Japan stays neutral in WWII
- Thread starter Hawkeye
- Start date
The US has more resources to throw into Europe, as do the rest of the allies. OTOH, the US and the other allies don't gain the (expensive) experience they got in amphibious warfare, so some of the earlier amphibious operations (f.e. Operation Torch) might not go as well as OTL, despite the extra resources. Would probably take at least a few months more for the US to get directly involved as well.
I believe Hitler would have probably declared war on the United States anyway. He nether liked nor afford letting the US supply military equipment to the Allies and thus he will be forced to contend with America sooner or later.
The short answer is that Japan benefits hugely from trade. Japanese exports basically tripled during WW1, as the Western factories that used to supply textiles and other consumer goods to much of the world were turned to war production, allowing Japan to pick up the slack. In this war, Japan should do even better, since they can make consumer goods for the colonies and perhaps even sell some military goods to the desperate Allies. All in all, without the cost of war, the lives lost, the need to rebuild... I think it's possible that Japan will start overtaking major European nations economically 10 years or more earlier than they did in OTL. Assuming the war ends the same way--and without a Pacific War to worry about, I'm sure it will be an even more crushing Allied victory--I think Japan will eventually fall somewhat into the US orbit as an anti-communist ally. On the downside, though, even assuming Taisho Democracy limps on, Japan will probably continue to be quite an illiberal democracy for some time to come.
I do hope LeoXiao or someone similar comes along to tell us what happens in China absent the Greater East Asian War, though...
I do hope LeoXiao or someone similar comes along to tell us what happens in China absent the Greater East Asian War, though...
I'll try to fill in as best I can then.
The nationalists would have crushed Mao and we would have an anti communist authoritarian government in China. It will be interesting to see the cold war dynamics between the US, China, Japan, and the USSR. I think we could possibly see a Soviet-Japanese alliance of sorts since the US and Japan would still be rival powers in the Pacific. And you thought anti-Japanese sentiment in the 80's were bad.
I just don't see any reason for Japan to align with the Soviets against the US. All of their trade is with non-soviet nations, including the US. The US will be able to protect this trade, and to offer them trade into the US market like they did historically. Against this, the Soviets can offer... nothing, really. Japan-US animosity was over things like trade in China, which will probably be a dead letter anyway. I think the wave of decolonization will mean that the Phillipines goes independent, the concessions in China disappear... and with them, the reasons for US-Japanese conflict disappear too.I'll try to fill in as best I can then.
The nationalists would have crushed Mao and we would have an anti communist authoritarian government in China. It will be interesting to see the cold war dynamics between the US, China, Japan, and the USSR. I think we could possibly see a Soviet-Japanese alliance of sorts since the US and Japan would still be rival powers in the Pacific. And you thought anti-Japanese sentiment in the 80's were bad.
Not to mention that in the 1930s, it was possible for Japan to build up enough of an navy (at huge expense) to have a viable force against the US. The war will mean that the US will build up a navy to suit their huge industrial potential, a bigger navy than the UK. After that, I think it will be completely clear even to those that want to keep a fully independent foreign policy that it just isn't possible anymore to really counter the USN.
As I said above, I think decolonization is inevitable. Japan might well try to hold on to Korea and Taiwan longer than some of the European empires try to hold on to their colonies, but in the end, Korean independence is a foregone conclusion. They will never be satisfied with anything less, and Japanese people ultimately won't want to pay the price in blood and infamy to hold on. It's entirely possible that Japan fights a war against Korean independence fighters on the grounds of "anti-communism", though, which could be quite bloody.
It's possible Taiwan would eventually be incorporated as regular prefectures of Japan, but it's also possible that it simply becomes independent. I could see it going either way. Much depends on Japanese policy--whether they are willing to give full civil rights to Taiwanese in order to keep them satisfied, or whether they try to push back. It's possible that the Japanese give devolution and rights to the Taiwanese and see them as "the good colonials", in contrast to the "violent" Koreans. It's also possible that they see the unrest in Korea and fear it, and so crack down in Taiwan as well... hard to say, I think.
It's one thing to note that part of the question depends on how Japan avoids the militarists becoming dominant. One could imagine a communist revolution in Japan (requires an earlier POD), a Japan where the Treaty Faction remains dominant (and which might be more friendly to Britain) or one where the civilian government manages to successfully purge the Kwangtung Army and the resulting political chaos keeps them internally occupied during the war period. Regardless, they may declare war on Germany near the end of the war, just to have a spot at the negotiating table.
Assuming a non-Communist Japan, they are likely to remain anti-Communist aligned (especially since the lack of expansion into China will have eliminated a lot of both the tensions with the US and the broader Japanese expansionist dreams). There will still be racism causing tensions with the Western powers, but that's manageable; a threatening and ideologically hostile Soviet Union on their borders is far more concerning.
I agree decolonization will eventually spell the end for Japanese Korea and maybe Taiwan, although quite possibly only after Korea turns into an Algerian War analog. Both are probably less developed than they are now, and might end up Communist-aligned. They likely have a somewhat better shot of holding on to their Pacific island holdings, but may give them up as well during the wave of decolonization (especially if Korea gets nasty).
Assuming a non-Communist Japan, they are likely to remain anti-Communist aligned (especially since the lack of expansion into China will have eliminated a lot of both the tensions with the US and the broader Japanese expansionist dreams). There will still be racism causing tensions with the Western powers, but that's manageable; a threatening and ideologically hostile Soviet Union on their borders is far more concerning.
I agree decolonization will eventually spell the end for Japanese Korea and maybe Taiwan, although quite possibly only after Korea turns into an Algerian War analog. Both are probably less developed than they are now, and might end up Communist-aligned. They likely have a somewhat better shot of holding on to their Pacific island holdings, but may give them up as well during the wave of decolonization (especially if Korea gets nasty).
