PC: Japan Conquered

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Here's a rough TL I've got; I'm hoping to get some feedback, in terms of plausibility

-----

June 1846 -- An American whaling vessel, the USS Lagoda, either has no troubles, or is lost with no survivors [either way, this does not happen]

[Thus, Commodore Perry is never sent to Japan]

Tensions grow between Japanese and Russian settlers in places like Sakharin [similar to OTL]

In Russo-Japanese War (1868-71), Russia conquers Hokkaido; to secure a military alliance, Japan gives the Dutch much better trading status, even, in desperation, allowing soldiers based in Indonesia onto Honshu to fight off a Russian invasion; Hokkaido goes to Russia, while the rest of Japan falls under the Dutch Sphere of Influence

Later in the 19th Century, the Shogunate leads a rebellion against the Dutch occupation, which is put down; the Shogun is replaced by an appointed governor

-----

Now, an obvious question here is, are the Dutch powerful enough as late as the mid 19th Century to pull this off? If not, is there a plausible other power that could fill their place, keeping the same events?

I look forward to your feedback.
 

Sealion

I don't see the Dutch as able to (or indeed willing) to go to war with the Russians - Russia is a "Great Power" while Holland is a middle ranking European power.

The only realistic Nations are UK and France (both Great Power empires).
 

Don Grey

Banned
Sealion said:
I don't see the Dutch as able to (or indeed willing) to go to war with the Russians - Russia is a "Great Power" while Holland is a middle ranking European power.

The only realistic Nations are UK and France (both Great Power empires).
Click to expand...
I have to agree with sealion here. The Dutch wouldnt even have the will to do it.It would be just harmful to them and wouldnt serve any of there intrests.
 
RMcD94

RMcD94

mdc_1957 said:
Reminds me of a Dimension TL (forgot which) where the Brits do exactly that...only to wind up with an Austro-Hungarian arrangement, but much more mixed.
Click to expand...

I do believe I've read that.

The only way the two islands will remain connected is if you mix their ethnicity together.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
OK, so how plausible is this:

June 1846 -- An American whaling vessel, the USS Lagoda, either has no troubles, or is lost with no survivors [either way, this does not happen]

[Thus, Commodore Perry is never sent to Japan]

Tensions grow between Japanese and Russian settlers in places like Sakharin [similar to OTL]

In Russo-Japanese War (1868-71), Russia conquers Hokkaido; to secure a military alliance, Japan gives the English much better trading status, even, in desperation, allowing British soldiers onto Honshu to fight off a Russian invasion; Hokkaido goes to Russia, while the rest of Japan falls under the British Sphere of Influence

Later in the 19th Century, the Shogunate leads a rebellion against the Anglo occupation, which is put down; the Shogun is replaced by an appointed governor
 

mdc_1957

John Fredrick Parker said:
OK, so how plausible is this:

June 1846 -- An American whaling vessel, the USS Lagoda, either has no troubles, or is lost with no survivors [either way, this does not happen]

[Thus, Commodore Perry is never sent to Japan]

Tensions grow between Japanese and Russian settlers in places like Sakharin [similar to OTL]

In Russo-Japanese War (1868-71), Russia conquers Hokkaido; to secure a military alliance, Japan gives the English much better trading status, even, in desperation, allowing British soldiers onto Honshu to fight off a Russian invasion; Hokkaido goes to Russia, while the rest of Japan falls under the British Sphere of Influence

Later in the 19th Century, the Shogunate leads a rebellion against the Anglo occupation, which is put down; the Shogun is replaced by an appointed governor
Click to expand...
Yup. This is more plausible. Though it would be interesting how British Nipponland would play out.
 

maverick

Banned
It's not impossible, since I'm actually doing a similar TL myself, but you're ignoring massive amounts of facts just to get the scenario to work.

It is possible to get Japan under the British sphere of influence, but why would they proceed to outright conquest when they've never done so with China, a country that shares a similar situation in relation to commercial interests with the British?

As has been stated ad nauseam in this forum, the British don't just randomly annex countries for no reason. In fact, throughout the 19th century they were incredibly reluctant to done so, only engaging in colonialist adventures as a continuation of already established policies regarding an area, when they were forced to do so (their Egyptian policy setting up a policy of colonizing half of Africa) or when it responded to their economic interests.

Throughout the 19th century Britain interfered with the economic affairs of nations, but taking over a country was not usually part of the deal, otherwise all the dealings in Latin America or China would have led to British China or Latin America.

The best you can get is a Sinicization of Japan, with a weak central government and several treaty ports, while Russia is taking over from the north.

See all the previous threads on a possible Conquest of Japan to see why it is so difficult and so fruitless (especially as the limited resources and markets of Japan make it inefficient in cost-benefit terms) to take Japan by military force, when it is perfectly possible to do so commercially without having to spend fortunes in military conquest, occupation and colonization.
 

