What were the effects of WWII on the Nihonto?

[Crusader22]

By this I mean, between the family blades taken to combat and lost, destroyed, or captured, and the dumping into Tokyo harbor of untold thousands of weapons, what impact did these events have on the indigenous Nihonto "population" in Japan, if you will allow me that phrasing, and the subsequent outlawing of weapons such as swords?

 

And what percentage ended up in US servicemen's hands and were brought back as souvenirs, knowing the esteem which IJA and IJN officer swords commanded quickly as US forces came into contact with the Japanese?

 

How successful were repatriation efforts, if any existed?

 

Al very speculative, I know.

 

Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

Ramble on!

 

Jeff

 

 

[John C]

Jeff:

I think the vast majority of swords provided for the Japanese military were purpose made for the war effort by various entities. Although there were some who took family blades into battle and others who donated family blades (primarily if they did not have a son to go to war), these were not the majority. 

The biggest impact would have been the law to disarm the civilian population after the war and make them turn in their weapons. But MacArthur understood the cultural significance of the sword and made allowances in certain cases. This law, therefore, was tempered somewhat by efforts to declare certain blades as national treasures or important to Japanese culture. Many examples of petitions exist where citizens are trying to get their family heirlooms declared as important to the Japanese culture in order to keep them. Were some national treasures destroyed? Most likely. The most telling pic is probably the one shown below. How many national treasures are in that pile? We will never know.

It is also important to note that we relinquished military rule in 1952, allowing the Japanese to keep their swords as long as they were registered (torokusho). Many of the sword smiths were still alive and were able to teach sword making once again.

 

John C.

[Bruce Pennington]

You can read a bit about this from the actual post-WWII Army documents posted in our Downloads section - WWII US Govt Archived Documents and Swords

 

Richard Fuller estimates that over 2,000,000 swords were taken by the Allies (includes Russia and China) at the end of the war.  US military documented 661,621.  Of these, "372,609 were dispersed as trophies, to museums, and technical use... The remaining 289,012 were destroyed."  Many nihonto were retained by locals, and/or returned to them, but many obviously never were.  Houses were raided, but many citizens hid swords in roofs and under floors.

 

I have seen no numbers on how many were brought, donated, or bought for the war.  There were at least 2 big public campaigns to get private swords for the war, but haven't seen anything that described their success.

 

You'll have to use your imagination for the rest.  I personally doubt many families donated/sold real National Treasure level swords.  Most likely the stuff we see that was mass produced during the big war eras of old.  But they were still nihonto.

[Crusader22]

Thank you, good info to look through. Just an idle thought I had, always wondered.

 

Jeff

[reinhard]

It is due to the efforts of three men after WWII that Nihon-To as a cultural heritage of Japan is still alive.

At first pacific high command had decided, that all Japanese swords are potential weapons and had to be destroyed.

Homma Junji and Sato Kanzan persuaded US liaison officer Col. C.V. Cadwell to intervene.

It was Col. Cadwell who finally succeeded in persuading his superiors to acknowlede TRUE Nihon-to as cultural heritage of Japan and worth of preserving.

I guess General MacArthur was busy with many other tasks and probably didn't care much about exotic swords.

 

reinhard

 

 

 

 

[Peter Bleed]

This is an interesting and important discussion. The ways that Japanese swords were treated - by the Japanese, by the US occupying forces, and by the the mass of individual Americans  who saw them suitable souvenirs all deserve to be considered. And sure, Col. Cadwell was important - which is why his bronze bust is there in the Musuem. But other responsible Japanese were actively trying to make their occupiers aware of the importance and interest if Japanese. In 1947 - when people were hungry and unhoused, Inami Hakusui and Honma Junji produced english language books seeking to educate GI's about swords. All of that deserves attention. Not to mention John Yumoto.

But we shouldn't ignore or overlook the efforts of Japanese folks to get back swords that had been taken from their country after the War.

A few serious Japanese individuals came to America to buy swords in the early 1960s, but they had limited success. Takahashi Nobuhide-sama, a gentleman and an artist, told me that he had gone to California looking for swords, but decided that they had all been destroyed becasue he couldn't find any. Remember, too, that Ogawa Morihiro first showed up in America -- at the Chicago Sword Show!. 

As swords moved from garage sales and gun shows, there were some serious attempts made by Japanese individuals to buy back swords. They figured out where the swords were and how to get them bought. That is when prices rose, when a number of serious buyers became active - servicing Japanese buyers. Newspapers in even small cities ran "wanted to buy add" several times a year.

That whole process deserves attention. To understand Japanese swords in the world today, we really have to recognize the role played by gunshow hustlers and fleamarket pickers in the post-War era.

Peter

[Rivkin]

I have seen maybe three or four truly important swords with a history of being in the US. Out of hundreds. It matches statistics on kokuho quite well. 99% of the top tier swords did not leave Japan and were never in the hands of the occupation troops.

Accordingly, I am not certain what kind of intentions did the occupying powers have vis-a-vis swords.

Often the laws banning "all weapons" are issued not with the purpose of actively confiscating those but to simplify court-martials: establishing any connection with a "weapon" becomes a sufficient cause for punishment. 

 

[Winchester]

John C., 

 

I wonder if that photo and others like it truly are showing what is being surmised—confiscated for DESTRUCTION.

 

I was talking with my neighbor a couple years ago who is a USMC WW2 veteran in theatre and he told me both on land and on ship there were massive piles of swords…..but…..that every GI was told to grab one two or anything from the pile. He said it was literally an assembly line of go and pick stuff out.

 

My question being: are we always seeing what we think we are in these photos.

 

[Crusader22]

Amazing, almost a study unto itself.

 

In my previous collecting of WWII Mauser rifles, the same type of topics come up, pictured are thousands of K98k rifles stacked like cordwood, leaving collectors with a challenge in studying "known examples" of variants, and this is with rifles, all meticulously serialized and with existing wartime paperwork on production, etc,.

 

Far more murky is this discussion on swords.

 

Funny, K98k rifles were everywhere at wartime, sold in wooden barrels in hardware shops postwar...mixed with imported guns, and, of course...they are firearms. Subject to actual use as a practical weapon for hunting for many years postwar, so many more were converted to "sporters" and lost to collectors.

 

Jeff

 

 

[DRDave]

Interesting posts in this thread about rifle barrels used as rebar and fence posts.