Go Away, Adolf

[phx1138]

For all the "Hitler doesn't declare war on the U.S." threads & the "Japan invades Hawaii" threads...

What happens if U.S. diplmomacy before Pearl Harbor was just a little smarter? Suppose they'd persuaded Japan not to sign the Axis pact? Suppose the hardline nitwits at State had not put a total embargo on oil, contrary to FDR's wishes? Suppose they'd put a little more pressure on Japan & China both to cut a deal? Chiang was willing, if he could concentrate on destroying the Communists...

So how does it happen? Who has to be moved off his OTL position? Or fired? Or pushed under a bus?

Does it avoid the Pacific War entirely? (More than possible, IMO.) Does it shorten the European war? What else happens?

No Korean War & no Vietnam War, for a start... Any other ideas?

[Tsao]

Chiang was not going to cut a deal with the Japanese, period. And anybody who was willing to was viewed as a collaborationist and traitor (witness the fate of Wang Jingwei).

[LOTLOF]

The only way they could do that was if they were more 'understanding' about China. You have to offer Japan something, they're not going to turn down the Germans just because the US wants them to. If the US were willing to offer some concessions and try to mediate a settlement in China it's possible. Japan would have preferred to come to terms with the US, but only if it leaves them as a Great Power.

[LOTLOF]

If Japan has Korea, Formosa, Manchuria, and a slice of northern and coastal China they would be satisfied with that. What they wanted was to be ONE OF the major powers in the Pacific. They went to war with the US even though they knew it was a huge risk because they felt it was either that or settle for being a second rate power permanently and their collective pride wouldn't tolerate that.

If they can have an empire and be recognized by the US and the British as equals I think that would satisfy them. I don't believe there would ever be a pacific war.

[Tsao]

You are ignoring the problem here: China is not willing to compromise with the Japanese. Neither the Nationalists nor the Communists will stand for Japan annexing Chinese territory.

[WeisSaul]

Recognize Manchukuo as a protectorate of Japan, and concede French Indochina, Hainan. After that let them have Thailand as a sphere of influence/protectorate and a few Chinese ports. French Kwang-Chow-Wan, forner German colony Kiauchau, and all of Tientsin. Maybe letting the Japanese take part or all of the Dutch East Indies would be okay too, but would the British really want to be outflanked in western Indonesia? Borneo and Sumatra pose a big threat to Australia, Malaya, and North Borneo.

The western powers could also agree (secretly) to not interfere in Japanese attempts to exert control over north Sakhalin, and Primorsky. Though considering this forum has gone over the subject of a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union, the widely agreed result of such an invasion would likely suit the interests of Britain and America.

To shut Chiang Kai Shek up, the western powers recognize the Republic of China's sovereignty over Mongolia and Tuvan when Germany invades Russia, concede the portions of the British Raj that China was claiming, and allow some sort of industrialization agreement between the China and the United States and Britain. Considering this would provide a natural and regional yet semi-dependent check against Japan it would benefit the US and UK.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Tsao Tongyu

You are ignoring the problem here: China is not willing to compromise with the Japanese. Neither the Nationalists nor the Communists will stand for Japan annexing Chinese territory.

Well, what you could do is get the British and Americans to see the USSR as a greater threat than the Japanese, and thus turn a blind eye to Japan's campaign in China as they anticipate that they will eventually come to blows with the Soviets. My guess is that Stalin would back the KMT to a greater extent than in OTL, so as to ensure that Japan, being able to buy what it needs for effective warmaking from the West, does not subdue him.

[WeisSaul]

Yeah, the Japanese tried to invade in 1939...and that failed horribly. They wouldn't invade only two years later when Stalin still had millions of Soviet troops sitting there waiting for Japan even while Germany was invading in the west.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by WeisSaul

Yeah, the Japanese tried to invade in 1939...and that failed horribly. They wouldn't invade only two years later when Stalin still had millions of Soviet troops sitting there waiting for Japan even while Germany was invading in the west.

That's why all those diplomatic calculations on the part of the western powers have to occur from 1931 (after takeover of Manchuria) to 1939 (before disaster at Kalkhin Gol).

[WeisSaul]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

That's why all those diplomatic calculations on the part of the western powers have to occur from 1931 (after takeover of Manchuria) to 1939 (before disaster at Kalkhin Gol).

