Bacward Japanese

I assume that the Japanese elite in the mid-nineteenth century would be more xenophobic and conservative, so it did not occur by the modernization of Japan, and it would remain as a poor and backward country like China, Korea or Thailand. How would it change world politics?
 
Would have such a 'closed' country put up a serious fight when the Russians leaned on them circa 1900 ? IIRC, the modernised IJN totally stomped the Imperial Russian fleet, causing a major flutter of butterflies and, IIRC, significantly contributing to the Russian Revolution. Recall the traumatised Russian navy proved a hot-bed of revolution, provided fire-support...

Else, the Japanese islands would be Imperial Russian, out-right or as protectorate. Would the-then Japanese Emperor's son have been married off to eg Anastasia ?
( Cue different take on 'The King & I' for musicals !! )
Apparently a nice man, perhaps time in the West and, surely, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai etc would have made him intolerant of the 'imperial cocooning' that let the militant faction run Japan in OTL...

Had there still been a Russian revolution, perhaps East of the Urals, Siberia etc, would switch allegiance to Anastasia ? And the White Russians would have support from the Far East ?? IIRC, the Revolutionaries' terror was that even one of the 'immediate succession' Romanovs would escape. Hence their massacre...

( FWIW, I worked with a nice guy who, to his considerable embarrassment, was twenty-something-ish in line to Romanov crown. Pete_W wanted nothing of it, but his parents, passionate succession-watchers, kept trying to pair him up with wannabe princesses to boost their combined ranking. NOT funny... )

Not modernised, no vast need for iron, fossil fuels etc mean Japan has no urge to set up a 'co prosperity' grab in the area. Mildly modernised, they can trade. FWIW, they might help open up Siberia !!

Uh, no Manchurian atrocities ? No CBW research on prisoners ?? No 'Pearl', no Bataan 'Death March', no H&N nukes ? In fact, 'Romanov' Japan would be allied to the UK via Victoria's cousins !! Even with a Revolution, they'd be supporting the Allies rather than the Axis, running supplies to the North Pacific ports...

So, no Pacific war beyond a few German commerce raiders, no need to deploy & lose UK, Dutch etc armies, navies, air-forces, battle in Burma etc etc.

And, without Pearl, would US have come in so promptly and forcefully ? Would they have stayed 'mostly neutral', held to lease-lend ??

Sorry, this ATL now has far, far too many butterflies for me to track further.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Japanese independence could be endangered. In the most extreme version, Japan could be partitioned, Hokkaido for Russia, Honshu for Britain, Kyushu for France and Shikoku for the US.

Alternatively, Japan could just as well retain its independence like Siam, Abyssinia and Afghanistan, but have to deal with extraterritoriality and treaty ports a lot longer. Russia would probably encroach bit by bit and occupy the Kurils and Sakhalin. Russia would also probably control Korea.
 
China is the best comparison, but Japan was almost a class in itself. It was a small, compact country, like China, but with large literacy for the region and time. The economy was well developed as well. The Meiji Restoration is a tad bit overrated, I have seen, in terms of effects--it more changed the people in control of Japan. Now, a more gradual evolution of Japan would definitely not be able to accomplish even the First Sino-Japanese War, let alone their victories over Russia and Korea, but colonising Japan is a bit out of the picture. Hokkaido is probably able to be maintained, but is also the most likely area to be lost. However, judging by the relatively low colonisation of Sakhalin the Tsarists did, I'm not sure how much Hokkaido could/would be colonised, and they might as well leave it to the backwards Japanese, which the Japanese had always been pushing to do--unlike Sakhalin, Hokkaido was always considered Japanese, even by the Chinese. And since Ethiopia was able to hold their gains in the south, after all, so why couldn't Japan hold theirs in the north?

The other three islands, well, I'm not sure how big the demand for colonialism could be. Certainly Vietnam shows that even stronger and organised nations were vulnerable, but IIRC Edo period Japan was even moreso than Vietnam. That's a big hurdle to overcome. The Ryukyus, though, could easily be colonised.

Butterflies are that Taiwan is likely to be seized by a Western power instead of Japan, and Korea will be part of Russia's sphere. I don't know if it would be fully annexed--it might get treated like an Asian Finland though, which I wonder what the impacts on Korea will be.
 
It's quite hard to get there in the first place.

The need to carry out westernizing reforms was recognized by both the Bakufu (Shogunate) and the Ishin Shishi (Nationalists), the more important difference was who would lead the country through such reforms. Japan in the 1860s had a prosperous economy, a centralized state, an educated populace (better than some European countries) and centuries of Rangaku (Dutch Studies) traditions behind its back. It's a country with deep rooted conditions for future reforms.

