Smartest possible imperial Japan

[matashowski]

Found on Wikipedia,

"The failure of Japan to understand the goals and interests of the other countries involved in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere led to a weak association of countries bound to Japan only in theory and not in spirit. Dr. Ba Maw argues that Japan could have engineered a very different outcome if the Japanese had only managed to act in accord with the declared aims of "Asia for the Asiatics". He argues that if Japan had proclaimed this maxim at the beginning of the war, and if the Japanese had actually acted on that idea,


"No military defeat could then have robbed her of the trust and gratitude of half of Asia or even more, and that would have mattered a great deal in finding for her a new, great, and abiding place in a postwar world in which Asia was coming into her own."


What do you all think? A Japan that unites Asia rather than attempts to capture it would be very interesting. I don't know enough about the lead up to WWII to come up with a POD, but i could see an empire with a very different temperament.

(And just to nip the nay-saying in the bud, I don't think a forum composed almost entirely of westerners can argue about the soul of a country we have barely ever understood in a time period before any of us were born.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere#cite_note-33

 

[Just a Rube]

The big problem is that it assumes a unity of purpose that really wasn't there in pre-war Japan. Late Imperial Japan was essentially multiple different factions of the military, acting semi-independently, and frequently assassinating members of rival factions (and the central government). Even if one faction sincerely believed in "Asia for the Asians," the Kwangtung Army (who were the ones fighting in China) might have a different policy (and different groups within the Kwangtung Army might carry out different policies).

Any state where a sitting prime minister can be assassinated in a failed coup attempt and the perpetrators let off with a virtual slap on the wrist is not one in a position to impose more control over the military. And a Japan where the military doesn't gain power is one where the whole campaign for a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere never takes off in the first place (as it arguably began when junior officers in the Kwangtung Army decided that faking a terrorist attack as pretext for an aggressive war would be a great way to get war experience). A Japan in better control of its military hopefully isn't one where junior officers starting wars on their own is encouraged.

 

[mlp]

"The failure of Japan to understand the goals and interests of the other countries involved in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere led to a weak association of countries bound to Japan only in theory and not in spirit. Dr. Ba Maw argues that Japan could have engineered a very different outcome if the Japanese had only managed to act in accord with the declared aims of "Asia for the Asiatics". He argues that if Japan had proclaimed this maxim at the beginning of the war, and if the Japanese had actually acted on that idea,


"No military defeat could then have robbed her of the trust and gratitude of half of Asia or even more, and that would have mattered a great deal in finding for her a new, great, and abiding place in a postwar world in which Asia was coming into her own."

I think that the ideology of Pan-Asianism, which is where the idea of "Asia for Asiatics" come from, died with the annexation of Korea in 1910 and sealed shut with the 21 Demands in 1915. Japan already proved itself very happy to bend the rules around for its own rise in power by 1931. A POD quite early is necessary to make sure both Japan itself and the countries surrounding it believe Pan-Asianism a viable policy.

 

[dandan_noodles]

I think the smartest possible Imperial Japan would not ally with Nazi Germany; neither could really support the other against any enemy but the Soviet Union, and tying their fate to Nazi Germany, which was certain to be destroyed pretty much from Day One, was not in their best interest.

If the Japanese maintained the Anglo-Japanese alliance, and waited to see if the KMT-German cooperation bloomed into a full partnership, then they might be able to take a share of the spoils in China if they join a war against the Axis. If Japan delays the invasion of China, Chiang might succeed in crushing the CCP. Best case scenario there is that German and Soviet aid to the KMT and the what's left of the CCP dries up following Barbarossa, and the warlords come out ahead in the civil war. The Japanese enter the war against Germany and its allies shortly afterwards, steaming up the Yangtze and butchering the KMT as per OTL. Without American, Soviet, or German support, Chongqing falls, and Japan 'liberates' Vichy France's Asian colonies.

Endgame: Japan controls China's economic heartland and most of Southeast Asia, and stands to profit from decolonization, whether it's encouraging Pan Asian movements, or control following intervention against communists. Britain is probably stronger for not having all their colonies in East Asia taken by the Japanese.

 

[trurle]

I think the smartest possible Imperial Japan would not ally with Nazi Germany; neither could really support the other against any enemy but the Soviet Union, and tying their fate to Nazi Germany, which was certain to be destroyed pretty much from Day One, was not in their best interest.

If the Japanese maintained the Anglo-Japanese alliance, and waited to see if the KMT-German cooperation bloomed into a full partnership, then they might be able to take a share of the spoils in China if they join a war against the Axis. If Japan delays the invasion of China, Chiang might succeed in crushing the CCP. Best case scenario there is that German and Soviet aid to the KMT and the what's left of the CCP dries up following Barbarossa, and the warlords come out ahead in the civil war. The Japanese enter the war against Germany and its allies shortly afterwards, steaming up the Yangtze and butchering the KMT as per OTL. Without American, Soviet, or German support, Chongqing falls, and Japan 'liberates' Vichy France's Asian colonies.

Endgame: Japan controls China's economic heartland and most of Southeast Asia, and stands to profit from decolonization, whether it's encouraging Pan Asian movements, or control following intervention against communists. Britain is probably stronger for not having all their colonies in East Asia taken by the Japanese.

