Was modern Japanese militarism inevitable? Could it have been prevented?

How about averting militarism without having to lose a war?
Well, if Tsar Nicholas II accepts Ito Hirobumi's compromise on partitioning NE Asia (Russia keeps Manchuria, Japan gets Korea), then Japan both doesn't lose a war (since that would avert the Russo-Japanese War) and curbs Japanese militarism (no easy expansion into Manchuria reduces the ease of empire building and doesn't give the military extra prestige, validation, or (over)confidence in Japan's military might).
Plus, it keeps a check on Japanese imperialism into the continent since Russia getting Manchuria and not fighting a pointless war prevents the unrest caused by losing to an 'inferior' nation and the monetary losses associated with the loss in the form of damages and indemnities, which likely butterflies away the Communists (the loss of the Russo-Japanese War made the monarchy even less popular) and might even avert WWI, since Russia ends up in a two front situation with an eastward focus, the way Wilhelm II intended the Russo-Japanese War to go. Russia gets cozier with Germany as a result, or at least doesn't get friendly with the UK, and so WWI as we know it is gone (though a world-scale conflict is getting to be inevitable by 1900).
Japan might still try to interfere in China militarily but, with the above pressure and lack of (over)confidence, they're more likely to be forced down diplomatically or make more compromises instead of having officers independently start wars every few years. They'd be in a better position too, since not having Manchuria means no inevitable battle to the death with China and having an aggressive European on the doorstep given them an easier way to spin the Coprosperity Sphere bit with the other East Asians.
 
Isn't that like saying you need to prevent the Vikings if you want the Nordic countries to be peaceful and democratic by the present day without having to be forcibly pacified?

Vikings were even romanticized in the 18th and 19th centuries.

edit: okay, there was a thing with civilian democracy going on at the time of the Vikings, but "warrior culture in the past" does not necessarily mean "warrior culture in the present"
Scandinavia did not cut itself off from the world the way Japan did.
 
Without WWI, the Great Depression likely does not happen nor does the Japanese economy drop out with the end of the Great War and the profits being made. Liberal democracy was succeeding...and then the economy collapsed leading to extremism when the government couldn't provide answers. Likewise, WWI presented easy victories that increased Japanese adventurism as well as further ingrained Japanese hatred for the West as the Allies refused to see Asiatics as equals. The war also weakened Europe's ability to curb Japanese aggression. If you want to stop militarism as well as distrust/animosity with the West, prevent WWI.

Preventing WWI does a lot of great things. It was a useless, pointless , bloody war that in the end screwed everybody over. If there was one point in history I could change it would be no WWI. Without WWI there would have been no Communist Revolution, no Fascism, and a lot of people who died early would have survived.
 
One thing that always puzzles me is Japanese society is viewed as alien to the west. What's it got compared to Europe?
  • Ambitious officers in the colonies who want to purify society (compare Franco or Algerian plotters).
  • Right wing fanatics trying to kill liberals and leftists (Japan, Hungary, Italy, France!)
  • Labor unrest
  • Fear of growing Soviet and American power.
Yet somehow everyone thinks Germany has infinite PODs to avoid militarism and the Third Reich, but Japan are the kilrathi of Alternate History.

Agreed, yes the Japanese Government was insane around 1931 or so to 1945 but it wasn't inevitable. Like Nazi Germany there are a whole lot of exits before they hit "Insanity Road.".
 
Top