DBWI: Japan was able to westernise in the 19th century.

could japan have westernised in the 19th century And if so how would that effect Asian history afterwards. We know at the time the islands of Japan were culturaly united and had high literacy rate that eclipsed many Europe states, could they have curbed the British domination of of the china seas and the subsequent seizures of the Chinese maritime cities by the other European powers, it may have been a miracle japan was not colonised like Korea or Siam but is it ASB for them to reach western industrial standards in the couple of decades before the end of the century.
 
Perhaps what Japan needed was colonisation, who knows. Korea and the Philippines saw great modernisation under American rule.
 
Perhaps what Japan needed was colonisation, who knows. Korea and the Philippines saw great modernisation under American rule.

But the formerly Russian Korea is a piece of dung, and Philippines where lucky america got them in one piece, if Japan was colonised it would have been split between atleast the 4 powers and because of all this mistrust they were left alone after the congress of Berlin.
 
OOC: Can we not go the same route of Asian colonization? :):):)

Perhaps what Japan needed was colonisation, who knows. Korea and the Philippines saw great modernisation under American rule.

IC: That's a lie and you know it. My country was already modernizing under Novales and the First Empire before that bloody civil war forced us under the "gracious protection" of those arrogant Protestants.

It's a good thing America had only a couple decades here before the Great War forced them out. They got a couple concessions from us already. Who knows what bloody harm they would have done had they been here longer?
 

Zlorfik

Banned
Early-mid 19th century ?
We'll probably see (at least an attempted) Japanese naval empire of sorts.

Its immediate rivals in the area are all backwards places. Russia can't project all that much power all the way across Siberia just yet— leaving only distant European naval powers- which could be played off against each other- to worry about.
 
This is a really, really big waste of my communication privileges, but I'll give you a scenario:

The United States is able to send someone to Japan to help them industrialize, by avoiding the Bermuda Crisis, which resulted in a naval war in which the American navy was crushed by the Royal Navy.

Then, after adopting Western ideas, the Japanese look to expand throughout the Pacific. They take many of the islands close to China, and parts of China proper, but are then beaten in a war against the Dual Alliance.

OOC: Think of the Bermuda Crisis as a slave ship incident that escalates into a Anglo-American war.
 
This is ASB I am afraid. No non western country managed to industrialize in the XIX century. By then, the window for modernization had already been closed. Japan was 4 centuries behind Europe in terms of technology, having chosen to isolate itself from the rest of the world.

They might have done so if they hadn't isolated themselves in the XVI century. In fact, back then the technological gap wasn't big, and might have even become a regional power, colonizing East and SouthEastAsia and trading with europe in equal terms. They might even have form alliances with Euporepean countries and sent ambassadors there (though they'd probably have had to become Christians in order to be accepted as an equal member of the "civilized" world).

But in the XIX century? Impossible, not when you have great powers with steamships willing to sell you their goods and buy your raw materials and you only have muskets an swords to defend yourself.

The last nos European or culturally European country to modernize before the XX century was Russia, and did so in the XVIII century. Its cultural and geographical proximity to Europe did help.

Other countries tried (Siam, Ethiopia, Persia) without much success. The best Japan could expect was not to be colonised due to the fact that the US, Russia and European Powers didn't know how to divide it among themselves. OTL is the best outcome Japan could have expected.
 
Perhaps what Japan needed was colonisation, who knows. Korea and the Philippines saw great modernisation under American rule.

Korea was a protectorate, we stationed naval bases there, and we sent advisors but at no point were we actually in charge. Korea's decision to become a democracy was one it made on its own after generations of misrule by the monarchy.

Yes the young korean republic asked us for help because the chinese invaded, we agreed to float them loans, and a bunch of our civil war surplus weapontry in exchange for 99, year leases on some of their harbors.

Said leases still allowed korea to use them for their own shipping and the unequal treaty part of it was dropped in the Seoul naval treaty of 1928. At no point was america actually in charge of making and enforcing laws over the people of korea.


We eventally gave the Philipenes independence, our behavior during the conquest of those islands was... terrible but we left the islands with a functioning democracy that is now the 32nd richest country on earth.
 
Korea was a protectorate, we stationed naval bases there, and we sent advisors but at no point were we actually in charge. Korea's decision to become a democracy was one it made on its own after generations of misrule by the monarchy.

