When did Japanese militarism of the 1930s become inevitable? How could Japan have had a more stable/reformable democracy before the WWII era?

[Pipcard]

Was it...

• 1910s-1920s? (Great Depression, Great Kanto Earthquake, anti-leftist "Peace Preservation Law," getting [perceived] bad deals after WWI - ruining the fragile stability of Taisho Democracy)
• 1890s-1900s? (Wins in the first Sino-Japanese war and Russo-Japanese war result in overconfidence and victory disease)
• 1860s-1880s? (Meiji Constitution being based on the Prussian model, which did not allow for civilian control of the military, and having too many loopholes that would let the military take over)
• pre-1860s? (Japan already being under the rule of samurai and a feudal military dictatorship, which only got transferred during the Meiji Restoration to become a militaristic oligarchy)

Before, I was thinking of preventing Japanese expansionism in the first place. (I was born in a country that was occupied by Imperial Japan in WWII but don't hold a deep grudge, and I'd love to see timelines where anti-Japan resentment is reduced)
But now, I am thinking of scenarios where Japan still tries to expand for resources and power (like most great powers at the time), but has a more stable democracy that doesn't become the Asian version of Nazi Germany by the 1930s. Maybe even joining the Allies.
A democracy that reforms and liberalizes further down the line, without having to be nuked or invaded. Maybe even becoming less racially discriminatory and open to immigration, with minority groups who could lead a successful civil rights movement?

(For a post-war Japan with more reforms, see this thread)

 

[McPherson]

Was it...

• 1920s? (Great Depression, Great Kanto Earthquake, "Peace Preservation Law," getting bad deals after WWI - ruining the fragile stability of Taisho Democracy)
• 1890s-1900s? (Wins in the first Sino-Japanese war and Russo-Japanese war result in overconfidence and victory disease)
• 1860s-1890s? (Meiji Constitution being based on the Prussian model, which did not allow for civilian control of the military, and having too many loopholes that would let the military take over)
• pre-1860s? (Japan already being under the rule of samurai and a feudal military dictatorship, which only got transferred during the Meiji Restoration to become a militaristic oligarchy)

Before, I was thinking of preventing Japanese expansionism in the first place. (I was born in a country that was occupied by Imperial Japan in WWII but don't hold a deep grudge, and I'd love to see timelines where anti-Japan resentment is reduced)
But now, I am thinking of scenarios where Japan still tries to expand for resources and power (like most great powers at the time), but has a more stable democracy that doesn't become the Asian version of Nazi Germany by the 1930s. Maybe even joining the Allies.
A democracy that reforms and liberalizes further down the line, without having to be nuked or invaded. Maybe even becoming less racially discriminatory, with minority groups who could lead a successful civil rights movement?

You have covered the ground, so it will not surprise you to read that the only thing that could have "stabilized" the Taisho democracy was the same framework that would have stabilized communist Russia or Weimar Germany. Fair treatment is what I would call it. Now note I would downturn the chances for a liberal Japan to just about the time of the Nine Powers and Washington Naval Treaties when the Western Powers dealt with Japan with some contempt. This was first seen at the Versailles Conference post WWI when Japan and Italy proposed a "racial equality clause" in the League of Nations Charter and their proposal was rejected====> by Woodrow Wilson, the rat bastard.

Then there was the racist immigration policies of the United States and the economic and political exclusionism of the British Empire. These are not justifications for the radicalization that occurred during the Tanaka regime, but these policies contributed to the reciprocal processes at work inside Japanese domestic politics. The same kind of Western political short-sightedness would radicalize Germany, Italy and Russia. Again, this does not excuse the plunge into militarism or the resultant regimes' massive war-crimes, but radicalization of a polity does not arise in a vacuum. There are globalist factors, such as international financial collapse, colonialist imperialist interlopery, mercantilist segregation and exclusion from captive markets and international exclusion from "the old boys club of insider nations" at work. You know... sometimes LESSONS LEARNED are never learned from the mistakes of that era?

 

[Johnrankins]

You have covered the ground, so it will not surprise you to read that the only thing that could have "stabilized" the Taisho democracy was the same framework that would have stabilized communist Russia or Weimar Germany. Fair treatment is what I would call it. Now note I would downturn the chances for a liberal Japan to just about the time of the Nine Powers and Washington Naval Treaties when the Western Powers dealt with Japan with some contempt. This was first seen at the Versailles Conference post WWI when Japan and Italy proposed a "racial equality clause" in the League of Nations Charter and their proposal was rejected====> by Woodrow Wilson, the rat bastard.

