NoMommsen
Kicked
... what book dou you mean ?...
also historically, according to German reports from 1917, the Poles preferred Russian rule over to German rule according to Malte Rolf's concise book on the matter. ...
... what book dou you mean ?...
also historically, according to German reports from 1917, the Poles preferred Russian rule over to German rule according to Malte Rolf's concise book on the matter. ...
after rereading the older posts, Japan seems to be one of the nations that are still alive and kicking. Without the humiliation that is the WWI peace talks, what will happen to the Japanese? Will they follow the German model, with a powerful emperor and diet, or will Japan go off the deep end as per otl?
I'd really like to see Japan be less depraved while holding Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan and trying to influence other South East Asian nations. Japan and Japan's military just needs humble pie. Maybe they lose against an insurgency, or accrue some defeat from the comintern that forces the US/Germany to help the Japanese. I'd like to see them colonize Manchuria and the Far East and have a deal with Korea.So yeah...the Empire of Japan ITTL has a chance to never descend into the depths of depravity it did IOTL.
Possibly a dual monarchy deal with Korea?I'd really like to see Japan be less depraved while holding Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan and trying to influence other South East Asian nations. Japan and Japan's military just needs humble pie. Maybe they lose against an insurgency, or accrue some defeat from the comintern that forces the US/Germany to help the Japanese. I'd like to see them colonize Manchuria and the Far East and have a deal with Korea.
This idea was extremely popular among the Koreans. So popular they embeeded 6 bullets into the body of the guy who proposed this to the Japanese government otl.Possibly a dual monarchy deal with Korea?
Understood. And there were some shenanigans during the time of the British George's between father and son. But, yeah "innate instability" sounds about right.It struck me that it might give off the impression, and admittedly I went with 1800 specifically out of compromise between depicting keeping relevance (the political circumstances of Russia, while unique, weren't nearly as unusual in the early modern period as compared to the 19th century and onward) and depicting the full picture of Russia's sovereigns. I debated going as far back as Peter the Great, but decided that more focus should be put on the dialectic between the autocracy and popular sovereignty, which really only came to the fore in Europe with the Napoleonic period.
That said, earlier periods of history are just as tumultuous and interesting to learn about. Peter's antics in particular are fascinating - the man reminds me a lot of Theodore von Neuhoff if he were in established charge of a massive state rather than a pretender king. But the innate instability of Russia was as visible then as in the 1880s, between Peter's rather insane economic and modernization policies, Pugachev's rebellion during Catherine's reign, and Paul's various idiosyncrasies.
ooh, a colonial war that Japan loses would rid them of their victory disease, especially if it occured during the second weltkrieg.This idea was extremely popular among the Koreans. So popular they embeeded 6 bullets into the body of the guy who proposed this to the Japanese government otl.
Korean nationalism is going to be very hard to deny after 1909 for Japan.
Glad you appreciated the dissertation! The idea of government power systems vs. governing capability as distinct lobes of the state apparatus' agency, and the autocracy having led to both these being centralized such that reform and subterfuge are both hazards to the state, is a fascinating one; probably the clearest delineation of the practical problems with reforming the Russian system, from the system's perspective, that I have read.[snip]
👀Regarding Baku: all eyes are on them indeed. As I mentioned above, the Ottomans aren't quite ready to go in yet but that may well change.
Taiwan is a different matter, as policies of civic integration and local government started right around this time and only really concluded with the onset of the Second Sino-Japanese War. It is certain to retain some level of independentism, whether in the form of Chinese nationalists or aboriginal Taiwanese (who have a bad history with the Japanese government which is unlikely to improve anytime soon), but unless Japan undergoes a civil war or pulls some OTL-level tactics to bring on the wrath of the world, there's a real possibility of it being retained long-term.
this is a massive trope in alternate history I am not sure I agree with. From 1895 - 1930, Japanese Taiwan was wracked with rebellions and the Japanese brutally putting down said rebellions. After 1930, the Taiwanese were broken as a militaristic rebel force due to sheer brutality, which was why the Taiwanese did not rebel in ww2 (though that might be because the Japanese kept a large force on the island, more than what was needed to keep intimidating the populace). As per Outcasts of Empire: Japan's Rule on Taiwan's "Savage Border," 1874-1945 by Paul Barclay, the island was moving on to become what was essentially a massive version of the Ainu, which was both unsustainable, and crucial in fermenting Chinese nationalism in Taiwan from the 1930s onwards. It was good luck that Japan ceded Taiwan in 1945, for the island was virtually on the verge of a massive uprising against them.Taiwan is a different matter, as policies of civic integration and local government started right around this time and only really concluded with the onset of the Second Sino-Japanese War. It is certain to retain some level of independentism, whether in the form of Chinese nationalists or aboriginal Taiwanese (who have a bad history with the Japanese government which is unlikely to improve anytime soon), but unless Japan undergoes a civil war or pulls some OTL-level tactics to bring on the wrath of the world, there's a real possibility of it being retained long-term.
