The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 7 | Issue 38 | Number 3 | Sep 21, 2009

1

Starving the Elephants: The Slaughter of Animals in WartimeTokyo's Ueno Zoo

Frederick S. Litten

Starving the Elephants: TheSlaughter of Animals in WartimeTokyo’s Ueno Zoo

Frederick S. Litten

“Speaking of wartime Ueno Zoo, what comes toyour mind? ‘The elephants were killed!’ Yes,that’s right.” So begins Sayōnara Kaba-kun(Farewell, Hippo; Saotome, 1989), a picturebook for grade school children.

There are numerous Japanese depictions andstories of the wartime slaughter of animals atUeno Zoo: from the enormously popular andinfluential picture book Kawaisōna Zō (ThePitiful Elephants) (Tsuchiya & Takebe,2009)–originally published by Tsuchiya Yukio asa short story for children in 1951, then as apicture book in 1970 with 163 editions todate–to the recent TV drama Zō no Hanako(The Elephant Hanako; Kōno & Terada, 2007).The story has also travelled outside Japan, withtwo English and one French translations ofKawaisōna Zō1. Most of these depictionsportray the slaughter of the animals asmotivated by the wish to protect humans frommore or less immediate danger and accept thestarvation of the elephants as unavoidable.Scholarly studies have been published so faronly in Japanese and tend to be critical only insome points (e.g., Hasegawa, 2000; originallypublished in 1981), if at all.

Cover of “Kawaisōna Zō”, the most popularversion of the myths about the Ueno Zoo

slaughter in 1943

This study deals with what really happened atUeno Zoo in the summer of 1943, how it cameabout, and how unique this event was. To put itinto context I will present relevant informationalso from the years before and after the (main)slaughter and will look briefly at wartimedevelopments at several zoological gardens inEurope and Japan.

The Setting

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

2

Ueno Zoological Garden is located in the Uenodistrict, Taitō ward, Tokyo. In 1882 it openedas the first zoo in Japan; in 1924 control passedfrom the Imperial Household Agency to Tokyocity.2 With an area of 14.3 ha today, Ueno Zoois rather small, but because of its location inthe capital and connection with the imperialfamily it plays a central role in the history ofJapan’s zoological gardens.

Ueno Zoo’s director from 1937 to 1941 andfrom 1945 to 1962 was Koga Tadamichi(1903-1986), whom Kawata (2001b, 310) refersto as “Japan’s Mr. Zoo”. Koga had graduated inveterinary medicine from Tokyo ImperialUniversity and began working at Ueno Zoo in1928.

From August 1, 1941, to October 10, 1945, theact ing d i rector was Fukuda Saburō(1894-1977). A graduate of Tokyo University ofAgriculture, he had worked at Ueno Zoo since1922 as a technician and would continue to doso until 1953 (Tōkyō-to Onshi Ueno Dōbutsuen,1982a, 182; this source will be abbreviatedthereafter as “Ueno, 1982a”).

Prelude: 1936-1939

Looking back on 1936, people in Japan spoke of“three big incidents”: the “February 26Incident” (“Niniroku Jiken”), the “Abe SadaIncident”, and the “Black Leopard (Escape)Incident” (Komori, 1997, 53). The first and byfar most significant one refers to an attemptedcoup d’etat on February 26 by an army faction,which only was thwarted a couple of days lateron orders from Emperor Hirohito (Gordon,2003, 198).

On May 18, Abe Sada, a low-ranking geisha andprostitute, strangled her lover to death, cut offhis genitalia, and carried them with her untilshe was arrested on May 20. This casehorrified, and fascinated, Japan and wouldcontinue to do so for decades to come(Johnston, 2005), most famously in ŌshimaNagisa’s movie Ai no korīda (In the realm of the

senses; 1976).

Compared with these incidents and with otherevents in 1936, such as the Olympic Games inBerlin or the signing of the Anti-Comintern Pactbetween Germany and Japan, the “BlackLeopard Incident” was a minor one. In the earlymorning of July 25, a keeper at Ueno Zoonoticed that a black leopard, a recent gift fromSiam (Thailand), was missing. Police andKenpetai (military police) were called in and alarge-scale search started. Early in theafternoon the leopard was discovered coweringin a manhole of the sewers adjacent to the zoo,was captured and brought back to her cage.The incident, although lasting only about 13hours, seems to have made quite an impressionon Tokyo residents (Komori, 1997, chapter 11)and presumably contributed to later concernsabout animals escaping from their cages.

At Ueno Zoo, Koga and Fukuda wererepr imanded f o r th i s i nc iden t andadministrative reform was initiated when itturned out that there was no formal “zoodirector” with corresponding rights andresponsibilities (Kawata, 2001a, 1273; Ueno,1982a, 182). Such a position was created andfilled in March 1937 by Koga. The memory ofthis incident was further kept alive by securitydrills on the anniversary of the escape (Ueno,1982a, 152).

The outbreak of full-scale war between Japanand China in July 1937 did not have much of animpact on Ueno Zoo, except that it wouldreceive more animals sent by Japanese officersfrom the occupied areas (e.g., Ueno, 1982a, p.151). The air-raid drills were not taken veryseriously, as China did not have the capabilityto strike Japan and the battles that year withthe Soviet Union at Nomonhan were playeddown to the public (Gordon, 2003, 206).

Preparing for Emergency in Europe:1939-1941

The situation was different in Europe. The war,

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

3

which broke out there in September 1939, wastaken more seriously on the homefront, withtragic consequences for some zoo animals.

As Lutz Heck, the director of Berlin Zoo at thetime, relates in his memoirs, many people wereafraid of what would happen in the case of airattacks. “The worse the ignorance, the moregrotesque shapes the fears took on.” (Heck,1952, 135). Most people outside the zoos wereafraid of lions, tigers and poisonous snakes,whereas the zoo’s staff was more concernedabout elephants and bears running loose.According to Heck (1952, 139), soon after theoutbreak of war the military ordered all lions,tigers, leopards and bears in west German zoosto be shot. However, in contrast to his account,this did not happen, for example, in Munich(Gottschlich, 2000, 136) and Frankfurt amMain (Zoo Frankfurt am Main, n.d.) where lionswere only shot later in the war and after airattacks. In Wuppertal, on the other hand, onMay 15, 1940, three brown bears, two polarbears and five lions were shot by order of thecity administration, before any air raidsoccurred (personal communication, U. Schürer,August 24, 2009).

