Extending Taisho Democracy

Hey guys,

Looking for some help regarding Taisho Democracy in Japan, which started in 1912. What kind of PODs/butterflies would I require to "extend" this era of "liberalism" (which was obviously only liberal in relation to the rest of Japan, which was very conservative) past its perceived death date (which ends with Taisho's death in 1926, thus welcoming in Hirohito) and what kind of PODs/butterflies would be required to maintain it even after Taisho's passing? I assume any PODs/butterflies discussed would have to be pre-1900. Would the U.S. adopting a reactionary conservative viewpoint (fascism) in the 1920's (which would also require pre-1900 PODs) be a contributing factor to keeping Taisho Democracy, as Japan would thus attempt to be its natural opposite?
 
Hey guys,

Looking for some help regarding Taisho Democracy in Japan, which started in 1912. What kind of PODs/butterflies would I require to "extend" this era of "liberalism" (which was obviously only liberal in relation to the rest of Japan, which was very conservative) past its perceived death date (which ends with Taisho's death in 1926, thus welcoming in Hirohito) and what kind of PODs/butterflies would be required to maintain it even after Taisho's passing? I assume any PODs/butterflies discussed would have to be pre-1900. Would the U.S. adopting a reactionary conservative viewpoint (fascism) in the 1920's (which would also require pre-1900 PODs) be a contributing factor to keeping Taisho Democracy, as Japan would thus attempt to be its natural opposite?

Please no - "The US becomes fascist" is too cliche and I'm not sure that it would naturally give you the A=B connection you're looking for. Some potential PODs to look at might be...
- Keeping the Army and Navy from gaining veto power over the formation of cabinets (1900)
- Perhaps Crown Prince Hirohito embraces Woodrow Wilson’s progressive principles and takes to heart his words at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, "A new era, wakes before our eyes, the old world of force is gone, and the new world of righteousness and truth is here."
- While Regent of Japan Hirohito guides the Imperial government toward a more humane "Korea Policy".
- The 1932 assassination attempt against the emperor and completed assassination of Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi, a moderate, do not happen. After these events civilian control of the military came to an end, and, 4 years later the military attempted a coup.
 
I'd been thinking about this myself, specifically -- at what point did the fall of the democratic government history calls "Taisho Democracy" truly fall? When is the latest PoD for saving it, and preventing the victory of "Japanese Fascism"?
 
As a general rule of thumb, I think the key lies in the conflict between the supremacy between the military and the civilian powers. The idea is that in order to preserve the "Taisho Democracy," you need to establish democratic institutions and civilian control of the military deeply enough in order to prevent the military effectively taking over the government, as they did OTL. This is a somewhat major problem, because the military as a rule, had the upper hand in being able to enforce its position on issues. It would be very difficult to effect this change without curtailing the independence of the military, and for that, you need to have a military which respects the civilian government they are nominally subordinate too. Of course, you're not likely to get that without one of the military's people as a major player in the civilian government, at which point any idea of subordination of the military goes straight out the window.
 
As a general rule of thumb, I think the key lies in the conflict between the supremacy between the military and the civilian powers. The idea is that in order to preserve the "Taisho Democracy," you need to establish democratic institutions and civilian control of the military deeply enough in order to prevent the military effectively taking over the government, as they did OTL. This is a somewhat major problem, because the military as a rule, had the upper hand in being able to enforce its position on issues. It would be very difficult to effect this change without curtailing the independence of the military, and for that, you need to have a military which respects the civilian government they are nominally subordinate too. Of course, you're not likely to get that without one of the military's people as a major player in the civilian government, at which point any idea of subordination of the military goes straight out the window.
The civilian government is subordinate to the emperor. The military is subordinate to the emperor. Pretty much every parliamentary democracy and many presidential democracies are based on those principles.

In Britain the the civilian government in practice IS the monarch, so the military is subordinate to the government. In America the president generally doesnt care about listening to the military (not the same as not paying attention to the military). In Japan neither idea makes much sense at all. So instead they had a military and parliament that were of equal rank and standing to each other. Its a problem that dates back to the very formation of the IJA and IJN, and its roots lie even further back. And its compounded by a mostly passive monarch who declined to intervene in the power struggle between military and parliament.

For most nations even then that wouldnt result in Japan's spiral of destruction in and of itself. Its only when the military discovered that they could act independently and use their powers for 'good' they went completely nuts with the 'military anarchy'.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all.
 
Hey guys,

Looking for some help regarding Taisho Democracy in Japan, which started in 1912. What kind of PODs/butterflies would I require to "extend" this era of "liberalism" (which was obviously only liberal in relation to the rest of Japan, which was very conservative) past its perceived death date (which ends with Taisho's death in 1926, thus welcoming in Hirohito) and what kind of PODs/butterflies would be required to maintain it even after Taisho's passing? I assume any PODs/butterflies discussed would have to be pre-1900. Would the U.S. adopting a reactionary conservative viewpoint (fascism) in the 1920's (which would also require pre-1900 PODs) be a contributing factor to keeping Taisho Democracy, as Japan would thus attempt to be its natural opposite?

