日本の教育史学
Online ISSN : 2189-4485
Print ISSN : 0386-8982
ISSN-L : 0386-8982
I 研究論文
戦後初期における旧軍関係教育機関出身者への施策
―「非軍事化」と「民主化」の動向とその射程に着目して―
白岩 伸也
著者情報
ジャーナル フリー

2017 年 60 巻 p. 45-57

詳細
抄録

After the Potsdam Declaration, the Japanese government had to decide on the treatment of former military educational institution graduates (hereinafter referred to graduates), while attempting to transform the country’s self-image from “Imperial Japan” to “Democratic Japan”. The Ministry of Education tried to transfer many graduates to other schools. However, various discussions over the measure developed. This paper clarifies the formation of the measures for graduates in early postwar Japan by focusing on the trend of “demilitarization” and “democratization” and its scope.

In August 1945, the Ministry of Army and Navy began to negotiate with the Ministry of Education to transfer graduates to other schools. As a result, the Cabinet decided upon “preferential transfers” for graduates. However, when students started to criticize and CIE (Civil Information and Education Section) started to intervene, preferential transfers were abolished in November. “Restrictive transfers” that limited the number of graduates to ten percent of a school’s capacity was determined in February 1946. Nevertheless, opinions criticizing restrictive transfers or insisting upon the necessity of re-education appeared. In addition, the discrepancy between the text of the Constitution of Japan and the Fundamental Law of Education and the measures was pointed out.

As described above, the measures were formed through “consultation” and “crossbreeding” with the Ministry of Army and Navy, the Ministry of Education, and CIE. The scope of “demilitarization” was interpreted differently by each organization, so that “demilitarization” and “democratization” developed a relationship of mutual conflict and reliance. It may be considered that the achievement of “demilitarization” and “democratization” was hindered, thus affecting later historical developments.

著者関連情報
© @ 2017 教育史学会
前の記事 次の記事
feedback
Top