Japan doesn't invade China
- Thread starter fdas
- Start date
Question is: What does Japan do instead if it does not start a colonial war against China? My guess is that Japan is not the militarist colonial power of OT in this scenario and that in Tokyo politicians call the shots instead of officers. Which means a far reaching PoD way back.
In any case though: The US will still get involved in Europe. American support for Britan started much before Pearl Harbor and was not dependent on what happened in the Pacific. This support will have the US clash with Germany and one side or the other will declare war. Much like WW I. If it does NOT happen then the US may still get involved to prevent exactly what you wrote: Soviet domination of Europe. Without a pacific war to fight, Britain and the US will have a stronger position to play against Russia in general and this will show during allied negotiations. Who knows if there will be a joint demand for unconditional surrender then for instance?
In China: The Sino-Japanese war saved the CCP and Mao. Without that war the Yenan Soviet may face another extermintation campaign and who knows if it can survive that. The CCP will, but if they can manage another Long March and again establish themselves somewhere else as a warlord power again is a good question. If not then they may revert to a mere political movement again.
In Asia: Russia was already chipping away at China's periphery. It supported Mongolia's independence (and OT Mongolia became a Russian sattelite) but they also meddled in Xinjiang. OT Xinjiang stayed Chinese but without contact and friction between Russia and Japan in Mongolia this may turn out differently.
Sino-Russian relations will definitely become interesting. If there is more friction between Russia and China instead of Russia and Japan, then maybe Russian support for the CCP will increase? OT Russia supported the KMT over the CCP as the KMT was seen as a better counterweight against Japan (and because Mao was a bit too independent minded). But if that changes who knows? Maybe the CCP can hang on in Yenan with Russian aid in spite of what I wrote above? Or will Russia shy away from such an involvement as long as it has Nazi Germany on the other end of the world to deal with?
Question remains though: What does Japan do instead? If politicians call the shots, how democratic is Japan? What are the aims of such a more liberal Japan? Support decolonization? Support anti-communism (thru China and the KMT)? Will it again declare on Germany like in WWI and jump on the band waggon like many nations eventually did (Brazil etc.) in WWII. Or is it still a militarist country but with a radically different focus, like one of absolute obedience even if that means not to fight and start wars willy-nilly.
In any case though: The US will still get involved in Europe. American support for Britan started much before Pearl Harbor and was not dependent on what happened in the Pacific. This support will have the US clash with Germany and one side or the other will declare war. Much like WW I. If it does NOT happen then the US may still get involved to prevent exactly what you wrote: Soviet domination of Europe. Without a pacific war to fight, Britain and the US will have a stronger position to play against Russia in general and this will show during allied negotiations. Who knows if there will be a joint demand for unconditional surrender then for instance?
In China: The Sino-Japanese war saved the CCP and Mao. Without that war the Yenan Soviet may face another extermintation campaign and who knows if it can survive that. The CCP will, but if they can manage another Long March and again establish themselves somewhere else as a warlord power again is a good question. If not then they may revert to a mere political movement again.
In Asia: Russia was already chipping away at China's periphery. It supported Mongolia's independence (and OT Mongolia became a Russian sattelite) but they also meddled in Xinjiang. OT Xinjiang stayed Chinese but without contact and friction between Russia and Japan in Mongolia this may turn out differently.
Sino-Russian relations will definitely become interesting. If there is more friction between Russia and China instead of Russia and Japan, then maybe Russian support for the CCP will increase? OT Russia supported the KMT over the CCP as the KMT was seen as a better counterweight against Japan (and because Mao was a bit too independent minded). But if that changes who knows? Maybe the CCP can hang on in Yenan with Russian aid in spite of what I wrote above? Or will Russia shy away from such an involvement as long as it has Nazi Germany on the other end of the world to deal with?
Question remains though: What does Japan do instead? If politicians call the shots, how democratic is Japan? What are the aims of such a more liberal Japan? Support decolonization? Support anti-communism (thru China and the KMT)? Will it again declare on Germany like in WWI and jump on the band waggon like many nations eventually did (Brazil etc.) in WWII. Or is it still a militarist country but with a radically different focus, like one of absolute obedience even if that means not to fight and start wars willy-nilly.