Yes the young korean republic asked us for help because the chinese invaded, we agreed to float them loans, and a bunch of our civil war surplus weapontry in exchange for 99, year leases on some of their harbors.

Said leases still allowed korea to use them for their own shipping and the unequal treaty part of it was dropped in the Seoul naval treaty of 1928. At no point was america actually in charge of making and enforcing laws over the people of korea.


We eventally gave the Philipenes independence, our behavior during the conquest of those islands was... terrible but we left the islands with a functioning democracy that is now the 32nd richest country on earth.

Oh bull-fucking-SHIT. There was no mismanagement under the monarchy, that was invented to justify a bunch of corrupt military officers taking control because the King was trying to sign a TRUE constitution. That coup was obviously supported by you guys, who then came to the defense of your new puppet. All throughout the Republics existence, it was basically Washington's bitch. Speaking as a Korean, I'm very glad Tsar Sergei liberated us from your puppet hood and restored there Monarchy. The more you Imperialists deny atrocities like the comfort women the harder reconciliation becomes. Well, the American East Asia Company finally overstepped its bounds when tin tried to start shit with Russia in Manchuria, and my only regret is that I wasn't alive at the time to grab some popcorn and observe the fall of an empire.
 
Perhaps "Japonism" would be less of a factor in Western culture? Much of the fascination with Japan in the West came from the fact that it remained in its "Edo" period for so long. If Japan were to westernize, then most of the things Westerners found so enchanting in Japanese culture and society would be lost.

Take "Kimonoism" for example; if Japanese people stopped wearing the kimono in every-day life, then there`s no way that it would become so popular in the West to make a fashion style.
 
IC: That's a lie and you know it. My country was already modernizing under Novales and the First Empire before that bloody civil war forced us under the "gracious protection" of those arrogant Protestants.

It's a good thing America had only a couple decades here before the Great War forced them out. They got a couple concessions from us already. Who knows what bloody harm they would have done had they been here longer?

OOC: I didn't include the Philippines so I could have a chat about the war atrocities and massacres the Americans did. I did it because the Philippines was an OTL colony of America.
Furthermore this is a DBWI, so presumably Koreans would view their colonisation in a good light if there was textbook manipulation as per OTL.

Oh bull-fucking-SHIT. There was no mismanagement under the monarchy, that was invented to justify a bunch of corrupt military officers taking control because the King was trying to sign a TRUE constitution. That coup was obviously supported by you guys, who then came to the defense of your new puppet. All throughout the Republics existence, it was basically Washington's bitch. Speaking as a Korean, I'm very glad Tsar Sergei liberated us from your puppet hood and restored there Monarchy. The more you Imperialists deny atrocities like the comfort women the harder reconciliation becomes. Well, the American East Asia Company finally overstepped its bounds when tin tried to start shit with Russia in Manchuria, and my only regret is that I wasn't alive at the time to grab some popcorn and observe the fall of an empire.

OOC: Are you a Korean? Even if you are, there's no reason to be pissed over a DBWI. I doubt the colonisation of Korea IOTL would be exactly same ITTL - Japan's need for Korea was to gain a platform into China, while America's objective of the time was to gain superiority in trade against other foreign countries over China.
 
Japan would still remain a second/third rate country given it's complete lack of raw materials.With an abundance of natural resources and a large population like China however,you'll sooner or later see the rise of a great power.Unlike China,who was able to rapidly westernise after the deposition of the Qing Dynasty and it's replacement with an innovative,ethnic Han Dynasty that's able to maintain centralised rule,Japan still faced the trouble of being utterly decentralised.Even after being westernised in the 20th century,the country's still under the rule of various Daimyos each with their own private army.It wasn't until the 1950s that the country emerged as a centralised state after the Second Sengoku Jidai.
 
Last edited:
Japan would still remain a second/third rate country given it's complete lack of raw materials.With an abundance of natural resources and a large population like China however,you'll sooner or later see the rise of a great power.Unlike China,who was able to rapidly westernise after the deposition of the Qing Dynasty and it's replacement with an innovative,ethnic Han Dynasty that's able to maintain centralised rule,Japan still faced the trouble of being utterly decentralised.Even after being westernised in the 20th century,the country's still under the rule of various Daimyos each with their own private army.It wasn't until the 1950s that the country emerged as a centralised state after the Second Sengoku Jidai.

