Japanese Imperialism
Imperialism has been described as the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and
dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other
areas. Some such as Marius B. Jansen believes that Japanese Imperialistic desire came into existence by
1880s even if they were realized only a decade later. Others such as Donald Calman believes an
imperialistic agenda was part of the Japanese society and did not sprang up as emulation of the West.
The first major war was the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 by the end of which Japan conquered Taiwan.
Korea became a protectorate after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 and a colony about five years
later. Also in 1905, Manchuria had also been annexed. In the 1930s, Japan became more aggressive,
delving more into China and the Pacific. The attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 can be considered the
event that triggered the end of the Empire of Japan. In this essay, I will be looking at the reasons why
Japan chose the Imperial path and the ideology that motivated and legitimized the route.
There exist many explanations for the advent of Imperialism. Bill Gordon uses the most widely
acknowledged four theories in the context of Japan- Hobson, Lenin, Schumpeter and Nationalism. J.A.
Hobson believes that imperialism is the agenda of organised industrial and financial interests who want
to profitably invest their surplus capital in foreign markets. Vladimir Lenin gives a similar reading but
with more Marxist colouring. He also talked about the search for raw material and markets. He calls
imperialism the "monopoly stage of capitalism," i.e. the highest and final stage of capitalism prior to the
proletarian social revolution. Joseph Schumpeter moves a little away from a fully economic
understanding. He believes that the roots of a country’s imperialism lie in its inherited social structure
which wants expansion for the sake of expanding. The scholars who emphasize on Nationalism state
that the state seeks to maximize its power, prestige, and wealth relative to other countries through
imperialism and uses public expressions of nationalism in its favour. Thus politics determines economic
relations and organization and not the other way around.
The theories of Hobson and Lenin can immediately be discarded as Japan actually had a dearth of capital
and the zaibatsu (large Japanese business conglomerate) contributed little to the early expansions. The
colonies had little raw materials and accounted for very less of Japan’s economic activity. It could be
argued that Japan began colonization to get access to raw material due to its shortcomings but it ended
up having not much benefit. Schumpeter’s theory has a bit more resonance as it was the warrior class
(samurais) which took important leadership positions in the Meiji government and strongly believed in
military action. William W. Lockwood agrees to Schumpeter’s argument of there being no economic
incentive for imperialism as in this case, the colonies contributed little to the huge military and
administrative costs. Peter Duus also points out that business leaders during Japan’s early imperialistic
expansion were more interested in China rather than Taiwan and Korea which were annexed then. But
Schumpeter’s theory fails to explain why a country which isolated itself and peacefully reigned for two
and a half centuries during the Tokugawa Shogunate (1600-1868) suddenly became aggressive. Yet
Donald Calman argues that expansion has always been the goal of Japan. Even during the Tokugawa
period, there existed a whole school of expansionists.
The theory of nationalism might be the best example for Japanese imperialism. W.G. Beasley believes
the Meiji restoration led by samurais to be a national reaction to the West’s unequal treaties. Japan
wanted to escape the fate of the other Asian countries and thus decided to emulate the West to survive
in the highly competitive world. Thus it modernized quickly to catch economically with the West and
also created a strong military (rich country, strong military). Its initial conquests can be considered to be
caused by concerns for national security. The colonies also provided prestige and status at par to the
West and thus Japan was offered a seat in the League of Nations. The existing western concept of Social
Darwinism boosted Japan’s national ideal as the chosen people to lead Asia. G.C. Allen also gives
importance to the Japanese ability to rapidly assimilate new ideas and practices, to boldly execute large
projects and to train and frequently exercise capacity for organization.
On the nature of Imperialism, Peter Duus believes Japanese Imperialism was very strategic. It was based
on the fact that the nation had limited political, economic, and military resources. The thrust was
towards immediate neighbourhood and not over-continental. The expansion was deliberately planned
out by the state to fulfill its immediate strategic interests. Calman states that the primary goal of the
advance into Korea was to deny control to any other power lest Japan's own strategic position in the
region be weakened. He assumes a very invariant nature of Japanese Imperialism. But Duus continues
that it began as a security concern but later also included the security concerns and internal problems of
its outlying buffer areas, thus feeding infinite expansion. Yet this is not to say that Japanese Imperialism
was deliberate; it was situational.
Most theories of imperialism have a Western bias i.e. they were created in explanation for Western
Imperialism. Japanese Imperialism cannot be explained mono-causally. Lockwood does state that
different groups had different reasons to support imperialism. But most Japanese did have mystical faith
in the imperial destiny. Vincent V. Hilldrup believes that initial support for Japanese expansion came
from the samurai class in the late 19th century to counter Western imperialism. Thus deliberate decisions
were taken to procure areas. Later, in early 20th century, capitalist interest allied with the state and the
social base increased. By the 1920s, expansion was a matter of prestige. The momentum and direction
of Japanese Imperialism reflected the political struggle at home, as well as the resistance it met abroad.
Thus Calman can be criticised for assuming an unchanging nature of Japanese Imperialism. Japanese
Imperialism went through different stages from necessity for national security to Social Darwinism to
national prestige, thus developing different methods to legitimize itself. The methods of legitimacy are
evident when we study the evolving imperialist ideologies prevalent at that time.
In the case of the ideology which legitimized Japanese imperialism, Ralph H. Miwa talks about the
change from Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s divine revelation, and Yoshida Shoin and Hashimoto Sanai’s jingoism
in the early 20th century, to the merging of proto Marxist-Leninist concepts of economics dialects with
nationalism in the 1930s by government officials such as Admiral Sekine, General Doihara and Arita
Hachiro, official documents such as the Imperial Rescript of 1941, and philosophers such as Fujisawa
Chikao.