Such events were not confined to Germany. AtLondon Zoo “all poisonous snakes andinvertebrates” were killed at the beginning ofthe Second World War out of fear that theywould escape during an attack (Barrington-Johnson, 2005, 123). On April 19, 1941, fourdays after a German air attack on Belfast, 33animals (lions, bears, etc., but not theelephants) were shot at Belfast Zoo (“Belfastzoo,” 2009, March 23); the zoo itself was neverhit.

The widespread fear that air attacks might freedangerous animals from zoos was even used fora German movie, appropriately entitled Panik(Panic). Harry Piel, a well-known actor anddirector, started shooting the movie in 1940;the plot about a bombed zoo was soon reportedin the official Nazi newspaper Völkischer

Beobachter (Hacker, 1940, October 13). Anarticle about the Japanese government symbol,the kiri, or Paulownia tree, appeared on thesame page, so it is even possible that thisinformation found its way to Japan.

Garbled information from Berlin certainlyreached Ueno Zoo one year later. Not for thefirst time, Berlin had been attacked by Britishbombers on the night of September 7-8, 1941.Shortly thereafter a reporter from the Japanesenewspaper Asahi Shinbun told Fukuda thatduring this attack the elephants in the BerlinZoo had been killed and that other animals hadhad to be shot (Fukuda, 1982, 81). However,the one time in 1941 that bombs fell on BerlinZoo, an antelope was the only animal to die(Heck, 1952, 142-143). The elephants andmany other animals in Berlin Zoo were killed bythe air attacks of November 22 and 23, 1943,and the BBC at the time reported incorrectlythat animals had escaped from the zoo duringthe bombardment and had been machine-gunned in the streets (Heck, 1952, 168).3

Preparing for Emergency in Japan:1941-1942

Japan in 1941 still did not really feel as if itwere at war. Fighting in China continued, butdid not have much of an impact on Japan itself.However, supply problems emerged, and warwith the United States was on the horizon.Preparations had to begin.

Besides intensifying air-raid drills, Ueno Zoodecided to economize. While director Koga wasin Manchukuo (Fukuda, 1982, 92), it wasdecided on February 18, most likely by Fukuda,to shoot four bears thought to be surplus(Fukuda, 1982, 76).4 A couple of months laterKoga, who had returned to Japan in themeantime, was drafted, and Fukuda becameacting director on August 1, 1941 (Fukuda,1982, 92).

Only just appointed, he was asked by theregional veterinary department of the army to

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

4

present a plan on how to deal with thepossibility of animals escaping during an airattack (Ueno, 1982a, 165). On August 11, 1941,he submi t ted h i s “Genera l P lan forExtraordinary Measures in Zoos”, covering notonly Ueno Zoo, but also Inokashira Zoo andHibiya Park in Tokyo (Tōkyō-to Onshi UenoDōbutsuen, 1982b, 729-732; this source will beabbreviated as “Ueno, 1982b” in the following).

According to this plan, the zoo animals weredivided into four categories5: bears, the bigcats, coyotes, striped hyenas, wolves,hippopotami, American bison, elephants,monkeys (mainly Hamadryas baboons), andpoisonous snakes were listed in category one(“most dangerous animals”). In category two(“less dangerous animals”) could be foundraccoons, badgers, foxes, giraffes, moremonkeys, kangaroos, crocodiles, deer, eagles,and emus. Category three (“domestic animalsin general”) included water buffaloes, goats,turkeys, pigs, and so on, while category four(“else”) explicitly mentioned only songbirds andturtles.

The preferred means of dealing with theseanimals was to be poison. A table was attachedto the report, detailing the amounts ofstrychnine nitrate or potassium cyanidedeemed necessary to kill the animals in the firstthree categories, including the exact doses foreach of the three e lephants , for thehippopotami and for the snakes. If there wasnot enough time to administer the poison, twoWinchester rifles and keepers trained to shootthe animals would have to be used. However,because shooting might negatively affect“people’s hearts” and other animals at the zoo,and was considered less effective, this was tobe strictly the fallback method.

When the air-raid alarm sounded, the “GeneralPlan” called for preparations to begin fordealing with the animals of categories one andtwo. At the commencement of the air raid thesepreparations should have been completed and

preparations for dealing with the animals ofcategory three should be started. Depending onwhether or not the attack resulted in orthreatened to cause damages to the zoo, theanimals of category one and two should bedealt with in that order; if necessary, thiswould extend to the animals of category three.

As a precaution, Fukuda also asked the localdetachment of the Kenpeitai if they werewilling to provide assistance in case of anemergency; they agreed and inspected the zooin order to be prepared for such an event.

The first chance to implement at least someprovisions of the August 11 plan came only in1942. On March 5, the air-raid sirens brieflysounded, but nothing happened except that thevisitors were asked to wait outside until theend of the alert (Ueno, 1982b, 734). On April18, 1942, in the “Doolittle Raid”, the firstAmerican air attack on the Japanese mainislands, 16 B-25 bombers started from anaircraft carrier and attacked Tokyo and someother places (Chun, 2006). Ueno Zoo remainedunharmed, but one of the American planes flewquite low overhead (Fukuda, 1982, 83-84). Inhis official report (Ueno, 1982b, 734-735),Fukuda claimed that stage 2 of his 1941 planhad been completed when the plane wasspotted, i.e., preparations to deal with theanimals in categories one and two had beencompleted, but there is no mention of this in hismemoirs. According to Fukuda, another, albeitfalse, alarm on April 19 also led to thecompletion of stage 2 of his plan (Ueno, 1982b,735).

Soon, everyone assumed that the attack ofApril 18 would remain an isolated case–in fact,the next attack on Tokyo occurred only onNovember 24, 1944– and life returned tonormal in this regard. In the case of Ueno Zoo,which celebrated its 60th anniversary in 1942,visitor numbers remained close to recordnumbers, with 3,077,435 paying visitors;soldiers, for example, did not have to pay

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

5

(Ueno, 1982a, 167).

