WI: Japan avoids radical militarism; a timeline
- Thread starter BMN
- Start date
I hold the same personal belief. Although I am French and, of course, think France is one of the greatest nations in the world; I also hold great respect for our German brothers and hope they achieve their national unification.
On the other hand, the realist in me knows that after WW2, this would be just too implausible. Neither the Americans nor the Soviets would allow for a united/strong Germany.
However there is still hope in the future. If the E.U. centralizes enough, all Europeans will be able to live as fellow nationals and comrades, which would be even better than individual nationalisms.
Ryan
Donor
I was under the impression that Malaysia was happy with British rule and it was only WW2 and the fact that the British couldn't defend them that made them want independence.
why has India been divided? is it just so japan doesn't have to worry so much about India in this tl? (too focused on Pakistan to look east)
Also, how is turkey occupying Cyprus? it was British until 1960 in OTL and from the way it reads turkey occupied it around 1945
I wonder how long it'll be until the next sino-japanese war. there's no way china will accept japan holding onto those islands and Manchukuo once it has stabilized and grown in strength and capability.
why has India been divided? is it just so japan doesn't have to worry so much about India in this tl? (too focused on Pakistan to look east)
Also, how is turkey occupying Cyprus? it was British until 1960 in OTL and from the way it reads turkey occupied it around 1945
I wonder how long it'll be until the next sino-japanese war. there's no way china will accept japan holding onto those islands and Manchukuo once it has stabilized and grown in strength and capability.
I was under the impression that Malaysia was happy with British rule and it was only WW2 and the fact that the British couldn't defend them that made them want independence.
why has India been divided? is it just so japan doesn't have to worry so much about India in this tl? (too focused on Pakistan to look east)
Also, how is turkey occupying Cyprus? it was British until 1960 in OTL and from the way it reads turkey occupied it around 1945
I wonder how long it'll be until the next sino-japanese war. there's no way china will accept japan holding onto those islands and Manchukuo once it has stabilized and grown in strength and capability.
The Indonesian revolt is much worse than OTL and more far-reaching in its consequences.
India goes as OTL, the division was agreed between Indian leaders and the British. I don't see how my TL would change the position of either party.
The 1945 map shows cyprus as occupied by the British... so I'm not sure what you mean. During the Greek Civil War, writing off the Greeks, NATO sides with the Turks, pushing the Greeks to the Soviets. NATO would rather have a turkish cyprus than communist greek cyprus.
As for the Sino-Nihon risk of war - well there's always the good ol' nuclear deterrent.
Ryan
Donor
fair enough.
I'd have thought that there would be enough butterflies to allow a unified India, although admittedly I'm not an expert on the subject.
what I mean is that from the way it reads, turkey occupies Cyprus during the Greek civil war, even though at this time Cyprus was British.
so please could you clarify;
- when the Greek civil war was
- when Cyprus gained independence
- when turkey occupied Cyprus
true, although surely china will be doing everything it can to force japan to give that stuff back.
wouldn't japan gradually become a pariah state if it continues to occupy Chinese territory?
what I mean is that from the way it reads, turkey occupies Cyprus during the Greek civil war, even though at this time Cyprus was British.
so please could you clarify;
thanks
- when the Greek civil war was
- when Cyprus gained independence
- when turkey occupied Cyprus
I was under the impression that Cyprus had already been handed over back to Greece after WW2.
I'll see how I can fix this, thanks for pointing it out.
By 1980, agressive China would be more of a pariah for trying to take back islands that have been Japanese for well over three quarters of a century, are majority language Japanese, and are under a signed treaty that included China abandoning its claims to the islands.
Also, a pariah is only a pariah if everyone else says that they are a pariah. Even the current largest terrorist state in the modern world is not a pariah and is instead widely respected, due to its importance. Same principle could be applied to a country holding territory that another claims.
Don't forget the reaction was highly contingent even in OTL, with people discussing various proposals as late as 1945. This ATL has never seen a quit india movement, with Gandhi toying with declaring India independent in response to a Japanese invasion and never had the famine that hit India during WW2 thanks to the Japanese invasion of Burma. So it will be very different.
Formosa would probably be well and truly Nipponicised by 1980. Between Japanese settlement and 'encouragement' of Japanese language and customs for personal advancement. Hainan... Wouldn't the ethnic minorities on the island help in Japan's holding it down? If they can claim they're protecting the Miao and others from 'aggressive Han exploitation' or something along those lines, and then those groups would support Japan because their future is toed up in the island staying Japanese.
Also, I think that everyone's forgetting one thing that probably had the most impact on Japan not going insane militarist ITTK: the Philippines. Here, it's an ally of Japan, and I imagine that its economy is dominated by Japanese zaibatsu. And of course, the islands are a treasure trove of metals. So now, Japan has an area in its sphere of influence that solves one of its two major resource shortages (I can see a lot of that metal being mined by Japanese businesses). Then of course, there's Karafuto's oil (Japan having the whole island here) - not enough to totally solve the problem, but it helps. I've always had the theory: if Japan took over somewhere rich in needed resources early on, there wouldn't have been the same drive towards militarism because there wouldn't have been the same perceived need for expansion.
Its not just you with that theory, its one of the most widely accepted and well-backed theories among historians in terms of the root causes of the conflict.
