You are in charge of Japan from 1911 to 1961 (RAR!)

[K. A. Pital]

I would like to note that people in this thread aren't talking about maintaining ceremonial royalty in Japan (which is still there even now); they are talking about maintaining a very real colonial empire. And expanding it. That's not the same. Korea is under Japanese oppression, for example.

[LaCroix]

I would like to note that people in this thread aren't talking about maintaining ceremonial royalty in Japan (which is still there even now); they are talking about maintaining a very real colonial empire. And expanding it. That's not the same. Korea is under Japanese oppression, for example.

Because even though you personally dislike it, it is the stated objective...

Your objectives are as such...
-Further the Empire of Japan's Industrial and technological development
-Improve Japan's political prominence (relating to the first bit)
-Protect Japan against western aggression
-Maintain Empire's current borders (including its colonies of Korea and Taiwan) and if possible expand them

And I definately would send someone to a certain public dormitory in Vienna and make sure a certain young man never relocates to Munich, ever (He may or may noty have fully developed his political fanatism by 1910, but I'll better be safe than sorry). It may not further the goals of Japan, but definitely make the world a better place if we make sure that we'll never have THAT kind of World War.

Trying to suppress the Communist revolt in Russia would be detrimental - we need someone to keep the US in check. Simply eliminating the known radicals, like Stalin, Pol Pot, or "the Kim" in similar way to Hitler to allow for a softer communism would work in our favor, though.

Otherwise, I'd set everything up for modern high-tech, nudging Japan into being the new Silicon Island, and securing us by having weaponry far ahead of the time.

I'd probaly initiate nuclear research as well, to get energy independent, but would make sure that people realize that we REALLY need to take precautions against earthquake/tsunami incidents. Also, nothing keeps an enemy fleet away like one bomb to sink them all...

[K. A. Pital]

Like I said before in many other "hey what if we off/save Hitler from becoming, well, Hitler" threads, by avoiding that kind of World War II you are just changing history to have another kind of war. Maybe a world war X, where casualties and consequences may be smaller or greater, maybe a prolonged period of intensive colonial warfare like the pre-WWI 'scrambles' but with much greater casualties. Stalin isn't even a 'radical', considering that it was him who was the first to work with Western powers together to allow the USSR to industrialize in the pre-war years (a fact often forgotten by modern Cold Warriors).

[LaCroix]

Well, as I said, I'd see it a good thing to not have THAT kind of World War, again -I'm very much aware that WW2 was inevitable. I'm just of the opinion that I'd rather throw the dice on that than have the original one, again. Especially since without the Nazis, there probably wouldn't have been a restoration of Israel, which means the middle east would be much better off, too. (removes a lot of US meddling and thus, hate potential).

Well, Stalin pre-war is less an objection to me than post-war one. I doubt that the other leaders would refuse to work with the west, but I'm not that versed in early sowjet leaders to make that call. I just listed the names with the highest bodycount that came to my mind at that moment...

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

Well, as I said, I'd see it a good thing to not have THAT kind of World War, again -I'm very much aware that WW2 was inevitable. I'm just of the opinion that I'd rather throw the dice on that than have the original one, again. Especially since without the Nazis, there probably wouldn't have been a restoration of Israel, which means the middle east would be much better off, too. (removes a lot of US meddling and thus, hate potential).

I wouldn't be too sure about that. The Middle East would not be in its current state if not for the meddling of France and the United Kingdom. Even if the Balfour Declaration becomes a moot point without the Holocaust giving serious consideration to the establishment of a Jewish national home, the fact still remains that France and the U.K. fully intended to carve up the former Ottoman Empire as they pleased, regardless of whatever objections their other allies may have had.

Merely stopping the formation of Nazi Germany wouldn't be enough in this scenario. You'd need to find a way to prevent France and the U.K. from carving up the Ottoman territories, or at least get them to listen to the United States.

[Crossroads Inc.]

On the topic of Hitler and WWII… you know we did Just Have A Thread on the topic of what Germany and WWII would have been like without Hitler. Or for that matter The world would have been without WWII.

Most people in that thread were of the opinion that without Nazi Germany, while there may have been "skirmishes" and various wars independently with Italy, Japan, and Germany. There would have been no over arching "world war" and there Certainly would have been no mass extermination of Jews or Holocaust.

As far as My thoughts go… While there is no way of knowing exactly what the outcome would have been in terms of a "No WWII" outcome, barring something totally out of left field, ((such as say full scale Nuclear war,)) I feel the outcome would be preferable to what we got today in terms f lost lives, lost history, lost art, science, etc. And Not to mention what the end of WWII LED to in terms of the cold war, the reuse of a Conservative America and the worship of military society in the West.

