AHC: A less militaristic Japan

jahenders

Banned
Assuming they take Manchuria, how would the border skrimishs with the Soviets go? I can't imagine theyd be happy fighting on the same side as the Soviets if they go as they did otl

I don't think you can get the Japanese "fighting on the same side" as the allies. What I suggest is that it's remotely possible that, with a slightly better relationship and more effort, Japan and the US/UK could reach some kind of loose agreement that would constrain Japan's aggression to certain channels. This could potentially have the effect of keeping Japan's aggression from being as extreme, directly affecting US/UK possessions, affecting Russia, etc. In effect, Japan's aggression would be a separate war going on at the same time as WWII, but not directly part of it.
 
Could Japan have managed a true "Greater East Asian" co prosperity sphere" without the extreme methods they used in otl. For instance might they have managed a relationship with China giving them access to markets and raw materials. During the European War could they have encouraged client regimes to take over in French Indo China and the Dutch East Indies?

It seems unlikely, simply because they looked to Western imperialism as a model for whatever they decided to do. If it's not exploitative, it's not seen as profitable. And obviously any serious attempts to undercut European colonies would not be taken kindly by Britain/the United States, and so you get your losing war anyways. They could have tried making some noises about "keeping Vichy Indochina out of the Nazis' hands", but I don't think anybody would buy it.
 
Considering what the 21 Demands said, I think Japan's interests would heavily overlap with those already possessed by Britain, Russia and the United States. Considering Japan's relative lack of power(regardless of its self-perception as a rising global power) and its lack of "direct experience" with those nations, along with the militarist attitude of nations during the time, war was inevitable.
 
Top