To make Japan doesn't invade China need a complete revamp of Japanese political structure right from Meiji Restoration. Japan already dominated by military since the Restoration (in a sense Japanese government that rise after the fall of Tokugawa Shogunate is also a Shogunate, but the power simply transferred and distributed to Chossu, Satsuma, and Tosa samurais). Such kind of militaristic government will eventually expand and swallow their weaker neighbors. You can see this with Meiji Japan bullying of China in late 19th century, annexation of Korea, and colonization of Formosa. In Taisho era, Japan also expand northward to the Sakhalin and trying to influence Far East Siberia at the collapse of Tsarist Russia.
The bat-shit-insane Showa Japan is the product of this militaristic political culture went over the top. The Young don't have restraint, the Old don't have balls to control them, and eventually everybody with power lose their grasp of reality.
But let say, the best happen to Japan, Taisho "democrazy" (he..he..he..) somehow works and government able to fully control the military. I think Japan will still have powerful military clout but far less expansionist. They will be focusing to make a profit of their already established colony (Korea, Formosa, and Pacific Mandates). They will be trading with the West (and their Colonies in South East Asia) and China.
Japan will be neutral in WW2, and selling war materials to UK and USSR (they willing to sell goods to the Axis but now way UK let them pass the blockade). USA will eventually jump into the War but on a later date (1944?).
Chinese will finish restructuring their country in 1950s and rise as a new Power. There will be a "second-local Cold War" between China and Japan. Very likely this two regional Great Powers will clash in the 1960-1970s with the backing of the two Superpowers. Who will support who, with nukes or not, who will win? I can't say.
Well, you could have the Mukden conspiracy squashed before the incident happens. There was some effort on the part of the central Japanese government to prevent it before it happened, including sending a general from HQ to restrain the Kwangtung Army. Now, OTL the general intentionally avoided interfering, but one could imagine a more loyal officer might have been chosen instead and actually arrested the conspirators (and possibly get assassinated in return, but that's a separate matter).
Now, that's probably only a bandaid, but it probably delays the outbreak of the war, at least until another group of ambitious officers decides to give it a try. That in itself might be interesting, as China will continue to grow stronger, and the militarists won't have their overwhelming victory in Manchuria to bludgeon their opponents.
Now, that's probably only a bandaid, but it probably delays the outbreak of the war, at least until another group of ambitious officers decides to give it a try. That in itself might be interesting, as China will continue to grow stronger, and the militarists won't have their overwhelming victory in Manchuria to bludgeon their opponents.
I dont think it needs to be completely revamped. The emperor just must be different or decides differently. The emperor has more powers than any part of the government. The Meiji constitution provides for the emperor being superior that even the constitution.
If someone commits insubordination, the emperor can order his arrests/humiliation of the family, seppoku and all would be over.
Or they come to terms with each other during the OTL cold war and end up both in the Western / US camp?
Admiral Beez
Banned
Easiest butterfly to avoid Japanese invasion given the Jpn govt and military culture is for China to stop them. Create a stronger Chinese govt and well led military and Japan cannot invade China.
I think you (and many others) misunderstand the authority of Japanese Emperor over the government. Even before 1945 Surrender, a Japanese Emperor don't have the same power as Russian Tsar, German Kaiser, or Chinese Emperor. His rule are very indirect, arguably even more indirect than contemporary constitutional monarch like the British King.
Meiji constitution is among the most vague constitution ever written. It work as long the people who wrote it still in power (which are the genro) and the Emperor who reign have the strength and subtlety to control those who called the shots in the government. Emperor Meiji prove to be excelent for this task, but mentally-handicapped Mutsuhito and weak-willed Hirohito fail to do it.
If Hirohito try half-assedly restrain those who commit the Mukden Incident (or the Marco Polo incident, or Nomonhan Incident, or... the list quite long) and defuse the situation, there will be coup. Then they will simply declare the Emperor have been "misguided by corrupt and evil advisor", after that he will be sidelined from the decision making (not that he make any decision in the first place
).I fully agree with you...
