Why no love for Japan?

[Faeelin]

Something I've noticed around here....

There are an inordinate number of timelines where Germany avoids the Nazis; whether it becomes an authoritarian democracy a la Putin's Russia, a shiny happy FDR in the 1930s, or some other group starts putting on the Reich, we explore alternate Germany's in incredible detail.

But Japan? Well, no matter what the POD, people assume Japan will become insane military expansionists, to the point we discuss a war with France in 1936 (or 1906), or assume that Japan would go to war with a successful Republican China.

Why is this the case?

[V-J]

Because people are ignorant of Japanese inter-war politics and the politics of Japanese militarism and so go with the safe option of progressing history as normal.

Not a bad decision, considering how complex a subject it is.

[Faeelin]

Is that really the safe option, or just the offensive one?

The Japanese become some sort of AH kilrathi, who only scream and leap. But the dudes who put six million Jews in gas chambers? Oh, there are so many ways for them to become a force for good in the welt.

Edit: I don't mean to be unduly critical; information on interwar Japan is surprisingly hard to come by.

[Jellicoe]

I don't have an answer to that one. But the notion of an expansionist China in the 30s, being opposed chiefly by a democratic (constitutional monarchist?) Japan, bringing up visions of the necessity for a second Divine Wind to prevent an invasion from the mainland, has a certain appeal.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Jellicoe

I don't have an answer to that one. But the notion of an expansionist China in the 30s, being opposed chiefly by a democratic (constitutional monarchist?) Japan, bringing up visions of the necessity for a second Divine Wind to prevent an invasion from the mainland, has a certain appeal.

No no, you've gone about this all wrong. Republican China allies with a liberal Japan to oppose the xenophobic racism of the European powers. Ho Chi Minh becomes a signatory to the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere after the Sino-Japanese attack in Singapore.

[Jellicoe]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

No no, you've gone about this all wrong. Republican China allies with a liberal Japan to oppose the xenophobic racism of the European powers. Ho Chi Minh becomes a signatory to the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere after the Sino-Japanese attack in Singapore.

I could go with that one too.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Probably because a POD to keep Japan from becoming too Militaristic is far earlier than a POD to keep the Nazis out of power.

[Nassirisimo]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

No no, you've gone about this all wrong. Republican China allies with a liberal Japan to oppose the xenophobic racism of the European powers. Ho Chi Minh becomes a signatory to the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere after the Sino-Japanese attack in Singapore.

I've always thought that a Japan that genuinely tries to liberate Asian countries from European colonialism would be an interesting idea for a timeline. Unfortunately, since my knowledge of Japanese and East Asian history is somewhat lacking, I've never really been able to expand on that idea.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Fenrir_Angerboda

Probably because a POD to keep Japan from becoming too Militaristic is far earlier than a POD to keep the Nazis out of power.

Wait what? Why?

The militarists didn't really seize control until 1931. And I would argue that as late as 1937 there was a chance to stop things from escelating.

China in the 1920s was divided between petty warlords, but if you see anything during this period it's Japanese disengagement from China. Japan also signed the Washington Naval Treaty, withdrew from Siberia, and cut military spending.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

No no, you've gone about this all wrong. Republican China allies with a liberal Japan to oppose the xenophobic racism of the European powers. Ho Chi Minh becomes a signatory to the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere after the Sino-Japanese attack in Singapore.

You should write the TL, it would be great. I am not sure if post 1900 or ASB, but a good East/West war would be interesting.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Wait what? Why?

The militarists didn't really seize control until 1931. And I would argue that as late as 1937 there was a chance to stop things from escelating.

Really? Then go ahead. Because even if you don't have a full-blown invasion of China in 1937, there's probably going to be some more involvement and escalation in China. I can't imagine the leaders in Tokyo reining in the soldiers overseas, who are probably going to manufacture a casus belli for a war against China sooner or later. The resulting popular opinion will be in support of a war, and neither the civilian nor military leaders of the country have the desire to stop it.

Originally Posted by Nassirisimo

I've always thought that a Japan that genuinely tries to liberate Asian countries from European colonialism would be an interesting idea for a timeline. Unfortunately, since my knowledge of Japanese and East Asian history is somewhat lacking, I've never really been able to expand on that idea.

