Is there a way to get a Anti-American Japan?

[AJE]

USA doesn't sign Geneva convention and commit war crimes against the Japanese in retaliation for Japanese war crimes

They wouldn't even need to avoid the Geneva Convention if it happened after the official surrender when war crimes didn't apply anymore. Though it wouldn't matter as long as the US occupied Japan, it would have destroyed most of the moral advantages the US had.

 

[McPherson]

I got one..Japan Realize USA plans pre or post embargo and is able to sway off vassal? remember the Scandal of some norway company selling tech to the USSR? Here japan openly support the URSS for raw materials in exchange of tech? did usa tried a coup in chile like OTL? Why why the pinko forces have asians in their side with superior weapons? yeah in few words playing USA own foreing policies against it

Interesting. Elaborate how two mortal enemies decide Uncle is more hatable for both of them than they hate each other?

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Interesting. Elaborate how two mortal enemies decide Uncle is more hatable for both of them than they hate each other?

During the 1920-1930s more than plenty in Japan did hate the US more, believing allying with the Soviets would enable Japan to counter the Western influence in Asia and achieve power balance, championed by Goto Shinpei in the 1920s and succeeded by Matsuoka Yosuke after Goto's death. The sheer fact that a certain powerful segment among the Japanese militarists believed in this geopolitical fantasy was the basis for Konoe's 1945 attempt to purge 'the commies within the Army' and bring back the remnant Kodoha into the power.

Note I called this 'geopolitical fantasy' because in no way the Soviets are going along with this thought at all, so there's that.

 

[The Gamer Sunflower]

The real question is, How would a Soviet-Allied Japan work in this timeline where Japan is all Anti-American similar to Iranian hate street toward America except in the same timeline that Iran is Pro-American?
Can someone request to make their own timeline based on that subject but I attempted to write a timeline but it look like a jokey fanfic at all?

 

[Nivek]

Wrote it yourself, is your own scenario after all

The real question is, How would a Soviet-Allied Japan work in this timeline where Japan is all Anti-American similar to Iranian hate street toward America except in the same timeline that Iran is Pro-American?
Can someone request to make their own timeline based on that subject but I attempted to write a timeline but it look like a jokey fanfic at all?

 

[The Gamer Sunflower]

Wrote it yourself, is your own scenario after all

Yeah... but How much Japan would be different in this timeline. Would a hypothetical Anti-American Japan be allied with Cuba and Soviet Union?

 

[Nivek]

Yeah... but How much Japan would be different in this timeline. Would a hypothetical Anti-American Japan be allied with Cuba and Soviet Union?

And once again write yourself, when the POD happen and so on? we might never knew itself so write it yourself

 

[McPherson]

During the 1920-1930s more than plenty in Japan did hate the US more, believing allying with the Soviets would enable Japan to counter the Western influence in Asia and achieve power balance, championed by Goto Shinpei in the 1920s and succeeded by Matsuoka Yosuke after Goto's death. The sheer fact that a certain powerful segment among the Japanese militarists believed in this geopolitical fantasy was the basis for Konoe's 1945 attempt to purge 'the commies within the Army' and bring back the remnant Kodoha into the power.

Note I called this 'geopolitical fantasy' because in no way the Soviets are going along with this thought at all, so there's that.

You might want to check out how the first Boy Scout of Japan was "pro-Russian" and how the psychopath, Matsuoka Yosuke, with his Hitler worship and his other lunacies, (though he negotiated the Soviet Japanese neutrality pact. Both Tojo and Ribbentrop came to the conclusion that he was completely insane.) were historically more pro Russian than anti-American. They were violently and virulently anti-soviet.

 

[Byzantion]

I've been asking myself about a scenario where Japan hates the United States after the World War 2
so is it possible to get an Japan that is on the same level as Iran, North Korea, Somalia but it has to take place after World war 2?
Can you answer me if it's possible.

Either it is completely in the Soviet camp or resurgent. Or maybe the 1980es economic rivary go way more wrong.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

You might want to check out how the first Boy Scout of Japan was "pro-Russian" and how the psychopath, Matsuoka Yosuke, with his Hitler worship and his other lunacies, (though he negotiated the Soviet Japanese neutrality pact. Both Tojo and Ribbentrop came to the conclusion that he was completely insane.) were historically more pro Russian than anti-American. They were violently and virulently anti-soviet.

Neither were violently and virulently anti-soviet. The man you just described 'the first Boy Scout of Japan' is also the one who started the preliminary negotiation for the Soviet-Japanese Treaty of 1925, and of 1928, visiting Soviet Union as a personal emissary of General Tanaka Giichi in 1927. Matsuoka Yosuke is the man who fantasized about negotiating a German-Soviet-Japanese bloc.

