahamas. In addition, if either Mexico, Peru, or Chile were to enter the war against Japan, substantial parts of these states would also be ceded to Japan.[54] Events that transpired between May 22, 1942, when Mexico declared war on the Axis, through Peru's declaration of war on February 12, 1944, and concluding with Chile only declaring war on Japan by April 11, 1945 (as Nazi Germany was nearly defeated at that time), brought all three of these southeast Pacific Rim nations of the Western Hemisphere's Pacific coast into conflict with Japan by the war's end. The future of Trinidad, British and Dutch Guiana, and the British and French possessions in the Leeward Islands at the hands of Imperial Japan were meant to be left open for negotiations with Nazi Germany had the Axis forces been victorious.[54]

Asian puppet states

[edit]
  • East Indies Kingdom (Indonesia)
Dutch East Indies, British Borneo, Christmas Islands, Cocos Islands, Andaman, Nicobar Islands, and Portuguese Timor (to be purchased from Portugal)[54]
  • Kingdom of Burma
Burma proper, Assam (a province of the British Raj), and a large part of Bengal.[54]
  • Kingdom of Malaya
British Malaya (excluding the Cocos and Christmas Islands)[54]
  • Kingdom of Annam (Vietnam)
Annam, Laos, and Tonkin[54]
  • Kingdom of Cambodia
Cambodia and French Cochinchina[54]

Puppet states which already existed at the time, the Land Disposal Plan has been drafted, were:

Chinese Manchuria
Other parts of China occupied by Japan
Inner Mongolia territories west of Manchuria, since 1940 officially a part of the Republic of China. It was meant as a starting point for a regime which would cover all of Mongolia.

Contrary to the plan Japan installed a puppet state on the Philippines instead of exerting direct control. In the former French Indochina, the Empire of Vietnam, the Kingdom of Kampuchea, and the Kingdom of Luang Prabang were founded. Vietnam attempted to work for independence and made progressive reforms.[60] The State of Burma did not become a kingdom.

Political parties and movements with Japanese support

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Administration

[edit]

People

[edit]
  • Hachirō Arita: an army thinker who thought up the Greater East Asian concept
  • Ikki Kita: a Japanese nationalist who developed a similar pan-Asian concept
  • Satō Nobuhiro: the alleged developer of the Greater East Asia concept
[edit]

Others

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a wartime construct devised by Imperial in as a purported framework for uniting East and Southeast Asian territories under Japanese to achieve economic and expel Western colonial influences. Articulated by Foreign Minister amid escalating tensions with the and European powers, it initially targeted , , and occupied , expanding to include conquered areas like , the , and the after . Proclaimed as a pan-Asian alliance promoting racial harmony and mutual economic benefit under the slogan "Asia for the Asians," the Sphere functioned primarily as ideological cover for Japan's resource extraction and military dominance, with puppet regimes in places like Burma, Thailand, and the Philippines compelled to supply raw materials such as oil, rubber, and rice to sustain Japan's war machine. This exploitation involved coercive labor mobilization, including millions conscripted into forced work under systems like rōmusha, and widespread atrocities that contradicted the liberation narrative, as Japanese forces prioritized strategic control over genuine regional development. A pivotal event was the held in on November 5–6, 1943, where representatives from nominal co-prosperity partners, including of and José P. Laurel of the , convened to affirm unity against Allied powers, though the gathering underscored Japan's unchallenged authority and the attendees' status as subordinates. Economically, initiatives like the Yen Bloc and coordinated production boards aimed at integrating colonial economies into Japan's industrial needs, but chronic shortages, , and unequal terms eroded any semblance of shared prosperity, fueling local resistance movements. The Sphere disintegrated with Japan's surrender in , exposing its role as a facade for empire-building that accelerated rather than alleviated colonial dependencies, with in proceeding independently of Japanese influence amid the power vacuum left by the Pacific War's devastation.

Origins and Conceptual Development

Pre-War Ideological Roots

The ideological foundations of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere trace back to Japan's acute resource vulnerabilities in the 1930s, exacerbated by international sanctions following the 1931 invasion of Manchuria and subsequent withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933. Japan, lacking domestic supplies of critical materials such as oil—imported primarily from the United States, which provided over 80% of its needs—and rubber from British Malaya and Dutch East Indies, faced strategic encirclement by Western colonial powers controlling Southeast Asian reserves. This scarcity, compounded by U.S. export restrictions on aviation fuel and scrap iron by 1939, compelled Japanese policymakers to conceptualize a self-sufficient Asian bloc under Tokyo's coordination to secure autarkic access to raw materials, viewing Western dominance as an existential threat to industrial and military sustainability. Earlier pan-Asianist thought, articulated by figures like Okakura Tenshin in his 1903 work The Ideals of the East, posited Asia's cultural unity against Western , framing Japan as the continent's vanguard due to its Meiji-era modernization and avoidance of . This intellectual strain evolved in the into a geopolitical rationale for Japanese leadership, emphasizing racial and civilizational solidarity to counter European and American encroachments, though often serving to legitimize expansionist ambitions rather than genuine . Complementing this was the ("eight corners of the world under one roof") ideology, rooted in cosmology and revived in to justify imperial expansion as a divine mission to unify under Japanese auspices, portraying as 's ethical liberator from foreign exploitation. Japanese diplomats drew explicit analogies to the U.S. , advocating a parallel "Japanese Monroe Doctrine for " to exclude Western intervention in the region, as articulated in policy circles by the mid-1930s to defend spheres of influence in and beyond. These elements coalesced into a first-principles response to material imperatives and perceived geopolitical isolation, prioritizing causal security through over multilateral accommodation.