China's industrialisation post-Quing was anything but rapid and centralized. The Han state was the place where Franco-British, German-American AND Russian influence spheres clashed for nearly eighty years, and each block had a de-facto protectorate within the Han state, and that's not even counting places like Hong Kong or Quingdao.

Hell, Manchuria remained under Russian control even during the failed Revolutions of 1920. which saw Poland, Finland and the Balctic states gaining independence, so China still wasn't even whole, much less centralized !
 
OOC: Are you a Korean? Even if you are, there's no reason to be pissed over a DBWI. I doubt the colonisation of Korea IOTL would be exactly same ITTL - Japan's need for Korea was to gain a platform into China, while America's objective of the time was to gain superiority in trade against other foreign countries over China.

OOC: No, I'm not, I' just roleplaying as one. I'm not pissed in real life, don't worry.
 
Japan would still remain a second/third rate country given it's complete lack of raw materials.With an abundance of natural resources and a large population like China however,you'll sooner or later see the rise of a great power.Unlike China,who was able to rapidly westernise after the deposition of the Qing Dynasty and it's replacement with an innovative,ethnic Han Dynasty that's able to maintain centralised rule,Japan still faced the trouble of being utterly decentralised.Even after being westernised in the 20th century,the country's still under the rule of various Daimyos each with their own private army.It wasn't until the 1950s that the country emerged as a centralised state after the Second Sengoku Jidai.

But let's say during the boshin wars the emporer managed to United and centralise the islands wouldn't that help a lot since the Japanese lacked a person to unite them, and may be they'll be in the same position as they were in the 1950s with the emperor leading the wave reforms but this time in the 1870s and 80 years make a huge difference.
 
But let's say during the boshin wars the emporer managed to United and centralise the islands wouldn't that help a lot since the Japanese lacked a person to unite them, and may be they'll be in the same position as they were in the 1950s with the emperor leading the wave reforms but this time in the 1870s and 80 years make a huge difference.
You will first have to ensure that Emperor Komei doesn't get killed during the Kinmon Incident.It's unknown as to which party actually killed the Emperor(although some conspiracy theorists believes that the Shogunate killed him themselves to blame the Chosu Clan),most likely due to a misfire,but after this incident support for Sonno Joi decreased dramatically and the emperor's successor,Mutsuhito,was taken directly to Edo under the direct surveillance of the Bakufu.Perhaps without the Emperor being killed,the Shogunate could be deposed rapidly with various anti-Shogunate forces being united under the banner of the Emperor.Instead,with the Emperor was killed,when the Boshin War finally broke out,the anti-Shogunate forces were forced to proclaim Prince Komatsu Akihito regent and rally around him.Without the Emperor as well as accusations that they have committed deicide,the rebellion was a complete mess.If it wasn't for the fact that many rebel leaders,such as Saigo Takamori being excellent commanders,on top of the fact that Satsuma forces were in general better trained and equipped than the Shogunate forces,the rebellion would have been over within a year.The subsequent stalemate drastically weakened both the authority of the Shogunate over it's remaining vassals as well as the unity of the anti-Shogunate forces.Within ten years after the outbreak of the rebellion,both the Shogunate lords and anti-Shogunate lords began fighting amongst each other,irrespective of whether they were loyal to the Shogun or to the Emperor originally.As the saying goes(depending on which side the lords are on),the order of the Regent/Shogun never leaves Kyoto/Kanto.In the end,the country was left without a central authority,with the Shogun's power limited to Kanto region only while the regent's authority was even more limited,being restricted to Kyoto alone.
 
Last edited:
You will first have to ensure that Emperor Komei doesn't get killed during the Kinmon Incident.It's unknown as to which party actually killed the Emperor(although some conspiracy theorists believes that the Shogunate killed him themselves to blame the Chosu Clan),most likely due to a misfire,but after this incident support for Sonno Joi decreased dramatically and the emperor's successor,Mutsuhito,was taken directly to Edo under the direct surveillance of the Bakufu.Perhaps without the Emperor being killed,the Shogunate could be deposed rapidly with various anti-Shogunate forces being united under the banner of the Emperor.Instead,with the Emperor was killed,when the Boshin War finally broke out,the anti-Shogunate forces were forced to proclaim Prince Komatsu Akihito regent and rally around him.Without the Emperor as well as accusations that they have committed deicide,the rebellion was a complete mess.If it wasn't for the fact that many rebel leaders,such as Saigo Takamori being excellent commanders,on top of the fact that Satsuma forces were in general better trained and equipped than the Shogunate forces,the rebellion would have been over within a year.The subsequent stalemate drastically weakened both the authority of the Shogunate over it's remaining vassals as well as the unity of the anti-Shogunate forces.Within ten years after the outbreak of the rebellion,both the Shogunate lords and anti-Shogunate lords began fighting amongst each other,irrespective of whether they were loyal to the Shogun or to the Emperor originally.