 

[McPherson]

Yes, they were. I may point out to you that virulently anti-Soviet Americans also negotiated with the Moscow regime. So you might want to check out why Shinpei wanted to make a Soviet Japanese deal. The idea was to carve out spheres of influence. Same as Matsuoke did with Molotov.

BTW. Tanaka? Really? he was kind of the archetype anti-Soviet Japanese.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Yes, they were. I may point out to you that virulently anti-Soviet Americans also negotiated with the Moscow regime. So you might want to check out why Shinpei wanted to make a Soviet Japanese deal. The idea was to carve out spheres of influence. Same as Matsuoke did with Molotov.

BTW. Tanaka? Really? he was kind of the archetype anti-Soviet Japanese.

It's a lengthy article, but you may want to read Masaki Miyake's writings on this subject. Fortunately unlike the ones I posted before, there's an English edition available, if that helps.

 

[McPherson]

I know the article. The scholarship is not rigorous as I would have expected. You must also understand that fantasists, such as Matsuoke who wrote that "testimonial"

'the Way to End the China Incident both immediately and favorably

was considered "insane", as I have already written, by his peersand co-criminal conspiracists and fellow war-criminals.

Let me QUOTE.

<At present, as the world already knows, Chiang Kai-shek's Regime was supported by two stanchions or two footholds. There is no doubt that these are England and the Soviet Union. If one of the two stanchions can be removed, this incident can be resolved unexpectedly quickly. If one of the stanchions to be removed is the Soviet Union, this incident can be completely resolved within half a year.

The Soviet Union has been hostile to Japan, and Japan has come to think of the Soviet Union as an enemy. Can this situation be reversed, regardless of these circumstances? That is, can the Soviet Union be alienated from the English-French camp, to bring the ongoing negotiations between England and the Soviet Union to a deadlock? Is there any method to form a camp with Japan, the Soviet Union, Germany and Italy?

If Japan and the Soviet Union can come to terms, that will be enough to determine the attitude of China and the trend of the incident instantly. Even though the Chongqing government still resists, a coup d'etat can easily be executed in Chongqing, and we can do anything, like capturing Chiang. However, I can strongly assert that the situation will be determined without using such methods. In that case, England will be made to look foolish, and his power will become completely useless, and his concessions will be totally shut out from the Eastern sphere.>

Now the problem is that Mayake without any creditable documentation tries to assert 1. that Matsuoke is the author. No mention of the United States, kind of makes that assertion somewhat suspect. And then 2. he tries to link Konoe to Matsuoke and that document. Historical third party like this is GARBAGE. One has to do better scholarship, than this.

I don't accept such sloppy work. Matsuoke was the maniac who sold the Tripartite Pact to Tokyo and to Berlin. He was that aware of how dangerous the United States was to Japanese imperialist ambitions.

I do not see how Shinpei fits into that fantasy either.

As for Takagi's "study", the conclusions he drew from the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was part of the Northern Road and Southern Road debate between the Army and Navy as a military staff intramural thing that grew out of the Khalkin Gholand the IJN's fear that the IJA would blow the incident into a full scale war which Japan would lose. Mayake misinterprets the purpose or the reason for that document.

Truer is that both the Japanese Army and Navy prepared their policy options for the Japanese government to consider to exploit the surprise German-Russian non aggression pact. Some of the ideas that the IJN was pro-Soviet in that section of the article are almost as fantastic as the supposed Matsuoke document. It goes on like that.

So... the scholarship does not work there for me either.

Just how I look at things. Context. This is why I am not convinced.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Just how I look at things. Context. This is why I am not convinced.

I suppose reading a translated article like that can be fuzzy for a native English speaker but you glossed over where Miyake cites Nomura Minoru for attributing the document to Matsuoka and that the document being found from Konoe's personal house library.

You are free to deride a mainstream historian as 'sloppy' or not, but you haven't supplied a single substance to advance your argument and attack a real figure, just like the last time when I provided you multiple sources over the Japanese plan on Manchuria. Once again I suspect your will to back your claim properly, and I hope you understand I'll be just stopping right here before it develop into yet another childish competition.

 

[McPherson]

It is not a signed and directly attributed paper trailed document. I have very little trouble with understanding it in Context either way. I just do not like the "hearsay" nature of the evidence with conclusions drawn upon such unsubstantiated basis. And I have raised other objections and examples of this kind of sloppy scholarship that goes against the general accepted historical record.

And "mainstream" or not, such sloppy scholarship IS unacceptable. To take another case example of a "mainstream" historian, should I accept SLAM Marshal or Stephen Ambrose when they were sloppy and got it wrong? ENDIT.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

As I said, the accepted mainstream history that understood Goto and Matsuoka as the proponents of the continental alliance against the US needs not be a dogma and should be free to the criticism but you are not providing substance in disputing and ridiculing a respected historian. I can wait until you actually are willing to advance your substance but until then I can't take you for serious.