The first clash between Nakano and Tanaka Gi’ichi came toward the end of the 52nd Diet session, which lasted from December 1925 to March 1926. Army General and Seiyūkai president Tanaka Gi’ichi had attempted to bribe members of the coalition parties of the Kenseikai government under Katō to withdraw their support and thus bring down the cabinet. Though Tanaka claimed the bribery money came from private sources, rumor suggested it came from booty confiscated in Russia during the Siberian intervention and a secret army fund that, itself, had been created illegally by misappropriating monies from army’s operational budget in Siberia.
Nakano fired the opening shot of the vicious mudslinging contest on March 4, 1926, by taking the stand in parliament and calling Tanaka’s bribes “the most serious incident since the Siemens scandal.”117 Nakano noted that from 1922-4 Tanaka, then Army Minister, and his vice-minister Yamanashi had spent 800 million Yen on the futile Siberian intervention and, claimed that 40 million of the total had found its way into a secret army fund, where it had been put to nobody-knew-what purpose. Nakano also mentioned the Semyonov gold ingots which, after falling into the Japanese army’s hands during the Siberian intervention, had mysteriously disappeared; large bank accounts opened under the names of Tanaka and Yamanashi with various Japanese banks; and, finally, rumors that Tanaka had used part of the proceeds from the sale of the ingots to replace Takahashi Korekiyo as Seiyūkai president.118 Weaving these rumors together into a comprehensive accusation, Nakano demanded that the questions surrounding the origin of Tanaka’s funds and the future Prime Minister’s role in obtaining them be investigated.
Tanaka and Yamanashi denied the accusations and the Seiyūkai was up in arms against Nakano. The press described the atmosphere as “filled with the thirst for blood” and anticipated “strong retaliation from the Seiyūkai,” warning that “Nakano Seigō’s life is in danger as the
extra-parliamentary thugs of the Seiyūkai are after him.”119 Nakano shared these fears and, in the days following his broadside, retained two body guards.120
Nakano’s attack on Tanaka took his own party by surprise, because Nakano had not informed his colleagues about the content of his speech beforehand. Army Minister and Kenseikai member Ugaki Kazuo brushed Nakano’s accusations coolly away as “nonsense,” but his diary shows he was upset with Nakano for using the “army to deliver a blow against the[ir] real enemy, the Seiyūkai.”121 Given Nakano’s lack of support both within and outside of his party, his motion for an investigative committee did not pass.
Outside the Diet, however, Nakano received support from two different sources. First, the press - sensing a scandal in the making - pounced on the news. The day after Nakano’s speech, the Tokyo Asahi’s headline read “Suspicious Rumors Concerning the Disappearance of Four Million Yen During Tanaka’s Tenure Expose Ugly Reality of Chōshū Military Clique in Diet” and the paper’s entire second page, as well as its lead editorial, focused on the topic.122
Second, and more importantly for subsequent events, the day after Nakano’s speech, the army’s former paymaster - who had served with Tanaka and Yamanashi - filed accusations of
118 See Ibid.
119 All quotes taken from Inomata, p. 209-11.
120 For Nakano’s use of body guards see Oates, p. 34-35.
121 Both quotes taken from Ugaki’s diary, entries for March 4 and 5, 1926. Ugaki Kazunari [嶄倡慎癩], “The Diary of Ugaki Kazunari” [嶄倡慎癩荳 ], ed. Tsunoda Jun [ 譓抅], 3 vols (Tokyo: Misuzu Shobō, 1970), volume 1, p. 512-16. This was probably the low-point in the relations between Ugaki and Nakano. Over the following years they would move closer and eventually become allies in the struggle against Tōjō. Ugaki would express his regrets over the losing Nakano after the latter’s death. Ibid. volume 3, p. 1568.
122 The Tokyo Asahi editorial “The Secrets of the Army cliques” [ 淚貢 廡], March 6, 1926, agreed with Nakano writing: “Even someone naïve will become suspicious at these facts. We wish to request that the army’s authorities would make [the details of] this question completely public.” quoted in Inomata, p. 218.
fraud and misappropriation of public funds against Tanaka with the public prosecutors.123 These accusations more or less substantiated Nakano’s claims. If proven true, the charges would have destroyed Tanaka’s political career, even if they would have been insufficient to impeach him immediately given the immunity he enjoyed as a member of the Upper House.
The Seiyūkai’s counterattack was immediate. Beginning on the afternoon of March 4, 1926 (the very day of Nakano’s speech in the Diet), the Seiyūkai-affiliated Nihon Shimbun newspaper started running articles attacking Nakano for sympathizing with communism.124 The most serious of these, published on March 5, contained a quote by Kubota Eikichi, former member of the Japanese expeditionary forces in Siberia, who said that while in Russia he met a white Russian who told him “both Miyake [Setsurei] and Nakano [had] actually received 100,000 Yen from [the Soviet representative] Antonov” in order to write positively about the Soviet Union.125 Attacks in the Diet accompanied the defamatory media campaign. On March 11, 1926, the Seiyūkai submitted a proposal to parliament that Nakano should “repent” [鮒 ] for having held “nonsensical speeches on the sacred Diet floor, confused the people, upset military discipline … and having secretly been directed by Communists to drive a wedge between the people and the
123 The full text of the paymaster’s accusations was published by the Jiji Shimpō [蕁征范况], March 6, 1926. See Inomata p. 210-13.