The Slaughter and the Memorial Service:August and September 1943

By summer 1943, the military situation hadchanged dramatically for Japan. Except inChina, it was now retreating on most of thefronts. Even in Japan itself, propaganda hadchanged from katta, katta (We’ve won, we’vewon) (Ueno, 1982a, 157) to kessen (decisivebattle) and its homonym kessen (bloody battle)(Earhart, 2008, 375). Commodity shortagesreally began to hurt, as can be seen in variousdrives to procure metals from all possiblesources, including from the benches at UenoZoo (Ueno, 1982b, 737). For those Japaneseleaders familiar with and objective about thesituation, it became necessary to prepare thepopulation for more hardships. As part of suchmeasures, Tokyo city and Tokyo prefecturewere merged into Tokyo metropolis, and a newgovernor, Ōdachi Shigeo, started work on July1, 1943 (Ueno, 1982a, 168).

On August 16, 1943, Fukuda was called intothe office of Inoshita Kiyoshi, the section chieffor Tokyo’s public parks and thus his immediatesuperior. There he also met Koga who, after atour-of-duty in South-East Asia, had returned toteach at the Army Veterinary School in Tokyo.Fukuda noted in his diary (quoted in Ueno,1982a, 170): “... the section chief told us, onthe basis of an order by the governor, to kill theelephants and wild beasts [mōjū] by shooting.(Killing by poison)”.

Koga wrote in his memoir Dōbutsu to watashi(Animals and I; serialized in the monthlyjournal Ueno; quoted in Ueno, 1982a, 170-171):

At the time I felt ‘Oh, finally thingshave come to this’ ... Concerningthis decision we could do nothingbut hang our heads. Although Iheard this afterwards, it wasbecause at the time people all still

thought the war would be won. ButŌdachi, who had been mayor ofSingapore ... before becominggovernor of Tokyo, seems to havealready known the true warsituation. When he returned to themotherland to become governor ofTokyo and saw the attitude of thepeople, he seems to have feltkeenly that he had to open thepeople’s eyes to the fact that thiswas not the way to go, that warwas not such an easy affair. AndŌdachi chose to give the peoplethe warning not by expressing it inwords, but by the disposal of thezoo’s wild beasts.

That Ōdachi had ordered the slaughter wasalso reported in 1954 in Tosei jūnen shi (Tenyears history of metropolitan government;quoted in Hasegawa, 2000, 21-22). Accordingto this source, Ōdachi ordered the zoo officialsto kill the animals to “shock” Tokyo’s residents.It was also argued that, no matter how vigilantthe zoo would be, the residents of Tokyo wouldstill fear an escape by wild beasts in case of anair attack.

Although Fukuda brought a list of the animalsto be killed to the meeting on August 16(Fukuda, 1982, 96), he initially attempted tosave at least some of his charges.6 On August17 he noted in his diary (quoted in Ueno,1982a, 171) that after a phone call with thesection chief, who forbid him to travel toNagoya's Higashiyama Zoo or Sendai Zoo, hesent letters to the directors of these zoosasking whether they would accept two leopardsand two black leopards in Nagoya and oneelephant (see below) in Sendai (Ueno, 1982b,738). However, the idea of evacuating animalswas dismissed by Ōdachi on August 23, eventhough Sendai Zoo was already preparing thetransfer (Ueno, 1982a, 172). For Ōdachi thepoint was not to save the animals, it was to

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

6

rouse the people of Tokyo (Miller, 2008). Butdid anyone consider presenting the evacuationof the animals, especially the elephants sobeloved by children, as a good example for theevacuation of the children that would surelybecome necessary in the case of sustained airattacks?

On the same day he sent the letters to Nagoyaand Sendai, Fukuda also started following hisorders. These seem to have included theprovision that the disposal would have to befinished within a month (Fukuda, 1982, 96). Asto the method, according to Fukuda (1982, 96),shooting the animals was not allowed becausethe noise might worry the residents around thezoo. However, the entry in his diary, which firstsays shasatsu (killing by shooting) and onlylater and in parentheses dokusatsu (killing withpoison), sheds doubt on whether this detailactually originated from the governor’s office.Fukuda himself had stated in his plan two yearsago that poisoning was preferable to shooting.On the other hand, he does not seem to havehad any problems when the four bears wereshot in February 1941. With the zoo being openevery day, moreover, the disappearance ofmore and more iconic animals could not becovered up for very long, despite notice boardsabout “construction work” being set up onAugust 28 (Ueno, 1982a, 176). And finally,killing the animals was meant to become knownto the public anyway, otherwise it would nothave fulfilled its propaganda purpose. While itseems to have been universally accepted thatshooting the animals was not an option, thereremain grave doubts.

Concerning the methods actually employed tokill the animals, there are some discrepanciesbetween the official documents (Fukuda’s finalreport of September 27, 1943, is reprinted inUeno, 1982b, 739-740), where only poisoningand starving are mentioned, Fukuda’s memoir(Fukuda, 1982, 96-98) and the description inthe history of Ueno Zoo (Ueno, 1982a, 173-177,180). The following is based on the two latter

sources; the elephants will be treatedseparately:

August 17: a North Manchurianbrown bear and an Asian blackbear (Japanese) were poisoned (thepoison, strychnine nitrate, wasprovided by the Army VeterinarySchool and was mixed into thefood);August 18: a lion, a leopard, andan Asian black bear (Korean) werepoisoned;August 19: a North Manchurianbrown bear was given poison, thenthe coup de grâce was deliveredwith a lance;August 21: an Asian black bear(Korean) was given poison, thenstabbed; another Asian black bear(Japanese) had not been fed forthree days already and wasstrangled with a rope whilesleeping; 7

August 22 : two l i ons werepoisoned, the tiger and the cheetahwere killed (no further informationis provided);August 24: a polar bear died,presumably of starvation;August 26: a black leopard and aleopard were poisoned; the head ofthe rattlesnake was pierced withwire, then a heated wire was tiedaround the neck and pulled, butthe snake did not die until the nextmorning, after 16 hours, when athin cord was used around theneck;August 27: the head of the python,who had been fed two rabbits noteven a week ago,8 was cut off andshe died after a while; the sun bearwas poisoned; a black leopard anda leopard were strangled with wirerope;

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

7

August 29: a polar bear, who hadnot yet died of starvation, wasstrangled with a wire; an Americanbison was roped and killed byblows to the head from a pickaxeand a hammer;September 1: the second Americanbison was killed in the same way asthe first;September 11: a leopard cub, whohad only been born in March, waspoisoned.

In total, 24 animals (plus three elephants) werekilled. After necropsies at the Army VeterinarySchool (Ueno, 1982b, 740-741) the carcasseswere stuffed or skinned, the bones to beinterred at the zoo’s monument for deadanimals (Komori, 1997, chapter 13); a few wereburied immediately.

