If World War 2 doesn't happen, how long would Japan have held onto Korea and Taiwan?
Realistically as long as Japan remains a far greater naval power than China which given the USN wouldn't be sinking the bulk of the IJN in this timeline would take a long long time
Well, what kind of Japan? A militarist Japan that continued going? Taisho Democracy sticking? Something in btween?
The thing is Japan's problems don't go away because there's no WW2.
If they're already in China than they already struggling and committing atrocities in China and bringing international condemnation. So the same embargo and resource pinch will apply leaving then the same choice go north for resources or go south. Japan did not want to fight Russia OTL, and i see no reason why they'd want to fight them in this ATL. So I think you risk a more limited US and colonial powers vs. Japan anyway. Maybe they can keep the US out of it but the reality is the US does count pacific as it stomping ground and will be very interested in any moves by Japan there especially after the embargo
If were counting Japan's (further) invasion of China in 1937 as WW2 and Japan doesn't do that, then unless China really gets it act together later on, Korea and Taiwan will stay Japanese for a while
Koreans might agitate for independence but that doesn't mean they'll get it anytime soon if the Japanese Government is unwilling to walk away.Taiwan's elite was substantially assimilated into the Empire, there was no national consciousness there. Plus the alternative was China, which was a mess. So Japanese rule could remain for a long time or indefinitely.
Korea did have national consciousness, having been a sovereign state for centuries. Plus there was Japanese bigotry against Koreans.
Koreans would agitate for home rule or independence, succeeding by 1960 or so.
That was about the time that such colonial and quasi-colonial dominion became unsupportable. I don't think there would be a violent rebellion as in Algeria. But there would be massive civil unrest and the country would become ungovernable.I believe this is too early, why 1960?
That was about the time that such colonial and quasi-colonial dominion became unsupportable. I don't think there would be a violent rebellion as in Algeria. But there would be massive civil unrest and the country would become ungovernable.
And IMO holding Korea would be incompatible with any degree of democracy. Italy has ignored Sudtirol, but that is a very small territory, not a whole big nation.
Yeah, look how well that worked in Ireland.You can be a democrat and be a imperialist. By the 1960s Japan could copy Portugal and give a parliamentary representation to the korean colony and claim that they are a province equal to any province in mainland Japan. Korean collaborators could be elected and be sent to Tokyo.
Yeah, look how well that worked in Ireland.
First, Korea has a long history as a separate country.
Second, until 1910 Korea was a separate sovereign nation.
Third, Korea has its own completely different language, script, and religion.
Fourth, Koreans in Japan routinely encountered ethnic prejudice against them. I recently looked up the Kanto Earthquake, and discovered that after the quake, vigilante mobs attacked and murdered hundreds of Koreans, often with the complicity of police. I suspect that most Japanese officials in Korea shared those attitudes (to some degree), continually giving offense. On the whole, I think that nearly all Koreans would resent Japanese domination.
And fifth, Korea would be over 30% of the area and 35% of the population of Greater Japan. As the Irish showed in 1880-1914, a determined minority of that size can, without violence, cause intolerable disruption to a democratic polity.