Democratic Japan in WWII.

Say for whatever reason Japan maintains its democratic elements, and said elements have the control to limit the hard lined army which rose to power in the 20's and 30's. What effect would this be on World War Two?
 
They'd still go to war, but most likely they would get beaten faster. As long as there's the same invasion of China as OTL, war is inevitable.
 
Say for whatever reason Japan maintains its democratic elements, and said elements have the control to limit the hard lined army which rose to power in the 20's and 30's. What effect would this be on World War Two?

Fenwick

There would be a hell of a lot of butterflies. However presuming their kept to a minimum it's unlikely that there would be an invasion of China or a Pacific War. This would probably mean peace in the region and significantly better security for Britain at least, presuming France still falls. Of course with no Pacific war there is the question of if/when the US still enters the European war. Also the question of relations between a democratic Japan and the Soviets.

Steve
 
Fenwick

There would be a hell of a lot of butterflies. However presuming their kept to a minimum it's unlikely that there would be an invasion of China or a Pacific War. This would probably mean peace in the region and significantly better security for Britain at least, presuming France still falls. Of course with no Pacific war there is the question of if/when the US still enters the European war. Also the question of relations between a democratic Japan and the Soviets.

Steve

They had a pretty militaristic society already, everything geared towards expansion. Maybe there would be a smaller-scale invasion of China with less ethnic cleansing, but I don't think you can just butterfly away Japanese expansionism.
 

Falkenburg

Monthly Donor
Say for whatever reason Japan maintains its democratic elements, and said elements have the control to limit the hard lined army which rose to power in the 20's and 30's. What effect would this be on World War Two?

Depends securely those 'Democratic Elements' are in 'Control'.
And also what kind of 'Democracy' they represent. ;)

Universal Suffrage? Limited Franchise? 'Social' Democracy? 'National' Democracy?
I believe most people would describe Britain as having been a 'Democracy' (all be it 'restricted' for most of its' history) but that didn't stop Her acquiring an Empire.

The Japanese Democrats may be able to 'Limit' the military but that doesn't mean they make good neighbours.

Falkenburg
 
It really does matter what the intentions of the "democratic" government are. Democracies can be expansionist, isolationist, racist, hawkish, dovish...

Based on Japan's culture, they'd probably be fairly militant, and it would be a limited democracy with a fair dollop of authoritarianism; perhaps a VERY strong chief executive (who would 'speak for the Emperor' for PR purposes) and a weak legislature.

There's no reason such a government couldn't behave almost exactly like OTL's Japanese government, right up until 1945 or so. If they don't have to stand for regular elections, there might not be any noticeable difference in the war.

Or, of course, a wave of populism could sweep Japan, and a very 'western-modern' government could be put in place. Such a government might even side with the Allies, leading to shorter WWII.

Or just about anywhere in between.
 
Depends securely those 'Democratic Elements' are in 'Control'.
And also what kind of 'Democracy' they represent. ;)

Universal Suffrage? Limited Franchise? 'Social' Democracy? 'National' Democracy?
I believe most people would describe Britain as having been a 'Democracy' (all be it 'restricted' for most of its' history) but that didn't stop Her acquiring an Empire.

The Japanese Democrats may be able to 'Limit' the military but that doesn't mean they make good neighbours.

Falkenburg

Yeah but Britain did not get the Empire (s) by a series of brutal, Industrial/Media Age, mass conscript wars over a period of a decade or so. It was by fits and starts over hundreds of years, usually out of sight of most of the rest of the world, while the democracy slowly evolved into today's version.
 
Democratic regimes can still be aggressive and expansionist. You need only look to Athens, the Roman Republic, or to the United States to see proof of that.



A Democratic Japan is almost as radical a change as a Germany without Hitler of the Nazis. Would they have been able to maintain better relations with the US? If so the alliance with the UK would probably still be in effect. They very likely would still have tried to expand into China, though they might have relied much more on diplomacy rather than naked aggression.