On September 2, the metropolitan governmentofficials sent a notice to newspapers about the“disposal” of the wild beasts at Ueno Zoo andthe intention to hold a memorial service(ireisai) for them on September 4 (Ueno,1982a, 177). This event was not only attendedby several high-ranking Tokyo officials, amongthem the governor himself, but also byhundreds of school children, who had beenspecif ical ly targeted as an audience(Hasegawa, 2000, 23).

A newspaper for children, the“Shōkokumin shinbun”, reports on the

memorial service

The animals, people were told, were martyrsfor the country. As section chief Inoshitaexplained (Ueno, 1982a, 177): “I want you tothink deeply about the severity of the situationthat made such extraordinary measuresnecessary.” Or as acting zoo director Fukudatold the Mainichi shinbun (Zen mōjū, 1943,September 5):

At a t ime of decis ive batt le[kessen] , this is actually anunavoidable measure that mustnatural ly be taken. . . . [Theanimals] went to their deaths to let

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

8

the people know in silence aboutthe unavoidability of air attacks. ...The method of disposal? Although Idon’t really want to talk about itanymore ... the carnivores weregiven poison. The others weredisposed of by appropriate means....

What seems to have been left somewhat vaguewas the direct connection between any airattacks in the future and the need to killanimals “prophylactically” now. Their“martyrdom”, however, fit in well with thebeginning of the gyokusai ("shattering like ajewel"), or death with honor, propagandacelebrating suicidal behavior at the front, firstencountered after the loss of Attu, one of theAleutian islands, in May 1943 (Earhart, 2008,375ff.). Killing zoo animals prophylacticallywas not unique to Japan, but using this as apropaganda spectacle–in fact, timing it forpropaganda reasons and not because of anyimpending attack–was highly unusual, to saythe least. In other countries, such methodswould probably have been seen as defeatist orat best useless.

Were they useless in Japan? One of thechildren’s letters that poured in from all overJapan gave vent to a rage about “America andBritain that caused these animals to be killed”(Fukuda, 1982, 102). But other children simplypitied the animals–and the keepers that had tokill them (Fukuda, 1982, 102). In the end, itprobably did not make an iota of difference forTokyo’s, to say nothing about Japan’s,preparedness for the reality of air attacks.Showing Harry Piel’s movie Panik, finished atthat time but promptly banned for being toorealistic in its depiction of air attacks(Bleckman, 1992, chapter “Keine Panik”),might have been more effective, but at thattime Japan did not import movies anymore.

Starving the Elephants: August andSeptember 1943

Elephants had been a sensation in Japan forquite some time. In 1728, an elephant fromVietnam was brought from Nagasaki to theTokugawa shōgun in Edo with an entourage of“no fewer than seventeen people at itssmallest” (Miller, 2005, 281). At Ueno Zoo, too,elephants were extremely popular with the zoovisitors. After the Great Kantō Earthquake, theImperial Household Ministry had decided tohave the elephant at Ueno Zoo shot byTokugawa Yoshichika, a marquis and famoushunter, to preempt the animal, considered ill-tempered, from causing damage after anotherearthquake. (At the time Ueno Zoo was stillimperial.) The marquis, however, declined toshoot him because he had been a present fromthe King of Siam in 1888. The elephant wasthen taken in at Hanayashiki Park in nearbyAsakusa, where he died in 1932, chained on allfour legs (Komori, 1997, chapter 8).

In 1924, Ueno Zoo was given to Tokyo city as a“gift” commemorating the marriage of crownprince Hirohito. But there were no elephantsand the elephant house stood empty, so inOctober Tokyo city bought a male and a femaleIndian elephant: Jon (“John”, about six yearsold) and Tonkī (“Tonky”, about four years old).Both were used to humans and were trained todo tricks, but John later became somewhataggressive and rarely performed for the visitors(Komori, 1997, chapter 9).

In June 1935 , the Tha i S ta te You thOrganization presented Ueno Zoo with anotherfemale elephant, named Hanako in Japan, butalso called Wanli or variations thereof,presumably a reflection of her original Thainame (Fukuda, 1982, 59). These threeelephants, especially Tonky, became among themain attractions of Ueno Zoo, and not only forchildren.

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

9

Wanli (left) and Tonky (right) in August1943, shortly before they were “disposed

of”

As discussed above, the three elephants weredeemed especially dangerous in case of airattacks in Fukuda’s plan of August 11, 1941, soit was no surprise that the slaughter shouldinclude the elephants. But in John’s case, thedeath sentence was already pronounced beforethe meeting of August 16, 1943. He had beenaggressive again and his front feet had alreadybeen chained. Shooting him was not consideredan option as this would have caused the publicto become uneasy (but see above), so he wasput on a starvation course9 on August 13 basedon an earlier understanding between Fukudaand Inoshita (Fukuda, 1982, 108; Ueno, 1982a,170)10.

John has collapsed on August 17, 1943

When Fukuda tried to save some animals, theonly elephant he really cared about was Tonky(Fukuda, 1982, 98), whom he wanted to send toSendai Zoo. After this attempt failed, accordingto Fukuda’s memoir (1982, 99),

at first, it was decided for theArmy Veterinary School to takeresponsibility and proceed withmeasures concerning only theelephants, who were to be used asreference material. They decidedto try to use potatoes injected withpotassium cyanide and injectionswith strychnine nitrate. However,the elephant(s?) soon noticedwhich potatoes were poisoned andthrew them back.11 Even thoughthe injection was made behind theears , where the sk in i s the

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

10

thinnest, the needle broke and thusthe objective could not be attained.Therefore, the Army VeterinarySchool said that they wouldwithdraw. For the zoo thereremained only the method ofstopping to feed, i.e., starvingthem.

These attempts should have been made on orabout August 24. That John died on August 2912

and that Hanako and Tonky began to bestarved on August 25 is mentioned only later onthe same page.

Yet there are several problems with this story.First, it does not correspond with the versionFukuda gave in his Dōbutsu monogatari (ZooStories, published in 1957 and quoted in Ueno,1982a, 177-179). Neither the Army VeterinarySchool nor any attempt at injecting theelephants with poison is mentioned there atthis stage; only the potato story is recounted.Moreover, Fukuda gives the impression thatstarvation began for all three elephants a daylater.

