What if Japan kept all of these territories after WW2?
They would lose them shortly after due to enormous insurgencies with foreign support. At best they might keep Taiwan and Papua New Guinea.
>>18666343Unlikely, even without foreign Help. Insurgencies are not that effective historically and usually reliant on external help or an enormous disparity in the support between Insurgents and the Goverment.Take Rhodesia. It was a poor backwater nation where 300.000 whites (many of which held no loyalty to the state and migrated to Europe even before the defeat) ruled over 6 Million Blacks. It was internationally isolated while the Soviets and Chinese backed the insurgents. It still ended in a military stalemate after 15 Years and the victory of the rebels was brought by a compromise forced by the crumbling Rhodesian Economy. Japan is a whole different animal, even afterthe Americans smashed the Japanese Military in multiple decisive battles, destroyed most of their air force and industry, Japan was still able to conduct major offensives with great success.
>>18666361That's not the same situation. The Rhodesians weren't foreign overlords of a place, they were born and bred locals of a different race and culture. On top of that, the size and scale of the conflict was way smaller. We're talking here about simultaneous insurgencies in some of the most populated regions on Earth with difficult terrain involving a colonial power that has had its industry destroyed and manpower drained. Besides all that, the Chinese and South East Asians aren't a bunch of retarded Zimbabweans. The fact Vietnam beat both France and the US gives me little hope Japan would do any better in the long run.
>>18666361>crumbling Rhodesian Economy.The economy was crumbling because of the war not the ineffective sanctions
>>18666339They'd all be like South Korea and Taiwan by now.
>>18666361>Unlikely, even without foreign Help. Insurgencies are not that effective historically and usually reliant on external help or an enormous disparity in the support between Insurgents and the Goverment.The insurgents against Japan had both. They were supported by the Allies and were vastly favored by the population over Japanese occupation.>Take Rhodesia. It was a poor backwater nation where 300.000 whites (many of which held no loyalty to the state and migrated to Europe even before the defeat) ruled over 6 Million Blacks. It was internationally isolated while the Soviets and Chinese backed the insurgents. It still ended in a military stalemate after 15 Years and the victory of the rebels was brought by a compromise forced by the crumbling Rhodesian Economy.I.e. an Insurgent victory. The political war is just as important as the military war in an insurgency. ZAPU/ZANU won by making Rhodesia politically unsustainable.>Japan is a whole different animal, even afterthe Americans smashed the Japanese Military in multiple decisive battles, destroyed most of their air force and industry, Japan was still able to conduct major offensives with great success.None of these "major offensives" defeated the insurgencies Japan was fighting, and their conventional defeat by the Allies is what strengthened the insurgents.
>>18666343wouldn't even need forgein support, japan wouldn't be able to sustain those territories anyway
Japan would be overrun with Koreans, Manchu, and Chinese.
>>18666919>Empire of East Asian onlyMega based
