AHC: Britain becomes analogue of Imperial Japan
- Thread starter Zuvarq
- Start date
Delvestius
Banned
In world war one, Britain and the German Empire are allied against France, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. They annex the coasts of France and Spain, as well as their respective Mediterranean colonies, while Germany retains Burgundy and Provence.
Often people don't understand the nature of what motivated the japanese to try to create their greater east asian co prosperity sphere but that is because few have really studied the japanese mind set and their history from their and their neighbor's perspective.
The japanese were motivated to create an empire out of fear of what they had seen Eupoean do to the rest of the world and its peoples.
For much of their history the strongest nation they knew of was china and the chinese were being overwhelmed by the western nations. Just look at the opium war.
Josean Korea isolated itself as much as possible for its own safety at the time.
Pacific region after region was falling to colonial powers, the japanese were terrified they might end up like the natives of the americas or the philippines. So they thought if you can't beat them join them and modernize(or westernized) themselves. From there they wanted to do the same in their neighboring nations by force to build them into a sheild to protect Japan.
When american propaganda said they wanted to exterminate the Japanese they believed it and had a history of western oppression of peoples to support that belief. Which is why they were so relieved american rhetoric was concilitory at the signing of the surrender of japan(they were expecting a orgy of murder and rape.
The Brits just don't have that kind of motivation to push them to conquest of Europe at all cost. Or the motivation to convert and assimilate all their neighbors destroying their languages, cultures, and identities to make them be british.
Your only chance is Napolean maybe he stays in power(or takes over haiti) and scares the british to ramp up to invade europe to prevent it being used as a staging ground to invade the isles?
The japanese were motivated to create an empire out of fear of what they had seen Eupoean do to the rest of the world and its peoples.
For much of their history the strongest nation they knew of was china and the chinese were being overwhelmed by the western nations. Just look at the opium war.
Josean Korea isolated itself as much as possible for its own safety at the time.
Pacific region after region was falling to colonial powers, the japanese were terrified they might end up like the natives of the americas or the philippines. So they thought if you can't beat them join them and modernize(or westernized) themselves. From there they wanted to do the same in their neighboring nations by force to build them into a sheild to protect Japan.
When american propaganda said they wanted to exterminate the Japanese they believed it and had a history of western oppression of peoples to support that belief. Which is why they were so relieved american rhetoric was concilitory at the signing of the surrender of japan(they were expecting a orgy of murder and rape.
The Brits just don't have that kind of motivation to push them to conquest of Europe at all cost. Or the motivation to convert and assimilate all their neighbors destroying their languages, cultures, and identities to make them be british.
Your only chance is Napolean maybe he stays in power(or takes over haiti) and scares the british to ramp up to invade europe to prevent it being used as a staging ground to invade the isles?
Wrong time period, and wrong region of origin. That's like asking for apples and getting oranges under the pretense that oranges are the same thing as apples.
Jackie Fisher gets drunk before attending a perfomance of The Mikado and ends up appointing W. S. Gilbert as Commander of the Channel Fleet.
Last edited:
amphibulous
Banned
Are you Japanese? Because this sounds like the equivalent of Holocaust denial. The reason the Japanese expected the Americans to act like bastards in Japan was because they had everywhere they went. There are reasons why the Chinese and Koreans hate the Japanese quite profoundly, in a way that Indians don't hate the British and Fillipinos don't hate the Americans!
As for the fear-of-the-West-thing: Britain had been an ally of Japan's - to the extent it almost got dragged into the Russo-Japanese war - and the US had been very favorably inclined towards Japan too. The US public provided massive relief for the Tokyo earthquake. These things only changed with the Rape Of Nanking. The problem wasn't even Japanese colonialism, but that the Japanese version of it was horrible past limits other colonizers could accept. The Japanese *did* fear the West, but this went past rational limits, and falls far short of explaining their actual actions - which were cruel, pathological, and counter-productive. In the end the only explanation was that as a nation they decided to be racist bastards because it was fun - for a while.
Last edited:
amphibulous
Banned
You'd need a much weaker continent and/or a hell of a good reason.
And why would the British want Europe? The natural targets for them or any other European power in 1900 are areas with good natural resources, not more mouths to feed.
One of the main incentives for the Japanese expansion was the acquisition of resources not widely available on the home islands, particularly fossil fuels and mineral resources. Britain, on the other hand, is very rich in coal and iron which frees it from the necessity of invading other countries to fill its demand for these resources.
Also, Imperial Japan had the advantage of possessing the only modern armed forces in East Asia at the time it was doing this expansion. Unless you go very far back for the POD, Britain is not going to have this advantage over France or any other large European country with more manpower resources.
Also, Imperial Japan had the advantage of possessing the only modern armed forces in East Asia at the time it was doing this expansion. Unless you go very far back for the POD, Britain is not going to have this advantage over France or any other large European country with more manpower resources.
No i am not japanese but i have studied japan and its people, history, culture, international relations, religion, past politics, psychology and more.
I have got see into the mindset of the japanese that lead to events like nanking.
