AHC & WI: the Anglo-Japanese alliance hadn't been terminated

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
The Anglo-Japanese alliance fell apart for a number of reasons. How much would the geopolitical situation have to change for both sides to want to maintain the alliance? How could this be done? What would be the consequences of the alliance still being in force?
 

NothingNow

Banned
Pretty much you could get by just by killing Arthur Meighen, Keeping the US out of World War I, or mauling or embarrassing the Royal Navy enough in the war that maintaining the treaty becomes essential to ensuring the security of the Commonwealth.

The last might be the easiest to do. More and more successful commerce raiders, followed by a near disaster, or a defeat at *Jutland would do it.
Of course, the butterflies from that would massively overshadow any further extensions of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
 
Have Australia's Billy Hughes' arguements at the Imperial conference prevail over those of the Canadian Arthur Meighen (or butterfly him away as PM).

The alliance is likely renewed although probably in a modified form. Resulting butterflies are significant.
 
As to the WI aspect of it-more likely than not, the Japanese don't go facist, which will likely lead to China joining the Axis and the Japanese joining the Allies.
 
A defeat at Jutland? Didn't the RN outnumber the KM about 3:2 in modern battleships without even taking Pre-Dreadnaughts into account?
 

Cook

Banned
Have Australia's Billy Hughes' arguements at the Imperial conference prevail over those of the Canadian Arthur Meighen (or butterfly him away as PM).

The alliance is likely renewed although probably in a modified form. Resulting butterflies are significant.

This sounds intriguing. What were they both putting forward, and why?
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
As to the WI aspect of it-more likely than not, the Japanese don't go facist, which will likely lead to China joining the Axis and the Japanese joining the Allies.

It seems like this could also mean no US in the Pacific theatre or in any alt-WWII at all.
 

Cook

Banned
...more likely than not, the Japanese don't go facist...

I’m afraid not; the demise of the new and fragile democracies in Europe and in the independent nations of Asia (Japan and Siam) was a consequence of the democratic governments inability to cope with the economic difficulties between the two world wars and failure to meet the rising expectations of their populations.
 
This sounds intriguing. What were they both putting forward, and why?
Without going to far into it, Hughes believed that a) The United States would not come out of its isolation to defend Australia or the British Empire if attacked and that b) It left Australia particularly vulnerable to any Japanese machinations.

Arthur Meighen argued that keeping with the Japanese in any way would totally alienate the United States (because of his view a war between the Japanese and the US was increasing in likelyhood) which he argued [the USA] would basically screw over Canada on trade and other issues out of spite on the issue.

Practically everyone else thought it was made perfect sense to renew the treaty, but then did a 180 degree turn and fell in behind Canada in an attempt to keep Washington on good terms.

I was thinking of using this as a PoD for a timeline and have read a number of very interesting contemporary articles on Jstor about it, but I can only find a summary of what Meighen said and not an indepth look.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
I’m afraid not; the demise of the new and fragile democracies in Europe and in the independent nations of Asia (Japan and Siam) was a consequence of the democratic governments inability to cope with the economic difficulties between the two world wars and failure to meet the rising expectations of their populations.

This would create an increasingly embarrassing situation for Britain where their ally is acting as bad as the sort of behaviour they're trying to stop in Europe. It would also create tension in the Anglo-American relationship (remember that the alliance ended for practical purposes with the Washington naval treaty). Unless these contradictions could be dealt with, the alliance would be bound to fall apart.
 
This would create an increasingly embarrassing situation for Britain where their ally is acting as bad as the sort of behaviour they're trying to stop in Europe. It would also create tension in the Anglo-American relationship (remember that the alliance ended for practical purposes with the Washington naval treaty). Unless these contradictions could be dealt with, the alliance would be bound to fall apart.

Basically this, the Japanese adventures into China wouldn't have been popular with Britain and the two would soon drift apart. I don't see the Alliances lasting.
 

Cook

Banned
The fundamental problem with maintaining the alliance with Japan if it is at the expense of close relations with the United States is that, quite simply, it is more important to the British Empire to have good relations with the United States than it is to have an alliance with Japan; a friendly Japan is only a help in the Pacific, while a hostile America is a problem globally.

It was this same analysis that forced the British to enter the Cordial Entente prior to World War One; being on good terms with France and Russia was just more important than Germany because while Germany was powerful in Europe and had a traditionally good relationship with Britain, a hostile France and Russia could pose challenges to the Empire throughout the world.
 
The fundamental problem with maintaining the alliance with Japan if it is at the expense of close relations with the United States is that, quite simply, it is more important to the British Empire to have good relations with the United States than it is to have an alliance with Japan; a friendly Japan is only a help in the Pacific, while a hostile America is a problem globally.