If they were still allied to the UK they obviously would not have been part of the Axis. It would not be impossible to imagine them declaring war on Germany in 1939 and then taken no active part in the hostilities since there were no German or Italian colonies in the Far East.



That would butterfly away Pearl Harbor though. Though the way FDR was going by 1940 he likely would have forced some sort of causus belli in the Atlantic.
 
The democratic Japanese government started the wars with China and Vietnam. Though it was under alot of coup pressure, It didn't fall until quite late, after FDR refused to negotiate with it. FDR had given pretty stern and warlike conditions to Japan. In war, it's vital to keep down the number of enemies faced at once or you'll lose. I do think s a continued democracy would've attacked the Dutch East Indies to get around our oil embargo; they might or might not've attacked the US as well. I think they would've left the UK alone.

We sometimes think of democracies as being peaceful. But, do keep in mind what kind of government started wars with every Native North American tribe that didn't take money for land north of today's Mexico. Whom started wars with Mexico and Spain? Whom conquered India?

So, no, democracies aren't peaceful; and Meiji Japan sure wasn't, either; they tended to feel they were behind us Anglos and needed to catch up. The biggest difference is that we're more successful because of better leadership and tech.
 

Cook

Banned
They had a pretty militaristic society already, everything geared towards expansion.



No they weren’t. That is baseless. It was no more militaristic than the British and French societies.
Japan was an ally of Great Britain in World War One and had its’ democracy survived, probably would have been on good terms in the second. A Democratic Japan would certainly not have joined the Tripartite Agreement.
 
Last edited:
Guys

As people have said it depends on what exactly is meant by democratic. You could even claim the Nazis were democratic as they were elected into power.

What I was thinking of would be a continuation of the sort of government that Japan had up until the early 1920's. Strongly nationalistic and with pride in the military but also aspiring to emulate and be accepted by the great [western] powers of the day. As such the culture of assassination would be crushed pretty quickly and the military, although respected would be kept under control. Also they would seek to have decent relations with at least some other powers. [This would probably mean keeping the alliance or at least a close friendship with Britain which would result in a hell of a lot of butterflies however].

A lot would depend on how it handled the depression, which hit Japan very hard and played a large part in the path to expansive empire as the military argued for conquest as a way of getting markets. You might get some action to establish a protectorate in Manchuria presuming the OTL disorder in China and the wealth and proximity of that region but suspect they wouldn't go much further. Also, even if they did invade China, if their less exclusive to other foreign interests and are not tying themselves to the fascists in Europe, they would probably be much less of a concern to the Americans.

Steve
 
Being defeated in the Russo-Japanese would create a less aggressive Japan, not necessarily one with more democracy or less armed paranoia, and it would change the timeline too much. So let's not go down that line.

If Japan did even better and the Russians generally did even worst, and Russia was seen as less of a threat, if as a consequence of alter-Russo-Japanese war Korea is maintained as a stable Japanese satellite rather than fully colonized - maybe a confident and secure but still militaristic and aggressive Japan might result in heavily criticized and harassed labour parties being formed instead of outlawed communist parties being formed?

The Washington System of Emperor Taisho is still seen as corrupt and inefficient, instead a one or two-party system that shuts out all other voices (such as the legal but unpopular labour movement) is set up and is gradually identified as Showa Nationalism/Showa Democracy/National Democracy. One or two conservative or nationalist parties, with a large military-industrial-political complex built that lends some gravity and establishment to the militarists.

Instead of rogue colonels in the field and fanatical cadets running about making demands, essentially a stable and decades long war government of one or two entrenched arch-conservative parties - political posts where retired military men go to die, creating a sense of continuity in the militarist faction from one generation of imperialists to another. The War Government wields much more influence over commanders in the field than the OTL Showa government did, and the Imperial League organization makes sure nationalist youths and cadets are properly assimilated by the military-political establishment rather than forming their own radical organizations.

The Labour Party becomes larger but is never able to actually get any ministers into the government due to the stable nature of the "War Party" coalition.

When WWII analog breaks out, Labour is invited into a national government - getting very little in the way of cabinet level posts but just being happy to be included.
 
Top