what if Japan won ww2

I found this video on the topic

what if Japan won ww2

I saw this video on the topic.


At 9:27 WIAH basically says that japan would de-industrialize it's empire (outside of japan) like what britain did with India, but this seems to go against the grain of history. Japan heavily industrialized north korea, Taiwan & Manchuria. Did they de-industrialize south korea? or the parts of southern China & SE asia they ruled? Does WIAH know something that I don't or is he wrong? secondly is the date at which the empire would collapse, at 14:13 he says the japanese empire would fall due to it's subject populations exploding, but if Japan is stealing land and comitting genocide wouldn't they want to have more kids to help them farm the stolen land? even if I'm wrong couldn't they continue cultural genocide they were comitting and extend the rights japanese had to those that (in lack of a better term) ''japanize''? Also why would the breakup of the USSR inspire so many rebellions? I mean the USSR collapsed not because of wars of independence but bad economics.
 
if Japan is stealing land and comitting genocide wouldn't they want to have more kids to help them farm the stolen land? even if I'm wrong couldn't they continue cultural genocide they were comitting and extend the rights japanese had to those that (in lack of a better term) ''japanize''?
For all the talk of lebensraum that was being thrown around, I do not recall Japan doing much to settle its stolen land with Japanese nationals, excepting some regions of mainland China and a few Pacific islands such as Saipan. Which, when I ponder it now, strikes me as quite unusual.
 
For all the talk of lebensraum that was being thrown around, I do not recall Japan doing much to settle its stolen land with Japanese nationals, excepting some regions of mainland China and a few Pacific islands such as Saipan. Which, when I ponder it now, strikes me as quite unusual.
I think they really didn't have enough time to institute any largescale colonialisation of their newly occupied territories. If the Japanese had won they would have certainly expanded.
 
While it's an interesting concept, a world that could have a WW2 that ends with Japan having control of all or most of its OTL wartime conquests (and presumably China) is very different from ours in many ways.
The first thing that comes to mind is that it needs a USA that poses no threat to Japanese actions [1] eg no Pacific fleet,no interest in China or the Phillipines and no interest in what goes on in their backyard, which is hard to accept even with a string of isolationist non-interventionist presidents.
The second thing was that the Soviets were able to roll over the Japanese in 1945, having given them a nasty (though hard fought) beating in 1939. So the Soviets have to be neutral, allied to Japan or defeated. The first is possible (and not that different from OTLin practice) but a victorious Japan still poses a threat to the eastern cities. Actually, this could work, because Japan could win WW2 and then lose Manchuria (and possibly more) in the Sino-Soviet war a few years later.


[1] If there's a meaningful US fleet in the Pacific anywhere other than the West coast it is a potential threat to Japanese conquest.
 
The first thing that comes to mind is that it needs a USA that poses no threat to Japanese actions [1] eg no Pacific fleet,no interest in China or the Phillipines and no interest in what goes on in their backyard, which is hard to accept even with a string of isolationist non-interventionist presidents.

[1] If there's a meaningful US fleet in the Pacific anywhere other than the West coast it is a potential threat to Japanese conquest.
Had I been in the hot seat on the Supreme War Council, I would have taken the risk and ignored the Americans entirely. Gone straight for South East Asia while bypassing Pearl and the Philippines, battle only Britain and the Dutch. In fact, I would be strongly tempted to ignore Britain as well. Much rather take my chances with a half-asleep Uncle Sam who may or may not rouse to my shenanigans, than do something that would wake him up without a doubt and squash me flat. Admiral Nagano had the right idea.
 
Had I been in the hot seat on the Supreme War Council, I would have taken the risk and ignored the Americans entirely. Gone straight for South East Asia while bypassing Pearl and the Philippines, battle only Britain and the Dutch. In fact, I would be strongly tempted to ignore Britain as well. Much rather take my chances with a half-asleep Uncle Sam who may or may not rouse to my shenanigans, than do something that would wake him up without a doubt and squash me flat. Admiral Nagano had the right idea.
Good point.
With no Pearl Harbour to provide motivation and an apparently secure outer ring of bases to make it look hard to attack, the USA might do the calculations that show how hard it is to attack Pearl Harbour and come to an accommodation. I suspect that no matter the type of US goverment there will be a surge in shipbuilding to ensure the Japanese don't get any fancy ideas about the American half of the Pacific.
 
For all the talk of lebensraum that was being thrown around, I do not recall Japan doing much to settle its stolen land with Japanese nationals, excepting some regions of mainland China and a few Pacific islands such as Saipan. Which, when I ponder it now, strikes me as quite unusual.
What about what I said about how WIAH thinks Japan would de-industrialize other places when irl they heavily industrialized them
 
I think they really didn't have enough time to institute any largescale colonialisation of their newly occupied territories. If the Japanese had won they would have certainly expanded.
What about what I said about how WIAH thinks Japan would de-industrialize other places when irl they heavily industrialized them
 
Good point.
With no Pearl Harbour to provide motivation and an apparently secure outer ring of bases to make it look hard to attack, the USA might do the calculations that show how hard it is to attack Pearl Harbour and come to an accommodation. I suspect that no matter the type of US goverment there will be a surge in shipbuilding to ensure the Japanese don't get any fancy ideas about the American half of the Pacific.
What about what I said about how WIAH thinks Japan would de-industrialize other places when irl they heavily industrialized them
 

Garrison

Donor
This is about as close the ASB as you can get without actually bending the laws of physics. Japan might somehow survive WW2 without being wholly conquered, but winning in anything even close to the OTL situation in the 1930s and 40s? Not a chance. It's not surprising the video puts forward some odd ideas about what the Japanese would do when the entire premise is so fantastical.
 
