AHC: Sane Imperial Japan?

[Hashoosh]

Preferably with a POD after the 1905 war, or during it that results in peace on similar terms to OTL. Can there be an Imperial Japan that doesn't devolve into leadership-by-assassination and the junior officers?

Sorry if this isn't the right format for this question, this is my first AHC thread

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Preferably with a POD after the 1905 war, or during it that results in peace on similar terms to OTL. Can there be an Imperial Japan that doesn't devolve into leadership-by-assassination and the junior officers?

Sorry if this isn't the right format for this question, this is my first AHC thread

Mitigate or preferably avoid the impact of the Great Depression.

No crisis, no loss of public confidence in the parliamentary politics.

 

[mcdo]

Can there be an Imperial Japan that doesn't devolve into leadership-by-assassination and the junior officers?

With 1905 as a starting point, there are dozens of PoDs you could use. I do not accept that Militarist Japan is inevitable or a natural outgrowth of early 20th century Japan, any more than 1905 Germany was destined to become Nazi Germany.

For a start, you could use the Taisho Constitutional Crisis of 1912. Originally, the Privy Council backed the elected government. If they continued to do so, the rule that only active-duty officers could become the Army or Navy ministers is never established, and the military never gains veto power over the formation of new cabinets. That alone probably precludes the rise of the Militarists.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

For a start, you could use the Taisho Constitutional Crisis of 1912. Originally, the Privy Council backed the elected government. If they continued to do so, the rule that only active-duty officers could become the Army or Navy ministers is never established, and the military never gains veto power over the formation of new cabinets. That alone probably precludes the rise of the Militarists.

That wouldn't prevent this or even this.

EDIT: That 'active-duty' rule was abolished in 1913 already. Re-established only in 1936.

 

[Hashoosh]

But is a Japan that doesn't go down the militarist route subject to large scale radicalism among the lower class? I'm a little fuzzy on the details of this, but did the militarists provide a rallying point for the poor to turn to that wasn't communism?

And from the point of view of a Japanese based PoD, I'd like to rule out changing the Great Depression too much, though mitigating its effect on Japan (so long as it doesn't alter the global side of the Depression) is certainly possible. I'm under the impression that avoiding the Great Depression is unlikely, but by no means ASB. Is this wrong?

 

[marathag]

The Japanese Crazy Train started after the 1923 Earthquake.

There was a Pogrom on Korean immigrants right after that(thousands murdered), and Socialists arrested, and in some cases, summarily executed.

A bit later, the Public Security Preservation Law was passed, where dissent was all but banned, and there actually had the Thought Police, the Tokko, known as Shiso Keisatsu.

They were both uniformed, and undercover, with a large network of informers.

 

[Hashoosh]

The Japanese Crazy Train started after the 1923 Earthquake.

There was a Pogrom on Korean immigrants right after that(thousands murdered), and Socialists arrested, and in some cases, summarily executed.

A bit later, the Public Security Preservation Law was passed, where dissent was all but banned, and there actually had the Thought Police, the Tokko, known as Shiso Keisatsu.

They were both uniformed, and undercover, with a large network of informers.

Right, but being a repressive police state doesn't mean you have to be a balls-to-walls-crazy police state. Is the Kanto earthquake accepted as the historical cause for the Crazy-Train? I'm asking because Japan isn't my area of expertise.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Right, but being a repressive police state doesn't mean you have to be a balls-to-walls-crazy police state. Is the Kanto earthquake accepted as the historical cause for the Crazy-Train? I'm asking because Japan isn't my area of expertise.

Part of what turned them was the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. The Japanese saw their Alliance with Great Britain as a sign of Japan's important position in international politics, but Great Britain had to break it (under pressure from Americans who saw Japan as a rising, competing power in the pacific).

 

[Orry]

Could a larger commitment to supporting the British Empire in WW1 help to cement Anglo-Japanese ties?

A Division or two of Japanese troops deployed outside the far east - Some Naval units deployed to the UK to help enforce the Blockade leading to Japan getting a fairer deal after the war? Or at least what they perceive as a fairer deal.

 

[Hashoosh]

Part of what turned them was the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. The Japanese saw their Alliance with Great Britain as a sign of Japan's important position in international politics, but Great Britain had to break it (under pressure from Americans who saw Japan as a rising, competing power in the pacific).

From this wiki article, it seems like the Naval Treaties (and most events after the Meiji restoration) weren't causes for the rise of militant nationalism, but either symptomatic (in the cases of the coups and the military's adventurism) or catalysts.