Did Japan have enough Japanese living in a corner of Korea that they might have kept a small Southern Korea?Yeah, the relationship between Japan and Korea is less Austria and Hungary, as much as it is Britain and Ireland.
Well, the situation in Northern Ireland isn't just ethnic, it's also religious, which would be harder to have happen in this context, since there's nothing quite like the Protestant-Catholic issue in the region.Did Japan have enough Japanese living in a corner of Korea that they might have kept a small Southern Korea?
The Japanese practice Shinto, the Koreans... don't. But as far as I can tell (at least from the Wikipedia article), no single sect of any faith topped 15% of the Ethnic Koreans in the 1910s-1920s, and even Christianity as a whole (everyone from the Baptists to the Eastern Orthodox) didn't top 35%. And the closest thing to a Korean religion Cheondoism moved toward acceptance by the Japanese Government rather than away. I'm truly wondering whether Korea in the 1910s-1920s has British India beat in the *variety* of Faiths.Well, the situation in Northern Ireland isn't just ethnic, it's also religious, which would be harder to have happen in this context, since there's nothing quite like the Protestant-Catholic issue in the region.
But that's my point. There's noting quite like the Catholic-Protestant issue to work with. Religious diversity isn't the problem, it's the specific mix of and history of the Catholic-Protestant divide in Ireland that led to Northern Ireland being a thing.The Japanese practice Shinto, the Koreans... don't. But as far as I can tell (at least from the Wikipedia article), no single sect of any faith topped 15% of the Ethnic Koreans in the 1910s-1920s, and even Christianity as a whole (everyone from the Baptists to the Eastern Orthodox) didn't top 35%. And the closest thing to a Korean religion Cheondoism moved toward acceptance by the Japanese Government rather than away. I'm truly wondering whether Korea in the 1910s-1920s has British India beat in the *variety* of Faiths.
True. basically instead of Ireland's X vs. Y, you had Korea's X vs. a lot of things that aren't X. The question is whether Ethnicity is enough.But that's my point. There's noting quite like the Catholic-Protestant issue to work with. Religious diversity isn't the problem, it's the specific mix of and history of the Catholic-Protestant divide in Ireland that led to Northern Ireland being a thing.
Oh, I wasn't meaning that Japanese control of Taiwan would be idyllic and peacable. This is still Imperial Japan we're talking about, attempting to rapidly assimilate the inhabitants of a heavily-populated island in the age of nationalism (alongside more traditional colonial settlement). And the history of rebellions in Taiwan against colonialists is long, even before the Japanese period - Qing presence on the island to my knowledge constituted effective military rule due to the constancy of native Taiwanese uprisings. But the power disparity between Taiwanese independence elements and, say, Korea (much less Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) is significant enough that it isn't just feasible for Japan to continue suppressing rebellions and independence movements, it is in my opinion likely unless they get well and truly wrecked by catastrophic forces. Beyond that power disparity, that there are civic elements of society willing to cooperate with Japanese authority and integrate into the system - up to and including Taiwanese appointed to the House of Peers - lends the Japanese a carrot to offer alongside the big stick. The same may have been true of Ireland, but it should be remembered that the process of Irish independence was greatly enabled by their overlords being socially and financially exhausted in a long and terribly destructive war.this is a massive trope in alternate history I am not sure I agree with. From 1895 - 1930, Japanese Taiwan was wracked with rebellions and the Japanese brutally putting down said rebellions. After 1930, the Taiwanese were broken as a militaristic rebel force due to sheer brutality, which was why the Taiwanese did not rebel in ww2 (though that might be because the Japanese kept a large force on the island, more than what was needed to keep intimidating the populace). As per Outcasts of Empire: Japan's Rule on Taiwan's "Savage Border," 1874-1945 by Paul Barclay, the island was moving on to become what was essentially a massive version of the Ainu, which was both unsustainable, and crucial in fermenting Chinese nationalism in Taiwan from the 1930s onwards. It was good luck that Japan ceded Taiwan in 1945, for the island was virtually on the verge of a massive uprising against them.
So really, I do think this trope that taiwan was a peaceful part of the Japanese Empire much unfounded.