Japan retains pre-1931 territories: How powerful

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's say Japan (somehow) maintains a level of democracy comparable to the Taisho era and avoids going on an Imperialist rampage.

Japan's boundaries thus are the home islands, Southern Karafuto, the Kurils, Taiwan, Korea, and Micronesia.

How powerful would this Japan be in the long-run? This country likes has around ~260 million people I'd think. Growth may be slower due to a lack of US-imposed agricultural reforms, though Japan may reform itself on its own.
 
Lots of variables there. My wild guess is similar to the present on a per capita basis. Gross wealth could be much larger. I am assuming here there is a liberalization & the 'empire' evolves into some sort of common wealth. If Japan tries to preserve a actual empire through the 20th Century then it may end up like Portugal.
 
Lots of variables there. My wild guess is similar to the present on a per capita basis. Gross wealth could be much larger. I am assuming here there is a liberalization & the 'empire' evolves into some sort of common wealth. If Japan tries to preserve a actual empire through the 20th Century then it may end up like Portugal [emphasis added].

I think Japan has much better odds of maintaining its empire than Portugal ever did. For one, the substantial majority of the population and economic production would be in the Japanese home islands. I thik it is a relatively safe bet that Taiwan stays content under Japanese rule, as IOTL they treated it as a "model colony" and their policy was geared towards assimilation and eventual integration of the island into the Japanese mainstream as a sort of additional home island. They encouraged people to adopt Japanese customs, language, and names but did so in a much gentler way than they did in Korea. They also governed pretty competently and I think granted Taiwan some representation in the Diet. I'd expect it to have a relationship with Japan much like that of the Ryukus- distinct from Japan but also with a sense of being a part of it. So in this scenario I wouldn't think Japan would need to fight to keep Taiwan in the empire. Micronesia is hardly an issue. I mean, the population is so small and the resources are meager that if Japan wants to keep them there's nothing the inhabitants can do about it. Really the only place where Japan is going to have to fight is Korea, and that will be one ugly, ugly war. I think it'll come down to how successful the policies to integrate Korea/suppress Korean identity are. If they work, it'll be Japan hunting down insurgents in the Korean mountains. If they don't work, it will be a full on France in Algeria. But I get the feeling that Japan would be pretty damn brutal to hang on to Korea.
 
I think Japan has much better odds of maintaining its empire than Portugal ever did. For one, the substantial majority of the population and economic production would be in the Japanese home islands. I thik it is a relatively safe bet that Taiwan stays content under Japanese rule, as IOTL they treated it as a "model colony" and their policy was geared towards assimilation and eventual integration of the island into the Japanese mainstream as a sort of additional home island. They encouraged people to adopt Japanese customs, language, and names but did so in a much gentler way than they did in Korea. They also governed pretty competently and I think granted Taiwan some representation in the Diet. I'd expect it to have a relationship with Japan much like that of the Ryukus- distinct from Japan but also with a sense of being a part of it. So in this scenario I wouldn't think Japan would need to fight to keep Taiwan in the empire. Micronesia is hardly an issue. I mean, the population is so small and the resources are meager that if Japan wants to keep them there's nothing the inhabitants can do about it. Really the only place where Japan is going to have to fight is Korea, and that will be one ugly, ugly war. I think it'll come down to how successful the policies to integrate Korea/suppress Korean identity are. If they work, it'll be Japan hunting down insurgents in the Korean mountains. If they don't work, it will be a full on France in Algeria. But I get the feeling that Japan would be pretty damn brutal to hang on to Korea.

Also lets not forget Karafuto (South Sakhalin). It was already part of the home islands OTL, would have a higher populaation of OTL - a lot of them Ainus, and it has oil.
 
Regarding Korea, I'd think that perhaps the Troubles in Ireland is a good analogy. Did the Japanese ever have much issues in holding Korea historically?

Also lets not forget Karafuto (South Sakhalin). It was already part of the home islands OTL, would have a higher populaation of OTL - a lot of them Ainus, and it has oil.