Then there was the racist immigration policies of the United States and the economic and political exclusionism of the British Empire. These are not justifications for the radicalization that occurred during the Tanaka regime, but these policies contributed to the reciprocal processes at work inside Japanese domestic politics. The same kind of Western political short-sightedness would radicalize Germany, Italy and Russia. Again, this does not excuse the plunge into militarism or the resultant regimes' massive war-crimes, but radicalization of a polity does not arise in a vacuum. There are globalist factors, such as international financial collapse, colonialist imperialist interlopery, mercantilist segregation and exclusion from captive markets and international exclusion from "the old boys club of insider nations" at work. You know... sometimes LESSONS LEARNED are never learned from the mistakes of that era?

The US wasn't going to accept racial equality just after WW1, Wilson or no Wilson. Wilson got elected for a reason , Birth of a Nation was a smash hit. Birth of a Nation celebrated the KKK and was a big cause in the rise of the 2nd and largest KKK. It the largest box office in history until Gone with the Wind another "Lost Cause" racist movie. Gone with the Wind is the number 1 box office hit of all time.

Now a better president than Wilson might have been somewhat more accommodating than Wilson and come up with some kind of comprise agreement. That said there is no way that early 1920's US is going to agree with racial equality. If by some miracle you get it through the Brits and French would have to agree with it as well which would risk their empires.

 

[Viola]

The direct cause that led to Japan's civilian government collapsing to an out of control army was the invasion of Manchuria in 1930, carried out by local Japanese armies against the will and in direct violation of the orders coming from Tokyo. Even after that the road toward a fascist dictatorship wasn't fully guaranteed, in 1936 the elections saw the pro-peace liberals winning, which led to an attempted coup in February that, even with its failure, still weakened the authority of civilian rule even more.

Indeed, the root of the problem was in the Meiji Constitution and its Prussian inspiration that gave the army many ways to influence and force the hand of the government, change that and you give the civilian government a much greater ability to keep its own officers under control, but I'd argue that up to the invasion of Manchuria Japan wasn't yet doomed to its ultranationalist destiny, and maybe even after that (but it would have been very difficult and quite rough).

 

[thestickfigure]

The direct cause that led to Japan's civilian government collapsing to an out of control army was the invasion of Manchuria in 1930, carried out by local Japanese armies against the will and in direct violation of the orders coming from Tokyo. Even after that the road toward a fascist dictatorship wasn't fully guaranteed, in 1936 the elections saw the pro-peace liberals winning, which led to an attempted coup in February that, even with its failure, still weakened the authority of civilian rule even more.

Indeed, the root of the problem was in the Meiji Constitution and its Prussian inspiration that gave the army many ways to influence and force the hand of the government, change that and you give the civilian government a much greater ability to keep its own officers under control, but I'd argue that up to the invasion of Manchuria Japan wasn't yet doomed to its ultranationalist destiny, and maybe even after that (but it would have been very difficult and quite rough).

I have said this in another thread, but constitutional, or some other governmental reform would be necessary, as the military intervening was already a problem by the 20s.

 

[Pesterfield]

Would it be possible to get enough of an anglophile government Japan focuses on copying Britain alone instead of adding France and Prussia?

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Would it be possible to get enough of an anglophile government Japan focuses on copying Britain alone instead of adding France and Prussia?

The problem is that copying Great Britain would imply that the Emperor is a purely ceremonial monarch, something that would be anathema in Japan in 1870. Without forgetting that the British system is not the panacea (rotten boroughs, Common Law, etc. the seeds themselves to subvert the system into nationalistic insanity again).

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

It became inevitable when they adopted western-style democracy instead of simply adopting western technology, economic modernization, socialism/social democracy/laborism and firing the samurai class/no longer supporting a group of parasitic aristocrats.

So probably in the 1880s when they decided to copy the horrendous prussian model.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

It became inevitable when they adopted western-style democracy instead of simply adopting western technology, economic modernization, socialism/social democracy/laborism and firing the samurai class/no longer supporting a group of parasitic aristocrats.

So probably in the 1880s when they decided to copy the horrendous prussian model.

That is a pretty strong statement. That a nation was fated to be right-wing 60 years later, after massive and unforeseen historical events.

