Why no love for Japan?

Faeelin

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

I think it's more complicated than that. A lot of the Kuomintang founders had strong ties with japan's government and intelligentsia, and got a lot of funding there.

Japanese feelings on China changed as they continued to modernize and China descended into warlordism, which was very contingent.

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}.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Taisho Democracy blossomed after the disaster in Siberia.

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.

Does he argue that the officer schools were suddenly more brutal in the 1930s?

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.

Which is why it went ape shit crazy in 1924, right?



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....

This seems pretty ridiculous, to be honest, and akin to saying Germany went nazi because it glorified the Teutonic Knights. For this sort of argument to make sense, you have to discount Japan's conduct between 1900 and 1929.
 
I think it's more complicated than that. A lot of the Kuomintang founders had strong ties with japan's government and intelligentsia, and got a lot of funding there.

Japanese feelings on China changed as they continued to modernize and China descended into warlordism, which was very contingent.

Okay, that latter part is true. But, as for the first part, even if the Chinese Nationalists thought positively of Japan, at times, it doesn't change the fact that the Japanese militarists were worried about that rising Nationalists would threaten the Japanese positions in Manchuria and North China. I don't remember exactly how the Japanese helped the Nationalists (I know Jiang Jieshi studied in Japan, but I don't remember if that was before or after he joined them), but that doesn't mean there was a support for a genuine Pan-Asian partnership. It was always about putting Japan first.

This seems pretty ridiculous, to be honest, and akin to saying Germany went nazi because it glorified the Teutonic Knights. For this sort of argument to make sense, you have to discount Japan's conduct between 1900 and 1929.

Yeah, I agree, it might be a stretch to say that the belligerent Imperial Japan of WW2 came about because the shogunates. For example, the Tokugawa Shogunate saw about two centuries of peace.
 
This seems pretty ridiculous, to be honest, and akin to saying Germany went nazi because it glorified the Teutonic Knights. For this sort of argument to make sense, you have to discount Japan's conduct between 1900 and 1929.

Not really. The first-model Imperial Japanese leadership was the direct inheritance of the Shogunate's nobility, and the problems Japan experienced in a transition to a 19th Century industrial class system stemmed from this system. Democracy had more fragile roots than elsewhere, and the general current of that time to favoring large, powerful armies got bolstered by a string of major successes.

It's not exactly a simple argument of "was dictatorship so must always be a dictatorship", especially since other countries also became dictatorships with somewhat-similar backgrounds. The Germans had a constitution in the German Empire that ensured the Wilhelmine Army was politically exempt from control by On High, and this was fatal to the German Empire (though not an element directly leading to the rise of Fascism). If the system didn't work well where it originated, why would it work any better in Japan?
 
I think "A Shift in Priorities" has Japan take the peaceful economic expansion approach. (I'm not sure, though — that's a very long timeline and it's easy to get lost in it.)
 
Yeah, I agree, it might be a stretch to say that the belligerent Imperial Japan of WW2 came about because the shogunates. For example, the Tokugawa Shogunate saw about two centuries of peace.

It wasn't strictly the Shogunates so much as Japan developed a system where political power was concentrated in the hands of a military elite. The civil institutions needed more help developing than did the military ones. That help did not exist outside a narrow window that wasn't sufficient to handle the crises caused by the military getting too big for its britches.
 
I once wrote a timeline where Japan developed synthetic oil technology in the late 1930s. This allows them to pursue greater levels of mechanization based on the coal reserves they controlled at the time and results in the eventual fall of China with French Indochina also becoming a Japanese puppet. Combined with Thailand, they sit back and encourage decolonialism while forging their GEACPS but still coming off as douchebag imperialists in their own right well into the 1970s. By that time Indonesia and Malaysia come into their own and India seeks her own path, Japan still rules mainland China via puppets (minus Tibet), Korea, and Taiwan, the latter two being much more Nipponized by this time.
 
In my opinion the reason its harder to prevent militarism from rising in Japan is because the nature of the militarists themselves. You can (plausibly) prevent the Nazis from coming into power by removing Hitler and the leadership from the picture. You can prevent the Fascist from coming into power by removing the Mussolini and his allies from the picture. You can prevent FDR from becoming president by removing FDR from the timeline. You can prevent Stalinism by removing Stalin. So on and so on.