Announcement and Strategic Formulation

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was formally proclaimed by Japanese Foreign Minister on August 1, 1940, during a , as an economic and political bloc intended to foster self-sufficiency across Asia from proper to , thereby countering Western dominance in the region. This announcement followed the fall of in June 1940, which weakened European colonial control in and created opportunities for Japanese expansion amid ongoing resource shortages exacerbated by the Second Sino-Japanese War. Matsuoka framed the sphere as a cooperative union of Asian nations sharing resources and markets to achieve mutual prosperity, explicitly rejecting overt imperial conquest rhetoric in public statements while emphasizing liberation from Anglo-American economic pressures. The formulation responded directly to Japan's perception of an "ABCD encirclement" by the , Britain, , and the , whose coordinated restrictions on exports—such as and beginning in mid-1940—threatened Japan's industrial base and military operations, particularly its dependence on imported comprising over 80% of supplies. These measures, including U.S. aid to totaling $50 million announced on November 30, 1940, intensified Japan's drive for autarky through control of Southeast Asian resources like Indonesian oil fields, which produced approximately 65 million barrels annually. Initial internal planning, such as a secret "Draft Outline for Construction of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" dated November 29, 1940, outlined territorial integration without public admission of military subjugation, prioritizing economic coordination under Japanese guidance to secure raw materials and markets insulated from global trade disruptions. This strategic vision intertwined with Japan's alignment to the , culminating in the signed on September 27, 1940, with and , which implicitly endorsed parallel spheres of influence— for the Axis partners and for —to deter U.S. intervention and facilitate resource acquisition. Matsuoka's diplomacy sought German support against potential Soviet threats in the north while leveraging the pact to legitimize southern expansion, though German overtures to created tensions that underscored the pact's fragility in advancing the Co-Prosperity Sphere's immediate goals. The announcement thus marked a pivot from defensive continental policies to offensive maritime ambitions, driven by causal imperatives of resource scarcity and geopolitical opportunism rather than purely ideological pan-Asian solidarity.

Ideological Framework

Pan-Asianism and Anti-Colonial Rhetoric

Japanese ideologues framed the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as an extension of , invoking Sun Yat-sen's 1924 speech advocating Asian unity against Western powers, where he urged Japan to lead in resisting through solidarity rather than conquest. This rhetoric portrayed Japanese military actions as fraternal intervention to end approximately 400 years of European and American colonial domination in Asia, dating from Portuguese incursions in the early . Central to the was the slogan "Asia for the Asians," which promised liberation from Western economic exploitation and political control, positioning as the vanguard of regional . Materials disseminated this message to foster perceptions of shared destiny, emphasizing cultural and racial affinities among East Asians to justify expelling Caucasian influences and establishing mutual prosperity. At the on November 5, 1943, Prime Minister articulated this vision, stating that the nations of Greater were bound by "ties of an inseparable relationship" rooted in shared race and traditions, with a common mission to secure stability by delivering the region from Anglo-American "fetters" and "colonial exploitation." Tojo highlighted a "superior " in , distinct from Western materialism, calling for mutual respect of traditions to construct a new order of "brotherly amity" and prosperity, implicitly subordinating other nations to Japanese leadership while rejecting overt hierarchies in favor of harmonious co-prosperity.

Japanese Hegemony and Leadership Rationale

Japanese policymakers justified their dominant role in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere by emphasizing the country's unparalleled industrialization since the of 1868, which transformed into Asia's sole modern economy capable of leading regional development and defense. The government's establishment of a national banking system, standardized currency, and investments in transportation and communication infrastructure enabled rapid growth, with conglomerates driving output in , shipbuilding, and machinery—sectors where outpaced all other Asian nations combined by . For instance, 's crude production surged from 0.31 million metric tons in to approximately 5.85 million metric tons by , exceeding the fragmented outputs of (under 0.5 million tons) and British (around 0.7 million tons), underscoring its empirical superiority as a prerequisite for coordinating autarkic production across underdeveloped territories. This disparity positioned as the vanguard against reimposed Western dominance, with planners arguing that weaker Asian economies required centralized Japanese oversight to achieve viability rather than independent fragmentation. Key figures like , who served as vice president of the State Council Planning Board from 1936 to 1939, framed hegemony in technocratic terms as essential for imposing rational on resource-rich but industrially primitive regions, exemplified by Manchukuo's Five-Year Industrial Plan that prioritized under Japanese direction. Kishi and associated technocrats rejected narratives of unadulterated militarism, instead positing that Japan's proven model of state-guided development—rooted in Meiji-era policies—could replicate stability and growth bloc-wide, countering colonial-era stagnation without relying on adversarial Western frameworks. This rationale emphasized causal necessities over ideological abstraction: absent Japanese leadership, Asian states lacked the industrial base to resist encirclement by powers like the , whose Pacific Fleet expansions and resource embargoes from 1940 threatened regional autonomy. Military prowess reinforced this leadership claim, as Japan's Imperial Navy and Army demonstrated operational superiority in early campaigns, such as the 1931 Manchurian occupation and 1937 Sino-Japanese War advances, enabling the sphere's defensive cohesion against superior Western forces. Planners viewed hegemony not as optional aggression but as a structural imperative for collective security, with Japan's prewar armament levels—bolstered by industrial output—serving as the bloc's stabilizing core amid existential threats from U.S. naval dominance in the Pacific. This empirical foundation, drawn from Japan's Meiji achievements, underpinned the sphere's formulation as a hierarchical order where leadership derived from capacity to enforce prosperity and repel external predation.