First i do not deny nor condone any of the horrible actions takens by japan in its history.
Next you seem not to understand that many western nations may play the role of the noble uplifting and reasonable colonist/conquerer in the public eye but still when a popular movement, uprising, or ideology that threatened their domination came along they crushed it with force, murder and rape more often than not. It was completely within the nature of americans, british and other europeans to perform attrocities but then bury the history of their actions only to have the story survive (bury my heart at wounded knee, Aparthied, slavery, indian wars, suppression of the aboriginies, french indochina, lynching, crusades, inquistition, naziis and more. As the japanese took a if you can't beat them join them attitude they westernized, and Japanese colonialism was based on western colonialism. How could they not take that representation of the west and run with it on top of their own cultural ideology flaws.
Also just because recent relations may seem more warm does not mean past peoples enjoyed their experience with their conquerers. That is why many an isot into the past event sees even indian an other peoples trying their best to prevent their peoples conqeust at all cost. The way you make it sound its like the way past southern slaveowners would say that slaves liked being slaves because they don't complain. The ones that did complain were brutally beaten or killed. Filippinos fought a war with the usa after spain when the usa refused to grant them independence. Cuba was conquered by Fidel Castro because the usa allowed and supported a dictatorship there.
On the note of Nations being allies and trading partners to Japan remember these are the same peoples who broke treaty after treaty, slaughtered natives the world over, forced unequal treaties on non whites, and were well known for shot gun diplomacy. (Fall of the kingdom of hawaii, treaties broken with native americans once a week, Opium wars, British Empress of India, Catholic pope angers king so king starts his own church, French indochina, scramble for africa, forced openning of japan, blacks being told they would only be temporary indentured servant, and many more examples of using force to get your way.
Who would be dumb enough to trust these people longer than an hour?
Now try to force that kind of fear into British with out aliens or time travel.
Mightfly said:
I like how Henry VIII breaking with the Pope is put in the same category as the scramble for Africa. If by like you mean "don't get at all".
And I'm pretty sure there aren't any examples of "comfort women' sort of things as standard European practice in the 19th and 20th century (the period Japan is dealing with the West, in other words).
Using force to get your way and the Rape of Nanking are two different levels of behavior, unfortunately for the idea Japan was just following the Western example.
Those were used as examples of various different types of acts taken by various western governments that show they were not trust worthy and could/would threaten japan.
Henry thre out his own church when he was not allowed to do as he pleases.
The Scramble for Africa showed many nations in acts of conquest and oppression of local peoples.
Henry thre out his own church when he was not allowed to do as he pleases.
The Scramble for Africa showed many nations in acts of conquest and oppression of local peoples.
Comparing the two is misleading at best and ridiculous at worst, though.
And the idea that they were not trustworthy . . . sure, this is why no diplomatic agreement made by western governments with anyone ever held. Oh wait.
I'm not saying Japan was entirely unjustified in feeling itself unsafe, but the idea that the West was filled with treacherous violent bastards who were longing for the opportunity to rape and pillage is rather overstated.
Nor does this explain, let alone excuse, Japan's own atrocities.
Just because they weren't doing it then does not mean the japanese would not read or hear about it in the histories of nations that became powers. Also remember i would not put to much trust into the words of the colonial powers not using comfort women when they were plenty of opportunitist in all countries. By the way i left out how no body ever talks about what the soviets did when they took Berlin but the stories did survive.
Sometimes colonial men would force a sex for favors system on people who were seen as second class citizens. As i said before the western peoples were just less public with their actrocities many of which are still being learned about such as forced sterilizations of african american women and others.
If the Hundred Years War goes differently you could have an England in control of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Brittany (if not the whole of France) into the modern age. Make it last until William III comes to power and make a union with the Netherlands then have the Hannover succession occur as OTL. For extra seasoning have the throne claim Portugal and/or the whole of Spain somehow, or work out a personal union with Denmark such that the North Sea is a British lake with the Union Jack stretching from Narvik to Bordonne (and perhaps onto Lisbon or heaven forbid into the Mediterranean, making Gibralter connected to the whole mess).
And the Japanese believing that what happened in the 12th century is relevant today (well, then, but "today" as of their decisions) is a bad judgment.
I would not put any trust into claims that opportunists existing in all countries means something equivalent.
And honestly, what the Soviets did or didn't do when they took Berlin is irrelevant. As are the Nazis. Japan as of (say) 1930 has events as of up to 1930 to consider, not afterwards.
And if you have any evidence of examples of something like "comfort women" - not individuals engaging in nastiness but official, widespread practice - I would like to see them.
The Western peoples certainly did their fair share of atrocities, but that doesn't defend, justify, or explain Japan's. It just tries to change the subject.
Thousands upon thousands of butterflies are dead because of you.
Would you take that chance with your country people and daughters?
'
Did you know there was a number of cases of japanese people trying to get themselves recognized as whites so they could be protected under the same rights and ideals?
But i am not saying any of this justifies anything japan did only the west should recognized its biggotry's influence in the result and not just say the japanese did it wrong.