Who do you neutralize to remove the militarists from power? The first generation militarists weren't a unified block. You take off the 'head' and it wont matter since several more grow to replace it. The first generation militarists could be described as a military anarchy rather than military dictatorship. By the time you get to the second generation of militarists (the war cabinet) its too late since your already in the middle of WW2. But when it comes to the first generation of militarists (the military radicals and the North China Army) they have no leader like Hitler that you can remove to neutralize them. To neutralize the first generation of militarists would basically require you to destroy the military via purges or whatever that would probably lead to a second Satsuma Rebellion.

Which would probably be pretty damn interesting actually. A Japanese Civil War in the 1920s.

But in anycase, neutralizing the militarists after they've picked up steam is rather difficult. Therefore you have to nip them in the bud. But then you reach this problem:
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.
Which pretty much explains it all.
 
Knowlege

As has been said before, writing what you know. I couldn't write a scene with a different Japan without serious research--and Japan isn't the focus of my interest.
 
Also, Japan was divided into two competing blocs which had its members placed in high positions within the Imperial government: the Satsuma faction, which dominated probably the Imperial Navy and the inner circle of Empress Sadako (of course, she was responsible for arranging the marriage match between Hirohito and Empress Nagako, for whom she was definitely not a Choshu member), and the Choshu faction, which dominated the Imperial Army and had members like Ito Hirobumi, Yamagata Aritomo and most of the IJA generals. It was also worth noting that none of the people from the Satsuma faction was actually tried in the Tokyo War Crimes court.
 
Here is a lot of words about the rise of militarism in Japan.

The historical roots of militarism in Japanese schools stretched back to the Meiji Restoration. In the late nineteenth century the Japanese minister of education declared that schools were run not for the benefit of the students but for the good of the country. Elementary school teachers were trained like military recruits, with student-teachers housed in barracks and subjected to harsh discipline and indoctrination. In 1890 the Imperial Rescript on Education emerged; it laid down a code of ethics to govern not only students and teachers but every Japanese citizen. The Rescript was the civilian equivalent of Japanese military codes, which valued above all obedience to authority and unconditional loyalty to the emperor. In every Japanese school a copy of the Rescript was enshrined with a portrait of the emperor and taken out each morning to be read. It was reputed that more than one teacher who accidentally stumbled over the words committed suicide to atone for the insult to the sacred document.

By the 1930s the Japanese educational system had become regimented and robotic. A visitor to one of its elementary schools expressed pleasant surprise at seeing thousands of children waving flags and marching in unison in perfect lines; quite clearly the visitor had seen the discipline and order but not the abuse required to establish and maintain it. It was commonplace for teachers to behave like sadistic drill sergeants, slapping children across the cheeks, hitting them with their fists, or bludgeoning them with bamboo or wooden swords. Students were forced to hold heavy objects, sit on their knees, stand barefoot in the snow, or run around the playground until they collapsed from exhaustion. There were certainly few visits to the schools by indignant or even concerned parents.

The pressure to conform to authority intensified if the schoolboy decided to become a soldier. Vicious hazing and a relentless pecking order usually squelched any residual spirit of individualism in him. Obedience was touted as a supreme virtue, and a sense of the individual self-worth was replaced by a sense of value as a small cog in the larger scheme of things. To establish this sublimation of individuality to the common good, superior officers or older soldiers slapped recruits for almost no reason at all or beat them severely with heavy wooden rods. According to the author Iritani Toshio, officers often justified unauthorized punishment by saying, “I do not beat you because I hate you. I beat you because I care for you. Do you think I perform these acts with hands swollen and bloody in a state of madness?” Some youths died under such brutal physical conditions; others committed suicide; the majority became tempered vessels into which the military could pour a new set of life goals.