The Japanese, AIUI, were influenced pretty heavily by the Prussian system and this combined with the fact that their elite were so overwhelmingly directly descended or former members of the land-holding military elite that had dominated society since (at least) the 1600s laid pretty fertile ground for the crazy train to come along.

It looks increasingly hard to justify a non-insane Japan without fundamentally altering its societal structure. Maybe a PoD where the Prussian influence is mitigated in favour of British, but the problem persists that Prussian militarism is so damned attractive for the elite in Japan that I don't see how it can be avoided.

Just from reading up on the May 15th incident, Japanese society was beyond crazy at that point, and I think the roots are deeper than anything of the 20th century. 350,000 signatures (in blood ) on a petition to acquit the officers who murdered the Prime Minister, 11 severed fingers of people who wanted to be executed in their stead. These are not things you see in a stable society...

 

[Hashoosh]

Could a larger commitment to supporting the British Empire in WW1 help to cement Anglo-Japanese ties?

A Division or two of Japanese troops deployed outside the far east - Some Naval units deployed to the UK to help enforce the Blockade leading to Japan getting a fairer deal after the war? Or at least what they perceive as a fairer deal.

That still leaves the conflicting ideas about China; Japan wanted direct control of its resources, while Britain was more in favour of the hands-off free trade policy that it had pursued around the world for most of the 19th century. The fact that this coincided with America's idea for an Open Door policy for China made it pretty easy for Britain to eschew the Anglo-Japanese alliance by agreeing to the Washington Naval Conference. There's not much that Japan can offer as an ally that America cannot, and Japan is far less dangerous as an enemy to boot.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Could a larger commitment to supporting the British Empire in WW1 help to cement Anglo-Japanese ties?

A Division or two of Japanese troops deployed outside the far east - Some Naval units deployed to the UK to help enforce the Blockade leading to Japan getting a fairer deal after the war? Or at least what they perceive as a fairer deal.

I doubt it. America's far to important an ally for Britain.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

From this wiki article, it seems like the Naval Treaties (and most events after the Meiji restoration) weren't causes for the rise of militant nationalism, but either symptomatic (in the cases of the coups and the military's adventurism) or catalysts.

The Japanese, AIUI, were influenced pretty heavily by the Prussian system and this combined with the fact that their elite were so overwhelmingly directly descended or former members of the land-holding military elite that had dominated society since (at least) the 1600s laid pretty fertile ground for the crazy train to come along.

It looks increasingly hard to justify a non-insane Japan without fundamentally altering its societal structure. Maybe a PoD where the Prussian influence is mitigated in favour of British, but the problem persists that Prussian militarism is so damned attractive for the elite in Japan that I don't see how it can be avoided.

Just from reading up on the May 15th incident, Japanese society was beyond crazy at that point, and I think the roots are deeper than anything of the 20th century. 350,000 signatures (in blood ) on a petition to acquit the officers who murdered the Prime Minister, 11 severed fingers of people who wanted to be executed in their stead. These are not things you see in a stable society...

Not really. In WW1, the Japanese handled their campaign so well that some Germans chose to stay in Japan. Compare that to their horrific actions in WW2.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

But is a Japan that doesn't go down the militarist route subject to large scale radicalism among the lower class? I'm a little fuzzy on the details of this, but did the militarists provide a rallying point for the poor to turn to that wasn't communism?

They turned to the militarism because they shared the animosity toward 'the establishment' and 'corrupted' parliamentary institutions. Had the public kept their trust in democracy and economic progress, radicalism wouldn't have surged. Many 'militaristic' figures during the 1930s and the 1940s had their backgrounds in moderate or even progressive politics before the Great Depression; People like Aso Hisashi and Adachi Kenzo comes to my mind.

Communism enjoyed no wide support at all, and effective government suppression largely destroyed the Japanese Communist Party by the 1930s.

And from the point of view of a Japanese based PoD, I'd like to rule out changing the Great Depression too much, though mitigating its effect on Japan (so long as it doesn't alter the global side of the Depression) is certainly possible. I'm under the impression that avoiding the Great Depression is unlikely, but by no means ASB. Is this wrong?

Avoiding the Great Depression without a global POD, well I have no real idea, mitigating however wouldn't be so hard. A POD involving the reintroduction of the Gold standard, of OTL January 1930 (!), could be a good starting point.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Part of what turned them was the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. The Japanese saw their Alliance with Great Britain as a sign of Japan's important position in international politics, but Great Britain had to break it (under pressure from Americans who saw Japan as a rising, competing power in the pacific).

