Anglo-Japanese Alliance

I kind of stole this from one of the other threads, but my idea as follows:

In this TL, the British and the Japanese have a strong alliance. They signed the agreement some time before WWI, and Japan plays a more important part in WWI fighting against Germany. For a reason yet decided, the USA and the UK are not as chummy as they are OTL.

In this alternate TL, what would the easiest/best/most interesting way to get Japan and the USA to declare war on each other, thus forcing the UK to declare war on the US? What would the war look like? How would it be fought? Who would win?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I kind of stole this from one of the other threads, but my idea as follows:

In this TL, the British and the Japanese have a strong alliance. They signed the agreement some time before WWI, and Japan plays a more important part in WWI fighting against Germany. For a reason yet decided, the USA and the UK are not as chummy as they are OTL.

In this alternate TL, what would the easiest/best/most interesting way to get Japan and the USA to declare war on each other, thus forcing the UK to declare war on the US? What would the war look like? How would it be fought? Who would win?

Who would win depends a lot on what "win" means. If you mean Japan loses territory it is probably a different answer than if you mean the U.S. takes Canada (sorry, Dave). There is also the "when".

If the UK is still allied with Japan, that likely mean the Washington and/or London treaties never happen. That presents a whole world of butterflies (starting with how many capital ships Japan (or anyone else) actually manages to build before they go broke). Depending on the direction those critters fly, you see anything from Jutland writ very large, to a war similar in scope and tactics to the Pacific portion of WW II. Any way you cut it; it would be expensive and bloody.

You might also see, in this sort of a world, some very odd alliances (how about a Russia w/Czar, Authoritarian, but not facist, Germany, & Italy with the U.S. vs, France, Japan, & the UK?).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I kind of stole this from one of the other threads, but my idea as follows:

In this TL, the British and the Japanese have a strong alliance. They signed the agreement some time before WWI, and Japan plays a more important part in WWI fighting against Germany. For a reason yet decided, the USA and the UK are not as chummy as they are OTL.

In this alternate TL, what would the easiest/best/most interesting way to get Japan and the USA to declare war on each other, thus forcing the UK to declare war on the US? What would the war look like? How would it be fought? Who would win?

Who would win depends a lot on what "win" means. If you mean Japan loses territory it is probably a different answer than if you mean the U.S. takes Canada (sorry, Dave). There is also the "when".

If the UK is still allied with Japan, that likely mean the Washington and/or London treaties never happen. That presents a whole world of butterflies (starting with how many capital ships Japan (or anyone else) actually manages to build before they go broke). Depending on the direction those critters fly, you see anything from Jutland writ very large, to a war similar in scope and tactics to the Pacific portion of WW II. Any way you cut it; it would be expensive and bloody.

You might also see, in this sort of a world, some very odd alliances (how about a Russia w/Czar, Authoritarian, but not facist, Germany, & Italy with the U.S. vs, France, Japan, & the UK?).

Maybe use the Dogger Bank incident as a POD?
 
Here's the basic facts about the Anglo-Japanese alliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance

I can see a strong basis for an Anglo Japanese alliance as both countries were primarily Naval powers and imperialistic. Their national interests also don't clash much.

Interestingly the Canadians pushed for the end of the alliance due to the fact that the danger to them was a land war with the USA.

Britain's historic policy has been to build a coalition of weaker nations against the strongest nation, hence maintaining the balance of power and Britain's freedom of action. It's interesting that the rising power of the USA did not trigger a realignment in British foreign policy in order to contain the USA, but instead the British trimmed to accommodate the USA. I don't know enough about the politics of the time to know why this happened.
 
It's interesting that the rising power of the USA did not trigger a realignment in British foreign policy in order to contain the USA, but instead the British trimmed to accommodate the USA. I don't know enough about the politics of the time to know why this happened.

World War Two :cool:
 

Markus

Banned
In this alternate TL, what would the easiest/best/most interesting way to get Japan and the USA to declare war on each other, thus forcing the UK to declare war on the US? What would the war look like? How would it be fought? Who would win?

Even if the USA and the UK are not as chummy as they are OTL and the UK has an alliance with Japan I very much doubt the UK will declare war on the USA. Even if the USA launches an unprovoked attack on Japan, a scenario which would be a bit ASB.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Even if the USA and the UK are not as chummy as they are OTL and the UK has an alliance with Japan I very much doubt the UK will declare war on the USA. Even if the USA launches an unprovoked attack on Japan, a scenario which would be a bit ASB.

