During the Peace talks at Versailles, Japan had a list of things that they wanted to get following the First World War. Obviously they didn't get that seeing as how OTL they went down a militaristic path. Today I was wondering what they would want/get that could possibly keep them at the table and not during their back on Europe. Also, what would it impact the next world war that was bound to happen?
AHC: A less militaristic Japan
- Thread starter jczak97
- Start date
I had an idea of an alternative TL where the Anglo-Japanese Alliance gets renewed into a more comprehensive partnership than OTL, like political reforms to be introduced to Japan in exchange for a free trade agreement with the British Empire (in addition to other defence and economic arrangements).
This saw the militarists squashed as there as their main argument that Japan needs to invade other countries to seize their resources is shot in the bud.
A more democratic and prosperous Japan develops that eventually became allied with Britain during WWII.
This saw the militarists squashed as there as their main argument that Japan needs to invade other countries to seize their resources is shot in the bud.
A more democratic and prosperous Japan develops that eventually became allied with Britain during WWII.
Last edited:
That's actually the one that had me thinking about this. I imagine after the ToV, GB and Japan would get close seeing as how they're the two biggest players in the Pacific at that time. How big of an impact could an allied Japan play in WW2? Could Japan still pay an interest in taking Manchuria if they got more territory in the peace talks?
The United States would still be a fly in the ointment here. Not to mention the effects the Great Depression will have.
You might be interested in this timeline by Doug Muir in soc.history.what-if back in 1998. Doug later said he was dissatisfied with it, and that it contained too many implausibilities. Still, it might suggest some ideas: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/U1xRDxfRruU/bR8FBz13eK8J
That assumes Britain could cajole the Japanese into being less aggressive in China - I don't know if that pans out, since it was as much about prestige as resources, and given the state of economic theory at the time, I don't think we can assume that "free trade trumps autarky" would win the day in Tokyo either.
Japan and the UK were bigger players in the Pacific in what sense? You seemed to be forgetting the biggest player. That said, why would UK being biggest imperialist provide it with a reason to unite with Japan, a nation that wanted to expand it empire? The UK and Germany were in similar positions prior to WW I, and this resulted in their being enemies and rival rather being allies.
Consider the basis of the of the Anglo-Japanese alliance: a mutual concern over Russian expansionism in Asia. With Russia's collapse, after WW I the UK no longer feared Russia as its great rival for control of India. The UK now had great concerns over Japan trying to undermine the UK's hold on India, a concern that pre-dated WW I and was felt to be problem for the length of the alliance. The naked aggression that Japan had showed in WW I for imperial gain only added to this concern.
The idea of giving more territory to Japan also seems improbable. Giving what territory to Japan? Other nations would object, as Japan already had gathered considerable gains in the war--and was rebuked for trying to gain more in China. Further, why wouldn't giving more territory to Japan cause Japan's hunger for territory to grow? That's what happened in our timeline.
Consider the basis of the of the Anglo-Japanese alliance: a mutual concern over Russian expansionism in Asia. With Russia's collapse, after WW I the UK no longer feared Russia as its great rival for control of India. The UK now had great concerns over Japan trying to undermine the UK's hold on India, a concern that pre-dated WW I and was felt to be problem for the length of the alliance. The naked aggression that Japan had showed in WW I for imperial gain only added to this concern.
The idea of giving more territory to Japan also seems improbable. Giving what territory to Japan? Other nations would object, as Japan already had gathered considerable gains in the war--and was rebuked for trying to gain more in China. Further, why wouldn't giving more territory to Japan cause Japan's hunger for territory to grow? That's what happened in our timeline.
Archibald
Banned
There goes the pacific theater of WWII. IT would be fascinating to have Europe unfolding as per OTL from 1918 to 1940 - with change limited to Japan. Then in 1940 or 1941 the Franco-British-Japanese alliance declare war to Nazi Germany, with Japanese ships reinforcing the RN, and Japanese land troops fighting in Western Europe. Very cool.
Two biggest players as in they have the largest stakes in the Pacific ,(GB has Australia, India, etc. and Japan is sort of in the Pacific by default), China and Russia were fighting a Civil War and America returns to isolationist leaving Japan and GB by default.
Like i said, what more could they want or take to prevent them from feeling like a forgotten member and having the militarists take over.
