WI: Imperial Japan loses WWII, but keeps Korea and/or Taiwan?

Exactly what it says on the tin. Is it possible for Imperial Japan to keep its colonial possessions of Korea and/or Taiwan, even after losing World War II?

Not if they launch the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, but maybe if they restricted themselves to seizing Dutch and French possessions to provide oil and rubber. With no surprise attack or terrible loss at Pearl Harbor to avenge, the USA might be inclined to let Japan keep parts of her Empire in exchange for a complete withdrawal from China and European colonies.

Korea: Not
Taiwan: Possible, but not plausible.

Korea is a lost cause. They want independence back, and the victorious Allies were going to give it to them. Taiwan, as stated, could still be retained, but it's still a pretty long shot. It would probably require a crippling collapse of the Kuomintang government (maybe a coup or capture of Chiang's cabinet by the communists or other pro-communists factions) for the US to consider against restoring Taiwan to Chinese control. Even then, it's still more likely that the US will hold a successful plebiscite for Taiwanese independence than to leave it in Japanese possession.

Korea's independence was pushed by China several years back. Furthermore the Allies wouldn't see any reason why Korea *should* be kept Japanese.

You'd need a different war that ended in a negotiated peace. Perhaps if you avoid Pearl Harbor, have a late US entry to the war, and with the Soviets dominating even more of Europe than OTL, the West has a reason to come to some sort of accord with Japan.

What do you mean by WW2 ?

Can they just lose the war/incident with china/USSR ?

If so a humiliating pull back would easily leave them with all the older colony's and even maybe Manchuria.

As the two posts above me have said, it would have to be a very different "WWII". Perhaps if the Soviet Union went to war with Militarist Japan in the late 30s, or if Japan went to war with the UK, Holland, etc. (perhaps as a result of the Tientsin Incident in 1940?) and was never allied with Nazi Germany, then it is easy enough to imagine a circumstance in which a tactical defeat leads to the loss of all Japanese gains since 1937, or perhaps since 1931, but in which Japan retains the older colonies. Neither of these enemies or coalition of enemies would have the power, or indeed the interest, to totally defeat Militarist Japan to the point of unconditional surrender. The Soviet Union in particular lacked a powerful navy, and could never force Japan to give up control of Taiwan in particular, and Korea would be an awful slog. I have thought a bit about a total war between Militarist Japan and the USSR in the late 1930s before, and I think it might plausibly end with Japan being forced to give up Manchuria and likely even her prior concessions in China proper, but retaining everything else, and perhaps even winning control of the entirety of Sakhalin Island (that is, adding "Sagaren" to the Empire) as a sort of consolation prize. It should be noted that even in this scenario, I think Japan would be forced to give up Korea in a few decades as a result of the global decolonization drive, but Korea and Taiwan would be retained long after this "WWII".

However, if the OP's mention of "WWII" means that Militarist Japan has to be allied with Nazi Germany and has to start the Pacific War as in OTL, then I think it is impossible.

One possibility: If Japan started a war earlier than OTL against Britain. IIRC, the British war-plans in such an event were to enforce a naval blockade against the Home Islands and make them sue for a white peace with reparations. So if they lose a war just against Britain...maybe.

Of course, how likely it is that Britain would have been able to do that is up for debate...

Have Turtledove write it.