It is close to ASB, but not totally out of left field. You would needs some hefty PODs, and they would be low probability, but not on the level of " OTL 1945 Japan defeats OTL Red Army in August 1945".

I'll be honest, that I can't come up with all the PODs necessary, but something starting with the Japanese-Russian War and a U.S. that pushed for the rights of neutrals & freedom of the seas during WW I in response to the blockade of Germany would be a decent start.
 
The US can't get into WWI as an ally. That leads to, you know, cooperation and stuff. (For that matter, it can't go in as a Central Power, although that's a bit ASB to begin with.)

So, neutral, pro-freedom of the seas US in WWI. No Zimmerman, less unrestriced U-boating too probably. What next?
 
World War Two :cool:

Yeah, but we are talking, I guess, about why the OTL WW2 took place rather than different alliances coalescing. And remember we are talking about a time before the rise of Hitler.

The biggest most powerful country was clearly the USA and Britain's policy historically was to form a coalition to resist the most powerful country. However, against that was the then recent history (WW1), the to some extent shared values and heritage of the USA and Britain, the proximity of Germany, perhaps the threat of Communism, somewhat racist attitudes towards the Japanese in Britain, the (close to) indefensibility of Canada, I don't know, maybe there are other factors too.

Interesting.
 
The biggest most powerful country was clearly the USA and Britain's policy historically was to form a coalition to resist the most powerful country. However, against that was the then recent history (WW1), the to some extent shared values and heritage of the USA and Britain, the proximity of Germany, perhaps the threat of Communism, somewhat racist attitudes towards the Japanese in Britain, the (close to) indefensibility of Canada, I don't know, maybe there are other factors too.

Interesting.

Britain's policy is also historically European oriented. Its never totally been anti-American - that would be bad for business. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance is dated by the end of the Great War. The British formed it in order to concentrate their military interests against Germany. Both Canada and, to a greater degree, Australia viewed Japan with caution.

You are right that the indefensibility of Canada would serve as a massive brake on any anti-American adventures. Its also likely that Canada would declare its neutrality in the eventuality of a Anglo-American conflict.
 
Britain's policy is also historically European oriented. Its never totally been anti-American - that would be bad for business. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance is dated by the end of the Great War. The British formed it in order to concentrate their military interests against Germany. Both Canada and, to a greater degree, Australia viewed Japan with caution.

You are right that the indefensibility of Canada would serve as a massive brake on any anti-American adventures. Its also likely that Canada would declare its neutrality in the eventuality of a Anglo-American conflict.

If we thought we could. We were british, and pro-british, and to a large extent anti-american at that point. More importantly, we had no independent foreign policy either.
 
Britain's policy is also historically European oriented. Its never totally been anti-American - that would be bad for business. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance is dated by the end of the Great War. The British formed it in order to concentrate their military interests against Germany. Both Canada and, to a greater degree, Australia viewed Japan with caution.
According to the Wikipedia article the alliance was signed in 1902, extended in 1905 and 1911 and British motivation for it was largely anti-russian.

You are right that the indefensibility of Canada would serve as a massive brake on any anti-American adventures. Its also likely that Canada would declare its neutrality in the eventuality of a Anglo-American conflict.
Given that War Plan Red was basically a plan for a preemptive strike on Canada, they wouldn't have much choice about their involvement IMO.
 
The US was pretty miffed about not being able to trade freely with the Central Powers during WW1. How about a POD where British blockade ships sink an American merchant ship in the north sea? The resulting tension is cooled down by some quick British apologies etc, but US public opinion remains pretty frosty as far as the Allies are concerned. Thus the US never enters WW1, and indeed pursues something much more like actual neutrality than OTL.

This raises the question of whether the Allies would still win without US help. Obviously there is still a greater chance of CP victory than OTL, but I think plenty of scope for Allied victory.

What then? Well, there is no "fourteen points" and no League of Nations. The British, French, Italians and Japanese can carve things up however they like. Germany does somewhat worse than OTL, losing more territory. A-H may yet survive, given the lack of emphasis on "nation-states" etc, although there'd have to be some autonomy for the Czechs. Transylvania will probably still go to Rumania, and Poland will probably still be formed. Maybe Serbia gains Vojvodina and Bosnia, but no Yugoslavia if A-H survives.

