abc123
Banned
Pre-Meiji? I'm quite sure they had vast ranges of autonomy. Haven't really researched on that though.
Had they been regarded as independent states?
Pre-Meiji? I'm quite sure they had vast ranges of autonomy. Haven't really researched on that though.
Had they been regarded as independent states?
De jure no, de facto not so sure. Other than taxation they seem to be able to do as they please, since even if the Shogun had absolute control over the daimyos I don't think it was ever enforced - seems quite a similar situation to Germany.
I would rather say that's the difference between a medieval and a modern state.
Only if they get given a zone. They don't seem to have kicked up a great deal of a fuss when it was just the US running the show, and when the UK and US asked about France getting an occupation zone in Germany the Soviets didn't really object other than that it had to come out of their zones. IIRC whilst they carried out a few attacks after the Japanese had surrendered to try and improve their position they certainly didn't push things as far as they could have done. Of course the other major stumbling block to the idea of other zones of control in Japan was MacArthur's ego. If it did occur the real fun would be in 1979 when diplomatic relations were switched between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China as I believe the Republic of China was slated to control Shikoku.But wouldn't that make things harder, since now the Soviets are even closer to Tokyo?
Japan, with a more or less homogeneous population in a medium sized country with a history of unitary rule is suited for a unitary type of administration. In fact federal structure is an unavoidable burden for large countries with populations with diverse cultures and traditions, like USA, Russia, India etc. The presence of federal and provincial level governments lead to a duplication of administrative functions and a double burden of administrative expenses.
So unless MacArthur forced federalism into the new Constitution (say, explicitly based it on the US one, or something), it just isn't going to happen. IMO.
Basically what I thought too. Actually, maybe being explicitly based on the US Constitution would be more plausible - for reference, where was West Germany's federal structure based from?And that's pretty fine POD in my opinion.
Maybe not so explicitly based on US Constitution, maybe rather Canada or Australia ( federal monarchies ).
With states based maybe on these lines ( + Ryu Kyu and Tokio as special district ):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Regionen_japans.png[/
what's a one castle system?As some have pointed you could of have had federalism exist from the Tokugawa Shogunate. The only problem is that the Tokugawa where built off an an alliance system that could be really fragile. However I believe there was a one castle system. You would have to get over the fact that Japan was technically federalized to an extreme degree by the Muromachi period (Ashikaga) and suffered from prolonged periods of warfare because of it.
Basically what I thought too. Actually, maybe being explicitly based on the US Constitution would be more plausible - for reference, where was West Germany's federal structure based from?
There, we have a problem - technically the structure was a continuation of the Weimar Republic, albeit with some "innovations" so as to deconcentrate power in the Presidency; in the West German case that meant moving the country away from a semi-presidential system towards a parliamentary republic - albeit with some additions towards human rights and the like imposed by the Allies. Japan, on the other hand, - well, there are those who believe that it was largely written up by Gen. MacArthur and which totally replaced the Meiji Constitution completely.