That's the only way to avoid a Japanese Aggression.
Japan is a new imperialist nation. They already completing their "Tutorial Level" in Korea and Formosa. Pass "Stage 1" splendidly in the Russo-Japanese War. Clear the "Stage 2" at the Pacific Islands Mandates. They do "Stage 3" quite well in Russian Far East, before USA mix things up for them. The next stage will be against China, who modernising at break neck speed but still not yet clear the hangover post Xinhai Revolution.
You don't need to be a genius to predict a unified stable China will be a strong Power (at very least in a regional level). This can't be tolerated by Japan. So they try to weaken China even more, gnawing its territories little by little before China able to sort its internal mess. So invasion of China is inevitable, as long China remains weak or Japan remains a militaristic state.
But the radicals in Japan Military become to greedy and arrogant, they bite more than what they can chew. They simply broke their jaw on China (whole country its too massive for Japan). And in the end, they broke all their Empire in a illogical decision that is the Pacific War.
My thinking on this is that Japan grabs Manchuria but goes no further, to at least somewhat placate the militarists and give Japan its claim to empire. The divergence would be around 1936 as prior to 1937 Nazi-Germany had a very close political and economic relationship with China. Perhaps have Germany ultimately choose China as its primary Asian ally over Japan and insist that any attack by Japan would be considered an attack on Germany thus stopping the Mukden Incident or preventing Japan from using it as a springboard into a full scale Chinese invasion. This way Germany serves the role of protector/moderator and forces Japan to look elsewhere for further expansion (Perhaps a naval attack on Vladivostok to coincide with Barbarossa?). I have also wondered as to whether the United States would have committed to a defense/counter-invasion of the Philippines had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbour first... Would the US have no choice but to defend its reputation so to speak, since it was the "pretector" of that nation or figured it not worth the effort?
USA already have adequate military power in the PI, they even have a fleet of B17s ready to bombard Formosa and Vietnam. Unfortunately this forces not well used in battle. The B17s destroyed on the ground. Finally US Army trapped at Bataan Peninsula and forced to surrender. If the Theater Commander use his men and asset more aggressively, US have a good chance to stall Japanese Invasion force.
On paper, they also should have able to bottle the Japanese in Malaya, hold the Singapore, turns inter insular sea of DEI into a shooting gallery with submarine and warplane, exhaust the IJA all over South East Asia until reinforcement from Australia and USA can be sent.
But alas, they failed doing all that....
Well, this skips over alot of intermediate questions to simply say, no China War of 1931 or 1937 = no Pacific War, for certain.
The two most important intermediate questions are:
a) assuming it is not butterflied away, how does Japan react to the fall of western Europe to Hitler and the obvious opportunity to easily occupy French Indochina (which they did before the oil embargo, not after), if not other European colonies
b) given (a) above, do the western powers embargo Japan?
On the one hand, they have not had years of getting morally outraged over a hot war in China from 1937 to 1940. So they may not react as harshly to Japanese moves to occupy French Indochina.
On the other hand, Japanese occupation of French Indochina in 1940 or 1941 (or threats to the USSR for that matter) could prompt a western oil embargo/asset freeze, for strategic reasons. In occupying French Indochina, Japan would be signalling a possible intention to scavenge other western colonies and generally profit from the distress of Germany's enemies. With the US determined to hold onto its empire, and the US and UK both wanting successful British and Soviet victory over the Nazis, they may well decide to try to restrain Japan with economic weapons.
An embargo on Japan, if it is not negotiated away, puts you right back to the situation for Tokyo of submitting to western demands or plunging to capture the resources of the DEI, and therefore needing to take Singapore and Manila etc.
---there's plenty of other intermediate questions to consider between 1937 and 1940 in terms of possible knock-ons from there being no China war getting started:
1) With less need to support Chinese resistance from 37-39, do the Soviets up the ante in Spain?
