OCR Specification focus:
‘the development of militarism and ideas of pan-Asianism: the Manchuria incident 1931 and its effects, the coup of 1936; increasing military influence over Imperial policy making and the outbreak of’
The rise of militarism and pan-Asianism in Japan between 1931 and 1937 reshaped the nation’s political landscape, driving expansionism, instability, and the growing dominance of the military elite.
Development of Militarism in Japan
During the 1920s, Japan had experienced fragile democracy, but growing dissatisfaction eroded trust in parliamentary government. By the early 1930s, militarism—the belief that military strength should dominate politics and society—became central to national policy.
Key Factors Behind Militarism
Economic hardship: The Great Depression devastated Japan’s economy, particularly exports such as silk. This created desperation for overseas markets and resources.
Weak civilian governments: Short-lived cabinets and perceived corruption reduced faith in party politics.
Cultural tradition: The military was historically revered under the bushidō ethic (samurai code of loyalty, honour, and sacrifice).
National security: Many feared Western encirclement, leading to calls for military assertiveness.
Militarism: A political and social ideology advocating the primacy of the military in national life, emphasising strength, discipline, and expansion.
The army and navy increasingly positioned themselves as the true guardians of national destiny, claiming they acted in the Emperor’s name.
Pan-Asianism and Expansionist Ideology
Closely linked to militarism was pan-Asianism, the belief in uniting Asia under Japanese leadership, liberating it from Western imperialism.
Features of Pan-Asianism
Advocated Japan’s leadership of a new Asian order.
Justified expansion into neighbouring territories as “protection” rather than aggression.
Promoted Emperor-centred nationalism, with Hirohito as a divine figure embodying unity.
Reinforced the myth that Japan had a moral duty to guide “weaker” Asian nations.
This ideology provided a moral and political justification for territorial expansion and aggressive diplomacy.
Pan-Asianism: The ideology that Asian nations should unite under Japan’s leadership to resist Western dominance and achieve shared prosperity.
The Manchurian Incident, 1931
The Manchurian Incident marked a turning point. On 18 September 1931, Japanese officers staged the Mukden Incident, a fabricated railway sabotage, and used it to justify full occupation of Manchuria.
Library of Congress map foregrounding rail corridors and Japanese colonial settlement across Manchuria/Manchukuo in the 1930s. It helps connect occupation with economic and strategic control. The image includes extra details on colonies; emphasise the main rail axes and cities. Source
Immediate Consequences
The army acted without government approval, demonstrating its autonomy.
Manchuria was transformed into the puppet state of Manchukuo in 1932, with Emperor Puyi of China installed as its nominal ruler.
The civilian government in Tokyo proved powerless to restrain the army.
International Reaction
The League of Nations condemned Japan’s actions and issued the Lytton Report, criticising the invasion.
Japan withdrew from the League in 1933, symbolising its rejection of international cooperation.
Western criticism reinforced domestic narratives that Japan was encircled and misunderstood, strengthening militarist resolve.
The Coup Attempt of 1936
Militarist radicals continued to undermine civilian authority. On 26 February 1936, junior army officers staged a coup attempt in Tokyo.
Rebel troops guard Hanzōmon Gate at the outset of the 26 February Incident. The photograph captures the militarists’ bid to purge civilian leaders and impose direct imperial rule. Source
The Coup Events
Approximately 1,400 troops occupied government buildings and assassinated key officials, aiming to purge “corrupt” politicians.
They sought direct rule under the Emperor, inspired by radical nationalist movements such as the Cherry Blossom Society.
Although the coup failed, its suppression was cautious, revealing the government’s weakness in confronting the military.
Significance
Senior military leaders distanced themselves from the coup, but sympathy for its goals was widespread in the army.
Political parties were further weakened, as fear of the military prevented strong resistance.
The incident marked a shift: the military gained greater control over government, especially over cabinet appointments.
Increasing Military Influence over Imperial Policy
By the mid-1930s, the military had entrenched itself in Japanese politics.
Mechanisms of Influence
Army and navy ministers were required for cabinets to function; without their participation, governments collapsed.
Military officials pressured the Emperor and the Privy Council, shaping foreign and defence policy.
Radical young officers pushed for expansion into China and beyond, presenting aggression as a national necessity.
Policy Outcomes
Japan prioritised military spending over civilian needs.
Aggressive diplomacy accelerated, targeting Northern China and preparing for full-scale conflict.
Civilian opposition was muted, as dissent was framed as betrayal of national duty.
Towards War and Imperial Expansion
The combined effects of militarism and pan-Asianism paved the way for open conflict:
1931–1933: Seizure of Manchuria and withdrawal from the League of Nations.
1936: Coup attempt consolidating military dominance.
1937: Outbreak of full war with China following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.
These developments reflected the outbreak of Japanese expansionism, driven by militarist ideology, economic desperation, and the belief in Japan’s divine mission to lead Asia.
FAQ
Emperor Hirohito was often portrayed as a divine figure embodying national unity. While he did not actively direct policy, his symbolic authority legitimised the military’s actions.
The army claimed to act in his name, which made opposition appear as disloyalty to the Emperor himself. Hirohito’s cautious responses, such as acquiescence after the Manchurian Incident, reinforced perceptions that the military had his approval.
The League of Nations condemned Japan through the Lytton Report, but it lacked enforcement power.
Japan faced minimal sanctions or effective action.
Withdrawal from the League in 1933 isolated Japan but strengthened domestic narratives of victimisation.
Militarists used this as evidence that Japan could expand without serious consequences, encouraging bolder foreign policy.
Although suppressed, the coup revealed the depth of radical military discontent.
Sympathy within the armed forces ensured that punishment of rebels was relatively lenient.
Civilian politicians became more hesitant to oppose military interests for fear of violence.
It marked a shift where the army no longer needed to seize power directly; its influence over appointments and policy was effectively secured.
Manchuria was rich in natural resources critical for Japan’s industrial and military needs.
Coal and iron deposits supported heavy industry.
Fertile land offered opportunities for agricultural settlement.
Control of the South Manchuria Railway gave Japan access to transport and trade routes.
For militarists, Manchuria was a solution to both economic depression and resource insecurity.
Pan-Asianism presented Japan as the leader of an Asian order free from Western control.
This ideology justified intervention in China as a “protective” mission.
Propaganda emphasised Japan’s duty to guide its “less developed” neighbour.
It provided moral cover for aggressive expansion, framing domination as liberation.
In practice, it blurred the line between idealism and imperial exploitation.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
What was the immediate outcome of the Manchurian Incident of 1931?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying the Japanese military occupation of Manchuria.
1 mark for noting the establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo in 1932.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain two reasons why the Japanese military increased its influence over government and policy-making in the 1930s.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 3 marks per reason, with a maximum of 6 marks.
Reason 1: Weakness of civilian government (up to 3 marks)
1 mark: Identifies that civilian governments were short-lived and corrupt.
1 mark: Explains that this reduced trust in parliamentary democracy.
1 mark: Links this to the army presenting itself as the true guardian of national interests.
Reason 2: Impact of Manchurian Incident (up to 3 marks)
1 mark: Identifies that the army acted independently in seizing Manchuria.
1 mark: Explains that the civilian government was powerless to prevent this.
1 mark: Links this to the army’s increasing autonomy and dominance in policymaking.
Other valid reasons (accept up to 3 marks each, but maximum 6 overall):
The ideological appeal of militarism and pan-Asianism.
Fear of Western encirclement and the desire for security.
Popular support for military expansion during economic hardship.