China becomes fascist.
 
The civilian government is subordinate to the emperor. The military is subordinate to the emperor. Pretty much every parliamentary democracy and many presidential democracies are based on those principles.
Except that 'being subordinate to the Emperor' was a lot more nominal than effectual. More to the point, the military was NOT subordinate to the civilian government in Japan. The Army and Navy got to appoint their own ministers (effectively) irrespective of the rest of the government. This is very, very unlike the US or UK. While, theoretically, democracy could survive for some time under this system, it would have to be abolished sooner or later.

No, really the biggest problem is 'policy by assassination'. Letting junior military officers get away with imposing whatever policy they wanted by assassinating politicians who disagreed with them is absolutely and totally anathema to democracy. You really, REALLY need to track down and make examples of the first idiots who try it, and not let it develop into standard practice.
 
Except that 'being subordinate to the Emperor' was a lot more nominal than effectual. More to the point, the military was NOT subordinate to the civilian government in Japan. The Army and Navy got to appoint their own ministers (effectively) irrespective of the rest of the government. This is very, very unlike the US or UK. While, theoretically, democracy could survive for some time under this system, it would have to be abolished sooner or later.

No, really the biggest problem is 'policy by assassination'. Letting junior military officers get away with imposing whatever policy they wanted by assassinating politicians who disagreed with them is absolutely and totally anathema to democracy. You really, REALLY need to track down and make examples of the first idiots who try it, and not let it develop into standard practice.

Unfortunately, this once again runs into one of the major problems with preserving the Taisho democracy; the military as literally the only force strong enough to control itself, so attempting to deter the military's "policy by assassination" is extremely difficult.

Now that I think about it though, would it be possible for a talented civilian politician to play the IJA and the IJN off against each other in order to exert some semblance of control over the two?
 
Hirohito embraces Woodrow Wilson’s progressive principles and takes to heart his words at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, "A new era, wakes before our eyes, the old world of force is gone, and the new world of righteousness and truth is here."

This might require the Americans to be racist dicks who barred Japanese immigration and opposed a racial equality provision at the Paris Peace Conference.
 
Unfortunately, this once again runs into one of the major problems with preserving the Taisho democracy; the military as literally the only force strong enough to control itself, so attempting to deter the military's "policy by assassination" is extremely difficult.?

Where were all these assassinations before the 1930s?
 
Where were all these assassinations before the 1930s?

I'd argue personally that the military always was capable of exerting this level of influence in Japan, but that up until the 1930s, the aims of politicians and the military always ended up coinciding (I wouldn't argue that they coincided perfectly, and by the 1930s, this was especially clear). AFAICS, politicians generally tended to favor good relations with the West and limited expansionism and imperialism, whereas the military favored major expansionism and imperialism, and in particular, were far more militantly nationalist. When expansionism involved fighting powers whom the "powers that mattered," ie, Britain and the United States, were either hostile or indifferent towards, such as Russia or China, over Korea and Taiwan, then the politicians could get their reasonably good relations with the West, and the military could get their expansionism. During WWI, Japan could take the German concessions and colonies in the Pacific and even manage to get brownie points with the UK and US at the same time.

By the Taisho period, however, the areas of potential expansion are drying up, as Japan now has Korea, large concessions in China, and influence or control over a large portion of the former German concessions. If Japan were to expand further, as the military wanted, they'd have to make completely intolerable demands in China, most of which proceeded to manifest themselves in the Manchurian crisis, and eventually the Second Sino-Japanese war. Likewise, if they were to continue expanding past Taiwan and the South Pacific Mandate, they would come into inevitable conflict with the USA, the Netherlands, and the UK. Further aggrandization in China was also likely to trouble the USA and the UK, as the theoretical end point of a China (or even just Eastern China, which is the most valuable portion anyways) totally dominated by Japan was extremely unpalatable to the USA and the UK. I think to some extent, those who feared Japan saw China's position as Korea writ large, with Japan steadily taking over the institutions, and exercising a larger say, until the country was a de-facto colony, and possibly, province (Japan probably could not have annexed and turned into a colony the whole of China, as they did with Korea, but even a string of puppet states was more than worrying enough).

So basically, you have a fundamental disagreement between the politicians, who see a need to maintain good relations with the West so as not to worry them with their continued expansionism, and tamp down the military's budget, so as to limit their influence on government, while at the same time, the military wants to damn relations with the West and expel the Anglo-Saxons from the Pacific. By the 1930s, their views are completely divergent, which leads to the "assassination politics" and militarism that characterized the Showa era. By the mid-1930s, the military are even daring to violate the person of Saionji Kinmochi,who most favored limiting the military, and was perhaps the most influential politician in Japan at the time.

