The Roots of Military Fascism in Japan

The 1930s marked a pivotal decade in Japan’s transformation into a militarized fascist state. Following the Manchurian Incident of 1931, the Japanese military increasingly dominated politics, sidelining civilian government. By the mid-1930s, the military had become the primary driver of Japan’s fascist evolution. However, deep fractures emerged within the armed forces regarding how to establish this new order.

Two competing factions arose: the Control Faction (Tōseiha) and the Imperial Way Faction (Kōdōha). The Control Faction, led by pragmatic officers like Nagata Tetsuzan, Ishiwara Kanji, and Tōjō Hideki, advocated for a top-down approach—using legal means to create a “high-defense state” under military rule. They believed the military’s growing influence made violent coups unnecessary.

In contrast, the Imperial Way Faction, spearheaded by radical officers such as Araki Sadao and Mazaki Jinzaburō, insisted on violent revolution to achieve “national renovation.” They emphasized spiritual purity over material strength, glorifying the emperor and Japan’s mythical past. Araki famously dismissed concerns about Japan’s industrial inferiority, declaring, “Why bother with material things?”

The Power Struggle Intensifies

The rivalry between these factions escalated dramatically after 1934, when the Control Faction gained dominance in the Army Ministry. Nagata Tetsuzan’s appointment as Military Affairs Bureau Chief consolidated their power, allowing them to purge Imperial Way sympathizers. This provoked fierce backlash.

In August 1935, Imperial Way officer Aizawa Saburō stormed Nagata’s office and assassinated him with a sword, shouting “Divine Punishment!” This act of terrorism exposed the military’s internal chaos. The subsequent trial became a platform for Imperial Way radicals to denounce the Control Faction as “traitors” to the emperor.

The February 26 Incident: A Failed Coup

Tensions exploded on February 26, 1936, when 1,400 Imperial Way troops staged a coup in Tokyo. They assassinated key officials (including Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo) and occupied government districts, demanding a “Shōwa Restoration” to purify Japan. However, their lack of clear plans proved fatal. Emperor Hirohito, furious at the insubordination, ordered immediate suppression. Within days, the rebellion collapsed.

The aftermath was decisive. The Control Faction executed 17 rebel leaders and purged over 1,000 Imperial Way supporters. This crackdown eradicated their rivals and cemented military control over Japan’s government.

The Triumph of the Control Faction

With the Imperial Way Faction destroyed, the Control Faction implemented its vision:
– Military Dominance: The 1936 revival of the rule requiring serving officers as Army/Navy ministers gave the military veto power over cabinets.
– War Preparations: The Fundamentals of National Policy (August 1936) mandated massive military expansion, targeting both China and Southeast Asia.
– Fascist Economics: Budgets prioritized armaments, with 1937 military spending soaring to 14 billion yen (25% of total expenditures).
– Axis Alliance: Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Nazi Germany in November 1936, aligning with European fascists.

By 1937, Japan had fully transitioned to a military-fascist state—a process distinct from Germany’s Nazi revolution. Unlike Hitler’s mass movement, Japan’s fascism emerged through elite military consolidation, exploiting the existing imperial system.

Legacy: The Path to War

The Control Faction’s victory had catastrophic consequences. Their policies directly enabled the invasion of China (1937) and the Pacific War (1941). The suppression of dissent and fusion of military-industrial power exemplified 20th-century fascism’s adaptability to different national contexts.

Historically, Japan’s experience underscores how fascism could emerge without a charismatic dictator or single-party rule—instead relying on institutional militarism and emperor-worship. The bitter factional struggles of the 1930s demonstrate that even within authoritarian systems, competing visions of ultranationalism can collide violently, with profound global repercussions.