In addition, in his memoir Fukuda (1982, 73)noted on December 14, 1939: “The elephantTonky is unwell and given an injection.” Ittherefore seems that this means of delivery wasavailable after all.

The 100 Years History of Ueno Zoo does notquote anything about such attempts by theArmy Veterinary School during August 1943from Fukuda’s diary, although mention is madethere of talks with Army Veterinary Schoolpeople, e.g., on August 23 (Ueno, 1982a, 172).Instead, the diary entry for August 25 refers toan offer by phone from Koga Tadamichi to letthe Army Veterinary School kill the elephantsby three different methods for researchpurposes because elephants might becomeuseful for the military. When Fukuda discussedthis with the section chief, Inoshita told him notto evade his responsibility (Ueno, 1982a, 175).

According to Fukuda’s diary (Ueno, 1982a,180), the people from the Army VeterinarySchool did come on September 14, when onlyTonky was still alive. They tried to make Tonkydrink water laced with potassium cyanide, butfailed, then took blood (saiketsu shite) andleft.13 Whether any attempt was made to feedall or some of the elephants poisoned potatoesis left open. In his memoir Fukuda (1982, 100)claims this was attempted unsuccessfully(again) and that Koga had taken the initiativeto hasten Tonky’s end.

All this points to one conclusion: From thebeginning Fukuda intended to starve John todeath. How he initially intended to deal withHanako remains vague; perhaps she was giventhe poisoned potatoes. When the attempt tosend Tonky away failed, her fate was sealed aswell.14 Only after Hanako’s death on September1 1 , t h o u g h t t o h a v e b e e n d u e t oautointoxication (Ueno, 1982a, 179), did thepeople of the Army Veterinary School attemptto kill Tonky by poisoning her water. Yet, if itwas possible to take blood from her, and if ithad been possible to give Tonky an injection acouple of years earlier, why couldn’t they, orrather why wouldn’t they, inject her (and Johnand Hanako) with poison? And why, back in1941, had Fukuda confidently listed theamounts of strychnine nitrate and potassiumcyanide needed to kill each of the elephants if itwould not have been technically possible?Instead of having no choice but to starve theelephants, injecting them with poison wassimply not attempted. As discussed, shootingthe elephants would have been feasible, too.Even if there had been a direct order by thegovernor not to shoot the animals, one couldalways have argued, in the elephants’ case,that they were beginning to go wild and simplyhad to be shot.

Two further points need to be made: Thememorial service for the slaughteredanimals–including all three elephants!–onSeptember 4 was held while Hanako and Tonky

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

11

were still starving–literally a stone’s throwaway. The elephant house had been covered atthat time with a striped bunting (Ueno, 1982a,177).

The memorial service on September 4,1943; notice the striped bunting

And no source mentions whether the elephantsmade any noise, especially after being officiallydead. One might think that a hungry and thirstyelephant trumpeting would be as loud as agunshot–and the zoo was open to visitors daily.

Tonky was the last to die. After four weeks ofhunger and, as it is reported, repeatedattempts to get food by showing off her tricks,she died on September 23, 1943. In what lookslike an established modus operandi, however,she was not the last animal at Ueno Zoo to beintentionally starved to death.

Starving the Hippopotami: March and April1945

The supply situation became critical as the warturned relentlessly towards the Japanese mainislands. At Ueno Zoo, food and fuel also becameever more difficult to obtain. At several pointsafter the slaughter of August/September 1943,zoo animals were killed to be used as food(Ueno, 1982a, 189) or died because of a lack offood and heating. Even the doves were "dealtwith" in spring 1945 by no longer feeding them

(Fukuda, 1982, 105); 35 cranes and other birdsand two Reeves's Muntjacs were "disposed of"on April 21, 1945 (Ueno, 1982a, 195).

The animals that had survived the slaughterand consumed the greatest amount of foodwere the hippopotami. One male died from agastrointestinal inflammation on March 18,1944, but the female Kyōko (at Ueno Zoo since1919) and the male she had borne at the zoo in193715 remained alive. After the devastating airraid on Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945,Fukuda decided on March 19 to starve bothdue to lack of food (Ueno, 1982a, 194; Fukuda,1982, 105). Neither source gives any indicationwhether alternative methods to kill them wereattempted, or at least contemplated. The maledied on April 1, and Kyōko only on April 24(Ueno, 1982a, 194).

Kyōko and her child

It might again be instructive to look at anexample from a society as brutalized as theJapanese was at the time: Soviet Leningradduring the Second World War (Ganzenmüller,2007). On September 8, 1941, the Germantroops had closed the ring around Leningradand a siege began that would last until January27, 1944. Leningrad Zoo had managed toevacuate some animals to Kazan, others – suchas the elephant Betti – died during the initialGerman bombardment in September 1941(Denisenko, 2003, 194, 202-203). However,numerous animals remained, among them

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

12

several carnivores and Krasavica (TheBeautiful), a hippopotamus. During thefollowing years, when approximately onemillion people died in Leningrad from hunger,cold or injuries, Krasavica’s keeper, Evdokia I.Dašina, kept her alive, bringing water from thenearby Neva, even stepping into the dry pool tohug the animal and calm it down. “Thus theylived until victory” (Denisenko, 2003, 206). Andso did the other animals.

Krasavica and her keeper E. I. Dašina

Aftermath: Tokyo, Nagoya, and the“Elephant Train”

The end of the war in September 1945 did notmark the end of the problems for Ueno Zoo.Not only would a scarcity of food and fuelpersist for quite some time for humans as wellas animals, but the zoo also had lost most of itsattractions. The only animals literally toweringabove the numerous ducks, pigs, goats andsome monkeys were the giraffes (Ueno, 1982a,197-198). Children who came to the zoo to seetheir beloved elephants found a propped-upwooden board cut roughly in the shape of anelephant.16 In the following years more animalsarrived and in 1948 a children’s zoo with a“monkey train” (a children’s train seeminglyoperated by a monkey) would lighten the heartsof the young visitors (Komori, 1997, chapter17), but the elephants were still sorely missed.

However, the rest of Japan had followedTokyo’s example from August and September1943. Beginning in October 1943, wild beastsand elephants were kil led in all zoos,amusement parks, and circuses, although itseems that none of the other institutions useddeliberate starvation.17 But not every zoodirector accepted the order without resistance.

In autumn 1943, the military asked the mayorof Nagoya to make sure that all dangerousanimals in Higashiyama Zoo were killed. KitaōEiichi, the zoo director, could prevent awholesale slaughter only by agreeing to thedeath of a few animals (by shooting, poisoning,and strangling), and giving two lions away.

