AHC/WI: Imperial Japan in the Cold War

let's asume an economic developement for the whole empire like japan had after the war. a japanese empire today would have (if manchuria, korea and taiwan are integrated into the empire):
-population: 335 million (todays numbers, with all the ww2 deaths)
-gdp nominal: ~16 trillion USD

this goes way above great power level.

here's the military spending:
-at 1% military spending like now: 155 billion USD
-at 2% nato spending: 310 billion USD
-at 4% USA spending: 620 billion USD

they could afford a lot of things with that kind of money, the 4% one is virtually the same as the USA, and if it's even slightly militarist it could be even higher.

if it's not in nato/western camp having such a huge force concentration in east asia would make it a gigantic head ache for washington.

you'd need to invent a new category, it's not a great power because its far too big for that, and it's not a superpower because no military bases to project power from.
 
Let's assume an economic development for the whole empire like japan had after the war

Let us not do that. After WW2, Japan had just endured some very serious bombing, embargo, blockade and two nukes. In essence, it's economy was in tatters, allowing it to move straight into boom phase when all those issues were resolved. This Japan is going to have a lower overall growth rate and no economic boom, because it's starting from a higher base. On the other hand, it's going to remain a great power, but only if it can retain Korean and Manchuria. If it can't, it's off to regional power status.
 
I don't think you would need bases around the world to project power just friendly nations who can allow port.

A nuclear carrier strike group can be the base on its own as long as you are being supplied by some friendly ports.

Once africa starts asking for Japanese help in their indepdence, then suddenly you have a whole continent with ports favoring the Japanese than any foreign power.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Let us not do that. After WW2, Japan had just endured some very serious bombing, embargo, blockade and two nukes. In essence, it's economy was in tatters, allowing it to move straight into boom phase when all those issues were resolved. This Japan is going to have a lower overall growth rate and no economic boom, because it's starting from a higher base. On the other hand, it's going to remain a great power, but only if it can retain Korean and Manchuria. If it can't, it's off to regional power status.

The regions that suffered the most damage in World War II came back stronger because they had to build new infrastructure and industry. They were able to benefit from being a late adopter, going directly to the latest technology after others had developed it. Of course, arguing that wars and/or military Keynesianism are economically desirable is the broken window fallacy. A country is always economically better off investing in itself instead of fixing things, fighting wars, or investing in its military.

I don't think you would need bases around the world to project power just friendly nations who can allow port.

A nuclear carrier strike group can be the base on its own as long as you are being supplied by some friendly ports.

Once africa starts asking for Japanese help in their indepdence, then suddenly you have a whole continent with ports favoring the Japanese than any foreign power.

It depends on the definition. Historically, there hasn't been a superpower or major great power that didn't have bases and/or basing rights overseas.
 
Let us not do that. After WW2, Japan had just endured some very serious bombing, embargo, blockade and two nukes. In essence, it's economy was in tatters, allowing it to move straight into boom phase when all those issues were resolved. This Japan is going to have a lower overall growth rate and no economic boom, because it's starting from a higher base. On the other hand, it's going to remain a great power, but only if it can retain Korean and Manchuria. If it can't, it's off to regional power status.

the bombing of great britain was spotty at best while industry kept increasing the whole time during the war, yet there was an economic boom afterwards. in fact all advanced economies, war or no war, destruction or no destruction, experienced 30 years of unprecedented growth after the war.

a war in europe would be a good opportunity for japan to sell its own supplies and weapons to the allies and russia. it brings in money, expands industry and creates more work for the masses.

as for korea and manchuria, the japanese inteded to assimilate them both, in korea they were really successful with the middle class, in manchuria they were shipping in lots of colonists. there's no decolonisation if the colonies are that close and if they have enough loyal citizens to justify staying. compare it to russian siberia.
 
It depends on the definition. Historically, there hasn't been a superpower or major great power that didn't have bases and/or basing rights overseas.

Everybody asked for foreign bases not basing rights. It is the reason why I said friendly ports which is basing rights.

If you meant basing rights, Japan will have basing rights around the world considering it is anti-colonial with a very different post WW2 world. Japan not having basing rights is too OTL biased.
 

Deleted member 9338

Since they are untouched by war, Japan would probably have nukes and the second largest armed forces and second largest economy in the world by 1950s.

I would assume at best third, behind US and USSR. Your order may very.
 
they'd get the bomb as second. japan, unlike russia (and germany) has not murdered its intellectuals. they did have 2 bomb programs during the war.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
They'd most likely be Western aligned, I doubt they'd go the Non-Aligned movement. If they (somehow) reformed/avoided picking a fight with the US/UK/Netherlands/Everybody, they'd most likely be a strong military power opposed to the Soviet Union, which was usually good enough for Washington.

What that means for China, on the other hand, is a whole different kettle of fish.

What would happen with the war in China? The Soviets could supply material to communists and other rebel groups in China to fight Japan, and Japan and the Western powers would have a major interest in preventing China from going communist. Would China essentially turn into a Vietnam esque war for the next few decades?
/ message sig
__________________


For the first twenty years or so post war I suspect Japan remains an international pariah, and the USA and USSR are both friendly with Nationalist China. At some point China chooses a side in the cold war, east west or non aligned. If its east then the US will probably make up with Japan to "Contain" china. If it's west Japan probably remains a pariah state, and non aligned probably means at least some US support.

In a world with a communist bloc facing a capitalist bloc though then imperial japan will be very gung-ho for the anti communist side.Given that OTL America almost gave Communist China a free pass when dealing with the USSR, I think that Japan would wind up aligned with America at some point.