LemonySniffit

Banned
John Fredrick Parker said:
Here's a rough TL I've got; I'm hoping to get some feedback, in terms of plausibility

-----

June 1846 -- An American whaling vessel, the USS Lagoda, either has no troubles, or is lost with no survivors [either way, this does not happen]

[Thus, Commodore Perry is never sent to Japan]

Tensions grow between Japanese and Russian settlers in places like Sakharin [similar to OTL]

In Russo-Japanese War (1868-71), Russia conquers Hokkaido; to secure a military alliance, Japan gives the Dutch much better trading status, even, in desperation, allowing soldiers based in Indonesia onto Honshu to fight off a Russian invasion; Hokkaido goes to Russia, while the rest of Japan falls under the Dutch Sphere of Influence

Later in the 19th Century, the Shogunate leads a rebellion against the Dutch occupation, which is put down; the Shogun is replaced by an appointed governor

-----

Now, an obvious question here is, are the Dutch powerful enough as late as the mid 19th Century to pull this off? If not, is there a plausible other power that could fill their place, keeping the same events?

I look forward to your feedback.
Click to expand...

If your looking for a Dutch occupation of Japan, you'll need to make a POD set in the 17th century.
 

Kerblo

What is the purpose of taking over Japan? They have a war culture that will be expensive to control and few natural resources to exploit. Yes, military bases could be useful to control the resource rich China better or reduce Russian influence in the North Pacific but you don't need to take over the whole country to do that.

The way you explained Japan being taken is very plausible but I think it would be a foolish mistake for the UK. Is there a reason for a Japan occupation that I don't realize?
 

maverick

Banned
LemonySniffit said:
If your looking for a Dutch occupation of Japan, you'll need to make a POD set in the 17th century.
Click to expand...

With a POD in the 17th century, it's still impossible.

The Dutch were never much of a military power, but rather an economic and naval power. Even if they had the resources to bring a military fleet to the Far East without bankrupting themselves, subduing Japan would be impossible. They're culturally and political united, have a strong central government, are ridiculously homogeneous, just went through a century of civil wars that left a massively militarized society through the early 17th century and yes, they have firearms that in the 17th century, are probably just as good as the European ones.

The fact is, that throughout the 15th-19th century, only a handful of nations could have conquered Japan, and they were all preoccupied with colonial empires elsewhere or european wars.

The best chance are the United States, the United Kingdom and the Russian Empire in the late 18th and early to mid 19th century, avoiding the reforms of the Late Tokugawa and early Meiji periods.

The way you explained Japan being taken is very plausible but I think it would be a foolish mistake for the UK. Is there a reason for a Japan occupation that I don't realize?
Click to expand...

1. It looks cool on a map;
2. Half the People in pre-1900 love and breathe British wanking;
3. People love colonial empires, for some reason;
 

LemonySniffit

Banned
maverick said:
With a POD in the 17th century, it's still impossible.

The Dutch were never much of a military power, but rather an economic and naval power. Even if they had the resources to bring a military fleet to the Far East without bankrupting themselves, subduing Japan would be impossible. They're culturally and political united, have a strong central government, are ridiculously homogeneous, just went through a century of civil wars that left a massively militarized society through the early 17th century and yes, they have firearms that in the 17th century, are probably just as good as the European ones.

The fact is, that throughout the 15th-19th century, only a handful of nations could have conquered Japan, and they were all preoccupied with colonial empires elsewhere or European wars.
Click to expand...

That said, it could be done, I'm on a laptop right now and just woke up, so I'm not going to debate it right now though.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
maverick said:
1. It looks cool on a map;
2. Half the People in pre-1900 love and breathe British wanking;
3. People love colonial empires, for some reason;
Click to expand...

Well, namely I'm trying to curbstomp Japan as much as possible, from continued closed door policy.

As to the reason in the TL, I think "occupation" may have been used incorrectly; the point is, the British gain a significant foothold on the island, the Shogun leads a war to run them out, the Brits respond by destroying the Shogunate.

After this trouble, taking direct control of the island doesn't seem so implausible...

EDIT ADD: Could the debate mentioned post prior take place on another thread? I kind of want to stick with the mentioned PoD here...
 
Last edited:

maverick

Banned
John Fredrick Parker said:
Well, namely I'm trying to curbstomp Japan as much as possible, from continued closed door policy.

As to the reason in the TL, I think "occupation" may have been used incorrectly; the point is, the British gain a significant foothold on the island, the Shogun leads a war to run them out, the Brits respond by destroying the Shogunate.

After this trouble, taking direct control of the island doesn't seem so implausible...
Click to expand...

Destroying the Shogunate is one thing, taking control of the Island is another.

As stated before, it's not British Policy to take control of countries within the sphere of influence, simply to meddle with their internal politics in order to further their own economic interests.

A weak or balkanized Japan is more or less possible, but if you want to take over the whole thing, that's a different scenario, and Russia might work slightly better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top