Anglo-Japanese Alliance maintained?

[raharris1973]

I'm Canadian, and I think even using the arguments at the time, that is short-sighted. It would have been better to make some noise in that direction to the State Department, and at the Imperial Conference ask for preferential status for Canadian exports to Japan.

I sympathize with your point of view.

Even if Britain and the Dominions did ultimately trade away the AJA, they should have traded it for more than what they got. "Okay Uncle Sam, you want us to dissolve this alliance, are you offering us one on matching terms instead, so we don't have to worry about two-ocean wars?" I could imagine the especially the Australians, but also the Indian Viceroy, British and Canadians wanting that as a condition of dropping the AJA.

.....and I'll reiterate my point, the US need not have been so bullheaded about it anyway.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I sympathize with your point of view.

Even if Britain and the Dominions did ultimately trade away the AJA, they should have traded it for more than what they got. "Okay Uncle Sam, you want us to dissolve this alliance, are you offering us one on matching terms instead, so we don't have to worry about two-ocean wars?" I could imagine the especially the Australians, but also the Indian Viceroy, British and Canadians wanting that as a condition of dropping the AJA.

.....and I'll reiterate my point, the US need not have been so bullheaded about it anyway.

There is also a strangely persistent view that continued AJA = inevitable Anglo-American War.

The question is, over what?

It's not like the USA is going to suddenly decide to go all in funding and arming the Indian independence movement, and decide Canada is made up of nine states and two territories that should be part of the Union, nor is Britain going to declare certain happenings in 1776 to be an unlawful UDI and the resulting country illegitimate.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Outright war is unlikely

But a better US opinion is probably worth more to Britain in most circumstances than the AJA

Say Italy acts up, which is the most probable strategic threat one can see in 1920, or Germany does. Britain can deal with those easily enough on their own, and neither would result in the activation of the AJA. So in effect no benefit to having it. Whereas it existing may push the US in that situation from Friendly neutral, to true neutral or even to unfriendly neutral and make Britain's life somewhat more difficult

The AJA can only be activated if Britain ends up at war with two or more Great Powers, which is unlikely given the relations as they are in 1920, the USSR is a pariah, as is Germany, France and Italy dislike each other. And even if they get involved, well how valuable is it really? In WWI Japan took what territories they wanted, then sent a token force to the Med. No Japanese Divisions served on the Western Front, or at Salonika, or in the Middle East, or in Italy, no capital ships served with the Grand Fleet or escorts in the North Atlantic. Arguably not a very valuable Alliance, and arguably less contribution than a friendly neutral US made prior to 1917

And then of course there is the what if no war situation? At which point having a better inclined US is worth something economically, while the treaty is worth nothing

Well the argument is that better to have Japan onsides than not. But what does Japan get out of it? They can pretty easily beat any two powers at sea that don't include the UK herself, or the USA, Russia might be a problem on land, but the USSR has no allies thus the AJA would not apply to a conflict with them. So the only use to Japan is in a conflict with the USA, to prevent someone else from taking advantage but Britain said the AJA does not apply to that in 1911. So Japan is functionally getting nothing out of the deal. Therefore if they are inclined to be belligerent to Britain and her Empire, why should they keep the Treaty? And if Japan decides not to renew the Treaty asa prelude to aggressive actions, well all Britain has done is made the US less happy with her for no gain

 

[ivanotter]

I believe that the big scare in UK circles was italy. That it turned out to be a bit hollow did not detract from the perception in the 1920s and early 1930s.

France was not the bogeyman anymore, but I tend to believe that there was no love lost in the 1920s there.

Germany was not in play anymore.

The new Russia, USSR, was something else. After all, UK was deeply involved on the losing side, supporting the White Russians.
Japan had occupied Vladivostok and surroundings and was the last power to go home.

Maybe UK was after all more inclined to value India, ME, far east and China etc over US in the 1920s?