Japan as Great Power

I know, but how to find a way that Japan leaves that "half of China" alone?

Well, the Kantogun basically started that war on their own--the Japanese government back in Tokyo did not want a war with China. (They didn't want to conquer Manchuria, either, but that was already over). The 1930's in Japan is filled with incidents where junior military officers assassinate officials, occupy government buildings, etc. If you have the government really crack down on this--maybe after they kill Inukai--maybe they could replace disloyal/fanatical leaders and bring the military to heel. It won't be popular with a small but radical segment of the population, but if they spin it right--"they were disobeying the Emperor's orders", etc--I think they could get away with it.

If the civilian leaders remain in control. expect Japan to stay out of wars at least until WWII starts. When that happens, they will still likely be pressure to "not miss the bus", and grab European colonies while Europe is distracted. If this temptation is resisted, however, it should be a boom time for Japan. Japan experienced huge economic growth during WWI, no reason they can't do that again. Economic growth would itself greatly lessen the appeal of radicalism in Japan.

It is not impossible that Japan would even join the war on the side of the Allies. Maybe they are bribed into it. On the other hand, maybe they see the advantage of seizing Madagascar from Vichy France, "in order to prevent its use by German subs", of course. This would help repair the damage to relations between Japan and the West wrought by the Manchurian adventure.

Whether they join the Allies or just sit out the war, Japan will be in a good position come the end of the war. I see no reason the Cold War would not still happen, and Japanese Manchuria is a powerful check on Soviet designs in East Asia. It would be even more valuable if Mao somehow takes over in China even without the war. Manchuria has some good tank country--I would not even be surprised if the US ends up giving tank designs to Japan, so they can better resist a potential Soviet onslaught.

Right there, you have a Great Power Japan who is on good terms with the US and Western Europe. Might even be on better terms with Western Europe than the US, if the US pressures both of them to decolonize.
 

abc123

Banned
Well, the Kantogun basically started that war on their own--the Japanese government back in Tokyo did not want a war with China. (They didn't want to conquer Manchuria, either, but that was already over). The 1930's in Japan is filled with incidents where junior military officers assassinate officials, occupy government buildings, etc. If you have the government really crack down on this--maybe after they kill Inukai--maybe they could replace disloyal/fanatical leaders and bring the military to heel. It won't be popular with a small but radical segment of the population, but if they spin it right--"they were disobeying the Emperor's orders", etc--I think they could get away with it.

If the civilian leaders remain in control. expect Japan to stay out of wars at least until WWII starts. When that happens, they will still likely be pressure to "not miss the bus", and grab European colonies while Europe is distracted. If this temptation is resisted, however, it should be a boom time for Japan. Japan experienced huge economic growth during WWI, no reason they can't do that again. Economic growth would itself greatly lessen the appeal of radicalism in Japan.

It is not impossible that Japan would even join the war on the side of the Allies. Maybe they are bribed into it. On the other hand, maybe they see the advantage of seizing Madagascar from Vichy France, "in order to prevent its use by German subs", of course. This would help repair the damage to relations between Japan and the West wrought by the Manchurian adventure.

Whether they join the Allies or just sit out the war, Japan will be in a good position come the end of the war. I see no reason the Cold War would not still happen, and Japanese Manchuria is a powerful check on Soviet designs in East Asia. It would be even more valuable if Mao somehow takes over in China even without the war. Manchuria has some good tank country--I would not even be surprised if the US ends up giving tank designs to Japan, so they can better resist a potential Soviet onslaught.

Right there, you have a Great Power Japan who is on good terms with the US and Western Europe. Might even be on better terms with Western Europe than the US, if the US pressures both of them to decolonize.

Yeah, the problem is that I don't see that as plausable ( establishing civilian control of the Army ). Not without some major military defeat...
 
On the contrary, IMO Japan need's Korea, Manchuria and Sakhalin if it want's to be a political/military and economical power. Japan currently IS economical power ( because of acess to US controlled raw materials and oil sources in Australia and Middle East ), but politicly and military is US client state.

Korea is important, but Manchuria is priceless. Korea has coal, lead, tungsten, zinc, graphyte, magnesite, iron, copper, gold, uranium, phosphates, Manchuria has all of that, but in larger quantities. And oil. Plus diamonds and boron. If Japan want's really be INDEPENDENT Great Power.

The question is, could Japan get away with taking Manchuria? If they didn't attack the rest of China in 1937?

I doubt that Japn could get away with annexing Manchuria, but I think there are scenarios in which the very existence of Manchukuo or something like it could be accepted by the international community. Such a prospect, however, depends more upon China than it does Japan I suspect.
 

abc123

Banned
I doubt that Japn could get away with annexing Manchuria, but I think there are scenarios in which the very existence of Manchukuo or something like it could be accepted by the international community. Such a prospect, however, depends more upon China than it does Japan I suspect.

Not annexing, that was clear even OTL Japan. But puppet-state of Manchukuo?
 
