Hello Brian,

Many apologies for the length of this response, but I think your post needs a more detailed response than has been given so far. Discussing the history of aikido is like entering a mine field and you need to be aware of this, especially in a forum like Aikiweb.

PAG. What are you trying to achieve by asking the question? Of course you can ask the question, but what kind of answers are you expecting? I think there is no direct evidence either way here. Ueshiba's art was also known by other names.

PAG. Since this goes against the evidence, cited by Amir in this thread and by Ellis Amdur in another thread, it is reasonable in a forum like this that that you be asked for the page reference. In my copy, the discussion is on Page 100:

"The outbreak of the Pacific War in December, 1941, and the increasing shift towards militarism in Japanese society could not but hinder aikido's growth. With the majority of Japan's young men being drafted into the armed forces, the number of aikido students was greatly reduced. One of the government's moves in attempting to mobilize the country for the war effort was an order to unify the diverse martial arts groups into a single body under its control. In 1942 various traditions of judo, kendo and other martial arts joined together to form the Greater Japan Martial Virtue Association.

"Although the Founder did not voice his objections to this government directive, it appeared that he as definitely unhappy that the budo he had developed as distinct from other forms was to be forced to become part of such an organization. Strongly opposed to being merged with other groups as just another martial form, he came to feel that the name Kobukan Aikibudo suggested that it was merely the Kobukan branch or style of some broader art. He decided to proclaim the new name Aikido to identify his art as a unique and distinct form of budo and then entered the association under the new name. In February, 1942, aikido was officially recognized as the name of the Founder's school. Twenty-two years had elapsed since the birth of the Ueshiba Juku in Ayabe."

Another account appears in Kisshomaru Ueshiba's biography of O Sensei, published in 1978. The relevant section is on Page 266 of the English translation (entitled, A Life in Aikido):

"New students continued coming to the dojo in Wakamatsu-cho, Ushigome, but with more and more people being called to active duty, the days of glorious expansion were certainly over. This was not the only effect of the war--government regulation and control extended its reach to include the martial arts. Aikido, at that time variously known as Aiki-Budo, Ueshiba-ryu Aiki-Budo, or Kobu-Aiki, was to be incorporated into a larger organization, the Butoku-kai, as Aikido-bu, the Aikido section. (It was at this time that O Sensei decided that he would integrate the name as "Aikido.") For this reason, until the end of the war, Aikido also used the ranking classification of Hanshi, Kyoshi, and Renshi. Frankly speaking, it was at this point that O Sensei determined to move to Iwama. He did not openly oppose the actions of the government, but his integrity would not allow the art he had built in his own lifetime, through blood, sweat and tears, to be subsumed into a mere section of a larger bureaucratic organization.

""I am not good at shuffling paper," he said. "I need to go on training." With these words, O Sensei left for Iwama, leaving Minoru Hirai, an uchideshi, in charge of general affairs at the dojo. Minoru Hirai, who has since started a group called "Dai Nihon Korindo Aikido", was adept at managing the relationship with the Budokai."

PAG. With respect, I think that the evidence provided by the book does not really allow you to come to the conclusion you have reached. Have you read the interview conducted by Stanley Pranin with Minoru Hirai in Aikido Journal #100? When I read Stanley's interview, I felt some frustration, since there were many questions Stan did not ask. This is a major problem with the interview method, by comparison with a questionnaire. With a 'free response' you cannot really assess the response with any objectivity, by making comparisons with the responses to other questions, or with different responses (by other interviewees) to the same question.

Best wishes,

PAG