2) What is Japan doing in the meantime- what forces is it investing in? Do they patch up relations with the anti-Hitler coalition or do they continue a policy of greater friendliness with Germany and Italy (dating to the anti-comintern pact? HMaybe they would even send some volunteers to Spain alongside the Italians and Germans (I doubt it, but you never know, especially if there's any trade opportunity involved.) How do they balance Army and Navy modernization?
3) Is the Japanese Kwangtung army still having summer battles with the Soviets from 1937-1939? Maybe they do because the Japanese want to enforce a certain claim on the Manchukuo-Mongolia border. But maybe they don't, their probing actions may have been related to testing Soviet reactions and strength in the context of the China war (ie, how much of a threat do we face up north, and therefore how many Kwangtung divisions can we afford to move south of the Great Wall.
4) What is China doing? I personally doubt it would start a war with Japan in 1937 to 1940, but Chiang had been forced to call off his offensive against the communists as early as 1936 to form a United Front.
The two most important intermediate questions are:
a) assuming it is not butterflied away, how does Japan react to the fall of western Europe to Hitler and the obvious opportunity to easily occupy French Indochina (which they did before the oil embargo, not after), if not other European colonies
b) given (a) above, do the western powers embargo Japan?
On the one hand, they have not had years of getting morally outraged over a hot war in China from 1937 to 1940. So they may not react as harshly to Japanese moves to occupy French Indochina.
On the other hand, Japanese occupation of French Indochina in 1940 or 1941 (or threats to the USSR for that matter) could prompt a western oil embargo/asset freeze, for strategic reasons. In occupying French Indochina, Japan would be signalling a possible intention to scavenge other western colonies and generally profit from the distress of Germany's enemies. With the US determined to hold onto its empire, and the US and UK both wanting successful British and Soviet victory over the Nazis, they may well decide to try to restrain Japan with economic weapons.
An embargo on Japan, if it is not negotiated away, puts you right back to the situation for Tokyo of submitting to western demands or plunging to capture the resources of the DEI, and therefore needing to take Singapore and Manila etc.
---there's plenty of other intermediate questions to consider between 1937 and 1940 in terms of possible knock-ons from there being no China war getting started:
1) With less need to support Chinese resistance from 37-39, do the Soviets up the ante in Spain?
2) What is Japan doing in the meantime- what forces is it investing in? Do they patch up relations with the anti-Hitler coalition or do they continue a policy of greater friendliness with Germany and Italy (dating to the anti-comintern pact? HMaybe they would even send some volunteers to Spain alongside the Italians and Germans (I doubt it, but you never know, especially if there's any trade opportunity involved.) How do they balance Army and Navy modernization?
3) Is the Japanese Kwangtung army still having summer battles with the Soviets from 1937-1939? Maybe they do because the Japanese want to enforce a certain claim on the Manchukuo-Mongolia border. But maybe they don't, their probing actions may have been related to testing Soviet reactions and strength in the context of the China war (ie, how much of a threat do we face up north, and therefore how many Kwangtung divisions can we afford to move south of the Great Wall.
4) What is China doing? I personally doubt it would start a war with Japan in 1937 to 1940, but Chiang had been forced to call off his offensive against the communists as early as 1936 to form a United Front.
Working with the OP, and its assumptions, here's what I've got.
British and Soviets get increasing American subsidies for their war efforts, 1941-1945.
Soviet-German battlefronts operate similarly to OTL up until November 1942.
The Soviets still encircle and crush Germans in Stalingrad in early 1943.
But, without the combined bomber offensive and combined anglo-american west med amphibious ops and overlord threat, the recovery of Soviet home territory, and the Soviet penetration to lands west of the 1941 border, is slower going than OTL.
The British wrap up North Africa, including the Vichy territories, by January 1944.
The Soviets penetrate deep into Poland and Romania in 1945 instead of in 1944.
The British do invasions of the major mediterranean and Aegean islands through 1944.
In '45 they get into southern Italy, Greece and maybe northern Norway.
Ever building Soviet pressures from Poland against the Reich, supplemented by additional Soviet advances through the Balkans, compel ever-increasing German troop transfers from the western occupied territories throughout the 1946. And those transfers do not arrest steady German gains.
