POD needed for a Benevolent Imperial Japan?

Not all Empires are equally malevolent. The late British Empire (Victorian and on) was arguably somewhat benevolent. Racist, patronizing, exploitative, and occasionally still brutal, but no sane person would compare British rule in India with Japanese rule in Manchukuo, or even with Belgian rule in Kongo. During the late colonial era, the British (and the French) worked hard to improve the condition of their subjects, and the British at least allowed some degree of native participation in government and contemplated the eventual liberation of their colonies.

There can be no doubt that most former British colonies are vastly better off today than they would have been without colonialism. From Belize to New Zealand, Britain introduced technology, educated natives, built railroads, created middle classes, and gave the laboring masses a degree of freedom and respect which, however small, was much greater than what they were allowed by native despots. And, after all their investments, the British (and French) granted most of their colonies independence rather peaceably, compared to the savage tenacity of, say, Portugal.

One simply cannot imagine Japan acquiring the accumulated suite of the highest Western virtues (if egalitarianism, respect, and compassion are virtues), built from the roots of German tribal society over a period of two millennia, in a matter of a generation or two - let alone while Japan had never had to deal with a serious challenge from a foreign nation, or even had much cultural contact therewith.
That's apologism, not fact. To pretend that the Maratha or Mughal Empires wouldn't have kept up with the times is simply not true. And what Japan did was basically what all the Empires did, except for Japan was Asian. Britain and France didn't give their colonies independence out of benevolence, they did it because they had no money left. And educating natives? Really? To assume that people would be technologically backwards without Europeans coming in and teaching us is utter hogwash. And please don't call native rulers despots. The British also plundered her colonies of their riches, and treated her "subjects" like s***. The fact is, if the empires were benevolent, then there would have been no need at all for their independence movements now, would there. The whole reason people flocked to Japan during WWII in the first place, was because they offered an alternative: Freddom from the European Empires. Obviously we know that wasn't the case later on, but it was promoted earlier during their rule.
 
I would not argue that all imperial regimes were equally bad. However, I think there is a distressing tendancy on the part of many to view all the bad things one's one empire did as exceptions to their basic good nature, while any good things another empire did were exceptions to their basic evil nature.

I would argue that the British orders to prevent even private efforts towards famine relief in India in the 1870s were typical, yes. The leadership was doing exactly what the British Empire in India was designed to do: direct wealth (in this case, grain) out of India for the benefit of Britain. The taking of grain was not unusual, only the amount taken was unusual. Similarly, one could argue that the violence in Kenya was also typical. All empires used violence and repression to keep their possesions. If a nation rules only over people that agree to be a part of that nation, it is not as empire. Only the scale of the violence was noteworthy.

Japan did a lot of good things in Taiwan, but that doesn't make up for the violence used to conquer and subjugate the empire. I think it is unfair to say of any empire that it was good, becuase it only did a few bad things. The bad acts are part and parcel of what the empire was, they cannot be seperated. That is how empires are won and kept. To approve of an empire, any empire, is to approve of all of that.
 
I would argue that the British orders to prevent even private efforts towards famine relief in India in the 1870s were typical, yes. The leadership was doing exactly what the British Empire in India was designed to do: direct wealth (in this case, grain) out of India for the benefit of Britain. The taking of grain was not unusual, only the amount taken was unusual. Similarly, one could argue that the violence in Kenya was also typical. All empires used violence and repression to keep their possesions. If a nation rules only over people that agree to be a part of that nation, it is not as empire. Only the scale of the violence was noteworthy.

Taking grain in and of itself isn't morally...anything, really. Nor is in and of itself using violence to maintain governmental authority.

If one condemns taking wealth from one region for the good of another, or the use of force to maintain government, one is pretty much condemning government of anything even the size of a village.

So the question is "Was this typical behavior, or did the British generally rule over Kenya and India about the same way they ruled over Kent and Inverness?" - which most of us would probably not describe as particularly malevolent.

Your comment really isn't addressing that, at least in my something less than humble opinion.

Nor is it really addressing how the British are worse than the native rulers would have been, who are presumably equally prone (all things being even) to squeezing their subjects for their own purposes and maintaining their authority by force - see below for how this relates to the issue of Empires are Bad (to me).

Japan did a lot of good things in Taiwan, but that doesn't make up for the violence used to conquer and subjugate the empire. I think it is unfair to say of any empire that it was good, becuase it only did a few bad things. The bad acts are part and parcel of what the empire was, they cannot be seperated. That is how empires are won and kept. To approve of an empire, any empire, is to approve of all of that.