What about what I said about how WIAH thinks Japan would de-industrialize other places when irl they heavily industrialized them
Did they really, though, outside of China and Manchuria? As far as I can recall (and please correct me if I'm wrong here), all they really did in Malaya and the Indies, for instance, was take over the infrastructure that the British and Dutch left behind.
 
Did they really, though, outside of China and Manchuria? As far as I can recall (and please correct me if I'm wrong here), all they really did in Malaya and the Indies, for instance, was take over the infrastructure that the British and Dutch left behind.
The Japanese colonial government in Taiwan was responsible for building harbors and hospitals as well as constructing infrastructure like railroads and roads. By 1935 the Japanese expanded the roads by 4,456 kilometers, in comparison with the 164 kilometers that existed before the Japanese occupation. The Japanese government invested a lot of money in the sanitation system of the island. These campaigns against rats and unclean water supplies contributed to a decrease of diseases such as cholera and malaria.

and for manchuria, read the first paragraph here
and here's my source for them industrializing north korea
 
The Japanese colonial government in Taiwan was responsible for...

and for manchuria...
Modernising Taiwan is understandable, given that it was a Japanese colonial possession since long before WW2.

Still leaves South East Asia, which they arguably should have industrialised the most (or at least equal first with Manchuria) given how vital the raw materials there were to their war effort and economy.
 
Modernising Taiwan is understandable, given that it was a Japanese colonial possession since long before WW2.

Still leaves South East Asia, which they arguably should have industrialised the most (or at least equal first with Manchuria) given how vital the raw materials there were to their war effort and economy.
That's besides my question, is there anywhere that the Japanese de-industrialized? Also, even if SEA is where they should have industrialized the most, how could they if it was the area they ruled for the shortest amount of time?
 
That's besides my question, is there anywhere that the Japanese de-industrialized? Also, even if SEA is where they should have industrialized the most, how could they if it was the area they ruled for the shortest amount of time?
The point I'm trying to make is this: what sort of deindustrialisation could they have done, considering they never industrialised much (if at all) in the first place?
 
The point I'm trying to make is this: what sort of deindustrialisation could they have done, considering they never industrialised much (if at all) in the first place?
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. I was using the term colloquially, I mean Britain ''deindustrialized india'' When Britain was the only country going through the industrial revolution. What the brits did in india was forbid them from making their own cloth and slit the hands of any tailors caught doing this. They then forced the Indians to only buy British cloth. So they forced them to stop using raw materials to make finished products, only extract raw materials to be sent to industrialized/industrializing britain to proess them or make stuff out of them (like what WIAH says Japan would do to it's territories) When in reality Japan did the opposite
 

octoberman

Banned
I mean Britain ''deindustrialized india'' When Britain was the only country going through the industrial revolution. What the brits did in india was forbid them from making their own cloth and slit the hands of any tailors caught doing this. They then forced the Indians to only buy British cloth. So they forced them to stop using raw materials to make finished products, only extract raw materials to be sent to industrialized/industrializing britain to proess them or make stuff out of them (like what WIAH says Japan would do to it's territories) When in reality Japan did the opposite
mind showing first hand accounts to prove it
 
The only way Japan could win is by not fighting the US (and, preferably, Britain). If they managed to avoid that and also to extricate themselves from an unwinnable war in China (as many in the government and military already wanted), they might have manged to hang to to their pre-existing empire, plus possibly Manchuria and maybe some concessions from the already-defeated French and Dutch--which would have gone a long way toward fixing their lack of resources.

Regarding investment in the colonies, I know something about Taiwan. They put a lot of effort into building roads, bridges, hospitals, schools and universities in Taiwan. The universities were open to the local people. Schoolchildren were required to learn Japanese. For the most part, the population was well disposed to the Japanese, as they saw the tangible improvements. (Until recently, many elderly Taiwanese were nostalgic for the colonial days, as compared to KMT rule.) There was also some settlement of Japanese citizens there. If this process had continued, Taiwan might well have become Japanified enough to be considered a lesser home island, rather like Okinawa.
 
Last edited:
The only way Japan could win is by not fighting the US (and, preferably, Britain). If they managed to avoid that and also to extricate themselves from an unwinnable war in China (as many in the government and military already wanted), they might have manged to hang to to their pre-existing empire, plus possibly Manchuria and maybe some concessions from the already-defeated French and Dutch--which would have gone a long way toward fixing their lack of resources.

Regarding investment in the colonies, I know something about Taiwan. They put a lot of effort into building roads, bridges, hospitals, schools and universities in Taiwan. The universities were open to the local people. Schoolchildren were required to learn Japanese. For the most part, the population was well disposed to the Japanese, as they saw the tangible improvements. (Until recently, many elderly Taiwanese were nostalgic for the colonial days, as compared to KMT rule.) There was also some settlement of Japanese citizens there. If this process had continued, Taiwan might well have become Japanified enough to be considered a lesser home island, rather like Okinawa.
So Taiwan, was the model colony, while Korea received a harsher treatment unless untill the coptation movement of the 30's that BR Meyers, analyzes so brillantly in the Cleanest Race.,
 
Top