As our resident Über historian Thanas stated:

The main problem with Hitler is that he started WWII in the first place because he wanted to have a war. There was no real need to do so. Chamberlain was willing to lean on the Poles to give Danzig until Hitler broke Munich. Poland might have been persuaded via diplomatic means to agree to relinquishing that theory (probably not). But even if not, Germany simply needed to do nothing but sit back and watch Poland get into trouble with the soviets or continue its political claims. Meanwhile, Germany already annexed Austria, parts or all of Czech territories and managed to get recognized as a great power again. Even if Poland does not agree to relinquishing territory, there are always other decades and in the meantime Germany is stronger than it ever was at any point in history. Unless there was a colossal idiot like Hitler in charge, who by that time clearly thought of himself in messianic terms there is no chance Germany goes to war. Imagine if not HItler but somebody like Beck would have led Germany back then. There would be an economic crisis probably, but maybe not if rearmament does not wreck the treasury.

Seriously, Hitler and the Nazis were worse than even the German nationalists, who would have erupted in jubilation at anything close to the 1914 borders + Austria. Nobody, not even Chamberlain, thought he would be committing Genocide over the idiotic idea of Lebensraum, essentially trading lives for relatively worthless tracts of land.

Getting back to the time machine, simply sniping Hitler in 1938 would probably lead to the Nazi party self-destructing with the Army taking over. Not ideal, but better than OTL.

Thus, by eliminating Germany from the equation, who else is going to start a war? The Italians might (paradoxically with Germany which they will lose, or with Greece/France which they will lose even harder), the Soviets might (but they would not go up against the Allies united against them and especially not if such an attack might pull Germany into it in exchange for territorial concessions). France might but any aggressive war they start will be fought without England.

So just by eliminating Germany from the equation it is very hard to see a war being that destructive or even that devestating to the populace. Worst case scenario would be that the Finnish war escalates but even then it would most likely be a short war as Russia could not resist all of Europe.

As far as the whole changing Japan business.. Well I am led to wonder.. COULD one person change things? I mean.. use we are given magical mind control powers… But we'ed need to talk to a LOT of people CONSTANTLY to keep certain things from happening. There is currently no internet, no cell phones. Instant communication is in it's infancy…

How do you keep tabs on all the trouble makers, the war mongers, the Anti West hate mongers stiring up trouble?

[Simon_Jester]

This is arguably why it's best not to divert the country too far. Just focus on encouraging Japan to develop economically and accept a role as part of an interlocking global trade network, while keeping the military to a reasonable level consistent with discouraging any foreigner from invading.

As long as the imperialist madness of the '30s and '40s is avoided, this allows Japan to do all right for itself. Although arguably the result won't be much better, if any, than historical for Japan... at least millions of Chinese people get to survive.

[CaptHawkeye]

There's no reason to think that fascism is the inevitable course for Japan. Japan's fascism was imposed from the top down, rather than it being the result of a populist movement. In fact, there were such movements, and they all failed. If we do have control of the top, is is suggested, we can very easily set the course of the country. That's actually the nice thing about this scenario; more than most countries, we have the ability to set policy that will be implemented relatively thoroughly.

Big problem here is that Japan's central authority is the Emperor, and even the most liberal parties in Japanese politics were unwilling to constrain the Emperor's power in any meaningful way. The Meiji Constitution as drafted granted the Emperor extensive powers over the government and essentially relegated the Diet to a very minimal role. The only practical power it possessed being the ability to suspend funding of other institutions.

Of course the Jiyuto ultimately did very little to achieve populist support and were unlikely to find much anyway in a predominantly uneducated agrarian population used to being ruled by feudal lords. It's true their was no popular fascist movement in Japan, but their were few political movements to begin with and no left wing movements of relevance. In this vacuum it was very favorable for the military establishment to end up doing just what they did.

[Pelranius]

It's probably best to stay away from the Russian Civil War. In our timeline, the Japanese occupation of the Russian Far East cost a lot of treasure, and I doubt that Japan in 1919 could cough around enough resources to change the outcome of the Civil War, and prolonging it would make future with the Soviets even more problematic than things turned out to be.

And for the love of everything holy, don't impose the 21 Demands on China. Maybe sponsor the KMT to shut out Communist inflitration, but getting involved in Warlord era Chinese politics is a snakepit.

[Replicant]

What is to keep my influenced proxies from getting knocked off by the various extremist elements in the military. The Japanese government operated on a combination of excessive arrogance over what they could do, and fear that if not enough was done the Cherry Blossom society or similar will try to assassinate them so that someone more extreme could take their place.

[Pelranius]

What is to keep my influenced proxies from getting knocked off by the various extremist elements in the military. The Japanese government operated on a combination of excessive arrogance over what they could do, and fear that if not enough was done the Cherry Blossom society or similar will try to assassinate them so that someone more extreme could take their place.

One could try kill/imprison the Sakura Society rabble first (though that wouldn't actually do anything long term to the problem unless you went all Islam Karimov on them).