I don't think you can have actual "cut-off" points for when Japan specifically turns from modernization to liberalism to militarism; though the Meiji, Taisho, and Showa periods tend to coincidentally line up with those eras pretty well. Nationalism, Imperialism, and Liberalism were already major factors in Japan during the Meiji Era, though much of that era was concerned with modernizing Japan to the level where it could hope to match the traditional European Great Powers, let alone become a true Imperial Power. Likewise, by the late Taisho Era, you can easily see the cracks beginning to form in Japanese democracy, such as the rejection of the eight-eight program by the Diet, and the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty, which was detested by the militarists, and which showed that the interests of the militarists did not at all coincide with the interests of many politicians (also of note is that many of the laws which permitted the Showa dictatorship were first promulgated under the "liberal" Taisho era). A lot of aspects of the Showa era, such as the belief in a Japanese "master race" destined to rule Asia have roots which predate even the Meiji Era. There were always politicians as insanely nationalist as military officers, and some surprisingly liberal generals. But generally, I don't think it's wrong to say that the Meiji Era was defined by modernization (and westernization), the Taisho era by both liberalism and expansionism, and the Showa era by racism, ultra-nationalism, the trampling of democracy, and fascistic militarism.
 
Last edited:
By the Taisho period, however, the areas of potential expansion are drying up, as Japan now has Korea, large concessions in China, and influence or control over a large portion of the former German concessions. If Japan were to expand further, as the military wanted, they'd have to make completely intolerable demands in China, most of which proceeded to manifest themselves in the Manchurian crisis, and eventually the Second Sino-Japanese war.

it is is a bit odd, in your scenario, that Taisho democracy coincided with the exact period when China was at its weakest, and expansion there would have been easiest.

To say nothing of the Japanese withdrawal from the Soviet Far East in the 1920s.

Likewise, by the late Taisho Era, you can easily see the cracks beginning to form in Japanese democracy, such as the rejection of the eight-eight program by the Diet, and the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty, which was detested by the militarists, and which showed that the interests of the militarists did not at all coincide with the interests of many politicians (also of note is that many of the laws which permitted the Showa dictatorship were first promulgated under the "liberal" Taisho era).

So Japan signing a naval limitations treaty is a sign that democracy was failing?
 
it is is a bit odd, in your scenario, that Taisho democracy coincided with the exact period when China was at its weakest, and expansion there would have been easiest.

To say nothing of the Japanese withdrawal from the Soviet Far East in the 1920s.

Japan wasn't exactly quiet in China during that time period. As early as 1915, Japan was attempting to extend its influence over Japan, such as through the 21 demands; by the 1920s, with the warlord period in full swing, Japan was openly backing individual warlords against each other, with some warlords even acting basically as extensions of Japanese foreign policy. Especially, when it appeared that the warlord era was winding down, Japan began making more blatant actions in Manchuria, starting with the assassination of Zhang Zuolin, and culminating in the establishment of Manchukuo as a puppet state.

With regards to the Far East, I'd argue that international pressure and the ruinous cost had more effect on the Far East withdrawal than any liberal sentiments. Similar issues led to compromise in Shandong, and a lack of more open aggrandization during the Warlord Era. The failure of saner politicians to prevent the even more blatant aggrandizations later as they did earlier in the 1920s is directly the consequence of the rise to power of the Japanese military. Had the Japanese military been completely unrestrained, it is probable that Japan would have been more blunt, less compromising, and generally more grasping with the 21 Demands, Shandong, and during the Warlord Era.

So Japan signing a naval limitations treaty is a sign that democracy was failing?
My point actually was rather that the previous cooperation between the politicians and the military was beginning to crack, because the politicians were no longer in step with the military. Stuff like the rejection of the 8-8 program and the Washington Naval Treaty were completely out of line with the long term goals of the military, and thus, heralded the start of the conflict between democracy and the military. The military having serious reason and desire to exercise anti-democratic actions can be listed as starting from there.
 
This is coming from somebody with very fleeting knowledge of this period, but could a more liberal Emperor solve the risks of a civilian-military split by expressly siding with the civilian government over the mitary? If so, were there potential prince candidates? If not, why?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
having Prussia defeated before/during Meiji Restoration ? there are argument that Japan militarism come because too many borrowing from Prussia, using English as a model of government and military might help Japan prevent militarism.

Regimental System for Japan would be nice to see :D, with various uniform and recruitment rules :
Sixth Shingon Regiment
Fourth Kyushu Regiment
First Ezo Scout
Eastern Samurai Regiment
Tokyo Apprentice Regiment
 
Top