This is an interesting possibility, but let's say the rebellion succeds. How long would it take them to consolidate? How with they deal with the Western powrs asking for concessions, and the Samurais and all of those sectors of society who wanted to return to isolationism? It's impossible.

The rebellion cannot modernise Japan, because it was carried out in the name of traditional Japanese values. They critizesed the Shogunate for giving trade consessions to Westerners. How, then, would they be able to, once in power, say that they need western experts to teach Japanese to function in and industrialized setting, and also that Japanese traditional society (in the name of which they carried out the rebellion) need to be drastically reformed? How would the Samurais who supported rebels react to such a "traison" carried out by fellow rebels?
 
This is an interesting possibility, but let's say the rebellion succeds. How long would it take them to consolidate? How with they deal with the Western powrs asking for concessions, and the Samurais and all of those sectors of society who wanted to return to isolationism? It's impossible.

The rebellion cannot modernise Japan, because it was carried out in the name of traditional Japanese values. They critizesed the Shogunate for giving trade consessions to Westerners. How, then, would they be able to, once in power, say that they need western experts to teach Japanese to function in and industrialized setting, and also that Japanese traditional society (in the name of which they carried out the rebellion) need to be drastically reformed? How would the Samurais who supported rebels react to such a "traison" carried out by fellow rebels?

The rebellion may have been very reactionary ans traditional but once the emperor was in charge he would have supreme power over the people and state and IF the emperor was reform minded and IF no one opposed him then I could easily see japan being in a stronger position than the ottomans at the turn of the century.
 
The rebellion may have been very reactionary ans traditional but once the emperor was in charge he would have supreme power over the people and state and IF the emperor was reform minded and IF no one opposed him then I could easily see japan being in a stronger position than the ottomans at the turn of the century.
That presumes the samurai are willing to listen to their emperor,and most likely that emperor wouldn't have been Komei either,who famous proclaimed the expel the barbarian edict.Let's presume that the rebels managed to take Mutsuhito with them,and they managed to depose the Bakufu due to his support,once the samurai realises that the emperor is a reformist and that his ideology totally contradicts that of his father,I wouldn't be surprised if another Ashikaga Takauji would rise to the occasion and put the emperor back to the role as a puppet.
 
Last edited:
The rebellion may have been very reactionary ans traditional but once the emperor was in charge he would have supreme power over the people and state and IF the emperor was reform minded and IF no one opposed him then I could easily see japan being in a stronger position than the ottomans at the turn of the century.

Industrialization and medernisation is not a simple thing, as the example of those countries who tried to do so show as. In such countries, most of those who tried to introduce reforms were members of the elites of these non Western countries who realised they needed modern armies in order to defend their countires and traditional order from Western intrussion. They soon realised modern armies require modern factories to make modern weapons for them, and that's why they realised industrialization was necessary. But they just didn't seem to realised the scope of societal change that was necessary in order to have, precisily, modern factories.

For example, for industrialization to work, you need workers for the factories, who had to come from somewhere. If most of your people are virtual serfs working for landlords in the fields or peasants who are bound to the land of their feudal lord, you won't have these workers. But if you free them from their attachment to their ancestral land and allow them to move wherever they want, their landlords won't be happy. And in non western (and even in many Eastern and Southern European countries) these landlors controlled the sources of wealth of the country and the army (forming either the officer corps or the entire army). If you did this, they are gonna be angry. Very angry. A Sammurai-led rebellion would never do this, cause it would mean going against its own class.

The unsolvable dilemma for reformists is that, in order to succeed, they had to radically change the social order they were precisely trying to defend from the Westerns by starting such reforms in the first place.
 
Top