The problem is that to the UK the US has more to offer than Japan ever could.
jahenders
Banned
I think it's possible, though unlikely that things could have gone better. If Japan felt better treated at Versailles and in the Washington Naval Treaty some major causes for antipathy would be removed. In theory then Japan and US/UK might be able to negotiate better diplomatically. Japan would still feel the need to better arm itself relative to the West, but might not be quite as militant. Japan would definitely still get involved in China and Manchuria, but it's POSSIBLE (though unlikely) that involvement could be done in such a way as to not invoke strong Western opposition. For instance, Japan might limit its areas of operation, might ensure that there were clearer 'reasons' for their actions, and avoid wanton bloodshed. While this seems unlikely for the (now infamous) Japanese Army, they might have restrained themselves if there was clear benefit (in terms of avoiding embargoes and such). Likewise, it might seem unlikely that the US/UK wouldn't object, but when you consider the concessions made to Hitler, it's not completely unreasonable. All of this might limit Japanese involvement in China to certain areas, while they still establish Manchukuo. Then, as they want more resources, they might again limit their objectives and just attack the Dutch. While this would piss off the US/UK, the UK (busily engaged with Germany and outgunned in the Pacific) isn't likely to go to war over it and the US (otherwise at peace and without allies) isn't going to either.
Of course, all of this assumes that Japan doesn't make a treaty with Germany either.
Of course, all of this assumes that Japan doesn't make a treaty with Germany either.
Assuming they take Manchuria, how would the border skrimishs with the Soviets go? I can't imagine theyd be happy fighting on the same side as the Soviets if they go as they did otl
You might want to consult an atlas.
Last time I checked, India was on the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean--not the Pacific. Now, Canada is on the Pacific.
More importantly, consider the US interest in the Pacific. The US has such Pacific interests as the Phiilpines, Samoa, part of the Marianas, Hawaii, Panama, Alaska, and the ENTIRE WEST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES! Guess you forgot about that the US is on the Pacific by default, just as Japan is.
The UK interests are far smaller in the Pacific, which explains much of the reasons they made nowhere near the investment in the Far East as would have been necessary.
The is idea of American isolationism is a over-used on this forum, as well as misunderstood. Many of those who are labelled isolationist are aptly labelled"non-interventionists." That is no European entanglements or adventurism but also keep foreign powers away from out shores. That's why the US had a large Pacific fleet.
If the Japanese and UK alliance continued, it would be more likely than not the US Pacific fleet would have become even larger as would the amounts that the US would demand that the UK pay on its war loans owed to the US. That, of course, would suggest the UK could only an even more diminished RN than the post Washington Naval Treaty fleet--and perhaps even suffer the embarrassment of an early version of the Inverness mutiny.
Last time I checked, India was on the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean--not the Pacific. Now, Canada is on the Pacific.
More importantly, consider the US interest in the Pacific. The US has such Pacific interests as the Phiilpines, Samoa, part of the Marianas, Hawaii, Panama, Alaska, and the ENTIRE WEST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES! Guess you forgot about that the US is on the Pacific by default, just as Japan is.
The UK interests are far smaller in the Pacific, which explains much of the reasons they made nowhere near the investment in the Far East as would have been necessary.
The is idea of American isolationism is a over-used on this forum, as well as misunderstood. Many of those who are labelled isolationist are aptly labelled"non-interventionists." That is no European entanglements or adventurism but also keep foreign powers away from out shores. That's why the US had a large Pacific fleet.
If the Japanese and UK alliance continued, it would be more likely than not the US Pacific fleet would have become even larger as would the amounts that the US would demand that the UK pay on its war loans owed to the US. That, of course, would suggest the UK could only an even more diminished RN than the post Washington Naval Treaty fleet--and perhaps even suffer the embarrassment of an early version of the Inverness mutiny.
Please don't use all caps, you can get the point across without them. Yes as I said the U.S. would return to isolationism, and even then it took the bombing of Pearl to get a full declaration of war. We haven't even discussed how the Washington Naval Treaty goes, and even if the US disregards it then both the Japanese and the Brits will to and it will go to a naval arms race. Either way it won't end well for anybody.