Probably a longer Boshin War, caused by open foreign intervention in favour of the Shogunate, would lead to a weaker Japan, in this case a war-weary, torn country, undoing what has been built up in the past centuries. And thus:

Scenario 1: Battlefield for the Imperialists
Japan's disunity soon made it a contesting ground for Europeans Imperialists. The Britons, Americans, Russians and Frenchmen each pick a side in the ever-changing alliance system among the Japanese Daimyos. which could lead to:


Scenario 1-1: Partition

Surely, the ensuing brawl among those Japanese is a sign that the Orientals doesn't know how to rule themselves. It's time for the enlightened races of Europe to bring them some civilization.

The Russians needed a warm water port in the Pacific, the Britons a captive market and a balance against Russia, and the French a prestige colony after its own humiliating defeat by the Prussians. So why should European gentlemen fight each other? Let's draw a straight line on the map over Honshu, and all have a share of our White Men's Burden, so that we can have peace among each other.



Scenario 1-2: Colonized By A Single Western Power

Winston Churchill once called Japan the Jewel on Her Majesty's Crown, and for her loyalty paid in blood, to the Empire in her role in containing Russian Expansionism, Fortress of Liberty in Asia. For the entire civilized world, The British Empire have transformed it from a backward warring archipelago, to a model colony ready to govern itself, with its shiny ports in Nagasaki, and a well-ordered society, organized in accordance with its traditional hierarchy.

What? Did you mention the Great Kanto famine? Well, it's indeed an unfortunate event, but it has nothing to do with free trade policies or the forced cultivation of economic crops.



Scenario 1-3: Open Door


With American intervention, Japan kept a nominal central government, with all its ports taken as Concessions or International Settlements. Its custom tax has been mortgaged to Anglo-French bankers to pay its foreign debts, and as a result, Japan central government no longer had any mean to invest in its own economy, it could no longer use protectionism to develop new industries, and Japan had gradually become a shared colony of the great powers.
 
It was a small, compact country, like China, but with large literacy for the region and time.
China is the complete opposite of a small, compact country.

Japanese literacy was comparable (somewhat higher, but still comparable) to that of China, Korea, Myanmar, and Thailand. East of India, Japanese literacy rates were markedly higher compared only to Vietnam and the Southeast Asian Archipelago.
 
China is the complete opposite of a small, compact country.

Japanese literacy was comparable (somewhat higher, but still comparable) to that of China, Korea, Myanmar, and Thailand. East of India, Japanese literacy rates were markedly higher compared only to Vietnam and the Southeast Asian Archipelago.

I mistyped that. It should be "unlike China", and that's what gives Japan the strength it had since it had comparable levels of administration in much smaller areas. The country was well-integrated.

Which era are you stating for Japanese literacy rates? Because I was under the impression that in the pre-Meiji 19th century, Japanese literacy rates were among the highest in Asia.
 
China is the complete opposite of a small, compact country.

Japanese literacy was comparable (somewhat higher, but still comparable) to that of China, Korea, Myanmar, and Thailand. East of India, Japanese literacy rates were markedly higher compared only to Vietnam and the Southeast Asian Archipelago.

15% is much lower than 40%....
 
Japan in the 1860s had a prosperous economy, a centralized state, an educated populace (better than some European countries) and centuries of Rangaku (Dutch Studies) traditions behind its back. It's a country with deep rooted conditions for future reforms.

I do not think so. Japan's Tokugawa period was typically Malthusian economy. In such an economy, economic growth will only increase in the number of population, while between 1721 and 1846 the population of Japan has not increased almost at all.

It's a country with deep rooted conditions for future reforms.

Xenophobia and feudal division of society does not foster change.
 
The late Tokugawa era. Japanese male literacy rates were 40%. Compare with Myanmar (>60% for males over 25), Thailand (app. 40%), China (15-45%).
Isn´t that estimate a bit too big for China? For what year is it? (the lower estimate is not unrealistic, it´s weird that there is such a high one though).
 
Last edited:
I do not think so. Japan's Tokugawa period was typically Malthusian economy. In such an economy, economic growth will only increase in the number of population, while between 1721 and 1846 the population of Japan has not increased almost at all.

Xenophobia and feudal division of society does not foster change.

Yes, it was at the limit for its population, but how is that too big of an obstacle? It just means it will send many immigrants like Southern Italy.

The society was also still structured at least as efficiently as Latin America, Iberia, Russia, or other backwards parts of the world at the time. Not easy to colonise, and with demographics, a potential to make an important impact.

I think an "island version of Thailand" with that much focus on naval power, would be a good example. Japan's focus would be on the Ryukus and Taiwan in the south and the Kuriles and Sakhalin in the north, like Thailand's focus on the territories the French and British stole from them. Of course, Japan's naval power will be far, far less than OTL to acheive this.
 
Top