Wartime Implementation

Initial Military Expansions and Occupations

The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, neutralized the United States Pacific Fleet, allowing Japan to launch coordinated invasions across Southeast Asia and the Pacific without immediate American naval interference. This enabled the rapid seizure of key territories, including the Philippines on December 8, British Malaya starting the same day, and the Dutch East Indies beginning in January 1942, with the fall of Singapore in February marking a major British defeat. These operations secured access to vital resources, particularly oil from the Dutch East Indies fields in Sumatra, Borneo, and Java, which were critical for Japan's war machine amid pre-war embargoes that had restricted imports to about 90 percent from foreign sources. The conquests provided Japan with potential self-sufficiency in petroleum, as the region's production capacity exceeded Japan's annual military requirements of roughly 5 million tons. Japanese forces framed these occupations as liberation from Western imperialism, aligning with anti-colonial rhetoric to garner local support. In the Dutch East Indies, many Indonesians initially viewed the Japanese as liberators from Dutch rule, with nationalist leaders cooperating in administrative roles during early 1942. Similarly, in Burma—invaded via Thailand in January 1942—anti-British sentiments led to welcoming by groups like the Burma Independence Army, which assisted Japanese advances toward resource-rich areas. In the Philippines, while resistance persisted, some elites anticipated independence under Japanese auspices, reflected in provisional governance structures established by mid-1942. These receptions stemmed from longstanding grievances against European colonizers, though enthusiasm waned as exploitative policies emerged. The occupations facilitated immediate resource extraction to bolster Japan's amid escalating Allied submarine campaigns that later disrupted shipments. Oil from Indonesian wells began flowing to Japan by spring , supplementing synthetic production and stockpiles strained by prior U.S. embargoes. Burmese rice exports, vital for feeding Japan's and troops, were redirected under oversight, with initial hauls mitigating shortages despite logistical challenges from Allied . These gains underscored the strategic imperative of territorial expansion over ideological unity, as resource inflows sustained operations through before attrition intensified.

Greater East Asia Conference and Formalization

The convened in on November 5–6, 1943, as a symbolic gathering to formalize the Co-Prosperity Sphere amid Japan's wartime expansions. Hosted by Prime Minister , the event aimed to project unity among purportedly independent Asian states under Japanese leadership, countering Allied narratives of . Attendees included Tojo of , Zhang Jinghui of , Wang Jingwei representing the Nanjing regime in , Wan Waithayakon of , Ba Maw of , José P. Laurel of the , and Subhas Chandra Bose of the Provisional Government of Free India as an observer. The conference featured speeches emphasizing shared Asian destiny, with Tojo's opening address highlighting the war as a struggle for East Asian peoples' existence, independence, and prosperity, while stressing mutual defense against Western dominance. The culminating Joint Declaration affirmed principles of coexistence and co-prosperity, regional stability through cooperation, respect for , cultural advancement, and equitable free from . Participants like portrayed the event as a for Asian , arguing in his address that East Asian liberation required collective resolve and viewing it as embodying a new spirit of independence. However, the functioned primarily as Japanese-orchestrated , with participating regimes lacking genuine and serving to legitimize occupations rather than enact equitable .

Administrative Structures in Territories

The Japanese administration of territories within the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere employed a spectrum of governance models designed to project an image of cooperative Asian partnership while ensuring strategic control through military oversight and resident advisors. Direct military administration predominated in resource-rich areas like the Netherlands East Indies, where territories were segmented into operational zones: Java and Madura under the 16th Army, Sumatra under the 25th Army, and the outer islands under the Japanese Navy's 7th Area Fleet, with local governance supplemented by Indonesian intermediaries after the internment of Dutch colonial officials on March 5, 1942. This structure facilitated rapid resource mobilization but incorporated pre-existing native bureaucracies, such as Javanese priyayi elites in administrative roles, to manage day-to-day operations and mitigate resistance. In contrast, select territories received nominal to cultivate legitimacy among local nationalists, though remained illusory under Japanese . Burma was declared the independent State of Burma on August 1, 1943, with installed as Adipadi () and a cabinet drawn from Burmese collaborators, yet Japanese advisors dictated , defense, and economic directives, embedding Kempeitai oversight in key institutions. Similarly, the Provisional Government of , proclaimed by on October 21, 1943, in Japanese-occupied , established ministries for finance, defense, and women's affairs, asserting jurisdiction over British India from Andaman and Nicobar bases handed over by Japan, but operated as a dependency reliant on Japanese and prohibited from independent actions without approval. The Philippines exemplified a hybrid model with promised post-war integration into the Sphere as a commonwealth. The Second Republic's constitution, ratified on September 4, 1943, and implemented with José P. Laurel's inauguration as president on October 14, 1943, outlined a unicameral National Assembly and executive branches mimicking pre-war structures, staffed largely by Filipino lawyers and politicians to foster continuity; however, Japanese forces retained veto power over legislation, controlled the military, and enforced compliance through the Makapili auxiliary force, rendering autonomy conditional on alignment with Tokyo's war aims. Across these variants, empirical records from occupation reports indicate Japanese commanders delegated routine civil functions to Asian elites—evidenced by over 70% Indonesian staffing in Java's district offices by 1944—countering narratives of uniform totalitarianism by demonstrating pragmatic reliance on local capacity for stability, albeit subordinated to imperial priorities via advisory councils and intelligence networks.

Economic and Resource Strategies

Autarky Objectives and Resource Extraction

The autarky objectives of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere sought to forge a self-sufficient economic bloc insulated from Allied naval blockades and pre-war embargoes, redirecting intra-regional trade flows to sustain Japan's wartime demands. Japanese economic planners envisioned the yen bloc as a counter to the dollar and sterling zones, centralizing financial and resource controls to integrate occupied territories into a unified production network. Following territorial conquests in 1941–1942, the establishment of the Greater East Asia Ministry on November 1, 1942, coordinated these efforts by prioritizing resource mobilization over foreign dependencies, with initial plans emphasizing barter-like exchanges and controlled trade to evade disruptions. This framework aimed to pool raw materials from and the Southwest Pacific, though implementation favored unidirectional flows toward , limiting genuine reciprocity. Resource extraction focused on foodstuffs and fuels, exemplified by rice requisitions from Indochina, where the Franco-Japanese Accord of January 25, 1943, secured 1,125,000 tons for shipment to —surpassing prior annual volumes and exacerbating local vulnerabilities despite nominal mutual-aid rhetoric. Similar accords committed up to 1 million tons annually from the region, with 1943 deliveries straining transport amid Allied attacks on shipping over 30 tons. These shipments, totaling millions of tons across 1943–1944, directly addressed 's caloric deficits but triggered shortages in supplier areas. Petroleum self-sufficiency relied on captured fields in the , yielding millions of barrels annually post-1942 occupation to refuel naval and air forces, supplemented by modest synthetic production from coal hydrogenation plants operational since 1937. Despite ambitions for 930,000 kiloliters of yearly, actual output remained under 100,000 kiloliters by mid-war, constrained by resource scarcity and bombing, yet extending operational capacity through rerouted sphere supplies. Inefficiencies in extraction and refining, coupled with submarine interdictions, prevented full autarkic closure, as imports from sphere peripheries covered only partial needs.