I doubt it. America's far to important an ally for Britain.

The Anglo-Japanese alliance was phased out because of complaints from Canada and Australia, not because of pressure from the United States. America was not an important and true British ally until 1941, before that they were trade partners at best and friendly rivals at worst.

The Anglo-Japanese treaty threatened Australians and Canadians who feared it encouraged Japanese immigration (good old yellow peril) and would allow Japan to become one of the dominant powers in the Pacific which would threaten their interests and in any potential war between Japan and the US draw them into a war they didn't want.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

From this wiki article, it seems like the Naval Treaties (and most events after the Meiji restoration) weren't causes for the rise of militant nationalism, but either symptomatic (in the cases of the coups and the military's adventurism) or catalysts.

The Japanese, AIUI, were influenced pretty heavily by the Prussian system and this combined with the fact that their elite were so overwhelmingly directly descended or former members of the land-holding military elite that had dominated society since (at least) the 1600s laid pretty fertile ground for the crazy train to come along.

It looks increasingly hard to justify a non-insane Japan without fundamentally altering its societal structure. Maybe a PoD where the Prussian influence is mitigated in favour of British, but the problem persists that Prussian militarism is so damned attractive for the elite in Japan that I don't see how it can be avoided.

Just from reading up on the May 15th incident, Japanese society was beyond crazy at that point, and I think the roots are deeper than anything of the 20th century. 350,000 signatures (in blood ) on a petition to acquit the officers who murdered the Prime Minister, 11 severed fingers of people who wanted to be executed in their stead. These are not things you see in a stable society...

There were two essentially different creatures within the Japanese militarism. One was more 'traditionalist' and stems back from the Meiji military elitism. The other one was however more of 'populist' and had its root at radical agrarianism. No wonder many Kodoha junior officers had rural and impoverished backgrounds.

 

[Hashoosh]

The Anglo-Japanese alliance was phased out because of complaints from Canada and Australia, not because of pressure from the United States. America was not an important and true British ally until 1941, before that they were trade partners at best and friendly rivals at worst.

The Anglo-Japanese treaty threatened Australians and Canadians who feared it encouraged Japanese immigration (good old yellow peril) and would allow Japan to become one of the dominant powers in the Pacific which would threaten their interests and in any potential war between Japan and the US draw them into a war they didn't want.

Even without the complaints of the Dominions, the US is still a hugely more attractive potential partner than Japan, and Britain and the US don't really have conflicts with one another by this point. There's no reason to continue the Anglo-Japanese alliance so long as Japan and America are at odds.

Not to mention the issue of what Japan wanted in China, compared to the American and British interests there.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

The Anglo-Japanese alliance was phased out because of complaints from Canada and Australia, not because of pressure from the United States. America was not an important and true British ally until 1941, before that they were trade partners at best and friendly rivals at worst.

The Anglo-Japanese treaty threatened Australians and Canadians who feared it encouraged Japanese immigration (good old yellow peril) and would allow Japan to become one of the dominant powers in the Pacific which would threaten their interests and in any potential war between Japan and the US draw them into a war they didn't want.

Um... nope. You're not totally wrong, but American pressure did play a part. That's an undeniable fact.

Japan already was one of the dominant powers in the Pacific.

 

[mcdo]

That wouldn't prevent this or even this.

EDIT: That 'active-duty' rule was abolished in 1913 already. Re-established only in 1936.

Why would it not? I see no reason to assume either of those events would occur with such a far-reaching PoD a generation before. I may have been incorrect about the active-duty requirement (do you have a source? I am sure I am wrong, but I would love to see the exact dates), but I think the point still stands. The Taisho Constitutional Crisis set the precedent that the army or navy could cause the collapse of any government simply by withdrawing their minister and refusing to replace him. Hoyt called this the 'fatal flaw' of the Meiji constitution, and I am inclined to agree. It guaranteed that the civilian or elected governments would always be too weak to stand up to the military, and the military would use this power, or threaten to do so, many times. It was a close-run thing and it could have gone another way. If it had, if the military could not collapse or prevent the formation of cabinets, then I think the entire power structure of Imperial Japan is changed. Most likely, the military men's conception of themselves, and of their role in the government and society, is also drastically altered. I think the rise of the Militarists is unlikely in these circumstances.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

do you have a source? I am sure I am wrong, but I would love to see the exact dates

This, and this.

The 1912 crisis was a bad precedent indeed and every history book and article I have read seems to agree on that, but the political crisis during the early 1930s was hardly related to the active-duty officer rule.