IIRC it was/is the north of Karafuto that has the oil, but the Japanese had an agreement with Soviets that they'd be the ones pumping it.
 

Asami

Banned
Did the Japanese ever have much issues in holding Korea historically?

After the 1910 annexation? Not very, from what I gather. There was some level of Korean resistance, but the few attempts to revolt were easily dealt with. Avoiding the militaristic overtones that took over Japan in the 20s and 30s would actually improve Korean-Japanese relations.

After the 1919 demonstrations, Japan relented some on military government policy and brought back a limited version of free press among other things--if Japan keeps a light touch in Korea through the 20s and 30s, you can avoid a lot of the violence that hit Korea IOTL. That's not to say Japan can keep it forever, but it may give a chance to form a sort of... amicable divorce; or escalate into a Time of Troubles where Northern Korea is like Ireland and Southern Korea is like Ulster.

But no, the Korean nationalists were too disorganized and lacked a strong sponsor to really give the Japanese a hard time.
 
Regarding Korea, I'd think that perhaps the Troubles in Ireland is a good analogy. Did the Japanese ever have much issues in holding Korea historically?



IIRC it was/is the north of Karafuto that has the oil, but the Japanese had an agreement with Soviets that they'd be the ones pumping it.

Yes you are right, its on the north.
 
After the 1910 annexation? Not very, from what I gather. There was some level of Korean resistance, but the few attempts to revolt were easily dealt with. Avoiding the militaristic overtones that took over Japan in the 20s and 30s would actually improve Korean-Japanese relations.

After the 1919 demonstrations, Japan relented some on military government policy and brought back a limited version of free press among other things--if Japan keeps a light touch in Korea through the 20s and 30s, you can avoid a lot of the violence that hit Korea IOTL. That's not to say Japan can keep it forever, but it may give a chance to form a sort of... amicable divorce; or escalate into a Time of Troubles where Northern Korea is like Ireland and Southern Korea is like Ulster.

But no, the Korean nationalists were too disorganized and lacked a strong sponsor to really give the Japanese a hard time.

I could see China (if they get their act together) or the Soviets supporting the Korean nationalists as a means to bother the Chinese. The Soviets probably won't due to their oil deal with the Japanese however, but who knows how relations could change.

Maybe Korea could be the Scotland to Japan's England (and Taiwan ends up Wales?). Otherwise the Irish analogy seems more realistic. If Japan is staying Taisho and relatively liberal here, there may be less of a push for Korean Nationalism here.

There'd likely be a larger Korean diaspora TTL. Imagining Korean-Americans on the West Coast being as nationalistic as Irish-Americans in the northeast and midwest is an interesting concept.
 
Adding to that I'd say Japans most dangerous enemy in this scenario is itself. Assuming that Japan goes through a transition akin to OTLs South Korea and Taiwan I fully agree that they could proabably keep everything, just with more difficulty in Korea than elsewhere.
If on the other hand it merely avoids OTLs lunacy, but still devolves more and more into authoritarianism, with all the corruption, cronyism, etc that leads to long-term poverty for everyone including most Japanese that's another matter.
In that scenario it'll not just be easy for the USSR and/or PRC to raise the banner of Communist liberation in Korea. Eventually you might see a Japanese internal Civil War during which Korea and Taiwan both break away without hardly an effort. Taiwan might do so not because of any deep commitment to independence, but merely to sit avoid the Civil War spilling over to it.
 
Could there be a partition of Korea in this scenario? I don't know much about the demographics of Japanese Korea pre-1931, but would it be possible for the most integrated regions of Korea (where Japanese settlement has become entrenched and assimilation of Koreans has been most successful) to remain a part of the Empire, whilst the more nationalistic, separatist, culturally Korean parts of the peninsular break away?

A la Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland.

Perhaps 'South(ern) Korea' would refer to the area still part of Japan ITTL.
 