Trade Networks and Industrial Mobilization

The Japanese government established the Southern Regions Development Bank in 1942 to coordinate resource extraction and investment across occupied , facilitating the pooling of raw materials such as , rubber, and tin for shipment to amid wartime shortages. This institution issued specialized to finance long-term development projects, integrating local economies into a hierarchical network where peripheral territories supplied commodities in exchange for Japanese oversight of and flows. Such mechanisms linked producers in , Malaya, and to Japanese industrial hubs, prioritizing export-oriented extraction over balanced regional exchange to sustain production. Industrial mobilization within the sphere emphasized labor reallocation to , with drawing on occupied populations to supplement domestic shortages; estimates indicate over 2 million workers were demanded annually by for munitions and output across the . In , this drove significant capacity expansion, as production rose from 476,000 tons in 1934 to 1.4 million tons by , supporting Japanese needs through forced integration of local mines and mills. Approximately 5.4 million were mobilized overall for war support from 1939 onward, with hundreds of thousands redirected to factories in and , enabling output surges tied directly to armament demands. These efforts yielded localized infrastructure gains, such as extensions to Thailand's rail network under Japanese-Thai , which accelerated connectivity for despite the alliance's coercive undertones. However, the unilateral extraction model overburdened peripheral economies without reciprocal , as Japanese firms repatriated profits and materials, leaving territories with depleted labor pools and minimal technological transfer to offset the war-driven strain.

Propaganda and Ideological Dissemination

Messaging Campaigns and Media Use

The Japanese government systematically employed state-controlled media to propagate the ideals of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, emphasizing themes of Asian unity, liberation from Western , and Japan's sacrificial leadership in fostering mutual prosperity. Radio broadcasts by , Japan's public broadcaster, played a central role, with international shortwave programming launching on June 1, 1935, and expanding to over 25 hours daily across 16 languages by 1941 to promote the Sphere's vision amid escalating conflicts. These transmissions, including those from the Greater East Asia broadcasting network, depicted harmonious cooperation among Asian nations under Japanese guidance, often highlighting purported Japanese sacrifices in military campaigns to secure regional . Films and newsreels further disseminated these messages, with productions such as the 1942 War of Greater showcasing alliances like that with to illustrate co-prosperity in action. Posters and visual media reinforced unity motifs, portraying integrated Asian societies free from imperialists, distributed through occupied territories' presses to embed the Sphere's narrative in daily discourse. In regions like and , such materials appeared in local publications, aiming to legitimize Japanese oversight by invoking pan-Asian solidarity. Cultural propaganda extended to print media, including the 1942 Declaration for Greater East Asian Co-operation, a booklet designed for in colonies to outline cooperative frameworks under the Sphere's banner. stations in southern occupied areas, coordinated with efforts, integrated these themes into local programming to cultivate a shared ideological space. This media apparatus operated under the Cabinet Information Bureau, ensuring consistent messaging that framed the war as a cultural and ideological struggle for Asian .

Targeted Appeals to Asian Elites and Populations

Japan sought to cultivate support among Asian nationalists by framing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as a liberation from Western , offering military aid and political platforms to anti-colonial leaders in exchange for alignment against Allied powers. In , this included backing , who escaped British custody in 1941 and reached Japanese-controlled territory by 1943, where provided arms, training, and logistical support to revive the (INA), initially formed in 1942 from captured British Indian prisoners. The INA, under Bose's leadership, grew to a peak strength of approximately 50,000 troops, many recruited from Indian expatriates in , demonstrating some ideological appeal through promises of independence and anti-British solidarity. Similar overtures extended to Indonesian elites, where Japanese occupiers from 1942 onward elevated figures like , granting him radio broadcasts and organizational roles to mobilize the population against Dutch rule, fostering enthusiasm among nationalists who viewed as a temporary ally against . 's collaboration, including forming mass organizations under Japanese auspices, helped propagate and prepared groundwork for post-war independence declarations, though it was pragmatic rather than unconditional. This approach yielded volunteer labor and auxiliary forces in , contrasting with broader forced elsewhere. In China, however, appeals faced inherent skepticism due to Japan's 1931 Manchurian invasion and the full-scale 1937 war, which alienated elites and masses despite efforts to co-opt collaborators like Wang Jingwei's 1940 puppet regime in , promoted as aligned with Co-Prosperity ideals. Nationalist and Communist resistance persisted, viewing Japanese overtures as extensions of aggression rather than genuine , limiting traction beyond isolated pro-Japanese factions. These differential receptions highlighted contradictions: while anti-Western rhetoric resonated in British and Dutch colonies, prior Japanese expansionism undermined credibility in directly invaded territories like , revealing the Sphere's hegemonic core over egalitarian promises.

Operational Realities and Challenges

Governance and Local Collaborations

The Japanese administration in occupied territories of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere emphasized co-optation of indigenous elites to facilitate day-to-day , establishing nominal regimes that projected an image of collaborative rule while retaining ultimate control through advisors and authority. This strategy involved granting limited in local affairs, such as civil administration and minor , to reduce the direct administrative burden on Japanese forces stretched thin across vast areas. However, such arrangements were constrained by overriding Japanese priorities, including and , which often nullified local initiatives. In the Philippines, the Second Philippine Republic was inaugurated on October 14, 1943, under President José P. Laurel, featuring a adapted from the pre-war model and a tasked with enacting local laws. Laurel's government handled routine matters like education and , with some delegated powers over internal policing, yet operated under strict Japanese military oversight that suppressed dissent and dictated foreign policy alignment. This structure allowed to portray a facade of self-rule, but Laurel's decisions required approval from Japanese commanders, limiting effective autonomy to symbolic gestures. Similarly, in , the State of Burma was declared on August 1, 1943, with as and serving as defense minister, incorporating Burmese nationalists into a cabinet that managed local taxation and infrastructure under the banner of independence. The regime balanced anti-colonial rhetoric with Japanese-imposed constraints, such as vetoes on military deployments and economic policies favoring Tokyo's war needs, enabling Aung San's Burma National Army to operate nominally independently while remaining subordinate. These collaborations lowered Japan's costs by leveraging local knowledge and legitimacy, yet fostered underlying resentments as unkept promises of full sovereignty eroded trust, exemplified by Aung San's to the Allies in March 1945 amid perceived Japanese exploitation.