It's a nice idea, but probably one that requires a pre-1900 point of divergence. I should point out that the first victims of Japanese aggression were Korea and then China, neither of which were European colonies.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

I should point out that the first victims of Japanese aggression were Korea and then China, neither of which were European colonies.

I really don't understand what this proves or means, other than "the Japanese first attacked weaker neighbors."

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I really don't understand what this proves or means, other than "the Japanese first attacked weaker neighbors."

It proves that even before 1900, the Japanese were less interested in Asian liberation, and more interested in becoming their own colonial power.

[anon_user]

I'd guess that it has to do with the fact that Japan didn't have a Hitler - a single, highly visible figure who can be blamed for the country's slide into fascism and militarism. Not that without Hitler, Germany couldn't have become a fascist, aggressive state, but it takes less effort/research to imagine 'the Nazis fail' than 'backlash against militarism in Japanese politics/society.'

[Kooluk Swordsman]

In general, most of the AH users know more about Europe than Asia.

Most of those users also know more about Germany {Nazi or otherwise} than Japan, which makes it easier to write about. As the saying goes, write what you know.

If you want to see a TL where Japan avoids militarism, look at rast's 'A Shift In Priorities'.

In my opinion, if you want to stop Japanese militarism, allow them to industrialize as they did, but sneak in some military defeat here and there. A near half-century of crushing battlefield victories will make militarism just that much more appealing. Another way to butterfly it away is to have the European powers less colonial; for Japan that may would reduce the allure of having colonies {though I'm just spitballing here}.

[anon_user]

Originally Posted by Kooluk Swordsman

In my opinion, if you want to stop Japanese militarism, allow them to industrialize as they did, but sneak in some military defeat here and there.

Not totally sure that works - Mussolini attacked Ethiopia explicitly to avenge Adowa, while a good portion of the IJA was convinced that it could take control of the Soviet Far East despite having had to abandon its efforts to back a White Russian puppet state out of Vladivostok back in 1922. If anything, that might perhaps inspire increased fascism in Japanese politics, with civilian government failings [other than an overly adventurist military] getting blamed for the defeats.

[Strategos' Risk]

Iris Chang wrote at length in The Rape of Nanking that the rise of Militarism in Japan had it roots in socioeconomic disruption from the Great Depression and a really brutal officer school system. So this has to be addressed.

[Snake Featherston]

Primarily because the causes of Japanese instability were different than those of German instability. Japan as the Empire of Japan never satisfactorily resolved the dilemma of how to have a modern army and a modern political system, and it was this inability to resolve it and also the simultaneous growing inability of the higher-ups to reign in the junior officers that created the witch's brew that became the Empire of Japan.

In Japan's case a major complication was that the Shogunates had been hereditary military dictatorships, and that the Japanese Constitution was explicitly patterned on that of the German Empire which gave far too much free reign to its generals and admirals. So the appearance of Imperial Japan in its WWII variety was actually much more continuity than change, while if we factor in the degree to which that legacy from the Shogunate created obvious problems in an era that proudly called armies schools of the nation....

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Is that really the safe option, or just the offensive one?

The Japanese become some sort of AH kilrathi, who only scream and leap. But the dudes who put six million Jews in gas chambers? Oh, there are so many ways for them to become a force for good in the welt.

Edit: I don't mean to be unduly critical; information on interwar Japan is surprisingly hard to come by.

Well, in Up With the Star Japan develops into a Right-Wing nationalist quasi-democracy that turns into a democracy, while fighting a Second Sino-Japanese War as per OTL without the kind of atrocities as per OTL and with the evolution of Hirohito and Akhihito into autocrats on a European model. They didn't exactly scream and leap, and their 20th Century history was rather different than OTL.

[MarshalBraginsky]

Also, Japan played a game of political catch up to the Western nations and modernized in just a short period of time, but because of Western prejudice and racism against non-Europeans, I'm sure there were a lot of resentment among the Japanese. I mean, why did the Japanese Army of the Second Sino-Japanese War behaved differently from their First Sino-Japanese War counterparts?