Fascism In Imperial Japan

Until fairly recently, historians such as Victor Yakunoff, O Tannin, and Donald Calman” have viewed 1930s and 40s Japan as being run by an almost fascist regime, though they differed as to what extent, fascism took hold over the Japanese government in this era. While O. Tanin argued that Japan fit many of the requirements to be labelled a facist state, Yakunoff declares that due to a lack of mass movement in support of the fascist parties, Japan’s government was lacking in key characteristics that made up the fascist regimes of europe. As for Calman he too argues that Japan had been a fascist state but unlike the other historians he states that the totalitarian ideology was from its very inception present in Imperial Japan. Yet recently, …show more content…
As in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, the elites of japan graduated from similar universities and academies and the Zaibatsus’ still held political and economic control over the Japanese state. According to Kaska, Fascist movements could be described by three characteristics: antiliberalism, anti communism, and anti conservatism. While Japan’s government was anti liberal and anti communist it was not anti conservative. On the contrary even the militarists wished to preserve the authority of the emperor within the Japanese state. In regards to anti conservatism what exactly does the term mean? In fascist movements, anti conservatism takes on four characteristics:“ 1) creation of a nationalist state based not only on traditional principles and models, 2) organization of a regulated multi-class economic structure, 3) goal of radical change in relation to other powers, and 4) espousal to idealist creed in forming a new modern, self determined and secular culture.” Based on Kaska’s definition, Japan was not anti-conservative because it did not have a multi-class economic structure and it was not a secular state. Wilson agrees with Duus and contends that in Japan there was no seizure of power from below and rather there was a continuity to the political life from the 1870s to the 1940s. Wilson concedes that Japan was an authoritarian regime, but he argues that because there was no change within the Japanese government, it was never on the path to becoming a fascist state. A more scathing argument as to why Japan was not Fascist can be inferred from Gilbert Allardyce's view that fascism is just a word that has no real meaning. If fascism cannot be defined then it becomes impossible to view Japan as a fascist state. According to Allardyce, historians have argued that all fascist countries shared similar characteristics but in doing so