I doubt it is going to work. Sitting in bushes and then jumping out to kill all wounded enemies is fine in theory, but rarely work in practice.
Because:
1) No chronic war = no effective war machine. Japan in this scenario will likely be occupied by KMT and post-Soviet warlords after several mishaps, massacres and desertions.
2) Pressure to join one or other alliance will be terrible. Remember what British and Soviets did in 1941 with neutral Iran.

As about pan-asianism..it is just projection of 21-century ideas into not-yet-ready world. No top-tier power will support such idea. Japan may be more realistically promoting a de-colonization under nationalistic agendas, with several low-intensity proxy wars against US, British and Dutch. The time of 1930+ was may be suitable for "poor oppressed native freedom fighters" supporters paralysing at least US Congress to the point what no decisive military action will be taken.

After WWII starts, join the Allies. Of course, it requires no involvement with China. And to ensure it..well, i propose a terrible epidemic of mosquito-born virus with high morbidity breaking out in continental Asia. Nothing less will keep Japan`s hands off such a large and helpless piece of consumer`s base. Also virus works fine by preferentially killing the Japanese with the motivation for overseas travel - resulting in less factions and more consistent (smart) politics.

 

[dandan_noodles]

I doubt it is going to work. Sitting in bushes and then jumping out to kill all wounded enemies is fine in theory, but rarely work in practice.
Because:
1) No chronic war = no effective war machine. Japan in this scenario will likely be occupied by KMT and post-Soviet warlords after several mishaps, massacres and desertions.
2) Pressure to join alliance will be terrible. Remember what British and Soviets did in 1941 with neutral Iran.

Japan already had an effective war machine before the China enterprise took off in earnest; waiting for Chiang to make a gigantic diplomatic blunder isn't going to zap away the Japanese's ownership of the second best navy on earth and decades of better officer training. Manchuria was conquered in short order, without so much as the knowledge of the central government, so unless a Sino-German alliance dramatically improves KMT performance across the board (to the point of offsetting US and USSR aid), the Japanese aren't going to blunder themselves out of China.

The idea that the KMT could occupy Japan short of nuclear development is, uh, implausible, to put it mildly, and the British and Soviets did not have the power projection capabilities to force Japan into war in 1940-1 as they did in Iran.

 

[mlp]

As about pan-asianism..it is just projection of 21-century ideas into not-yet-ready world. No top-tier power will support such idea. Japan may be more realistically promoting a de-colonization under nationalistic agendas, with several low-intensity proxy wars against US, British and Dutch.

Except such an idea loses a lot of traction when Japan has its own colonies; Japan needs to seek a better way of going around having Korea in its sphere of influence, which would be an effective model to base its future operations around China and Southeast Asia on.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

The idea that the KMT could occupy Japan short of nuclear development is, uh, implausible, to put it mildly, and the British and Soviets did not have the power projection capabilities to force Japan into war in 1940-1 as they did in Iran.

Quite. Only America could have realistically occupied Japan. China and the USSR...assuming a war between them and Japan, one that America didn't get involved in...even if Japan lost every battle on the Asian mainland and was embarrassingly driven off, neither China nor Russia has anywhere near the naval resources to launch an amphibious invasion, plus the IJN might have something to say about it

In such a scenario, where America doesn't get involved, assume this chain of events:

1) Japan ejected from Asian mainland, but continues to hold Taiwan and Sakhalin (probably seize the North of the island as a consolation prize).

2) Soviets and Chinese realise they've reached an impasse - Japanese Navy means that they can't get an invasion force anywhere near the Home Islands - but Japan has to recognise that they've lost millions of men and huge amounts of money for nothing

3) Political...differences in Tokyo. The kind that lead to street battles.

4) New government in Tokyo sits down for peace negotiations with the Sino-Soviet axis or whatever we're assuming. Figure some kind of deal whereby current borders are recognised, since neither side is able to reduce the other anymore than has already been done.

5) Japan goes through a fair number of lean years economically. Expect the new government to reduce Army size and funding massively, possibly even purge the officer corps. Defeat on the mainland will have the effect of discrediting the Army in the eyes of the public. Odds are that the Navy and air forces will be maintained - they're the only things between Japan and Sino-Soviet aggression.

6) By 1960, Japan should be recovered, though they'll be poorer than OTL. Now that they've been reduced to their island holdings and now that expansionism is discredited, expect them to work on reinventing themselves as an anti-colonial force in the world, in particular via covert encouragement to SE Asia.

 

[mlp]

In such a scenario, where America doesn't get involved,

The question is, of course, what stops the US from keeping a rising competitor over the Pacific in check..

EDIT: or for any other assumption we're making in this thead, for that matter.

 

[Namayan]

The question is, of course, what stops the US from keeping a rising competitor over the Pacific in check..

EDIT: or for any other assumption we're making in this thead, for that matter.

I believe this is the correct assumption.

The OP wants a 1940s Japan scenario. Which is ASB territory for Japan to dominate Asia.

You need a pod far earlier than what the OP describe. That means no one would recognize Japan as the OP knows about Japan.

A best possible solutions is probably Japan and her allies keeps and dominates Asia. Either retaining British alliance or Japan switches to US wherein in that timeline US and British are the main competitors wherein the PoD is so far back the world that the OP describe isnt similar.