By early 1947, the Soviets are occupying Vienna, Prague and Berlin. Hitler's HQ is moved to the Ruhr or Swabia. Forces in France and the Netherlands are increasingly denuded. Resistance movements, largely communist-aligned, but not entirely, increase their size and activity in France and Italy.
The British in early 1947 invade multiple places in western Europe (in France and the Low Countries) against the weakened Germans and in collaboration with the local resistance forces of all stripes. Meanwhile, the Soviets drive through the Fulda Gap and through the Main river valley to reach the Rhine.
In the ATL's version of Yalta, the British have a symbolic occupation zone along the northwest coast of Germany and maybe some of northern Rhineland, and the Soviets have recognized British interests in Greece, the Low Countries, Norway and Denmark and Italy and France to some extent.
However, non-communists in France and Italy need to "co-inhabit" governments with communists. The Soviets control the lion's share of Germany and all of Austria. These are made into "People's Democracies" under Communist Party and Soviet control. Only in Norway, the Low Countries and possibly Denmark, if there has been a late British expedition there, can the British consider the local governments both "reliable" and democratic.
The Communists are on a clear trajectory to power in France and strong in Italy.
The balance of power is vastly in favor of the Soviets, but, being exhausted, the Soviets are not into launching direct military aggression to remove remaining outposts out of their control. (Although an interesting twist might be heavy Soviet support for insurgency and threats along with a communist France, against Franco-ist Spain. The Soviets use heavy-handed diplomacy, control over German territory, control over local communist parties and reparations and control over liberated PoWs in their custody to get their way on most disputed issues like Iran, the straits and the eventual governments of Greece and Italy and France.
Franco-ist Spain is the main European target of Soviet pressure in the late 1940s and the Soviets support all manner of anti-British movements in the colonial realm.
Japan is a locally strong semi-democracy with significant trading ties to the US and British Commonwealth as well as the Soviet Union and China. In his more aggressive moments, Stalin contemplates a war with Japan to reverse the verdict of the Russo-Japanese war, but its likely he does not see direct aggression as worth the cost.
Rather, the Soviets at most harass the Japanese by sponsoring Korean unrest and insurgency.
In China, Chiang Kai-shek has consolidated control of China and eliminated communist pockets and recalcitrant warlords through the 1930s and the 1940s, taking advantage of not being in a war with Japan and the Soviet Union's preoccupation with the long Great Patriotic War of 1941-1947. Chiang by 1947 has control over all the territory the Qing Dynasty held in 1911 except for Outer Mongolia and Tannu Tuva. Remaining armed Chinese Communists ultimately were compelled to retreat to Outer Mongolia.
Chinese and Japanese manufacturing both developed and supplied a variety of light and low-end industrial goods to the Soviets during the war, which were often paid for by US dollar loans or advances.
After victory in Europe, the COMINFORM may renew attempts to revitalize communist agitation in both Chinese rural and industrial zones, and may be willing to support reinfiltration of PLA veterans back into China.
Soviet propaganda vigorously promotes the independence of European colonies in Asia, and Japan, China and the USA agree with that basic goal. But the latter three hope to avoid the Soviets and Communist aligned movements being the main beneficiary of change. The Japanese have the most resources and interest in subsidizing alternative political actors in southeast and south Asia.
The USSR will at least be co-belligerent with Japan. The US may stay out, as Japan will be a more established trading partner. It is sort of difficult to discern who China will get the A-Bomb ATL while Japan would likely develop it on their own. So, in all likelihood, Japan has the upperhand if the war gets warm. Further, it takes decades to build a world class navy, and the Japanese are sure as heck not going t let China build one under their nose. So, they'll win the war via blockade, devastating China's economy. So, I don't see a warm war. The Chinese would be more concerned with supporting Korean separatists.