Exploitation Practices and Resistance Movements

The Japanese administration within the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere implemented extensive forced labor programs to support military infrastructure and resource extraction, most notably the romusha system in occupied . Under this regime, primarily targeting Indonesians from the , an estimated 4 to 10 million civilians were conscripted between 1942 and 1945 for projects such as airfield construction, fortifications, and the Burma-Thailand railway, where approximately 200,000 Asian laborers supplemented 60,000 Allied prisoners of war. Mortality rates were exceptionally high, often exceeding 20-30% due to , , , and brutal treatment, with post-war Dutch records documenting over 8,200 deaths among 42,233 prisoners in related camps, indicative of broader civilian losses in the millions. These practices prioritized Japanese wartime needs over local welfare, extracting labor and materials like oil, rubber, and rice while disrupting indigenous economies. Resource mobilization further exacerbated hardships, contributing to widespread s that contradicted the sphere's proclaimed mutual prosperity. In , the 1943 , which killed an estimated 3 million, was intensified by the from early 1942, severing rice imports that previously supplied up to 15% of the region's needs and diverting shipping for military priorities amid wartime inflation and hoarding. Similarly, in , Japanese extraction of food crops and labor for the triggered a 1944-1945 killing hundreds of thousands, as policies funneled surpluses to and garrisons, leaving local populations with inadequate rations amid crop failures and transport disruptions. While some , such as railways and ports built via forced labor, persisted post-war for civilian use, their construction came at the cost of immense human suffering and primarily served imperial logistics during the conflict. These exploitative measures fueled resistance movements across occupied territories, eroding Japanese control despite initial local acquiescence or collaboration. In Indochina, the , led by , expanded from guerrilla bases during the Japanese occupation after 1940, capitalizing on French-Japanese tensions and wartime shortages to build support; by , following a Japanese coup against French authorities, the group orchestrated uprisings that seized control in northern regions ahead of the August surrender. In Indonesia, romusha and food requisitions sparked localized revolts and from 1943 onward, culminating in pemuda youth-led actions in 1945 that challenged Japanese authority and transitioned into the independence struggle. The (INA), initially formed with Japanese aid in 1942 under , saw its disillusioned remnants influence post-war unrest, including the 1946 involving over 20,000 ratings, which echoed INA trial grievances and accelerated anti-colonial momentum. Overall, such backlash highlighted the gap between rhetorical anti-Western liberation and coercive realities, with resistance groups leveraging Japanese defeats to advance nationalist agendas.

Military and Geopolitical Dimensions

Defensive Alliances Against Allied Powers

entered into a with following the latter's on December 8, 1941, signing a formal agreement on December 21, 1941, which facilitated Japanese use of Thai territory as staging grounds for operations against British-held Malaya and . On January 25, 1942, declared war on the and , aligning itself explicitly with the Co-Prosperity Sphere's defensive posture against Allied powers and providing airfields, ports, and overland routes that supported Japanese advances into . This alliance enabled to position as a , with Thai forces contributing to rear-area security and limited combat roles, though Thai effectiveness was constrained by reliance on Japanese equipment and training. The Sphere's territories, particularly the oil-rich Dutch East Indies occupied in early 1942, formed the backbone of Japan's defensive logistics by supplying critical petroleum resources essential for naval and air operations against U.S.-led invasions. These regions provided the majority of Japan's wartime fuel imports, enabling sustained carrier strikes and convoy protections until Allied submarine campaigns from onward devastated Japanese merchant shipping, reducing effective oil deliveries by over 90% in some months. administrations in occupied areas, such as those in and the , were tasked with raising auxiliary forces for perimeter defense, but these units often lacked modern weaponry and integrated command structures, resulting in fragmented responses to Allied amphibious assaults. Coordination among Sphere allies proved inadequate during major counteroffensives, as evidenced by the disjointed defense of key islands where local collaborator militias, hampered by equipment shortages and poor morale, failed to mount effective resistance alongside Japanese regulars. In the broader Axis-Pacific , Japan's isolation from European theater operations exacerbated these issues, with no meaningful joint planning against common foes like the , leading to overextended supply lines and vulnerability to island-hopping campaigns. Such deficiencies underscored the Sphere's reliance on Japanese initiative, where puppet forces contributed minimally to high-seas engagements like those around in , prioritizing static garrisons that crumbled under superior Allied firepower and logistics.

Failures in Coordination and Sustainability

The (IJA) and (IJN) operated under separate command structures, fostering intense that fragmented military efforts across the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This inter-service competition, rooted in budgetary and doctrinal differences, led to uncoordinated occupations, such as the IJA's dominance in versus the IJN's control in and the Pacific islands, with minimal joint operational planning. By mid-1943, Japan's overextension across the sphere's vast expanse—from to the —strained logistics, as supply lines exceeded sustainable capacities without unified prioritization between services. The IJA's reluctance to divert resources from theater operations further hampered reinforcements for peripheral defenses, exacerbating vulnerabilities to Allied island-hopping campaigns. The (March–July 1944) exemplified these coordination failures, where the IJA's 15th Army, numbering about 85,000 troops under Lieutenant General Renya Mutaguchi, launched into without adequate stockpiles or air support coordination with the IJN. Reliance on capturing enemy supplies faltered amid disruptions and extended lines, resulting in approximately 30,000 deaths and 28,000 non-combat losses from and , compelling a retreat by July. Scholars like Jeremy A. Yellen highlight Japanese attempts at adaptive measures, such as regional conferences to align contributions, but empirical data on defeats like underscore how Allied industrial superiority and unified overwhelmed these efforts, rendering the sphere's integration unsustainable.