But then Japan would still be fighting China and the Soviet Union. The Second and third most populous countries on earth at the time. Japan only attacked Russia when it, for the most part, secured most of its control in China. Japan would probably realize that even though it could beat the crap out of China, it could never occupy it. There would simply be too many Chinese people willing to fight on. Japan's empire before the war was around 96 million people. This is including Korea, which tended to hate Japan's guts. China alone was around 517 million, and the Soviet Union in total was around 168.5 million people. It would be idiotic for Japan to go up against China and the Soviet Union, a coalition over 7 times its size, when there wasn't even a war in Europe yet to distract the Soviet Union.

[The Kiat]

Originally Posted by Tsao Tongyu

Chiang was not going to cut a deal with the Japanese, period. And anybody who was willing to was viewed as a collaborationist and traitor (witness the fate of Wang Jingwei).

Perhaps not, but sometimes I get the impression he was more interested in fighting Mao than the Japanese.

[WeisSaul]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

Perhaps not, but sometimes I get the impression he was more interested in fighting Mao than the Japanese.

Nope. The Nationalists and Communists had an agreement that as long as the Japanese were in China, they would put their differences aside and stand together against Japan. Perhaps if Japan had left after a while, but remained a significant threat, a coalition government could have been formed.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by WeisSaul

It would be idiotic for Japan to go up against China and the Soviet Union, a coalition over 7 times its size, when there wasn't even a war in Europe yet to distract the Soviet Union.

In hindsight, it was idiotic. And in fact, the Japanese were deathly frightened by the Red Army, so much that they kept a million men defending Manchuria for the whole war, and were still crushed in a matter of days.

However, nobody in the 1930s is aware of this. BUT: What I said could happen is not that the West agrees to not carry out the oil embargo against Japan in exchange for attacking Russia, but that the US does not carry out the embargo in the hopes that Japan will maintain a powerful empire on the Soviet Union's doorstep, thus physically containing the spread of communism, the assumption being that Japan would have a better chance to fight the USSR successfully with the free trade of oil and therefore be able to preempt Communist expansion in the Far East. That China and the Chinese people get totally screwed over in the process would be deemed, on the part of the West, as a non-issue.

So Japan doesn't have to come to blows with Russia. And while China has a lot of people, they are neither industrialized nor well-united and while the Japanese do not have the manpower to win, they do have the skill and technology to stay in strategic areas until the political and economic backlash becomes too great.

And all the while, the US and UK would turn their eyes away from the 2nd Sino-Japanese War with the excuse that a strong Japan is needed to defend against Communism. This is quite a plausible outcome if the Japanese do not get friendly with the Germans.

Nope. The Nationalists and Communists had an agreement that as long as the Japanese were in China, they would put their differences aside and stand together against Japan. Perhaps if Japan had left after a while, but remained a significant threat, a coalition government could have been formed.

The Nationalists and Communists were both irrevocably (at least as far as Chiang Kaishek and Mao were concerned) opposed and were planning to crush each other after the Japanese had been dealt with, but while the Nationalists fought very bitterly against the Japanese, Mao's forces did almost nothing and indeed he even criticized Peng Dehuai heavily for ordering the (very successful) 100 Regiments' battle.

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by Tsao Tongyu

You are ignoring the problem here: China is not willing to compromise with the Japanese. Neither the Nationalists nor the Communists will stand for Japan annexing Chinese territory.

That conflicts with what I've read, suggesting Chiang thought the Communists were the bigger danger. (Just don't ask me where I saw it...)

AFAIK, Japan would've been satisfied with Manchuria by 1941, & would've been willing to give up any parts of Metropolitan China if she could keep Manchukuo.

Originally Posted by The Kiat

sometimes I get the impression he was more interested in fighting Mao than the Japanese.

I got the same impression, & any deal with Mao was temporary & only because the Japanese were still there. A deal with Japan to leave Metro China & leave him (better still, help him) fight Mao, Chiang'd take it.

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

The Nationalists and Communists were both irrevocably (at least as far as Chiang Kaishek and Mao were concerned) opposed and were planning to crush each other after the Japanese had been dealt with

My sense exactly.

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Well, what you could do is get the British and Americans to see the USSR as a greater threat than the Japanese

That may be the most credible approach. Winston was already deeply mistrustful. (Am I wrong he tried to engineer an assassination of Lenin in 1918? Or was that MI-6?)

Originally Posted by WeisSau

Yeah, the Japanese tried to invade in 1939...and that failed horribly. They wouldn't invade only two years later

They wanted to, & certainly thought about it. (Even in August '45.) And the "Northern Option" wasn't as purely notional as it seems. Fuel was critical. DEI offered it.If they could've cut a deal with Chiang, the Brits, & the U.S.? They might just go for it.