Training was no less grueling a process for aspiring officers. In the 1920s all army cadets had to pass through the Military Academy at Ichigaya. With its overcrowded barracks, unheated study rooms, and inadequate food, the place bore a greater resemblance to a prison than a school. The intensity of the training in Japan surpassed that of most Western military academies: in England an officer was commissioned after some 1,372 hours of classwork and 245 hours of private study, but in Japan the standards were 3,382 hours of classwork and 2,765 hours of private study. The cadets endured a punishing darily regimen of physical exercise and classes in history, geography, foreign languages, mathematics, science, logic, drawing, and penmanship. Everything in the curriculum was bent toward the goal of perfection and triumph. Above all the Japanese cadets were to adopt “a will which knows no defeat.” So terrified were the cadets of any hint of failure that examination results were kept secret, to minimize the risk of suicide.

The academy was like an island to itself, sealed off from the rest of the world. The Japanese cadet enjoyed neither privacy nor any opportunity to exercise individual leadership skills. His reading material was carefully censored, and leisure time was nonexistent. History and science were distorted to project an image of the Japanese as a superrace. “During these impressionable years they have been walled off from all outside pleasures, interestes or influences,” one Western writer observed of the Japanese officers. “The atmosphere of the narrow groove along which they have moved has been saturated with a special national and a special military propaganda. Already from a race psychologically far removed from us, they have been removed still further.”

And more in this chapter.
 
Okay, then get rid of all that. I don't know, but perhaps get an event that forces them to reform their education system.
 
Okay, then get rid of all that. I don't know, but perhaps get an event that forces them to reform their education system.

As was mentioned up-thread, the unbroken string of military successes in this time won't help with efforts to alter the education system. One possibility that springs to mind is the Russo-Japanese war - is this early enough and important enough for a severe defeat in it to alter such a structure, if it's products are clearly shown to be wanting?
And are there any obvious opportunities in the war for the Russians to inflict such a defeat on the Japanese?
 
I'll note that the ultra-disciplined educational system was insufficient to prevent a quite powerful socialist and communist movement in Japan during the 20s...

Bruce
 
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.

I was in a bit of a Rush, so I couldn't explain it as much as I wanted to.

When dealing with the soviet union, Nazi Germany, WWII-era USA and UK, I believe a great deal can be changed simply by knocking off Hitler, Churchill, Stalin and/or Roosevelt.

Much of what happened hinges on a single man, making it easy to change.

Japan, not so much.

I would argue that a POD to change OTL Imperial Japan would have to start around the Meiji Restoration.
It all builds from the Restoration, picks up speed during the First Sino-Japanese War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, and hits it's high point with the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese war and WWII.

Having Said that, I think it's possible to have a POD anywhere from the Restoration to the Early 1920s can Change Japan.
However, the later the POD, the less likely Japan will be "accepting" such a sudden shift in policies.
 
Have Japan lose the Russo-Japan War, which actually can help solve issues other countries have, and may possibly prevent World War 1, depending on how the butterflies play out.
 
Taking the Germany/Japan comparison further it appears that paradoxically losing wars causes Nazis to rise in Germany, while winning wars causes militarists in Japan.
 
Taking the Germany/Japan comparison further it appears that paradoxically losing wars causes Nazis to rise in Germany, while winning wars causes militarists in Japan.

Well, it's how you win and lose too, no? If Japan's "victories" had been bloody exhausting multi-year horrors only pulled off with foreign aid like France in WWI, I doubt much enthusiasm for militarism would remain. OTOH, if the war in 1914 had been decided in the west "before the leaves fell", I can certainly imagine the Germans deciding that since _that_ had gone so well, futher expansion of Kultur by Fire and the Sword would be just nifty.

Bruce
 
Well, it's how you win and lose too, no? If Japan's "victories" had been bloody exhausting multi-year horrors only pulled off with foreign aid like France in WWI, I doubt much enthusiasm for militarism would remain. OTOH, if the war in 1914 had been decided in the west "before the leaves fell", I can certainly imagine the Germans deciding that since _that_ had gone so well, futher expansion of Kultur by Fire and the Sword would be just nifty.

Bruce
Hmmmm, good point. :)
 
I'll note that the ultra-disciplined educational system was insufficient to prevent a quite powerful socialist and communist movement in Japan during the 20s...

Bruce

On the other hand, I'm thinking that this socialist movement could have been a reaction to the stifling school system.
 
Top