Sti l l , public opinion, as expressed innewspapers, for example, demanded that all“dangerous” animals be disposed of. Kitaōreplied that the cages were built sturdilyenough; if they were destroyed, the animalswithin would die, too. Even while he was calleda hikokumin (treacherous citizen), usually thepoint at which people gave up resistance, hepersisted in protecting the animals.

After an American air attack on December 13,1944, however, he had to concede. Inaccordance with an order by the Ministry ofHome Affairs, military personnel and policeshot seven lions, tigers, bears and leopardswithin 45 minutes. A few days later, anothere ight bears were k i l led (Sen j ika nodōshokubutsuen, n.d.).

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

13

Lions are shot at Higashiyama Zoo in 1944

The three elephants (another one had alreadydied in February 1944) were not shot. Themilitary insisted on it, but Kitaō turned to thehead of the regional command’s armyveterinary department and succeeded in savingthe elephants. He argued that they werechained at the front feet anyway and that hewould give monthly reports on their situation,so any measures could be taken as necessary.

That the army then set up a camp within thezoo turned out to be a blessing in disguise forthe two surviving elephants, Erudo and Makanī.Kitaō’s staff was able to steal food from themilitary’s store and feed it to the elephants whothus survived the war (Zō no unmei, n.d.). Theonly other elephant still alive in Japan at thattime died in early 1946 in Kyoto (Personalcommunication, K. Kawata, November 18,2009).

In 1948, Tokyo’s children began clamoring foran elephant. Could Tokyo get one of the twosurviving elephants from Nagoya? Discussionsin January 1949 between Koga Tadamichi, whohad returned to his post as director of UenoZoo, and Kitaō in Nagoya led to the result thatHigashiyama Zoo would temporarily lend anelephant to Ueno Zoo. The elephants did notagree, however: it proved to be impossible toseparate them without Erudo hurling himselfviolently against the doors.

But if the elephant would not come to Tokyo,the children would come to the elephant. OnJune 18, 1949, the first “elephant train” wentfrom Tokyo to Nagoya, filled with childreneager to see a real elephant again, or for thefirst time (Shōwa 20 nendai, n.d.). “Elephanttrains” from all over the country converged onNagoya and it is said that more than 10,000children saw Erudo and Makanī that summer(Tetsudō shiryō Kenkyū-kai, 2003, 120).

Tokyo’s residents, though, would soon have theopportunity to see not one, but two elephants inTokyo again. On September 4, 1949, Hanako18,a young elephant from Thailand, arrived atUeno Zoo (Fukuda, 1982, 131), but waseclipsed by the gift of Indian prime ministerJawaharlal Nehru to Japan’s children as a resultof a letter campaign: an Indian elephant calledIndira. She arrived by ship on September 24and was marched in the early morning hours ofSeptember 25 to Ueno Zoo, where she wasgreeted by about 2,000 people.

The arrival of Indira in 1949, as pictured inthe anime “Zō no inai dōbutsuen”

The next day, the zoo was filled to capacitywith about 10,000 people trying to see the newelephants (Komori, 1997, 95-96) – some of themcertainly hoping that the past would not repeatitself.

Conclusions

The slaughter of animals at Ueno Zoo in 1943was a tragedy that probably could not havebeen avoided entirely by the zoo’s actingdirector, Fukuda Saburō, but could certainly

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

14

have been alleviated. As has been shown,similar “prophylactic killings” occurred outsideJapan, although rarely. The sources that pointto the governor of Tokyo, Ōdachi Shigeo,ordering the slaughter are credible. Hismotivation remains difficult to understand,although the dilemma mentioned by Hasegawa(2000, 25) and Miller (2008) between alertingthe population of the dangers to come and stillaccepting the military’s propaganda and notsounding defeatist was real. Yet Hasegawa(2000, 26) is also correct in noting that a muchbetter way would have been to disabuse thepopulation of the notion that hand-dug air-raidshelters and a water bucket and a broom asfire-fighting equipment would be valid defensesagainst incendiary bombs, and to really preparethe city for the worst.

Fukuda comes across as quite deferential to hissuperiors, even anticipating their order in thecase of John, although he seems to have tried tosave at least Tonky and some leopards. But, asKitaō’s example illustrates, there might havebeen one other avenue for him: talking directlyto the army. Koga Tadamichi’s stance, however,is disappointing, too, in this context. I havedeliberately not commented on the actions ofthe zoo keepers for there is no doubt that theultimate power to make decisions within thezoo rested with Fukuda.19

What is inexcusable, in my opinion, is hischoice of methods of killing: not shooting thoseanimals that could not be poisoned, and tostarve to death the three elephants, one Polarbear and, in 1945, the two hippopotami. Farfrom being the only option, this most cruel ofmethods could have easily been avoided. WhyFukuda chose to do so is d i f f icu l t tounderstand. This is the black hole in thedarkest chapter of Ueno Zoo’s history.

And the animals themselves? They werereduced to objects to be used for propaganda,especially directed at children. And theirdeaths continue to be used for propaganda

aimed at children, this time for “peace”. Oftendepicted in harrowing detail, yet deeplysentimentalized, their story is meant to showhow horrible war can be (e.g., Tsuchiya &Takebe, 2009).

The new memorial (erected in 1975) foranimals that died in Ueno Zoo

Fukuda Saburō is portrayed as he wanted tosee himself: a man distraught with grief aboutbeing forced by orders and circumstancesbeyond his control to manage the slaughter inthis particular way (e.g., Kōno & Terada, 2007;Ueno, 1982a, 182). After all, such were thetimes, as his successor Komori Atsushi claims(Tanabe & Kaji, 1982, 35). Yet, there had beenalternatives, and the animals died anunnecessary, and often unnecessarily cruel,death. Until it is understood that the story ofUeno Zoo’s slaughtered animals illuminatesless the nature of war, but rather some humanbeings’ moral failure, this will remain aninstance of not coming to terms with the past.

Frederick S. Litten earned an M.A. in sinologyand a Dr.rer.nat. in history of science, bothfrom Ludwig-Maximilians-University,Munich/Germany. His current researchinterests cover anime and manga. He works atthe Bavarian State Library as an expert on

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

15

microfilmed archival documents and can bereached at f@litten.de. His website is here(http://litten.de/engl.htm).