It was this same analysis that forced the British to enter the Cordial Entente prior to World War One; being on good terms with France and Russia was just more important than Germany because while Germany was powerful in Europe and had a traditionally good relationship with Britain, a hostile France and Russia could pose challenges to the Empire throughout the world.
But Japan in the 1910s is much different from Japan of the 1930s. In fact, stronger relations with Japan, and it being more recognized at Versailles, as well as butterflies causing it to focus more on technology could lead to a stronger army with more of a chance of global projection....perhaps actually becoming a threat to the US, but in this scenario, equally possible that they might become cordial with each other.

And remember, the foresight wasn't the same as today. Economists predicted Japan would pass Britain economically by the end of the century, and it did, but from their POV, wouldn't that look like Japan passing the British Empire economically? And thus being a potentially better ally than the fledgling US? Granted, I don't know why it becomes one over the other in these situations....it certainly doesn't have to be the case.

On another note, Japan could perhaps also decide to go north, and fight in Russia during the Civil War.....
 

NothingNow

Banned
It occurs to me that all involved in this thread ought to read up on the Taisho Period.

A defeat at Jutland? Didn't the RN outnumber the KM about 3:2 in modern battleships without even taking Pre-Dreadnaughts into account?

The RN also expressed a severe lack of competence during the battle (not to mention technical inferiority in several key areas,) and throughout the war regularly performed below expectations (individual duels and the Battle of the Falklands being pretty much the only counter examples.)

If they have to pull ships away from the Grand Fleet to hunt down the entire East-Asia Squadron ship by ship, and to beef up convoy escorts, (as the IJN and RAN can't hunt down seven or eight Commerce raiders across the Pacific and Indian Oceans while maintaining adequate escorts for troop and supply convoys with the number of Vessels on hand,) you can damn well expect the Royal Navy to be in some deep shit at Jutland.
 

Cook

Banned
But Japan in the 1910s is much different from Japan of the 1930s...And remember, the foresight wasn't the same as today. Economists predicted Japan would pass Britain economically by the end of the century, and it did, but from their POV, wouldn't that look like Japan passing the British Empire economically? And thus being a potentially better ally than the fledgling US?
There was nothing fledgling about the United States in 1920, it had already passed the British Empire economicly, industrially and in military potential. Japan simply never had the potential to match that.

In addition to which, Britian was massively in debt to the United States and economic recovery following the war looked like requiring even further loans, something Japan could not provide.
 

Flubber

Banned
You're all still forgetting about China and the UK's immediate postwar concerns regarding her colonies and privileges there.

After Yuan's death in 1916 and the rise the May 4th movement after Versailles, China under Sun Yat-Sen looked as if it was finally getting it's act together. One major point of contention between the new Republic and the many colonial powers, of which the UK was the largest, were the various colonies, enclaves, and other foreign privileges foisted on China during the 1800s and up through Versailles.

One important reason why Meighen's arguments was the fact that the UK needed the goodwill of both the US and China. The UK needed the good will of both US and China while Japan's international activities were seen as threats by both the US and China.

Japan's activities in Asia during WW1 had also caused the UK Admiralty to decide at least as early as 1919 that Japan was the UK's next most likely opponent in the region. Again as early as 1919, the Jellicoe mission to Asia recommended the selection of Singapore as the UK's primary naval base in the region because Singapore was better located for action against Japan.

When you remember what the geopolitical situation was and how early that situation was appreciated by the UK, you'll realize that suggestions made in this thread have the cart before the horse.

A continued Anglo-Japanese Alliance isn't going to create "better" Japan. Instead, a "better" Japan, a Japan which isn't viewed as a threat by the US and China, is a prerequisite for a continued Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
 
But Japan in the 1910s is much different from Japan of the 1930s. In fact, stronger relations with Japan, and it being more recognized at Versailles, as well as butterflies causing it to focus more on technology could lead to a stronger army with more of a chance of global projection....perhaps actually becoming a threat to the US, but in this scenario, equally possible that they might become cordial with each other.

And remember, the foresight wasn't the same as today. Economists predicted Japan would pass Britain economically by the end of the century, and it did, but from their POV, wouldn't that look like Japan passing the British Empire economically? And thus being a potentially better ally than the fledgling US? Granted, I don't know why it becomes one over the other in these situations....it certainly doesn't have to be the case.

On another note, Japan could perhaps also decide to go north, and fight in Russia during the Civil War.....
Yes those are good points.:D:) And Japan did send a small force of troops to Russia during the Civil War in OTL maybe in TTL have the foreign nations involement be larger?
 
Top