I think Japan would keep Taiwan. It was pretty well integrated and I don't think there was much active resistance to Japanese rule. I also feel like Japan will keep Korea. I know the Koreans didn't like Japanese rule, but as far as active resistance goes, I haven't heard a lot. But I could totally be off about that.
Indeed, colonialism might be slightly stronger overall without Japan running wild in the Pacific. Britain would have stronger relations with Australia and New Zealand without the fall of Singapore, and French Indochina and the DEI would have weaker resistance movements.
It seems like China would be somewhere between where it is currently and where India is. Big, lots of people, but very unevenly and under developed.
Indeed, colonialism might be slightly stronger overall without Japan running wild in the Pacific. Britain would have stronger relations with Australia and New Zealand without the fall of Singapore, and French Indochina and the DEI would have weaker resistance movements.
It seems like China would be somewhere between where it is currently and where India is. Big, lots of people, but very unevenly and under developed.
I myself have been wondering about how a Korean decolonization would go. My guess is that it would end in a Japanese "Vietnam/Afghanistan", which needless to say would suck for everyone involved.
Re. China: Chiang would likely be able to consolidate his hold on power, but he would not have anything near the level of dictatorial ability that Mao did. People like Zhang Xueliang and other "allies" of his would hinder this prospect, and Chiang was bad at purging his ranks ruthlessly. Assuming no more "central plains wars" break out, China would probably settle into an uneasy factionalized military-ruled state. The long-term prospects for social liberalism are better in the long-term than OTL, since the people and intellectuals will constantly be pushing for reforms and political representation. It would certainly be more of a mess than Taiwan or South Korea but I don't think it'll be a failed state or anything, if the Nanjing decade is anything to go by.
Now the problem IMO is to get the Japanese to stop worrying about a resurgent China. IOTL they were really into thinking that China needed to be kept weak. Perhaps some sort of Soviet-Japanese clash could distract their attention long enough for Chiang to consolidate. Maybe the Soviets keep the north Manchurian railroad and come to blows with Japanese interests in the Northeast.
Re. China: Chiang would likely be able to consolidate his hold on power, but he would not have anything near the level of dictatorial ability that Mao did. People like Zhang Xueliang and other "allies" of his would hinder this prospect, and Chiang was bad at purging his ranks ruthlessly. Assuming no more "central plains wars" break out, China would probably settle into an uneasy factionalized military-ruled state. The long-term prospects for social liberalism are better in the long-term than OTL, since the people and intellectuals will constantly be pushing for reforms and political representation. It would certainly be more of a mess than Taiwan or South Korea but I don't think it'll be a failed state or anything, if the Nanjing decade is anything to go by.
Now the problem IMO is to get the Japanese to stop worrying about a resurgent China. IOTL they were really into thinking that China needed to be kept weak. Perhaps some sort of Soviet-Japanese clash could distract their attention long enough for Chiang to consolidate. Maybe the Soviets keep the north Manchurian railroad and come to blows with Japanese interests in the Northeast.
The embargo was in 1939. The point of departure here is that Japan doesn't attack China in 1931.
Agreed. Korea has a lot of good mountains and countryside for insurgents to hide in, it has a border with the USSR and/or China, over which a lot of weapons could be supplied. It would be a terrible conflict. But I think one of the lessons of the postwar period is that a colonial or invading power can't hold out forever against a determined populace, so I'm sure the Koreans will win their freedom in the end.
No matter what else happens, any timeline where China avoids the horrors of the Second Sino-Japanese War and Maoism is a good timeline for China.
That's admittedly a big issue, but I'd like to think it's not an insurmountable one. A Soviet-Japanese conflict (a real one, not border skirmishes) would certainly keep the Japanese busy. They might even push the Japanese off the mainland entirely if the war is big enough and late enough. But I think that's not the only option.
Perhaps you could actually see the Sino-Soviet War of 1929[/QUOTE] turn into something bigger? If it looks like the Soviets are being truly aggressive in NE Asia, you could have a situation where Japan is more afraid of the USSR, and even wants to build up China as a bulwark.
Finally, I think it's possible to create a TL where Japan is quite afraid of losing its position in China, is afraid a rising China overtaking their position as the leading regional power, and yet still isn't willing to actually do anything about it. Small things like dispatching a few tens of thousand troops to Shandong to protect special economic rights there were popular with everyone except hardcore liberal internationalists like Shidehara, but a real, total war? Even the short three-month war that the Militarists promised in 1937 promised to be more expensive than a lot of people wanted to pay. I think it should be possible to create a TL where the zaibatsu, political parties, etc. rein in the Militarists before they even start, and everyone eyes a rising China with fear and apprehension, but not enough to actually fight.
I know you are joking, but I find that a bit offensive. It's not somehow in Japan's 'national character' to go on a rampage in China. The Militarist period is not representative of the Japan that came before or after. This strikes me as being like the "German=Nazi" idea, and that's also offensive.In this alternative, Japan to China does not attack? Then this is not Japan.
Flubber
Banned
In this alternative, Japan to China does not attack? Then this is not Japan.
Seeing as there's a translation issue at work here, let's restate in a way that won't leave peoples' panties in a bunch, okay?
"In this alternative, Japan to China does not attack? Then this is not the OTL Japan of 1931." (additions in bold)
Your point is essentially correct. The POD is not Japan somehow choosing not to attack China in 1931. Instead, the POD is an earlier one which allows Japan not to choose to attack China in 1931.
An OTL Japan in an OTL 1931 will attack an OTL China. Any POD which would avert that attack must change one of those things.