WI: long term effects of the Allies abolishing the Japanese Monarchy in Japanese politics

Assuming a different SCAP or occupation set-up that results in Japan being made a Republic after WW2, how would this affect Japanese politics? In particular how would this affect the consolidation of the right and centre parties into the Liberal Democrats, how strong would a movement to restore the Monarchy be, and how would this affect Japanese relations with the US?
 
I think this is an interesting topic. But it may be hard to discuss given that I believe Japan would require the successful completion of at least Operation Olympic to surrender on such terms.

Japan would be in ruins.
 
I think this is an interesting topic. But it may be hard to discuss given that I believe Japan would require the successful completion of at least Operation Olympic to surrender on such terms.

Japan would be in ruins.
Not necessarily. A different occupation would presuppose that the Japanese have already unconditionally surrendered. At this point the occupation is already in place and the Japanese would have to accept whatever the Allies decided. IOTL there were quite a few in the allied camp who wanted Japan to ditch the monarchy, or at the very least have Hirohito abdicate. MacArthur was very insistent on ensuring that the monarchy was preserved and the royal family given immunity from war crime investigations. If there had been a different person in charge or if there was a joint occupation that limited MacArthur's influence, then a different policy might have been made.
 
My impression is that USA policy was shaded by how forcing out the Kaiser as well as the rest unravelled Germany and Europe. Assuming a Pacific War with Japan versus USA without that experience, in other words no WWI as we know it to end, then I suspect the USA is very inclined to imprint Japan with American institutions without much regard. A USA that did not see how the peace shaded by Wilsonian ideals worked out might go for it here. Could result in more self-determination, etc. Depends on the rest of the players, if we have a USSR, if other powers allied or not, and so on.

I think it unglues the Japanese from their past, the Emperor was part of a tradition, break it and you really unleash butterflies over the future. Japan could totally unravel, I assume the fear was it goes fully down the revolution path, the society gets to reinvent, that was too risky in 1945 given the Germany paradigm.
 

takerma

Banned
Insurgency that will be really bad for everyone involved. Japanese imperial family is not like your typical European one. Even they kill what people think of as imperial family of force abdication, there are thousands of people who can inherit, current Emperor can be traced almost 1500 years back. Whole power structure of the country is tied to it in variety of ways. Without the elite to manage it.. you might create nationalistic insurgency, with some commie insurgency for the fun of it in the north maybe, then Korean war starts up and whoever came up with the idea will start looking really silly. You won't be able to just garrison some bases and big cities you will need 100 of thousands of GIs holding fort all over the country. Unless you resort to Stalin's level methods, genocide through starvation, resettlement etc Insurgency will be lost eventually.

Leaving Emperor alone is the smartest(but also the most obvious) thing that McArthur ever done. Getting rid of him would make Bush handling of Iraq seem genius in comparison.
 
Insurgency that will be really bad for everyone involved. Japanese imperial family is not like your typical European one. Even they kill what people think of as imperial family of force abdication, there are thousands of people who can inherit, current Emperor can be traced almost 1500 years back. Whole power structure of the country is tied to it in variety of ways. Without the elite to manage it.. you might create nationalistic insurgency, with some commie insurgency for the fun of it in the north maybe, then Korean war starts up and whoever came up with the idea will start looking really silly. You won't be able to just garrison some bases and big cities you will need 100 of thousands of GIs holding fort all over the country. Unless you resort to Stalin's level methods, genocide through starvation, resettlement etc Insurgency will be lost eventually.

Leaving Emperor alone is the smartest(but also the most obvious) thing that McArthur ever done. Getting rid of him would make Bush handling of Iraq seem genius in comparison.
Ironically, to make the abolishment of the Empire stick, the U.S. would need Communist support. Any Japanese centre-right politicians will be put off by the idea. End result: an unarmed, Communist Japan (their communists were rather pacifist).
 
Ironically, to make the abolishment of the Empire stick, the U.S. would need Communist support. Any Japanese centre-right politicians will be put off by the idea. End result: an unarmed, Communist Japan (their communists were rather pacifist).
Of course the prospect of the Communists controlling Japan, or at least being given a position of influence, might be enough to convince a large section of the centre-right of the necessity of supporting the Republican system, even if only to prevent the alternative. The question is how much of the right would be willing to go along with them, and would pro and anti republican rightists be willing to work together?
 
Insurgency that will be really bad for everyone involved. Japanese imperial family is not like your typical European one. Even they kill what people think of as imperial family of force abdication, there are thousands of people who can inherit, current Emperor can be traced almost 1500 years back. Whole power structure of the country is tied to it in variety of ways. Without the elite to manage it.. you might create nationalistic insurgency, with some commie insurgency for the fun of it in the north maybe, then Korean war starts up and whoever came up with the idea will start looking really silly. You won't be able to just garrison some bases and big cities you will need 100 of thousands of GIs holding fort all over the country. Unless you resort to Stalin's level methods, genocide through starvation, resettlement etc Insurgency will be lost eventually.

Leaving Emperor alone is the smartest(but also the most obvious) thing that McArthur ever done. Getting rid of him would make Bush handling of Iraq seem genius in comparison.