I personally am not certain, tbh; one really cannot underestimate the degree to which anti-communism defined Japanese foreign policy from the 20s onwards. Virtually all other wars were simply considered extensions of strategic interest; communism was viewed as being a direct existential threat against the kokutai, albeit, for very good reason.


I think most posts so far have been too biased toward a western Japanese coalition against the USSR. I earlier pointed out the Japan and the USSR might cooperate, which was responded to by explaining how anti-communist Japan was. Fair enough. But I wonder if folks here are overestimating how much America and the western democracies would be single-mindedly on opposing the USSR and how accepting they would be of Japan.

Rather, I think that if Japan avoids fighting in WWII, but a WWII happens in Europe ending with a German defeat, that the mentality of the west may be different compared to OTL's Cold War. Rather, the post-WWII world would not be "born bipolar" but would be more complex all along. The US army and air force, victorious in Europe, will likely come to consider the USSR its biggest rival in Europe, but the US navy may keep its tradition going back to 1907, of considering Japan its main rival. Japan won't necessarily be popular in the west and get an automatic free pass for being anti-communist. Certainly, if there's still a Sino-Japanese war (that does not become a trans-Pacific war) , Japan will be considered at least as bad as the USSR in the aftermath of German defeat.

Even if the PoD is set further back and full-on Sino-Japanese war is headed off, the occupation of Manchukuo, the Shanghai incident of 1932, internal regimentation and naval rivalry will likely make Japan less than popular in France, Britain, and especially America. Remember there had been bouts of Japanophobia a generation before WWII. Even when Japan was allied with the Entente, America had a lot of yellow peril talk and was angered by the 21 Demands on China, even though it did not involve war. A lot of US sentiment opposed the Japanese acquisition of Qingdao and was bothered by the complete Japanese takeover of Manchukuo.

I say all this to say, that in the proposed ATL of a Europe-only WWII, after the Germans are defeated, the US and Britain will perceive two "pretty bad guys" in the USSR and Japan, rather than a single "bad guy" in Moscow.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Nowadays the PRC has had a lot of success with business ventures in the developing world because it doesn't have a modern history as an imperial power, especially in places outside of Asia, but China's imperial growth took place well before the modern era, and the RoC and PRC were both anti-imperialist and victims of Western imperialism. Could Japan have successfully positioned itself as an anti-imperialist alternative to the Europeans and Americans despite all its various annexations?
 
What if Imperial Japan refrained from entering World War II, surviving into the Cold War era? What would be its position relative to the superpowers and great powers, and what kind of role would Imperial Japan and East Asia play in the Cold War struggle?

This begs the question of how Imperial Japan avoids war with the U.S. and Britain.

ISTM that for Japan to avoid war, Japan has to bring its army under control. IOW it has to stop being the Imperial Japan of OTL.

Political evolution of Japan in that circumstance would be possible. The militarist "regime" was never formally organized as such. Japan's civilian government, complete with elections, existed throughout the period.

But it was dominated by the Army. This domination was enforced through violence by random junior officers, not through any formal process.

Taming the Army means ending that reign of terror. And then Japan could revert, more or less naturally, to a conventional parliamentary system. The parts are already in place.

Such a Japan could become an ally of the U.S.-led anti-Soviet coalition.

There are other considerations. What happens in China? (It would be really weird if Mao took over China while Japan still held Manchuria. Manchuria would be an enormous salient in Communist Asia. Could Japan keep it? Would China invade? Eventually, I guess.)

Suppose the Sino-Japanese War ends with Japanese withdrawal; Chiang will look heroic and successful, and Mao probably doesn't get a look in. This is a huge change in the Cold War; no Korean War, no Vietnam War.

Alternatively, the Japanese Army might decide to back off in China, but stay in charge in an unofficial junta. Gekokujō will no longer be tolerated, and all juniors that are not under control get liquidated, but Japan remains militaristic and totalitarian - though now more cautious.

Japan would then be a sort of third force in the Cold War - hostile to the USSR, but unfriendly to the US and Britain as well, and prepared to make tactical alliances with the USSR. If China has survived the war, there could be a Sino-Japanese alliance. The two Asian powers might seek to divide the European colonies in SE Asia between them, sponsoring anti-colonial insurrections and satellite governments.

Japan will of course seek nuclear weapons. (Nukes are a prerequisite of a Cold War, so they exist.)
 
I agree that an imperial japan disrupts the "one bad guy" view of the otl world, BUT, the late 40s was still an Europe centered world, at least from the US's perspective, so imo, the Soviets are still "Number one bad guy".

To avoid war with the us, i assume uk and french colonies in se asia are still there, to fall later than otl.

i assume that us entered war in europe somewhat later, but not by much. Europe still divided, imo, with similar cold war.


China, nationalists or communists will not ally with the japanese. The soviets will funnel weapons to them both.

allies of communists tend to have bleak futures.

but regardless, china turns into Vietnam on steroids.

Guerrilla tactics on a huge scale, literally genocidal responses from the japanese.


I do not see the japanese being driven out by the 50s. that is to quick for a nation that fought wwii against the US.


economic growth will be hampered by unending war.

would be interesting to see how the military deals with the soviets, right on their border, killing them indirectly...

I could see the military deciding the answer is to cut supplies to the guerrilla by attacking the soviet far east.

As they start to lose and the us has to face the idea of the soviets gaining the largest population as an ally, the US could be drawn in in a supporting role.


Though japanese tactics would make any long term partnership very unstable.
 
Top