That is not at all supported by the two sides relations prior to their respective wars. Soviet weapons and supplies were an important part of the Kuomintang's rise in the 1920s and prior to the German invasion the Soviets spurned the Chinese Communists (who they had advised against trying to undermine the united front) by heavily backed the Kuomintang*. They were pretty much continuously suspicious of the Japanese even after the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact, as the constant force level on the Soviet-Japanese border indicates. It really wasn't until after August 1945 that you Soviet support for the CCP solidified and even then the Soviets initially urged Mao to negotiate a united government, since they were not confident he would win (at first).
Now things might change after 20-30 years ITTL, but that is impossible to predict given the enormous number of butterflies unleashed.
*Stalin believed that Chiang was the only man who could unify China and there was a dose of "the Chinese have to have a beourgiose society before they can have a socialist one" ideology there too. Mao never really forgave him for this.
Chiang Kai-Shek is immensely strengthened.
His central government gets some of the tax revenue from Manchuria which is the country's industrial base at the time. He also benefits from existing industry there to modernize his army. Since Zhang Xueliang is friendly to Chiang, he is also able to consolidate better control of North China without Japanese interference. So this is a big benefit economically.
Politically, he can concentrate on wiping out the CCP without accusations that he should be fighting the Japanese instead.
Militarily, the Third Encirclement Campaign won't be interrupted which probably accelerates the eventual defeat of the Red Army. Likely he drives the CCP out of Jiangxi in 1933 instead of 1934, and then wipes them out entirely by 1936.
This leaves Chiang with far greater resources than he had IOTL. He is probably able to unite China by 1940 except for Xinjiang and Tibet, and assuming the war in Europe goes off as IOTL, he gets Xinjiang in 1941 when the Soviets pull out and Tibet agrees to Chinese suzerainty.
Despite German help in the 1930s, I don't think Chiang would join the Anti-Comintern Pact or go to war against the Soviet Union. There's just too many pro-American voices in China at the time, especially from his wife's family. We may see a combined Sino-Japanese effort in 1941 to extort as many concessions as they can from the Soviets. China might even get Mongolia back. Japan may decide to enter the war, but I think Chiang would consolidate power and control.
Most likely no Pacific War ever happens. Without that, the US may not enter WWII, but the Allied position in 1942 is much better. All the Lend Lease material the US diverted to build its own military ends up going to Britain, and the British don't have to worry about defending Singapore or India. British drive the Axis out of Italy in 1942 and may even land troops in Sicily before end of that year. Even without American help, it's likely they can still land troops in Italy and knock it out of the war as OTL. With events moving faster ITTL, the British may even avoid some of the bad luck the Allies had in Italy IOTL and seize most of the peninsula in 1943.
So at start of 1944, the Allied frontlines in Europe are actually better without America. However, the rest of the war will be interesting as without American manpower, the British are constrained with what they can do. Rather than invade across the Channel, I think Anglo-Soviet plans call on the Red Army and British to link up in Hungary - it eliminates Germany defeating them in detail, and cuts off the Balkans. It's also possible the French colonial empire defects entirely to Free French at this point and rearms using American Lend Lease. An operation to liberate France (from an amphibious invasion in the Med and Italy through Vichy) and regain its manpower becomes a possibility.
There is too much uncertainty to predict things from here. But Germany's defeat is assured, but the casualties to the Soviets and British Empire will be immense.
The biggest difference many be what happens in Postwar Europe without a United States willing to help rebuild as a result of its world leadership role it assumed as one of the fighting Allies.
His central government gets some of the tax revenue from Manchuria which is the country's industrial base at the time. He also benefits from existing industry there to modernize his army. Since Zhang Xueliang is friendly to Chiang, he is also able to consolidate better control of North China without Japanese interference. So this is a big benefit economically.
Politically, he can concentrate on wiping out the CCP without accusations that he should be fighting the Japanese instead.
Militarily, the Third Encirclement Campaign won't be interrupted which probably accelerates the eventual defeat of the Red Army. Likely he drives the CCP out of Jiangxi in 1933 instead of 1934, and then wipes them out entirely by 1936.
This leaves Chiang with far greater resources than he had IOTL. He is probably able to unite China by 1940 except for Xinjiang and Tibet, and assuming the war in Europe goes off as IOTL, he gets Xinjiang in 1941 when the Soviets pull out and Tibet agrees to Chinese suzerainty.