To approve of an empire is not the same thing as to say that everything that empire did was a good thing - if our choices are "something that generally is more good than bad" or "something that is generally more bad than good", saying "they're both bad and we should reject government" is not realistic. And honestly, sometimes the good outweigh does outweigh the bad - or vice-versa.
 
Hesitantly, might we not be confusing two different ideas of Empire? The British, French, Dutch and Belgian Empires were constructed by taking over territories distant from the home country and without the intention of integrating them into the home territories (except perhaps the French Empire?). Although Japan had an Emperor, surely its taking over of Taiwan and Korea was more similar to France taking over Alsace or Brittany. By WW2 there were already Koreans with higher ranks in the IJA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Sa-ik than any Indian was ever given in the British Army. I am not sure if this has anything to do with benevolence but might we not expect a visitor from 2011 of a timeline with a surviving Japanese Empire to tell us that Taiwan and Korea were inhabited by Japanese?

ps. I hope that wolf_brother will tolerate me mentioning France again :).
 
Hesitantly, might we not be confusing two different ideas of Empire? The British, French, Dutch and Belgian Empires were constructed by taking over territories distant from the home country and without the intention of integrating them into the home territories (except perhaps the French Empire?). Although Japan had an Emperor, surely its taking over of Taiwan and Korea was more similar to France taking over Alsace or Brittany. By WW2 there were already Koreans with higher ranks in the IJA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Sa-ik than any Indian was ever given in the British Army. I am not sure if this has anything to do with benevolence but might we not expect a visitor from 2011 of a timeline with a surviving Japanese Empire to tell us that Taiwan and Korea were inhabited by Japanese?

ps. I hope that wolf_brother will tolerate me mentioning France again :).

You sir have raised a good point though is Imperial Russia a better analogy? And on the topic of would we call the people of Twain or Korea Japanese I would say yes and no, IMO it would be the same as how non-Brits might call the Scots or the Welsh English. Also all this arguing over European empires is not answering the original post’s question – though Benevolent might have been the wrong word to use-.

Anyway my 2 cents for what it worth is that this can’t be done with a POD post WW1 as this is then there’s a U-turn on colonial expansion by Europe’s major democracy’s, if Japan can build an Empire in this 14 year period -19 inculding the war- it can start to act like a (and I use this word for want of a much better one) “Benevolent” later on. But by 1920 it really is unacceptable to be building an empire, to maintain one you made earlier yes but to build one and all the bloodshed that goes with it is a no no

EDIT : in short yes but China is a no go
 
Last edited:
Hesitantly, might we not be confusing two different ideas of Empire? The British, French, Dutch and Belgian Empires were constructed by taking over territories distant from the home country and without the intention of integrating them into the home territories (except perhaps the French Empire?). Although Japan had an Emperor, surely its taking over of Taiwan and Korea was more similar to France taking over Alsace or Brittany. By WW2 there were already Koreans with higher ranks in the IJA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Sa-ik than any Indian was ever given in the British Army. I am not sure if this has anything to do with benevolence but might we not expect a visitor from 2011 of a timeline with a surviving Japanese Empire to tell us that Taiwan and Korea were inhabited by Japanese?

ps. I hope that wolf_brother will tolerate me mentioning France again :).

There's something to this, though I'm not sure what.

Either kind of empire can be brutal and exploitative.
 
Guys

Probably the best late chance would be avoiding the humiliations that Japan suffered in the early 20's. No real chance of getting the racial equality clause in the LoN with the assorted empires and the American attitude to racial minorities but if you avoid the Washington Treaty and maintain the alliance with Britain.

I actually think this is a bit unfair to the West. Japan did very well out of Versailles. It got the pacific mandates, it had the western powers recognize its special interest in Manchuria during this period, it got Tianjin.....
 
The conservative-reactionaries were actually a restraining force on the populist younger officers, who were more representative of the people and lots crazier. That's a simplification, but there's enough truth to it to suggest that universal manhood suffrage could well make things worse, or at least no better.

Taishō Democracy anyone? A good POD might involve Hara Takashi being a bit less cautious and using his (overwhelming) majority in the commons to force through universal male suffrage. Alternatively have 1921 Hara survive his assassination attempt and then force through the electoral reforms. Basically you'll need to create a situation where by the time the Taishō Emperor dies you have a well-founded democratic state that isn't easily swept aside by the conservative-reactionaries in the military and aristocracy.
 
Top