Yeah, the problem is that I don't see that as plausable ( establishing civilian control of the Army ). Not without some major military defeat...

You don't need to change the entire structure of government. Even after the militarists took over, there were lots of area armies that did not go around starting wars against orders--Chosengun, Taiwangun, etc. The Kantogun's radicalism and autonomy was really the exception, not the rule. All you need to have happen is different leadership for the Kantogun.

In OTL, the IJA leadership often got rid of troublesome (read: fanatical and rebellious) young officers by shipping them off to Manchuria. The idea was that there they would be unable to keep trying to overthrow the Japanese government. Of course, the original idea was simply to punish all the officers involved in the various "incidents" in Tokyo. However, the authorities lost their nerve when they received letters from the general public supporting the ultra-nationalist positions. (In my view, they greatly underestimated the level of support the militarists had, but it was an uncertain time. It is hard to forcefully crack down on a movement that has shown they are more than willing to assassinate anyone they perceive as an enemy).

Emperor Showa was said to be quite upset when PM Inukai was assassinated in 1931. He himself advocated the harsh punishment of those resonsible, as did others. All you really need to do is keep that small cabal of leaders from taking charge of the Kantogun. If you just replace a handful of leaders of this force with someone more aligned with the Toseiha, then Japan will not be dragged into war with China.

Both the Invasion of Manchuria and the Second Sino-Japanese War were really orchestrated by a small number of Japanese military leaders, who happened to be radical enough to want these wars, in a position to start them, and able to gather like-minded men into their units. If any one of these things were to not come together, then the 1937 war does not start. These are changes that can be wrought by small PoDs, not large ones.
 
You don't need to change the entire structure of government. Even after the militarists took over, there were lots of area armies that did not go around starting wars against orders--Chosengun, Taiwangun, etc. The Kantogun's radicalism and autonomy was really the exception, not the rule. All you need to have happen is different leadership for the Kantogun.

The problem I see is that the Japanese civilian leadership just didn't see any sort of moderation as viable. Look at the Japanese peace proposals to the Chinese; even when they were trying to offer a "light" peace, a la Bismarck's to Austria (this was the comparison invoked), it still meant making China into a Japanese vassal.

If any one of these things were to not come together, then the 1937 war does not start. These are changes that can be wrought by small PoDs, not large ones.

Eh, I am of the school which thinks Hirohito was a vigorous proponent of East Asian expansionism.
 
The problem I see is that the Japanese civilian leadership just didn't see any sort of moderation as viable. Look at the Japanese peace proposals to the Chinese; even when they were trying to offer a "light" peace, a la Bismarck's to Austria (this was the comparison invoked), it still meant making China into a Japanese vassal.
It was the same problem the US had in Vietnam, almost--it is hard to leave when you always feel you are on the verge of winning. (I am not saying that the US wanted to do to Vietnam what the Japanese did to China, just that it is hard to accept a comprimise peace when you keep "winning" on the ground.)
Anyway, I am talking about the Marco Polo Bridge Incident never occuring, not Japan leaving China after the war started.

Eh, I am of the school which thinks Hirohito was a vigorous proponent of East Asian expansionism.
I think he was a proponent of a stronger Japanese Empire, sure. I don't think he had a high opinion of China or the Chinese, either. I do think it is clear from the records that he was not a fan of the military taking things into their own hands, though. For one thing, it undercut the current power structure, which he knew how to work.

It is definitely the case that Tokyo was taken off-guard by the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. They were not in favor of a war with China at that time. I don't see any reason to suppose that the government would have started a larger war with China without the Kantogun's meddling. They probably would have simply continued trying to gain influence through lesser means.
 
Britain has a relatively strong economy, but is largely based on finance, rather than natural resources. You don't NEED natural resources to be strong economically, it just helps.
 

abc123

Banned
Britain has a relatively strong economy, but is largely based on finance, rather than natural resources. You don't NEED natural resources to be strong economically, it just helps.

Well, it isn't absolutly nescesarry, but it is better to have them ( or at least have control over countries that have them ). Especially at the beginning of industrialisation, and Japan was there in 1920s. Remember Britain and Empire in 19th Century. Or USA at beginning of 20th.
 

abc123

Banned
Britain has a relatively strong economy, but is largely based on finance, rather than natural resources. You don't NEED natural resources to be strong economically, it just helps.

Maybe it's better to say that British economy isn't based on manufacturing, more on finances and exploatation of natural resources of other countries.
Now, compare that with say Germany or Japan. They are based on manufacturing, but they have to buy natural resources from other countries or from anglo-american companies.
That's the reason why I said that Britain is junior partner to the USA in world hegemonny.
It would be ideal if you have resources of Russia and industry of Germany, but that's really rare thing, USA is/was something like that. And only such countries are really independent, as much as is possible in globalised world.
Then you have France, that tries to have finances AND manufacturing with control of natural resources of other countries.
 
Top