Could there be a partition of Korea in this scenario? I don't know much about the demographics of Japanese Korea pre-1931, but would it be possible for the most integrated regions of Korea (where Japanese settlement has become entrenched and assimilation of Koreans has been most successful) to remain a part of the Empire, whilst the more nationalistic, separatist, culturally Korean parts of the peninsular break away?

A la Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland.

Perhaps 'South(ern) Korea' would refer to the area still part of Japan ITTL.

This Southern Korea would need to have a Japanese majority or Korean "loyalist" population, if a partition of Korea was going to be similar to Ireland. Maybe Busan and the very southern part of Korea could attract a this type of population due to its proximity to Japan.
 
Taiwan was about 10% Japanese, and also relatively loyal, so it's easy to imagine the island staying in Japan. Micronesia was about half Japanese, so it's a given that it will stay in Japan. Karafuto and the Kurils were almost all Japanese with an Ainu minority, so they're going to be just as Japanese as Hokkaido. Korea will be the main issue--if the decolonisation wave IOTL could easily make Korea be Japan's Algeria, no doubt bringing about changes to Japanese society in the process.

Japan with the extra land will have several million more people, plus avoiding WWII will leave several million more people alive and prevent the mass devastation to the country.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
No Japanese miracle of the '50s and 60s so Greater Japan might not be as wealthy as in OTL but ... with no WWII destruction, not using most of the budget for the military, no WWII spending and making a lot of money selling to the UK and other allies in WWII (same as in WWI) - I see Japan as comfortably rich.
 

nbcman

Donor
Could there be a partition of Korea in this scenario? I don't know much about the demographics of Japanese Korea pre-1931, but would it be possible for the most integrated regions of Korea (where Japanese settlement has become entrenched and assimilation of Koreans has been most successful) to remain a part of the Empire, whilst the more nationalistic, separatist, culturally Korean parts of the peninsular break away?

A la Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland.

Perhaps 'South(ern) Korea' would refer to the area still part of Japan ITTL.
It would be the other way around. During their occupation, the Japanese built up the industries in the North more than the South. So the Japanese would probably want to keep the northern portion.
 
By 1975 Japan had overtaken the USSR in per capita GDP. While I am not economist I have estimated that Imperial Japan, with Manchuria as a province like Korea, would have almost 250 million citizen, about half not Japanese, and be the third biggest economy using modern numbers. That is a horridly rough guidepost but it gives an idea of just how powerful Japan might be, it certainly is in the top ten and likely top five.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
By 1975 Japan had overtaken the USSR in per capita GDP. While I am not economist I have estimated that Imperial Japan, with Manchuria as a province like Korea
1 - any Soviet data is to be treated with extreme caution, i.e. it is false unless proven true. Japan probably passed the USSR years earlier.
2 - the POD is pre-1931, pre grabbing of Manchuria.
3 - Japan sitting out WWII will make it as rich - if not richer - as Italy. Without any special effort on its side. And from that point onward the only way is up! :)
 
It would be the other way around. During their occupation, the Japanese built up the industries in the North more than the South. So the Japanese would probably want to keep the northern portion.

But the Koreans might want it more, especially if it's still majority Korean. Instead...

This Southern Korea would need to have a Japanese majority or Korean "loyalist" population, if a partition of Korea was going to be similar to Ireland. Maybe Busan and the very southern part of Korea could attract a this type of population due to its proximity to Japan.

...I feel that this scenario is more likely, but I don't have any data to back this up. Common sense would suggest that the areas closest to Japan would see the largest proportions of Japanese settlement. Does anyone have a reliable map of ethnic Japanese in Korea during Japanese rule IOTL?
 