Dissolution and Immediate Aftermath

Impact of Allied Counteroffensives

The in June 1942 marked a decisive shift in the , where lost four aircraft carriers, effectively ending its offensive momentum and ceding strategic initiative to the Allies, thereby undermining the rapid territorial consolidation central to the Co-Prosperity Sphere's expansion. This defeat, combined with the from August 1942 to February 1943—the first sustained Allied offensive—halted Japanese advances in the and inflicted heavy attrition on Imperial forces, signaling the erosion of control over newly incorporated territories intended for the Sphere's resource network. Guadalcanal's outcome forced into a defensive posture, diverting resources from efforts to mere retention of gains, as supply lines strained under constant interdiction. The Allied island-hopping strategy, accelerating from late , systematically reclaimed key Pacific outposts, bypassing fortified positions to isolate Japanese garrisons and sever supporting the Sphere's southern resource base. By targeting vulnerabilities like the Gilbert and Marshall Islands in , followed by the Marianas in mid-1944, U.S. forces captured airfields essential for B-29 bomber operations, which further disrupted Japanese shipping and access to oil from the —vital for the Sphere's promised self-sufficiency. The Philippine campaign, launched in October 1944 with landings at , recaptured territories nominally independent under Japanese auspices since , fracturing the Sphere's facade of regional unity as Filipino guerrillas intensified operations alongside U.S. troops. These counteroffensives precipitated catastrophic resource shortfalls, with Japan's incoming supplies collapsing by over 94% between 1943 and 1945 due to and air interdictions that neutralized tanker fleets and production sites, crippling military mobility and industrial output underpinning the Sphere's economic rationale. By mid-1944, following losses in the and Marianas, had effectively forfeited 90% or more of its captured infrastructure's utility, as transportation networks failed, rendering the Sphere's resource-pooling ambitions untenable. Mounting defeats eroded local collaborations, fostering shifts in allegiance among puppet entities; for instance, the National Army, initially raised by for the 1943 nominal independence, defected to Allied forces in amid the collapse of Japanese defenses in central , providing and combat support that accelerated territorial losses. Such reversals amplified resistance across occupied , as evident in intensified uprisings in the and elsewhere, directly challenging the Sphere's viability by exposing its reliance on coerced compliance rather than genuine prosperity.

Collapse and Territorial Recessions

The fall of Prime Minister Hideki Tojo's cabinet on July 18, 1944, following the loss of Saipan and other Pacific islands to American forces, marked an early erosion of centralized control over the Co-Prosperity Sphere's expansive ambitions, though the imperial structure persisted amid mounting defeats. This leadership shift reflected internal Japanese recognition of strategic overextension, with subsequent cabinets unable to reverse the tide of Allied advances that severed supply lines and isolated occupied territories. The decisive unraveling occurred in August 1945, triggered by the atomic bombings of on August 6 and on August 9, coupled with the Soviet Union's declaration of war on August 8 and its rapid invasion of Japanese-held . These events shattered Japan's defensive posture, prompting Emperor Hirohito's announcement of surrender on August 15, formalized aboard the on September 2, and compelling the abandonment of all extraterritorial claims under the Sphere. The Soviet offensive alone dismantled the and key puppet administrations in under two weeks, creating immediate power vacuums in northern . Puppet states integral to the Sphere's framework dissolved rapidly post-surrender: Manchukuo's government collapsed amid the Soviet advance, with its formal dissolution by August 1945 and incorporation into emerging Chinese communist control; in similarly fragmented, its Japanese-backed leadership evaporating as Allied and Chinese forces moved in. Other entities, such as the Reorganized National Government of China under (until his death in 1944) and provisional regimes in and the , ceased operations as Japanese garrisons capitulated. Territorial recessions ensued with Allied occupations restoring European colonial administrations temporarily—British forces retook Malaya, , and ; Dutch reclaimed the ; French reoccupied Indochina—while U.S. commands oversaw proper and the , prioritizing disarmament over Sphere remnants. The Sphere's collapse amid contributed to staggering human costs, with estimates of 20 to 30 million deaths across occupied from , induced famines, , and reprisals, figures that encompass both direct military actions and indirect wartime disruptions rather than isolated Sphere policies. These losses, while immense, arose within the broader context of Pacific theater attrition, including Allied bombings and blockades that compounded Japanese logistical failures.

Legacy and Analytical Perspectives

Contributions to Post-War Decolonization

The Japanese occupation under the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere inadvertently accelerated post-war decolonization by demonstrating the military vulnerability of European colonial powers and creating institutional frameworks that nationalist leaders later repurposed for independence struggles. In regions like Indonesia, Burma, and Vietnam, the rapid conquest of territories previously held for centuries by Western empires—such as the Dutch East Indies, taken in mere months starting March 1942—eroded the perceived invincibility of colonial rule and inspired local elites to mobilize against returning powers. In , Japanese authorities established organizations like the Jawa Hokokai and the PETA militia, which provided training and administrative experience to figures such as , enabling him to declare independence on August 17, 1945, just days after Japan's surrender and before Dutch forces could fully reassert control. This proclamation built directly on Japanese-era nationalist committees, which had been granted limited to foster but instead served as platforms for anti-colonial agitation. Similarly, in , Aung San's collaboration with Japanese forces from 1941 onward, including formation of the , culminated in nominal independence granted on , 1943, under Ba Maw's regime; Aung San's acquired military expertise later fueled resistance against both Japanese exploitation and British reconquest, contributing to Burma's full independence in 1948. Vietnam's trajectory followed a parallel pattern, as the Japanese coup against Vichy French authorities on March 9, 1945, dismantled colonial governance and created a that Ho Chi Minh's exploited, leading to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam's declaration on September 2, 1945. Although forces primarily resisted Japanese rule through guerrilla actions and alliances with Allied intelligence, the occupation's disruption of French administrative structures and supply of arms to local militias equipped nationalists for subsequent anti-colonial warfare. These developments weakened the logistical and ideological foundations of empires, hastening negotiations or withdrawals, as seen in Britain's decision to grant independence in 1947 amid economic strain from the Pacific theater and inspired mutinies linked to Japanese-backed activities. However, the sphere's contributions were tempered by post-occupation chaos, including and internal divisions that prolonged conflicts; Indonesia's war of independence lasted until 1949, marked by Dutch attempts at reoccupation and widespread violence involving former Japanese-trained militias. In causal terms, while the sphere substituted one form of domination for another, its military overextension ultimately transferred skills and momentum to indigenous movements, undermining long-term colonial sustainability across .

