AHC: more aggressive Japanese expansion (1890~1905)

[mlp]

Hi!

But Korea will not become independent after WW1 even in the worst case scenario for Japan. Korea would be given to Russia or another nation (depending on which side Japan lost), but definitely not independence for Korea.
Why do you think many former Entente nations are so deep in WW1 mythpeddling? They were supreme, conniving self-censored in Versailles and Trianon and know it today. Hence the propaganda to feel better about themselves.

OTL pre-1904 Russian aims in Korea were two things:
1. a neutral, preferably pro-Russian government in control.
2. a few major harbours to always be kept open for Russian warships.
I do not expect these objectives to change much TTL, unless Russia finds a compelling reason to keep another ethnic minority under its roof.
Furthermore, various states occupied by the Central Powers at which they were winning(i.e. Baltic States, Poland) were retrieved and given independence. All these states were, note, previously Russian territories. The only example that I can think of where a territory rightfully someone else's but given to another was German Tsingtao, and that occurred because Japan joined the war earlier than China, along with having more participation.
I hope the things I have stated above do not sound like mythpeddling, because then I would be completely unfounded in my assertion.

 

[Beer]

Hi!

@zeppelinair

The Entente spewed a lot of propaganda about how nice and fair they were. Versailles and Trianon were not treaties, they were a farce to cover up their cheap greed. No one who is fair would have made these "treaties". e.g. what Italy, which cheated openly, was allowed to get away with clearly shows the true colours of most of the Entente.
Now onto a Central Powers victory: Either Japan wins with the CP, so Korea naturally stays Japanese or if Japan lost the German war aims were not much, return of Tsingtau, some reparations, a larger sphere in China and then call the whole war thing a "misunderstanding".

 

[mlp]

Hi!

@zeppelinair

The Entente spewed a lot of propaganda about how nice and fair they were. Versailles and Trianon were not treaties, they were a farce to cover up their cheap greed. No one who is fair would have made these "treaties". e.g. what Italy, which cheated openly, was allowed to get away with clearly shows the true colours of most of the Entente.
Now onto a Central Powers victory: Either Japan wins with the CP, so Korea naturally stays Japanese or if Japan lost the German war aims were not much, return of Tsingtau, some reparations, a larger sphere in China and then call the whole war thing a "misunderstanding".

Didn't really catch you there. Do you mean that if Japan lost the war while being allied with Germany they would call the whole thing a misunderstanding?
My WWI scenario includes America going to war with Japan. That's more than one European power(inc. Russia) directly going to war with Japan. I'm less inclined to think that America, as good-natured their President may have been, is willing to forgive their opponents over a "misunderstanding."

 

[Beer]

Didn't really catch you there. Do you mean that if Japan lost the war while being allied with Germany they would call the whole thing a misunderstanding?
My WWI scenario includes America going to war with Japan. That's more than one European power(inc. Russia) directly going to war with Japan. I'm less inclined to think that America, as good-natured their President may have been, is willing to forgive their opponents over a "misunderstanding."

Hi!
What I meant is that Japan either wins with the CP or if they lose against the CP, the Central Powers OTL war aims for East Asia are so small scale that Korea would stay Japanese and to calm the waves, one would later talk about a misunderstanding.
As for the US: Without the behind-the-scenes prodding of Washington by Britain for years, a war entry of the US is relative unlikely.

 

[mlp]

Hi!
What I meant is that Japan either wins with the CP or if they lose against the CP, the Central Powers OTL war aims for East Asia are so small scale that Korea would stay Japanese and to calm the waves, one would later talk about a misunderstanding.
As for the US: Without the behind-the-scenes prodding of Washington by Britain for years, a war entry of the US is relative unlikely.

Have you been able to read the entirety of my conversation with raharris1973?
(I do concede the point that it is hellishly long.)
Not only does it point out on how Japan would be able to be hostile with the US before WWI, it also points out that one of the requirements I put forth for a TTL WWI would be a Japo-American conflict.
Furthermore, who is "they" in the first sentence? It doesn't make any sense when I substitute either "Allies" or "Central Powers" in it. If they lose against themselves? If the Allies lost against the CP? Then how is it an "either" sentence in the first place?
By syntax the sentence seems to be attempting to put two scenarios at which:
1. Japan wins with the CP or
2. Japan loses with the CP, which is not occurring here right now.