1 - any Soviet data is to be treated with extreme caution, i.e. it is false unless proven true. Japan probably passed the USSR years earlier.
2 - the POD is pre-1931, pre grabbing of Manchuria.
3 - Japan sitting out WWII will make it as rich - if not richer - as Italy. Without any special effort on its side. And from that point onward the only way is up! :)

I trust nothing about the Soviets but I use Maddison data just to be on the same page. I have Manchuria carved out as I think it is doable without going full war and knocks China back a peg or two. Even taking out the Chinese there, not a massive populace as I recall, so we are still looking at Japan, Korea and Taiwan, modern ROK and Taiwan both have bigger per capita GDP, I took everyone to Japan's, and this smaller Imperial Japan is even more defensible, less prone to break-up and here the Japanese should out number the Korean and Taiwanese ethnic minorities. I think you get a country that is about one-third to one-half the strength of TTL USA and is on par with an ATL Imperial Germany or TTL USSR.
 
Osachi Hamaguchi fits this plot along with his political party's ideology. If he can achieve his objectives and stay in power for as long as possible your scenario has a good chance of being achieved.

Wikipedia gives all the contextual information about the man's ideology, political position, ideas and thoughts. It sounds as if he was a revolutionary statesman, very sad.

"After the collapse of the administration of Tanaka Giichi in June 1929, Hamaguchi was selected to become Prime Minister of Japan and formed a cabinet based largely on Minseitō party members, which supported domestic economic reforms over overseas military adventurism. With a strong sense of his own rectitude and a tough, stubborn temperament, Hamaguchi inspired trust, promising that he was "ready to die if necessary" for the good of the country during his inaugural speech and promising an administration free of corruption.

Hamaguchi's primary concern was the Japanese economy, which had been in an ever-increasing recession since the end of World War I, and had been greatly weakened by the devastation caused by the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. Hamaguchi promoted retrenchment, deflation and the rationalization of industry. The 1929 Great Depression, starting soon after he took office, put further pressure on the economy.

Initial public confidence and strong support from Emperor Hirohito and his entourage, including the genrō Saionji Kinmochi allowed Hamaguchi to implement fiscal austerity measures, which included ratification of the London Naval Treaty of 1930, which curtailed military spending. However, his measures to help stimulate exports, such as maintaining the Japanese yen on the gold standard, proved disastrous.

The failure of Hamaguchi's economic policies played into the hands of right-wing elements, already enraged by the government's conciliatory foreign policies and Japan’s increasing unemployment problems. The opposition Rikken Seiyūkai joined forces with the vocal anti-Treaty faction within the Imperial Japanese Navy to accuse Hamaguchi of infringing of the military's "right of supreme command" as guaranteed under the Meiji Constitution.

Hamaguchi's initial popularity quickly waned, and he fell victim to an assassination attempt on 14 November 1930 when he was shot inside Tokyo Station by Tomeo Sagoya, a member of the Aikoku-sha ultranationalist secret society. (Nine years earlier another Prime Minister, Hara Takashi, had been assassinated near the same place.) The head of the Aikoku-sha was Seiyūkai politician Ogawa Heikichi. The wounds kept Hamaguchi hospitalized for several months.

Hamaguchi was reelected to a second term as Prime Minister of Japan in March 1931. However, with his health continuing to deteriorate, he was unable to attend the 59th Session of the Imperial Diet, which opened with Foreign Minister Kijūrō Shidehara as acting Prime Minister. The Seiyūkai immediately attacked the government on the grounds that the Prime Minister was not physically present, and that Shidehara was not even a member of the Minseitō. When Shidehara further created an uproar with a comment concerning Emperor Hirohito's support of the London Naval Treaty, the Seiyūkai refused to participate in budget deliberations until Hamaguchi could attend. Despite his failing health, Hamaguchi was forced to attend the Diet, but resigned a month later to be replaced by Wakatsuki Reijirō. He died on 26 August of the same year, and his grave is at the Aoyama Cemetery in Tokyo.

In 1931 Hamaguchi's cabinet sponsored a bill on women's suffrage. It would have granted women over the age of 25 the right to vote in local elections and stand for office given their husbands' approval. The bill passed the lower house, but it was defeated in the House of Peers in March 1931 by a vote of 184 to 62."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top