Recommended citation: Frederick S. Litten,"Starving the Elephants: The Slaughter ofAnimals in Wartime Tokyo’s Ueno Zoo," TheAsia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 38-3-09, September21, 2009.

Reference List

Asakusa Hanayashiki (n.d.). In Wikipedia(http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%B5%85%E8%8D%89%E8%8A%B1%E3%82%84%E3%81%97%E3%81%8D&oldid=27557290). Retrieved on September 3, 2009.Barrington-Johnson, J. (2005). The Zoo. Thestory of London Zoo. London: Robert Hale.Belfast zoo searching to identity[!]‚ 'ElephantAngel’ (2009, March 23). Belfast Telegraph(http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/belfast-zoo-searching-to-identity-lsquoelephant-angelrsquo-14238942.html ).Retrieved September 3, 2009.Bleckman, M. (1992). Harry Piel. Ein Kino-Mythos und seine Zeit [Harry Piel. A cinemamyth and his time]. Düsseldorf: Filminstitut derLandeshauptstadt Düsseldorf.Chun, C. K. S. (2006). The Doolittle Raid 1942.America’s first strike back at Japan. Oxford :Osprey.Denisenko, E. E. (2003). Ot zverincev kzooparky. Istoriya Leningradskogo zooparka[From menagerie to zoological garden. Historyof Leningrad Zoological Garden]. Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo-SPB.Earhart, D. C. (2008). Certain victory. Imagesof World War II in the Japanese media. Armonk,NY: M. E. Sharpe.Fukuda, S. (1982). Jitsuroku Ueno Dōbutsuen[Chronicle of Ueno Zoo; originally published in1968]. In Zenshū Nihon dōbutsu shi [Completeanimal writings of Japan] (vol. 4, pp. 3-143).Tokyo: Kodansha.Ganzenmüller, J. (2007). Das belagerteLeningrad 1941-1944. Die Stadt in den

Strategien von Angreifern und Verteidigern[Leningrad under siege, 1941-1944. The city inthe strategies of attackers and defenders] (2nded.). Paderborn: Schöningh.Gordon, A. (2003). A modern history of Japan.From Tokugawa times to the present. NewYork: Oxford University Press.Gottschlich, E. (2000). Wiedereröffnung undZerstörung (1928-1945) [Re-opening and de-struction]. In M. Kamp & H. Zedelmaier (Eds.).Nilpferde an der Isar. Eine Geschichte desTierparks Hellabrunn in München [Hippos bythe Isar. A history of the Hellabrunn zoologicalgarden in Munich] (pp. 112-138). München:Buchendorfer.Hacker, H. (1940, October 13). Nummer 105:Harry Piel in Hellabrunn [Number 105: HarryPiel in Hellabrunn]. Völkischer Beobachter, p.17.Hasegawa, U. (2000). Zō mo kawaisō. Mōjūgyakusatsu shinwa hihan [The elephants arepitiful, too. A critique of the myths concerningthe slaughter of wild beasts] (originallypublished in Kikan jidō bungaku hihan[Quarterly critique of children’s literature], nr.1, September 1981]. In U. Hasegawa. Sensōjidō bungaku ha shinjitsu wo tsutaetekita ka[Has children’s l i terature on the wartransmitted the truth?] (pp. 8-30). Tokyo:Nashinokisha.Heck, L. (1952). Tiere – Mein Abenteuer.Erlebnisse in Wildnis und Zoo [Animals – Myadventure. Experiences in wilderness and zoo.]Wien: Ullstein.Johnston, W. (2005). Geisha, harlot, strangler,star. A woman, sex, and morality in modernJapan. New York: Columbia University Press.Kawabata, A., & Vandergrift, K. E. (1998).History into myth. The anatomy of a picturebook. Bookbird, 36 (2), 6-12.Kawata, K. (2001a). Ueno Zoological Garden. InC. E. Bell (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the world’szoos (vol. 3, pp. 1273-1276). Chicago, IL:Fitzroy Dearborn.Kawata, K. (2001b). Zoological Gardens ofJapan. In V. N. Kisling (Ed.). Zoo and aquariumhistory: ancient animal collections to zoological

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

16

gardens (pp. 295-330). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Komori, A. (1997). Mō hitotsu no UenoDōbutsuen shi [Once more a history of UenoZoo]. Tokyo: Maruzen.Kōno, K. (director), & Terada, T. (script)(2007). Zō no Hanako [The Elephants Hanako;TV drama]. Japan: Fuji TV, Kyōdō TV.Maeda, Y. (director), & Saitō, H. (script)(1982). Zō no inai dōbutsuen [Zoo withoutelephants; animated movie]. Japan: HeraldEntertainment, Group Tac.Miller, I. (2005). Didactic nature: Exhibitingnation and empire at the Ueno ZoologicalGardens. In G. M. Pflugfelder & B. L. Walker(Eds.). JAPANimals: History and culture inJapan’s animal life (pp. 273-313). Ann Arbor,MI: Center for Japanese Studies.Miller, I. J. (2008, April). The Great ZooMassacre: Odachi Shigeo and the logic ofs a c r i f i c e i n w a r t i m e J a p a n(http://www.aasianst.org/absts/Japan/Japan/j-217.htm). Paper presented at the AAS AnnualMeeting, Atlanta, GA. Abstract retrieved onSeptember 3, 2009.Refugees kill zoo animals (1923, September 5).The New York Times, p. 2.Saotome, K. (1989). Sayōnara Kaba-kun[Farewell, Hippo]. Tokyo: Kinnohoshisha.Senjijū no dōbutsuen – Mōjū shobun nos h i n j i t s u w o m o t o m e t e(http://museum-jiten.com/old-zoo/ ) [Zoosduring the war – Searching for the truth aboutthe disposal of wild beasts] (n.d.). Retrieved onSeptember 3, 2009.S e n j i k a n o d ō s h o k u b u t s u e n(http://www.higashiyama.city.nagoya.jp/01_annai//01_04gaiyo/01_04-01history/01_04-01_02/01_04-01_02_07.html ) [The zoological andbotanical garden during the war] (n.d.).Retrieved on September 3, 2009.S h ō w a 2 0 n e n d a i(http://www.higashiyama.city.nagoya.jp/01_annai//01_04gaiyo/01_04-01history/01_04-01_01/01_04-01_01_03.html ) [The Shōwa 20s] (n.d.). Retrieved on September 3, 2009.Tanabe, M. (text) & Kaji, A. (illustrations).Soshite Tonkī mo shinda [And then Tonkī also