It's way too simplistic to pretend that the US was simply sleeping and doing nothing proactive before suddenly getting bombed, you know. I mean, the entire Southeast Asia campaign was conducted specifically to circumvent an American embargo, so they were already acting in defense of their interests well before December 1941. In any case, I'm pretty sure that the continuation of this alliance would be dependent on reduced tensions between Japan and the United States, to allay Meighen's concerns about getting drawn into a war between the two. That in turn would depend on Washington becoming less concerned about Japan's intentions in China post-21 Demands. There'd need to be some credible assurance from the Japanese for Harding to believe he could withdraw from Pacific commitments without the Japanese taking advantage and shutting everybody out of China. And of course, going this route at all contradicts your ideas from the OP, so we're back to this whole architecture just not being stable. Tokyo-Washington is the focal point here, not Tokyo-London.
I'll tell you what: if you will please use facts (such as correct geography) and reasonable assumptions, then I'll not use all caps.
You say I can get my points across without the caps but you seemed to have evaded the points I have made.
You apparently just can't understand the U.S. has much greater interest in the affairs Pacific than the UK--if for no other reason than the greater economy of the US and the geography of the world. Look at the history of the time. Much of the post-WW I diplomacy involved the US asserting its position on being the dominant power in the Pacific. Look at the economics the US was Japan biggest trade partner in the interwar period--bigger than China. (Britain was behind the Dutch, IIRC.) By most measures, the US is the biggest player with China or Japan being second. (Yes, China is not a passive piece of meat to be devoured by "the biggest players," despite what so many seem to indicate in their posts.) The UK--maybe third or fourth, behind Russia. Again, the UK was more concerned about Europe, which is why they almost all of their fleet there.
Your view of the US is at best naive. Your posts suggest the US is some sort catatonic stupor as to world events. Yet, the US USN spent the interwar years preparing for a war in the Pacific. More importantly, even if the US was more complacent that, the UK, it could afford to be complacent. The US certainly recovered frim its initial setbacks in the war far faster than anyone else. And again, you exaggerate the passivity of the US. Placing an effective embargo on the Japanese--a major trading partner--over it treatment of China is hardly the act of a nation as isolationist as you paint the US. Rather, it's a way of achieving a diplomatic end without the initial force of arms--much like the US indicating after WW I that if the UK renewed the Anglo-Japan Alliance, the US would look at with disfavor.
So whatever happens the US is going to be involved and in a far more active manner than your handwavium acts.
You say I can get my points across without the caps but you seemed to have evaded the points I have made.
You apparently just can't understand the U.S. has much greater interest in the affairs Pacific than the UK--if for no other reason than the greater economy of the US and the geography of the world. Look at the history of the time. Much of the post-WW I diplomacy involved the US asserting its position on being the dominant power in the Pacific. Look at the economics the US was Japan biggest trade partner in the interwar period--bigger than China. (Britain was behind the Dutch, IIRC.) By most measures, the US is the biggest player with China or Japan being second. (Yes, China is not a passive piece of meat to be devoured by "the biggest players," despite what so many seem to indicate in their posts.) The UK--maybe third or fourth, behind Russia. Again, the UK was more concerned about Europe, which is why they almost all of their fleet there.
Your view of the US is at best naive. Your posts suggest the US is some sort catatonic stupor as to world events. Yet, the US USN spent the interwar years preparing for a war in the Pacific. More importantly, even if the US was more complacent that, the UK, it could afford to be complacent. The US certainly recovered frim its initial setbacks in the war far faster than anyone else. And again, you exaggerate the passivity of the US. Placing an effective embargo on the Japanese--a major trading partner--over it treatment of China is hardly the act of a nation as isolationist as you paint the US. Rather, it's a way of achieving a diplomatic end without the initial force of arms--much like the US indicating after WW I that if the UK renewed the Anglo-Japan Alliance, the US would look at with disfavor.
So whatever happens the US is going to be involved and in a far more active manner than your handwavium acts.
Last edited:
Could Japan have managed a true "Greater East Asian" co prosperity sphere" without the extreme methods they used in otl. For instance might they have managed a relationship with China giving them access to markets and raw materials. During the European War could they have encouraged client regimes to take over in French Indo China and the Dutch East Indies?
Since before the isolation the Japanese nobility and military had been cooking up reasons to invade their neighbors. Their invasions in the Twentieth Century seem to have been... I'm not sure if it is true really, but decided entirely by the military, without the civilian government even being informed until the event.