Despite German help in the 1930s, I don't think Chiang would join the Anti-Comintern Pact or go to war against the Soviet Union. There's just too many pro-American voices in China at the time, especially from his wife's family. We may see a combined Sino-Japanese effort in 1941 to extort as many concessions as they can from the Soviets. China might even get Mongolia back. Japan may decide to enter the war, but I think Chiang would consolidate power and control.
Most likely no Pacific War ever happens. Without that, the US may not enter WWII, but the Allied position in 1942 is much better. All the Lend Lease material the US diverted to build its own military ends up going to Britain, and the British don't have to worry about defending Singapore or India. British drive the Axis out of Italy in 1942 and may even land troops in Sicily before end of that year. Even without American help, it's likely they can still land troops in Italy and knock it out of the war as OTL. With events moving faster ITTL, the British may even avoid some of the bad luck the Allies had in Italy IOTL and seize most of the peninsula in 1943.
So at start of 1944, the Allied frontlines in Europe are actually better without America. However, the rest of the war will be interesting as without American manpower, the British are constrained with what they can do. Rather than invade across the Channel, I think Anglo-Soviet plans call on the Red Army and British to link up in Hungary - it eliminates Germany defeating them in detail, and cuts off the Balkans. It's also possible the French colonial empire defects entirely to Free French at this point and rearms using American Lend Lease. An operation to liberate France (from an amphibious invasion in the Med and Italy through Vichy) and regain its manpower becomes a possibility.
There is too much uncertainty to predict things from here. But Germany's defeat is assured, but the casualties to the Soviets and British Empire will be immense.
The biggest difference many be what happens in Postwar Europe without a United States willing to help rebuild as a result of its world leadership role it assumed as one of the fighting Allies.
RousseauX
Donor
I think you (and many others) misunderstand the authority of Japanese Emperor over the government. Even before 1945 Surrender, a Japanese Emperor don't have the same power as Russian Tsar, German Kaiser, or Chinese Emperor. His rule are very indirect, arguably even more indirect than contemporary constitutional monarch like the British King.
Meiji constitution is among the most vague constitution ever written. It work as long the people who wrote it still in power (which are the genro) and the Emperor who reign have the strength and subtlety to control those who called the shots in the government. Emperor Meiji prove to be excelent for this task, but mentally-handicapped Mutsuhito and weak-willed Hirohito fail to do it.
If Hirohito try half-assedly restrain those who commit the Mukden Incident (or the Marco Polo incident, or Nomonhan Incident, or... the list quite long) and defuse the situation, there will be coup. Then they will simply declare the Emperor have been "misguided by corrupt and evil advisor", after that he will be sidelined from the decision making (not that he make any decision in the first place
There were two coups, one in 1936 and one in 1945: in both cases the authority of the emperor superseded the authority of the plotters and the coups collapsed once the emperor came out against it.
RousseauX
Donor
On the other hand it was the appearance of a potentially strong central Chinese government which will be able to kick the Japanese out of their sphere of influence in Manchuria which set off the chain of events which resulted in the 1931 invasion of Manchuria.
Without a KMT government cemented in Nanjing and attempting to gain control of the remaining warlords Zhang Zuoli (the Manchurian warlord) has no choice except to be a Japanese client. Japan might not invade Manchuria (and by implication, the rest of China) because it would be getting everything it wanted from one warlord or another anyway.
RousseauX
Donor
Actually the USSR had great relations with the KMT, and a regional rival with Japan. In TTL USSR would side with KMT-China in boxing in the Japanese over Korea.
A blockade is awfully problematic because a lot of countries have commercial interests in China and you'd have to explain to the UK or the US why Western flagged ships are getting intercepeted by Japanese warships.
In any case the Chinese economy of the 1950s was OTL not heavily depended on international trade, and the Chinese would have an advantage on land vs the IJA.
Interesting question though, why do you seriously seem to have this immense partisan bias towards Japan vice-verse China when Japan was one of the weakest great powers in the 40s?