 

[sdgottsch]

I really recommend you read, "Soldiers of the Sun" by Meirion Harries. The initial portion of the book goes into the IJA culture change.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

It became inevitable when they adopted western-style democracy instead of simply adopting western technology, economic modernization, socialism/social democracy/laborism and firing the samurai class/no longer supporting a group of parasitic aristocrats.

So probably in the 1880s when they decided to copy the horrendous prussian model.

That sounds like a ex post facto valoration

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

That is a pretty strong statement. That a nation was fated to be right-wing 60 years later, after massive and unforeseen historical events.

Right, because adopting prussian style views on the importance of the state or state-supporting institutions like the family/religious groups/corporations over the individual, conscription and mass politics is completely unrelated to likelihood of developing militarists movements...

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Right, because adopting prussian style views on the importance of the state or state-supporting institutions like the family/religious groups/corporations over the individual, conscription and mass politics is completely unrelated to likelihood of developing militarists movements...

I just think it is too deterministic to say that Japan was doomed to fall to a right-wing dictatorship 60 years after the event that supposedly caused it. Not saying it didn't play a role, but it seems simplistic, considering the intervening decades of other forms of government, even including multiparliemtnary democracy.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Right, because adopting prussian style views on the importance of the state or state-supporting institutions like the family/religious groups/corporations over the individual, conscription and mass politics is completely unrelated to likelihood of developing militarists movements...

All that you describes are things that already existed in Japan before the adoption of the Prussian model. In any case, we would say the situation was exactly the other way around: the Japanese adopted the Prussian model because it was the most similar to what they already had and it emphasized the military readiness of the nation. Something very important in a time and place where the only thing standing between you and being horribly colonized and brutalized is the strength of your military.

EDIT: I think the point of divergence should probably be 1850 or earlier. Depending on how the West presents itself to Japan, that could have a lot of butterflies.

 

[thestickfigure]

All that you describes are things that already existed in Japan before the adoption of the Prussian model. In any case, we would say the situation was exactly the other way around: the Japanese adopted the Prussian model because it was the most similar to what they already had and it emphasized the military readiness of the nation. Something very important in a time and place where the only thing standing between you and being horribly colonized and brutalized is the strength of your military.

EDIT: I think the point of divergence should probably be 1850 or earlier. Depending on how the West presents itself to Japan, that could have a lot of butterflies.

I mean, the Imperial Way faction and similar groups had ties to the 尊王攘夷派, though back then, it was much more of a backlash movement against Western Prescence, though the emperor worship and the Ultranationalism was there.
Also something that tempers the attempts by the old guard to surpress democratic movements in the Meiji Era will also help too.

 

[Pipcard]

Also something that tempers the attempts by the old guard to surpress democratic movements in the Meiji Era will also help too.

It seems that nobody has ever figured out what that "something" is, though.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

It seems that nobody has ever figured out what that "something" is, though.

It is possible that presenting democracy as something positive helped.

The problem is that what little information the Japanese got about democracy ... was based on the idea that democracy led to arrogant nations seeking to destroy and trample Japan. And that, therefore, the democratic movements were movements destined to subvert the Government and deliver the country on a silver platter to the Western powers. (Think of modern Russian rhetoric about NGOs to get an idea of how I think they viewed this issue.)

Not forgetting either a very powerful noble class that certainly viewed Democratic politicians as a threat to their positions of power within the Japanese state apparatus. For if democracy was a given, that would mean that lineage would be worth nothing compared to ability, something that would undoubtedly greatly upset people whose social status depended on their lineage. So we have a situation where the state bureaucracy (dominated by the nobles) is far more interested in stifling democratic movements than in letting them exist.

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

Japan has always been a very warlike society. Recall that for most of their history they were fighting each other, and that only two years after uniting as a country for the first time since antiquity (1592) they were already invading someone else. Viewed in this context, the Shinto-fascist regime that existed during the 1930s and 1940s was in many ways more of the same, while the democratic government that has existed since the end of World War II is an aberration.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Japan has always been a very warlike society. Recall that for most of their history they were fighting each other, and that only two years after uniting as a country for the first time since antiquity (1592) they were already invading someone else. Viewed in this context, the Shinto-fascist regime that existed during the 1930s and 1940s was in many ways more of the same, while the democratic government that has existed since the end of World War II is an aberration.

All humans are war like.

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

All humans are war like.

Certain societies far more than others.