The Ottomans? I'd guess they'd still collapse, and the Allies would take the ME, but there may be factors I'm missing.

Russia would still go through revolution, but there's always the possibility that the Bolsheviks would be kept from power. Even if the OTL pattern continues, one might presume greater outside involvement and support for the Whites in the Civil War, with the Anglo-Japanese alliance takign a particular interest. Any possibility of a White victory?
 
According to the Wikipedia article the alliance was signed in 1902, extended in 1905 and 1911 and British motivation for it was largely anti-russian.

It was the gun held to the Russians heads, basically to protect British India. The Triple Entente was created with Russia for the same reason - to protect British India. Even after allying with Russia, the Japanese alliance was useful for a backup in case of Russian aggression. The alliance with Japan and with Russia is a classic example of the importance of keeping one's friends close and one's enemies closer....
 
The US was pretty miffed about not being able to trade freely with the Central Powers during WW1. How about a POD where British blockade ships sink an American merchant ship in the north sea? The resulting tension is cooled down by some quick British apologies etc, but US public opinion remains pretty frosty as far as the Allies are concerned. Thus the US never enters WW1, and indeed pursues something much more like actual neutrality than OTL.

This raises the question of whether the Allies would still win without US help. Obviously there is still a greater chance of CP victory than OTL, but I think plenty of scope for Allied victory.

What then? Well, there is no "fourteen points" and no League of Nations. The British, French, Italians and Japanese can carve things up however they like. Germany does somewhat worse than OTL, losing more territory. A-H may yet survive, given the lack of emphasis on "nation-states" etc, although there'd have to be some autonomy for the Czechs. Transylvania will probably still go to Rumania, and Poland will probably still be formed. Maybe Serbia gains Vojvodina and Bosnia, but no Yugoslavia if A-H survives.

The Ottomans? I'd guess they'd still collapse, and the Allies would take the ME, but there may be factors I'm missing.

Russia would still go through revolution, but there's always the possibility that the Bolsheviks would be kept from power. Even if the OTL pattern continues, one might presume greater outside involvement and support for the Whites in the Civil War, with the Anglo-Japanese alliance takign a particular interest. Any possibility of a White victory?

I'd agree with the US staying out POD, but disagree on *Versailles. The CPs still have a hard time winning -- Marne II was stopped by American troops, but the Germans were at the end of their tether at that point and any allied troops that could have filled the gap could do it. And, of course, after that things really fall apart for the CPs.

AH won't survive. It was already coming apart by the end of the war; the Czechs and Hungarians didn't need Wilson to declare their independance. I agree the peace will be a lot more punitive, though; Germany probably loses more territory, possibly gets broken up (Prussia, Bavaria, Baden, and Wurtenburg at least). Serbia gets much bigger, as does Romania; poland will --probably-- come into existence.
 
I'd agree with the US staying out POD, but disagree on *Versailles. The CPs still have a hard time winning -- Marne II was stopped by American troops, but the Germans were at the end of their tether at that point and any allied troops that could have filled the gap could do it. And, of course, after that things really fall apart for the CPs.

AH won't survive. It was already coming apart by the end of the war; the Czechs and Hungarians didn't need Wilson to declare their independance. I agree the peace will be a lot more punitive, though; Germany probably loses more territory, possibly gets broken up (Prussia, Bavaria, Baden, and Wurtenburg at least). Serbia gets much bigger, as does Romania; poland will --probably-- come into existence.

I was thinking of an Austria consisting of German Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Bohemia/Moravia, possibly a federal state. That may or may not ber possible - where is Gladi when we need him?
 
I was thinking of an Austria consisting of German Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Bohemia/Moravia, possibly a federal state. That may or may not ber possible - where is Gladi when we need him?

Czechs would never do it. Not even sure if the Slovenes and Croats would.
 
Given that War Plan Red was basically a plan for a preemptive strike on Canada, they wouldn't have much choice about their involvement IMO.

War Plan Red is not a preemptive strike on Canada. War Plan Red is a series of studies/plans for the possibility of war against Britain - in regards to Canada that was covered by War Plan Scarlet. The coloured war plans were predominately the domain of the US Navy and there was little interaction with the US Army for a few years.
 
Top