Even before the formal empire was created, we see a consciousness for such a goal amongst not only
the state but also the people. The journalist, Tokutomi Soho declared in 1895 that it was Japan’s mission
to extend the benefits of political organization to all of East Asia and the South Pacific. Such narratives
do feed into the later state sponsored ideology.
Admiral Sekine talked about Japan’s New Order in which no nation will exploit the other unlike the
hypocrite Britain and General Doihara claimed Asia for Asians. They believed that Japanese hegemony
was not like Western Imperialism’s self-interest but just a way to have Asian control of Asian affairs. In a
way, they propagated benevolent paternalism. Emperor Hirohito’s Rescript of 1941 proclaimed that
Industrial Revolution in the West had led to a search for raw material and markets. The subsequent
competition culminated in the World War of 1914. Japan’s rise as industrial power 1918 was against the
self-interest of victorious Allies and thus Japan forced into reactionary actions by West’s economic
pressure, diplomatic opposition, and propaganda.
Kada Tatsuji and Matsuoka Yosuke stated that the West was forcing obstacles on Japan’s existence as a
free nation. The lack of resources was making Japan subservient which were already depleting with the
unexpected population rise. Thus expansion meant more resources but not only self-interest but for the
political and economic well-being of all East Asian nations. The two publicists thus developed the theory
of greater East Asia.
Arita Hachiro stated that US and Britain hypocritically abandoned free trade and took protectionist
policies as they started losing the edge which helped them ahead of other countries. Thus Western
nations suppressed political and economic development in Asia because they were not in the West's
own best interests. Japan’s imperialism was a natural outcome of the action of the Great Powers
themselves, which having both abundant raw materials and thriving markets, have tended to drive other
countries to extinction by their exclusion policies both political and economic. It was up to Japan to build
self-sufficient spheres without Western influence. Thus, Hachiro created the concept of the Greater East
Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. The concept was based on the racial homogeneity and geographical
proximity of East Asia. Japan was familiar with the peculiarities of history, geography, and cultural
conditions in East Asia and will protect East Asia from alien currents which were not suitable for the
region such as the West’s liberalism and Russia’s socialism. It will lead but also bring prosperity in all the
areas it will rule over.
Japanese ideal of Imperialism was always contrasted to its evil Western counterpart. Though the West
had motivated Japan to Imperialism, Japan refused to be an imperial power just for the sake of self-
interest. Such arguments included a rationalisation of real danger. It was not just mere propaganda. The
ideological fervor built up on the ground reality and played upon the public sentiments of felt inequities,
unjust system and unfavourable situation.
Ralph M. Miwa takes into account the situation which was manipulated to give spark to such ideologies.
In the 1920s, the right wing and zaibatsu came together on basis of mutual distrust of communism. They
took over the political parties and corruption prevailed. But they did have to placate the dissatisfied
agricultural and industrial workers. Slowly, zaibatsu interests differed from that of the aggressive
military leading to assassinations of prominent businessmen. There was a phase of severe economic
conditions, partly influenced by the Great Depression and partly also blamed on the zaibatsu. Many
started believing that Japan should isolate itself again and secure the economy internally while the
zaibatsu interests lay in subservient alliances with the West. Consequently, the zaibatsu had to retreat
politically. Along with the zaibatsu, people also became disillusioned with the corrupt political parties,
who to them were the symbols of western liberalism and democracy.
A faction of young officers in the army saw the corrupt alliance between the zaibatsu and the political
parties as against the interests of the nation and the Emperor. Such dissidents came from proletariat
background and espoused anti-capitalism, anti-communism, veneration for the Emperor, and territorial
acquisitions and soon assumed actual government control. Philosophers such as Fujisawa Chikao used
Marxist doctrine to criticise capitalism but were afraid of the divisive effects both will have on the
family. Fujisawa believed the salvation of the national spirit lay in Imperialism and the reintroduction of
Shinto and Zen traditions. Modernization and Westernization had not eliminated but re-shaped the
religious orthodoxy. There was a strong revivalism trend during this time along with a rise of new
religions. Orthodox religious ideology was used to forward national sentiments and suppress pluralism in
ideas. The military used imperialism to have tighter reign over the government. Initial military
expeditions were successful and thus had public support. The people were unable to understand how to
deal with the modern world economy which already had Japan at a disadvantage. Instead of internally
dealing with the problems, they chose the easy, emotion-fueled, chauvanistic path of imperialism.
Those who consider Japanese Imperialism to be an extension of Japanese fascism believed the
imperialist ideology to have had distinct fascist characters. Maruyama Masao talks about familism
(kazokushugi), agrarianism, (nohonshugi), and pan-Asianism (dai- Ajiashugi) being permanent features
of the post-Restoration scene as part of Japanese fascist ideology.
In conclusion, Japanese imperialism cannot be equated to western trajectory but in the context it
emerged. It started as a reaction to western intrusion and national security concern but soon expanded
from the original intent. But Japanese imperialism was not mono-caustic and had elements of
nationalism in it, which is reflected in the ideology supporting expansion. The ideology of Japanese
imperialism saw in expansion a solution to its immediate problems. It legetimised itself by playing on
people’s insecurity and projecting itself as being forced into an expansion through which Japan will bring
prosperity to the rest of Asia.
