WI: Japanese conduct in WW2 honourable?

I think some of the arguments here are interesting. A British model instead of a Prussian model of parliamentary system might help, but preventing the ultranationalism of the early 1930s does well also. Manchuria will be a Japanese interest if not outright possession, but making it so in the 1910s only accelerates the Japanese interest in taking over the rest of the country.

Japan did have a parliamentary system based on the British model; initially, the Imperial Diet was based on the Westminster system. However, due to the rise of militarism, the power of the Diet gradually declined; there were times when the Diet would be strongly opposed to a law; but pressure from the military meant that they would have to grit their teeth and pass it.

I would think that by having a stronger China one might offset Japanese ambitions, especially a China capable of fielding a navy that might create an East Asian analog to Brazil and Argentina: two second-tier nations that really do not like each other, have a common border, and a serious grudge.

It's also worth mentioning that for a time, China did have a navy comparable to that of Japan, before the First Sino-Japanese War. However, during that war, the Japanese repeatedly and decisively defeated the Beiyang Fleet, due to the endemic corruption in the Chinese military making the Beiyang Fleet completely unfit for any sort of combat operations. Similar problems afflicted the army, and were a major factor in its total defeat on land. Corruption and hidebound reaction were probably the biggest obstacles to China emerging as a serious competitor to Japan.
 
Japan did have a parliamentary system based on the British model; initially, the Imperial Diet was based on the Westminster system. However, due to the rise of militarism, the power of the Diet gradually declined; there were times when the Diet would be strongly opposed to a law; but pressure from the military meant that they would have to grit their teeth and pass it.
Should note that legally on paper thats the way the British model is suppose to work (on account of England deciding it doesnt need to write any of its rules down). The military answers to the Emperor, and so does the Diet, therefore cutting the parliament out entirely and putting the two pillars of government on equal standing. In real life practice of course, the army serves the Queen and the Queen serves Parliament. But no one told the Japanese that.

Behold, Japan is British Bioshock.
 
Your argument amounted to "Japanese culture is inherently brutal and there is no way to change it", and then you didn't bother to go into why, and your replies to the OP and several other people here has amounted to little more than insults.

I don't think I've been insulting to anyone who didn't do the same to me, but you're welcome to your opinion however wrong it may be. I stated that Japanese culture at the time was inherently brutal, and if it weren't they would likely not have launched an aggressive war of conquest. Correct your tense and don't twist what I said to suit yourself. I did bother to go into why, I just don't feel the need to write an epic tome to extrapolate.

The only way to eliminate brutality from the Japanese is to eliminate the militarists coming to power. It's certainly possible that they would become entangled in Manchuria regardless of the faction in power, maybe even they get entangled with mainland China. I don't however think anyone but the militarists would have done something as utterly stupid as attacking the United States. I think people with a brain like Yamamoto would have prevailed if the idea raised its ugly head. Without the United States intervening, Japan, if involved in China eventually extricates itself with a face saving settlement after a couple bloody years.
 
I think you have a good point about Vietnam.

With regards to the Morgenthau Plan, I don't quite think it's completely fair to compare it to extremely brutal counter-insurgencies undertaken during WWII. I honestly think that it was little more than a code word for genocide had it been completely carried out, but I think that attempting to completely de-industrialize Germany wasn't seen as an attempt to kill an extremely large percentage of the German people (which it would have had the effect of, since a pastoral Germany could only support like 2/3 of Germany's population), but rather like a "Germany will no longer be an economic power in any sense of the word; also lots of people will starve to death as a result."

Actually, never mind, I think you also have a point with regards to it.

Well, permanently ending the threat of a nation as dangerous as Germany was everyone's foremost concern. It may have been inherently humiliating, but it was a logical solution to the issue. We did implement portions of the Morgenthau Plan, though ultimately it came to nought when we finally realized that Europe would never rebuild if its strongest economy were converted into a pathetic farming nation with limited industrial capabilities. What's most ironic and amusing is that if the EU survives, Germany will now achieve the dreams of Kaiser Wilhelm and that fool Adolf with nary a shot being fired in anger (other than Greek rioters).
 
I don't think I've been insulting to anyone who didn't do the same to me...

True. Yet one doesn't have to feed the trolls and return a flamebait with an insult. That is what is meant via civil conduct ;). Both Flubber and you were in the wrong.

---------------------------------

The only way to eliminate brutality from the Japanese is to eliminate the militarists coming to power.
I am doubtful of this. This is because there were several militarist factions in imperial Japan, and each had their own opinions and actions within the changes that took place in imperial Japan during the 1930s.

The 'big two' militarist factions were the Kodo-Ha and Tosei-Ha, the latter was the military firebrands, while the former group were the 'ultra-conservatives' who wanted a return of the virtues of discipline and martial spirit which would remove corruption and 'business interests' that were implicated with government. (i.e. the government by assassination period of Imperial Japan).

Indeed both groups by 1935 were at loggerheads, with the Kodo-Ha feeling they were being used (or abused rather) via the Tosei-ha which started a scandal which would lead to the February 26th Incident where the Kodo-Ha essentially staged a coup, that was unsuccessful for them, but that would develop over the course of the next two years into Japan becoming effectively a military junta.

It's not so much one has to butterfly the militarists, its more you have to change the rise of the Kodo-Ha. If you read up on the February 26th Incident you might get a better idea of what I am talking about.
 
Top