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

In hindsight, it was idiotic. And in fact, the Japanese were deathly frightened by the Red Army

Not to mention insensibly eager for another rematch.

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

strong Japan is needed to defend against Communism.

Exactly. And the Allied strategy OTL has been criticized for destroying Japan (& Germany), this "uncorking" the SU....

Originally Posted by WeisSaul

But then Japan would still be fighting China and the Soviet Union.

No, the idea is to achieve a truce (preferably lasting peace) with China.

Originally Posted by WeisSaul

Japan would probably realize that even though it could beat the crap out of China, it could never occupy it.

I think that realization was already setting in by 1937. Offer Japan a better option, would they take it?

[LOTLOF]

It's not about making a deal for Japan to attack the USSR. It's about keeping them out of the Axis camp and keeping them intact as a POSSIBLE threat to the USSR. It's pretty much eh same philosophy that kept Iraq intact following the Persian Gulf war in '91. The US could have carved it up between Kurds, Suni, and Shia. It was kept whole to act as a counterweight to Iran.

From beginning to end Manchuria and China were Japan's focus. The Japanese always wanted to come to an understanding with the US (on their terms of course.) Grant them some concessions and try to mediate with Chiang. That should be enough.

[WeisSaul]

Originally Posted by LOTLOF

It's not about making a deal for Japan to attack the USSR. It's about keeping them out of the Axis camp and keeping them intact as a POSSIBLE threat to the USSR. It's pretty much eh same philosophy that kept Iraq intact following the Persian Gulf war in '91. The US could have carved it up between Kurds, Suni, and Shia. It was kept whole to act as a counterweight to Iran.

From beginning to end Manchuria and China were Japan's focus. The Japanese always wanted to come to an understanding with the US (on their terms of course.) Grant them some concessions and try to mediate with Chiang. That should be enough.

Okay then that sounds very reasonable. I have heard that the Japanese preferred the nationalists over the communists. Considering the Japanese Empire's main goals were to kick the west out of Asia (very difficult to do entirely) and to become an equal to the US and the UK in the region. Considering Japan could never conquer metropolitan China, I suppose a shared hegemony of Asia proper could have existed: Though the US would dominate up to the central pacific and Britain and US would have a strong presence in South-East Asia.

I bet the US would want a concession from Japan in exchange though... probably the northern Marianas or something else in the South Pacific Mandate.

Like I said before, If Japan was given French Indochina and a few mainland ports, probably Kwag-Chou Wan, all of Tientsin, and Kiauchau, they would have been happy; along with the US, UK, and RoC agreeing to not interfere with a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union for Primorsky and North Sakhlain, Japan would have been very cooperative, even if it were to understand that it couldn't militarily compete with the US.

China would have been fine with having Mongolia and Tuvan recognized, and perhaps some of its claimed portions of Burma. Britain would probably try to prop up Tibet to keep its sphere of influence.

[Snake Featherston]

This requires as a bare minimum avoiding the Japanese invasion of Indochina and the USA being willing to appease Japan and recognize that it has indeed made some gains at Jiang's expense.

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by WeisSaul

Okay then that sounds very reasonable. I have heard that the Japanese preferred the nationalists over the communists. Considering the Japanese Empire's main goals were to kick the west out of Asia (very difficult to do entirely) and to become an equal to the US and the UK in the region. Considering Japan could never conquer metropolitan China, I suppose a shared hegemony of Asia proper could have existed: Though the US would dominate up to the central pacific and Britain and US would have a strong presence in South-East Asia.

I bet the US would want a concession from Japan in exchange though... probably the northern Marianas or something else in the South Pacific Mandate.

Like I said before, If Japan was given French Indochina and a few mainland ports, probably Kwag-Chou Wan, all of Tientsin, and Kiauchau, they would have been happy; along with the US, UK, and RoC agreeing to not interfere with a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union for Primorsky and North Sakhlain, Japan would have been very cooperative, even if it were to understand that it couldn't militarily compete with the US.

China would have been fine with having Mongolia and Tuvan recognized, and perhaps some of its claimed portions of Burma. Britain would probably try to prop up Tibet to keep its sphere of influence.

I don't feature the U.S. agreeing to hand over IndoChina, & if this is done right, it would never be an issue: the 2d Sino-Japanese War would be over before France falls. The rest is reasonable.