died]. Tokyo: Kokudosha.Tetsudō shiryō Kenkyū-kai (Ed.) (2003). Zō hakisha ni noreru ka [Can an elephant board atrain?]. Tokyo: JTB.Tōkyō-to Onshi Ueno Dōbutsuen (1982a). UenoDōbutsuen hyakunen shi [100 years history ofUeno Zoo]. Tokyo: Daiichi hōritsu shuppan.Tōkyō-to Onshi Ueno Dōbutsuen (1982b). UenoDōbutsuen hyakunen shi – shiryōhen [100 yearshistory of Ueno Zoo – materials]. Tokyo: Daiichihōritsu shuppan.Tsuchiya, Y. (text), & Takebe, M. (illustrations)(2009). Kawaisōna Zō [Pityful Elephants].Tokyo: Kinnohoshisha. [Originally published in1970.]Ueno (1982a) s. Tōkyō-to Onshi UenoDōbutsuen (1982a).Ueno (1982b) s. Tōkyō-to Onshi UeniDōbutsuen (1982b)Zen mōjū kaeranu tabi he [All wild animalstowards a journey of no return] (1943,September 5, evening edition). Mainichishinbun, p. 2.Z ō n o u n m e i(http://www.higashiyama.city.nagoya.jp/01_annai//01_04gaiyo/01_04-01history/01_04-01_02/01_04-01_02_08.html ) [The elephants’ fate](n.d.). Retrieved on September 3, 2009.Zoo Frankfurt am Main – Die Jahre 1874-1945(http://www.zoo-frankfurt.de/deutsch/geschichte/1874-1945.html) [Zoo Frankfurt am Main –The years 1874-1945] (n.d.). Retrieved onSeptember 3, 2009.

Notes

1 Poor Elephants, Tokyo: Kinnohoshisha, 1979;Faithful Elephants, ill. by Ted Lewin, Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1988; Fidèles éléphants,ill. by Bruce Roberts, Montréal: Les 400 Coups,2000. All these versions claim to tell a truestory, although it has long been known–andwas always evident– that at least one maincontention was wrong: Tokyo was certainly notbombed daily in 1943; in fact, it wasn’t bombedat all in that year (cf. Hasegawa, 2000, 14-16;Kawabata & Vandergrift, 1998, 7).

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

17

2 Its history is extensively covered in Ueno(1982a).3 This was certainly not the only instance ofmedia reporting fiction about escaped animals.After the Great Kantō Earthquake in 1923, theNew York Times wrote: “Men were shooting todeath wild animals which had escaped from theAsakuska[!] zoo.” (“Refugees kill,” 1923,September 5). Asakusa, a Tokyo district quitenear Ueno, had the oldest amusement park inJapan, the Hanayashiki, which also kept severalanimals such as tigers. Some animals thereburned to death–fires broke out all over Tokyoafter the earthquake–and others were poisonedto make place for refugees, but there is noreport about any having escaped and been shot(Asakusa Hanayashiki, n.d.). At Ueno Zoo theanimals were not physically harmed by theearthquake and did not escape either (Fukuda,1982, 7-8).4 In Munich’s Hellabrunn Zoo several largeherbivores had been kil led already inSeptember 1939 to save on food, other animalswere sold (Gottschlich, 2000, 132).5 I will concentrate here on Ueno Zoo and onthe details concerning the animals, leaving outaspects such as how to deal with visitors.6 Tosei jūnen shi (quoted in Hasegawa, 2000,21-22) also mentions discussions about theslaughter and the evacuation proposal;however, it is not clear whether they alreadybegan before, or only on August 16.7 According to Fukuda’s official report (Ueno,1982b, 739) and his memoirs (Fukuda, 1982,101), this happened on August 20.8 The python, the rattlesnake, two Americanbison, and the leopard cub had not been on theoriginal list (Ueno, 1982a, 173-174; Ueno,1982b, 738).9 Starvation included withholding water fromthe animals.10 This was not the first time John had not beenfed because he was “wild” (Fukuda, 1982, 72).The picture book Soshite Tonkī mo shinda (Andthen, Tonkī also died ) , based on a TVdocumentary of the same title broadcast in1982, claims that food scarcity was also cited

as a reason in the official order (Tanabe & Kaji,1982, 5).11 On June 23, 1931, Fukuda (1982, 57) notedthat John threw back potatoes that he found notsweet enough.12 The elephants’ post-mortems were carriedout within the zoo, as it would have beendifficult to transport them secretly. While Johnwas autopsied on August 30 in the elephanthouse, Hanako and Tonky were kept outside(Ueno, 1982a, 176). There seems to be noinformation on the whereabouts of Tonkyduring Hanako’s autopsy (Ueno, 1982a,179-180). It is, however, unlikely that she wasoutside the elephant house because, officially,both elephants had already been dead for morethan a week.13 Before quoting from Fukuda’s diary, the 100Years History of Ueno Zoo paraphrases hisentry of September 14, but fails to mention thetaking of a blood sample, and concludes withFukuda’s assertion that there was noalternative but to starve Tonky (Ueno, 1982a,180).1 4 Tanabe and Kaji (1982), who took upHasegawa Ushio’s critique of Kawaisōna Zō,give no reason at all why Hanako and Tonkyhad to be killed by starvation. Furthermore,only the potato and the poisoned water storiesare mentioned, but nothing is said about anyattempted injections.15 The date of birth is based on the detaileddescription in Fukuda (1982, 65-66). Ueno(1982, 194) gives 1936. Saotome (1989) callsthe young male Daitarō; according to “Senjijūno dōbutsuen” (n.d.) he was called Maru.16 This is shown, e.g., in the anime movie Zō noinai dōbutsuen (Zoo without elephants; Maeda& Saitō, 1982).17 An overview of “disposals of wild beasts” inJapan during the Second World War is given onthe website “Senjijū no dōbutsuen” (n.d.).18 The earlier Hanako had been written with thekanji “hana” (flower) and “ko” (child), whereasthis Hanako was written with the hiraganasyllables “ha” and “na” and the kanji “ko”(child).

APJ | JF 7 | 38 | 3

18

19 The 100 Years History of Ueno Zoo hints at keepers refusing to get involved in theelephants’ disposal (Ueno, 1982a, 175).