Historiographical Debates on Intentions vs. Outcomes

Scholars have long debated whether Japanese leaders' proclamations of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere reflected genuine intentions for a Asian order or served primarily as ideological cover for imperial expansion. Traditional , influenced by Allied perspectives, often dismissed the Sphere as a propagandistic veneer masking Japan's hegemonic ambitions and resource extraction, pointing to outcomes like forced labor mobilization—estimated at over 5 million workers across occupied territories—and systematic economic drain, such as the redirection of 80% of Southeast Asian oil production to Japanese forces by 1943. This view aligns with left-leaning interpretations framing the initiative as unadulterated , akin to European but with racialist undertones of Japanese superiority. In contrast, revisionist and more recent scholarship, including Jeremy Yellen's 2019 analysis, posits the Sphere as an authentic, if evolving and contested, vision for regional self-sufficiency amid , driven by structural imperatives like the U.S. oil embargo of July 1941 that threatened Japan's 80% import dependency and prompted preemptive southern expansion for rubber, tin, and reserves. Yellen argues it embodied dual conflicts: Japan's imperial consolidation versus local nationalisms, evidenced by elite collaborations such as Burmese leader Ba Maw's endorsement at the 1943 , where puppet states affirmed anti-Western solidarity, reflecting mixed loyalties rather than uniform coercion. Right-leaning perspectives further emphasize strategic realism, portraying the Sphere as a defensive response to Anglo-American and economic strangulation, countering narratives of unprovoked by highlighting Japan's navigation of global imperial norms post-Versailles racial equality denial in 1919. These intentions, rooted in pre-war pan-Asianist thought, sought a bloc insulating from Western dominance, though causal pressures of resource scarcity and wartime exigencies often subordinated cooperative rhetoric to exploitative practices. Post-2020 scholarship reinforces this nuanced duality, rejecting monolithic characterizations of failure by examining how the Sphere's anti-colonial framing—despite imperial contradictions—inspired independence movements, as seen in Indonesian nationalists leveraging Japanese occupation for post-1945 bids, thus blurring intentions and unintended outcomes. Critics of purely exploitative readings note empirical inconsistencies, such as nominal "" grants to in 1941 and Burma in 1943, which, while subordinated, fostered local administrative capacities absent in prior European models and evidenced partial sincerity among Japanese planners envisioning a postwar economic sphere. Yet, source biases persist: Western academic dominance often amplifies victim narratives, underweighting Asian agency, while Japanese revisionism risks overemphasizing benevolence; balanced assessment privileges primary diplomatic records showing iterative negotiations over ideological purity. Ultimately, the debate underscores causal realism: intentions for pan-Asian collided with total war's imperatives, yielding hybrid legacies neither wholly facade nor fulfillment.

