If World War 2 doesn't happen, how long would Japan have held onto Korea and Taiwan?

It depends on how much the War in China starts to involve the US. One of the reasons we started with sanctions was the war in China and the Take over of French Indochina was the last straw for the worst sanctions and embargoes. If they decide to attack the US also for helping China, it should turn out like IOTL.
 
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
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
If they can get out of China, perhaps with an 'independent' Manchukuo and some trade concessions, Japan would hold both as long as they are willing.
 
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

If there is a multipolar world where nuclear weapons become more prevalent, Japan could develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, then China's navy won't be the most relevant factor.
 
Well, what kind of Japan? A militarist Japan that continued going? Taisho Democracy sticking? Something in btween?

Well I was thinking more of something in between where Japan is aware that it cannot win against essentially the entire world but still wants to have great power status. I am thinking of a scenario where Japan focuses on incorporating its colonies without expanding into China. I know IRL there had been some opposition to colonialism and World War II but I do not know specifically the divergences.
 
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
 
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.
 
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

I was interpreting Japan's invasion of China south of Manchuria as beginning World War 2, so that doesn't happen. A Japan that does take Manchuria is going to be conflicting with China constantly though as by this time Manchuria was mostly inhabited by Chinese and there is a different population disparity between Manchuria with 50m compared to 71.9m in Japan, 24m in Korea and 6.6M in Taiwan. Thus, for the scenario I was considering preventing the invasion of Manchuria (leading to further tension between Japan and US, UK and the former's isolation from the League of Nations) because after that it is harder to prevent war from escalating.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

If Japan remained an absolute military dictatorship, thr lid could stay on forever, However, the premise is that Japan avoids WW II, which implies that the military are reigned in. Vestiges of democracy remained even during OTL WW II. 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.
 
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 don't think it would be ingovernable, especially this early and with a country strong as Japan so close to them.

Portugal who was much smaller kept the war going up until 1974, this with it's colonies being thousands of kilometers always and there was still order on the main urban centers.

Korea on another hand is right close to Japan, it would be incredibly difficult for a separatist government to seize anything apart from the mountains on the north and the interior of the peninsula.

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.

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.
 
Another question is how long Japan would hold on to Micronesia. IMO that would be permanent - very small territory and population, substantially colonized with Japanese nationals. Micronesia would become a sort of Japanese Hawaii, probably becoming a major vacation (and retirement?) destination for Japanese.
 
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.

The factors working against continued incorporation of Korea would be too strong.

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.
 
Yeah, look how well that worked in Ireland.

Yes, the UK kept a considerable part of the Island, and the UK wasn't as adamant into keeping Ireland as Japan is with Korea.

The UK is a global power, japan in another hand felt as a underdog, they really wanted to compete to keep it's power different from the british. (also Ireland was dependent on the UK until the 1940s IIRC).

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.

Japan was much more ehavy handed than the UK on Ireland. The Korean aristocracy was integrated on Japan (that was a reason why their monarchy wasn't restored). Korean children were being taught on schools to behave and act like the japanese, the japanese army was way more heavy handed than the british one and it had korean units, Park Chung Hee who led Korea during the cold war was a korean officer of the japanese army for example.

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.

Korea and Japan isn't like Ireland and the UK, as you himself said the japanese army wouldn't behave like the british did, the japanese settlers in Korea were also more widespread through the country than the ulster protestants.

My guess is that at the absolute worst it would devolve into 1970s North Ireland like situation, but even a democratic Japan isn't letting korea go. By current day Korea would be Japan Tibet, there would be ativists demanding a free korea, there would be maybe a guerrila campaign on the mountains on the north, but korea breaking free? I find it extremely unlikely.
 
Given that Korea would have 35% of the Empire's population, it'll break away (unless some ASB persuades Japan not to send settlers or any sort of significant Japanese presence to Korea), simply by being so disruptive (a democratic Japan can't afford the butcher's bill to keep Korea, and a dictatorship would also run into very insurmountable problems).
 
Top