Its always struck me as being similar to the sillier parts of the premise to King Ralph.
The British Line of Succession acknowledges over 4,700 people, scattered over most of Europe.
Just killing the Royal Family, the obvious one everyone knows and you see at weddings, is not going to work.
 
I'd note that "Hirohito abdicates" and "Japan becomes a republic" are two very different premises; the former is much easier to pull off than the latter.

That said, I do think that a republican Japan is certainly doable, but it probably does require an invasion of the mainland (indeed, I suspect it's the probable outcome of a "no-nukes" or "successful Kyujo incident" timeline), simply because the Japanese government wouldn't accept it otherwise. There would be some unrest, but people would get over it fairly quickly. Confidence in the Japanese monarchy was heavily shaken by the end of the war and American occupation, and the US expended quite a bit of effort shoring up the throne to its current status. Society was more or less in turmoil due to all sorts of reasons (including the famine), and people were trying to figure out what the new order should look like, with lots of conflicting ideas. If the US had insisted on republicanism as a prerequisite (something which no major faction of the US government wanted OTL), it would merely mean that that strand of ideas would come to the forefront (and that, as others noted, Japan would probably be significantly further left politically).

I do think that there is a tendency around here to indulge in a somewhat orientalist view of Japanese as a monolithic bloc of fanatics. While "fanatics" does describe certain portions of the military (such as the ones who staged the various coups and attempted coups), it's not really a helpful way of looking at Japan as a whole. The average Japanese in 1945 was starving, impoverished, and likely in mourning for a friend or family-member killed in the war. Most of the major cities have been flattened (even in a no-nukes timeline). If there has been an invasion, it likely has seen even more devastation for the country (and killed off a lot of the more fanatical would-be resisters).
 
I'd note that "Hirohito abdicates" and "Japan becomes a republic" are two very different premises; the former is much easier to pull off than the latter.

That said, I do think that a republican Japan is certainly doable, but it probably does require an invasion of the mainland (indeed, I suspect it's the probable outcome of a "no-nukes" or "successful Kyujo incident" timeline), simply because the Japanese government wouldn't accept it otherwise. There would be some unrest, but people would get over it fairly quickly. Confidence in the Japanese monarchy was heavily shaken by the end of the war and American occupation, and the US expended quite a bit of effort shoring up the throne to its current status. Society was more or less in turmoil due to all sorts of reasons (including the famine), and people were trying to figure out what the new order should look like, with lots of conflicting ideas. If the US had insisted on republicanism as a prerequisite (something which no major faction of the US government wanted OTL), it would merely mean that that strand of ideas would come to the forefront (and that, as others noted, Japan would probably be significantly further left politically).

I do think that there is a tendency around here to indulge in a somewhat orientalist view of Japanese as a monolithic bloc of fanatics. While "fanatics" does describe certain portions of the military (such as the ones who staged the various coups and attempted coups), it's not really a helpful way of looking at Japan as a whole. The average Japanese in 1945 was starving, impoverished, and likely in mourning for a friend or family-member killed in the war. Most of the major cities have been flattened (even in a no-nukes timeline). If there has been an invasion, it likely has seen even more devastation for the country (and killed off a lot of the more fanatical would-be resisters).

This. I think a lot of people overlook the extent to which Japanese society was shaken by their defeat in WW2 and the extent to which Japanese society was restructured during the occupation. Even if there was still a die-hard core of fanatics willing to wage an insurgency against the occupation and republican government, they probably won't have much popular support, especially when living standards improve and the deposed Hirohito inevitably condemns them.
 
Question--who will take over as the head of state for the Republic of Japan? Will the Allies institute a government similar to (South) Korea? Even if it's more equivalent to the West German President, that will have a strong impact on the politics of post-war Japan.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Assuming a different SCAP or occupation set-up that results in Japan being made a Republic after WW2, how would this affect Japanese politics? In particular how would this affect the consolidation of the right and centre parties into the Liberal Democrats, how strong would a movement to restore the Monarchy be, and how would this affect Japanese relations with the US?
Given that the Japanese Emperor became a figurehead after the end of WWII, I don't see why exactly Japanese politics would be any different in this TL. Indeed, the one different thing about this TL might be the large amount of resentment that the Japanese people will feel towards the U.S. for decades after the end of World War II for abolishing such an important and holy institution.
 
Given that the Japanese Emperor became a figurehead after the end of WWII, I don't see why exactly Japanese politics would be any different in this TL. Indeed, the one different thing about this TL might be the large amount of resentment that the Japanese people will feel towards the U.S. for decades after the end of World War II for abolishing such an important and holy institution.

It's not like the Emperor can't exert any influence in society if he doesn't have a title. The Japanese Emperor would be more like the titular rulers in sub-Saharan Africa (like in Nigeria).
 
It's not like the Emperor can't exert any influence in society if he doesn't have a title. The Japanese Emperor would be more like the titular rulers in sub-Saharan Africa (like in Nigeria).
Undoubtedly, at the very least he would still be a religious figure, unless the Communists take over, and even then they would probably take a pragmatic live and let live approach.
 
Last edited:
Top