References

  1. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501735561/the-greater-east-asia-co-prosperity-sphere/
  2. https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=honors
  3. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000710366.pdf
  4. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/germany-japan-tripartite-pact
  5. https://apjjf.org/2011/9/49/janis-mimura/3657/article
  6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20071764
  7. https://brill.com/view/journals/mnya/26/1/article-p1_019.xml
  8. https://www.asianstudies.org/historian-jeremy-yellen-on-the-greater-east-asia-co-prosperity-sphere/
  9. https://apjjf.org/james-orr/2692/article
  10. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/pearl-harbor
  11. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-did-japan-attack-pearl-harbor
  12. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1900_power.htm
  13. https://www.independent.org/article/2006/05/01/how-u-s-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/
  14. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-373
  15. https://apjjf.org/2011/9/17/christopher-w-a-szpilman/3519/article
  16. https://apjjf.org/cemil-aydin/2695/article
  17. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/japan/japanese-monroe-doctrine
  18. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Japan/Japan-1940.htm
  19. https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhcs/v6-i1/1.pdf
  20. https://llbahwar.wordpress.com/world-war-ii-1939-1945/axis-powers/empire-of-japan-1868-1947/greater-east-asia-co-prosperity-sphere/
  21. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_quest_empire_01.shtml
  22. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d237
  23. https://faroutliers.com/2004/11/16/the-early-1940s-japanosphere/
  24. https://thetricontinental.org/asia/right-prevails-forever/
  25. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-asian-studies/article/from-idealism-to-the-ground-the-japanese-empires-occupation-of-southeast-asia-the-japanese-occupation-of-malaya-and-singapore-194145-a-social-and-economic-history-by-paul-h-kratoska-2nd-edsingapore-national-university-press-of-singapore-2018-xxvii-407-pp-isbn-9789971696382-paper-japans-occupation-of-java-in-the-second-world-war-a-transnational-history-by-ethan-mark-london-bloomsbury-2018-xii-386-pp-isbn-9781350022201-cloth-the-greater-east-asia-coprosperity-sphere-when-total-empire-met-total-war-by-jeremy-a-yellen-ithaca-ny-cornell-university-press-2019-xi-288-pp-isbn-9781501735547-cloth/CD1998F9049A554CC249EA4B3BA44CE0
  26. https://ww2db.com/doc.php?q=491
  27. https://www.sdh-fact.com/essay-article/882/
  28. https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-topics/b06904/
  29. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c7433/c7433.pdf
  30. https://d-arch.ide.go.jp/je_archive/english/society/wp_je_unu33.html
  31. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Greater-East-Asia-Co-prosperity-Sphere
  32. https://www.history.com/articles/pearl-harbor-japan-attacks-territories
  33. https://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/eco/cou/alpha/j/japan/w2ecj-srz.html
  34. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA425684.pdf
  35. https://factsanddetails.com/indonesia/History_and_Religion/sub6_1c/entry-3954.html
  36. https://history.howstuffworks.com/world-war-ii/axis-conquers-philippines.htm
  37. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2025.2563803
  38. https://www.ospreypublishing.com/us/osprey-blog/2021/the-netherlands-east-indies-campaign-1941-42-japan-s-quest-for-oil/
  39. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/japan-begins-attacks-southeast-asia
  40. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1959/january/oil-and-new-japan
  41. https://www.jacar.go.jp/english/shuhou-english/timeline/nenpyo19431106.html
  42. https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=70
  43. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_of_the_Greater_East_Asia_Conference
  44. https://japan-forward.com/asia-rising-bose-gets-support-for-indias-liberation-at-1943-greater-east-asia-conference/
  45. https://www.sdh-fact.com/essay-article/857/
  46. https://www.oldtokyo.com/great-east-asia-conference-1943/
  47. https://brill.com/view/journals/bki/154/3/article-p416_3.pdf
  48. https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/burma-thailand-railway-and-hellfire-pass-1942-1943/events/thai-and-burmese-involvement/burmese
  49. https://www.thesecondworldwar.org/the-axis-powers/azad-hind
  50. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943v03/d984
  51. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/july-4-1946-philippines-independence
  52. http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/o/Collaborationist_Governments.htm
  53. http://www.bill-gordon.net/papers/coprospr.htm
  54. https://www.pacificatrocities.org/the-portents-of-famine.html
  55. https://www.nytimes.com/1944/05/14/archives/indochinas-food-is-taken-by-japan-trading-balance-in-tokyo-is.html
  56. https://apjjf.org/2011/9/5/geoffrey-gunn/3483/article
  57. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/where-did-japan-get-their-oil-during-wwii
  58. https://warhistory.org/%40msw/article/oil-in-wwii
  59. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/210025/1/nb-wp2013-02.pdf
  60. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/financing-japans-world-war-ii-occupation-of-southeast-asia/69FE484DE0DE68794CD341B55D0986F2
  61. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/NDL8819756_Miscellaneous_information_on_Japanese_commercial_and_national_activities-_Labor_situation_existing_during_Greater_East_Asia_War._Report_No._53a%252834%2529%2528h%2529%252C_USSBS_Index_Section_2.pdf
  62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3021956
  63. https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/868192.html
  64. https://www.pacificatrocities.org/blog/an-overview-of-thailands-participation-in-ww2
  65. http://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/english/research/history/20210301_7.html
  66. https://www.jaas.gr.jp/jjas/pdf/2013/06Mizuno.pdf
  67. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77022998.pdf
  68. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H3yRLdYyzQ
  69. https://library.tamucc.edu/exhibits/s/hist4350/page/propaganda
  70. http://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/english/research/history/20210501_6.html
  71. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ina-and-indian-army-a-history-of-conflict-a-legacy-of-pride-4950146/
  72. https://www.abc.net.au/education/four-corners-sukarnos-collaboration-with-japan-during-ww-ii-196/13942804
  73. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/greater-east-asia-coprosperity-sphere.htm
  74. https://www.thesecondworldwar.org/the-axis-powers/second-philippine-republic
  75. https://worldhistoryedu.com/establishment-of-the-second-philippine-republic/
  76. https://www.thesecondworldwar.org/the-axis-powers/state-of-burma
  77. https://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Myanmar/sub5_5a/entry-3009.html
  78. https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/burma-thailand-railway-and-hellfire-pass-1942-1943/workers/romusha-recruitment
  79. https://www.niod.nl/en/frequently-asked-questions/japanese-occupation-and-pacific-war-numbers
  80. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bengal-famine-of-1943
  81. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/missing-millions-javas-194445-famine-in-indonesias-historiography/97C1382A9684E3F3E1B46A8A6DFBA367
  82. https://www.britannica.com/place/Vietnam/World-War-II-and-independence
  83. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/top-secret-the-infamous-thai-declaration/
  84. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/january-25/thailand-declares-war-on-the-united-states-and-england
  85. https://www.thediplomat.com/2025/08/thailands-wartime-alliance-with-japan-and-what-it-means-today/
  86. https://michaeltfassbender.com/nonfiction/the-world-wars/miscellaneous/japans-greater-east-asia-co-prosperity-sphere-in-world-war-ii/
  87. https://www.quora.com/How-bad-was-the-interservice-rivalry-in-the-Japanese-military-during-World-War-II-Did-it-affect-their-performance-in-the-war
  88. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=55164
  89. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA151628.pdf
  90. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3385559/echoes-of-the-past-the-burma-campaign-and-future-operational-design-in-the-indo/
  91. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501768262/the-greater-east-asia-co-prosperity-sphere/
  92. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/guadalcanal-joint-fight-0
  93. https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/world-war-ii-1939-1945/events/japanese-retreat-1943-1944/island-hopping
  94. https://www.independent.org/tir/2023-summer/an-economic-case-against-the-atomic-bombing-of-japan/
  95. http://www.combinedfleet.com/JavaOil.htm
  96. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/burma_campaign_01.shtml
  97. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/j/japans-struggle-end-war-1946.html
  98. https://apjjf.org/tsuyoshi-hasegawa/2501/article
  99. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-soviet-invasion-of-manchuria
  100. https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d00815/
  101. https://omniatlas.com/maps/asia-pacific/19451011/
  102. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
  103. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/reign-of-ruin/
  104. https://usindo.org/resources/the-origins-of-the-indonesian-nation-the-indonesian-revolution-of-1945-49-2/
  105. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch23indonesia.htm
  106. https://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=425
  107. https://alphahistory.com/vietnamwar/japanese-occupation-of-vietnam/
  108. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/oss-vietnam-1945-dixee-bartholomew-feis
  109. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55164
  110. https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/126/2/777/6365062
  111. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2019-10-15/greater-east-asia-co-prosperity-sphere-when-total-empire-met
  112. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-international-law/article/panasianism-antiimperialism-and-international-law-in-the-early-twentieth-century/E73424115AA2F15DF88D4197C6ADCA9B
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.