124 The first, published on March 4, made Nakano responsible for the calamities that allegedly had befallen three individuals (and their families) after listening to Nakano’s pro-Russian speeches in the early 1920s. See “Nakano’s Red Speeches Destroy Three Families” [腎 貢 泌 ㌲申广柎惚 厠溝] in Nihon Shimbun March 4, 1926.
125 The Nihon Shimbun had published the account of Kubota’s imprisonment in the Soviet Union in a series of articles starting November 1925 and ending March 1926. The account was subsequently published as a book: Kubota Eikichi [睡胎譓豐便], “Two years in a Soviet Prison” [ 性朮貢 腎﨟┽], (Tokyo 1926) see p. 145 for the quote. Kubota repeated his accusations in his “Declaration to my people concerning the Nakano question” [腎 黙 行恣 広肱癪控楼鴈㌒甫行 康], (Tokyo, 1926), see p. 4-31. Trying to label Nakano as a communist, the same Nihon Shimbun (March 5, 1926) also ran an article under the headline: “Communism or Democracy? Let’s do Both – The interview between Nakano and Soviet
army.”126 Seiyūkai member Makino Ryōzō,127 casting himself in the role of protector of the army’s honor, used the Kubota quote to accuse Nakano of taking 100,000 Yen from the Soviet representative Antonov for the purpose of turning Japan communist, as well as of being a secret member of the Communist 3rd International. 128
The ensuing debate was, to say the least, heated. The March 5 morning edition of Tokyo Asahi News carried the following description: “Amidst disorder, the [Diet] session lasted until late in the night before the proceedings were interrupted. Even when the chairman rang his bell, he was not heard. During yesterday’s lower house session it was proposed that Nakano Seigō commit suicide.”129 The debate continued throughout March 12 and 13, when Makino proposed that Nakano face an inquiry commission. Sensing an opportunity to prove his innocence, Nakano and the Kenseikai supported the motion.
In the event, three of the four witnesses Makino summoned to testify against Nakano before the inquiry commission could not confirm that he had received Yen 100,000, which left Kubota’s quote as the only support for Makino’s case.130 Desperate for evidence, Makino produced what he called a translation of an article from a Russian paper stating that Nakano had received money from Antonov. Nakano, however, was able to show that the article was a forgery.131 In the end, the inquiry commission concluded that the accusations against Nakano
126 See Nakano Yasuo, vol. 1, p. 417.
127 Makino Ryōzō [☂ 申] (1885∫1961), lawyer and politician. 128 For Makino’s speech see Nakano Yasuo, vol. 1, p. 417-18.
129 Tokyo Asahi Shimbun, March 12, 1926, (quoted in Inomata p. 225).
130 Katō Mineo, who had been named by Makino as a witness of Nakano receiving money from the Soviets, published a denial in various newspapers on March 15, stating that “I feel sorry for Mr. Makino, but as far as I know, can only state clearly that Nakano never did such an ugly thing.” Katō quoted in Inomata p. 226.
were without substance.132
Before the end of the month, it became clear that the Seiyūkai’s smear campaign had backfired – or, as one newspaper put it, “Makino helped Nakano get a name. Thank you.”133 In desperation, the Seiyūkai played their last card: physical intimidation. After the end of the Diet session on the evening of March 26, twelve thugs visited Nakano’s home. He confronted them in front of his house and – so we are told by his son - shortly afterward, eight fled while four fell to their knees apologizing. Not satisfied, Nakano led the remaining four into his garden, had them kneel down again and gave them a warning talk while a group of boarding students armed with wooden swords watched over them. Nakano’s wife took pity on the quartet and came to their rescue, bringing them hot noodle soup to warm them up before inviting them into the house.134
Though this incident marked the end of the Seiyūkai’s attacks and Nakano emerged uninjured physically, the hit to his reputation lingered. Moreover, Tanaka and his aides suffered no lasting political damage,135 rendering Nakano’s sacrifice smaller in retrospect. 136
132 In an interview conducted in 1955, even Makino acknowledged: “I no longer believe that Nakano received money from Russia. Nor that he is a secret member [of the Comintern]. …. I must admit that that fight ended clearly in a victory for Nakano.” Makino in Hasegawa Shun “Three Enigmas of Japan – The Theory that Nakano Seigō was a Secret Member of the
Communist Party ” [ 艙 蒟 瑍申千荳袿貢 ―腎 驟悩 廡妬満㌲] special edition of
Bungei Shunjū [艙 蒟 ], 1955, partially quoted in Inomata, p. 225-229. 133 Quoted in Inomata p. 229.
134 See Watanabe Yukio [ 赶], “The Enigma of Nakano Seigō’s Suicide”, p. 119-120. 135 Neither Tanaka nor his aide were ever charged in the matter. Investigations against them were terminated after Ishida Motozuki [ 譓儼] the public prosecutor in charge was found dead under a bridge in Tokyo in October 1926.
136 Rumors surrounding Nakano’s involvement in the communist party survived well into the postwar period. In 1955, former prosecutor Koizumi Terasaburō made claims that Nakano had been a member of the Comintern, operating under the name “Comrade 818” and charged with reporting the strength and location of Japanese military facilities. Koizumi based his claims on documents to which he had access while working at the prosecutor’s office of the Tokyo district court before 1945. However, since these were subsequently lost in the war, it is impossible to ascertain whether Koizumi’s claims are right. While Koizumi’s former colleagues confirm that the Secret Higher Police were investigating Nakano following