raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
ieither all of Micronesia or part of it? Presumably by threats or bribes or horsetrading of some sort?
Any way short of war that Japan could have been made to give up Micronesia
- Thread starter raharris1973
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
US buys it all from Germany in August, 1914...
US buys it all from Germany in August, 1914...
Western Samoa as well, presumably.
Makes the geography for any Pacific War considerably different.
Best,
US buys it all from Germany in August, 1914...
Western Samoa as well, presumably.
Makes the geography for any Pacific War considerably different.
Best,
Errr... What?
Why would any one want to? I don't think it was on ANY one's agenda. Getting Japan out of China? Sure. Having Japan keep to the various naval treaties? Sure. Having Japan treat Koreans and Chinese like human beings? Well, sort of (given the complaining powers didn't treat their colonial subjects like full human beings).
Having Japan give up Micronesia? not on anyone's radar.
Why would any one want to? I don't think it was on ANY one's agenda. Getting Japan out of China? Sure. Having Japan keep to the various naval treaties? Sure. Having Japan treat Koreans and Chinese like human beings? Well, sort of (given the complaining powers didn't treat their colonial subjects like full human beings).
Having Japan give up Micronesia? not on anyone's radar.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
I think that's an exaggeration.
As documented in Akira Iriye's "Troubled Encounter", the US was reluctant to acknowledge a Japanese right to occupy at least the island of Yap, because of its strategic cable station.
Writing in 1921, Hector Bywater noted, "The majority of the European delegates at the Peace Conference were mildly surprised at the emphasis
with which Japanese envoys urged their country's claim to become mandatory of the former German territories north of the Equator.
Additionally, Japan felt it necessary to reassure its alliance partners in 1914 that it had no designs prejudicial to the final disposition of the Micronesian territories it occupied. Of course, I think the Japanese gained British diplomatic support for holding on to those territories in 1917 (that is when they got British support for retaining German rights in Shandong postwar).
So yeah, it was not a "hot-button" but it was worthy of discussion and bargaining. It also arguably had more relevance to the security of American imperial positions that the status of Shandong.
Absolutely on Australia's radar, not that we managed to do anything about it.
Ah. In 1921. Yes, I'll agree that them not having those islands was on the 'radar' then. I assumed later was meant.
So, basically, the plan is to give Japan NOTHING for her effort in WWI? Wow, that's going to go over well in Japan.
I suppose it might be possible that the White powers might decide that. But who's going to go to war to kick them out, since they're already there?
Or if you're NOT going to war, as per the OP, how do you get them off of territory they are currently occupying, when they ALREADY feel they're being treated like poor relations?
Sakalin Island? (They're in possession of that, too.) could an agreement that Japan owns Sakhalin and all the Kuriles do the trick? Especially if the West allowed Japan a few token Micronesian islands, for face?
Hmmm.... I suppose that MIGHT work.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
TFSmith121- would the Germans have been willing to sell Micronesia and western Samoa in august 1914 though? it may be considered bad for morale to start the war off by selling parts of the colonial domain and don't the Germans tink they are in a short war anyway?
Would any American government been in position to act quickly enough to make a purchase before the area was invaded by Entente countries?
How would the USA pay Germany especially with blockade? Did Americans have sufficient real property and bank holdings in Germany to liquidate within Germany to give the Germans a fair price? What would such a territorial transaction have done to US-Entente, and US-German, relations at this early stage of the war?
Havin the US in possession of the German Pacific territories (including bits tha went to Australia and New Zealand would indeed have changed the geography of any later US-Japan war. In such a case could Japan have hoped to capture all this territory, or would the Americans be able to maintain a string of island bases in the central and western Pacific for the entirety of any such war?
Dathi Thorfinnson - I am intrigued by the idea of giving Japan a free hand in Sakhalin and the Russian Far East in exchange for Micronesia. However it does seem a bit too cynical to fit with Wilsonian rhetoric. Could this have been palatable to him and if not to him perhaps to a President Charles Evans Hughes instead? Or would Hughes have also practiced a rhetoric and policy of no annexations and no indemnities?
Would any American government been in position to act quickly enough to make a purchase before the area was invaded by Entente countries?
How would the USA pay Germany especially with blockade? Did Americans have sufficient real property and bank holdings in Germany to liquidate within Germany to give the Germans a fair price? What would such a territorial transaction have done to US-Entente, and US-German, relations at this early stage of the war?
Havin the US in possession of the German Pacific territories (including bits tha went to Australia and New Zealand would indeed have changed the geography of any later US-Japan war. In such a case could Japan have hoped to capture all this territory, or would the Americans be able to maintain a string of island bases in the central and western Pacific for the entirety of any such war?
Dathi Thorfinnson - I am intrigued by the idea of giving Japan a free hand in Sakhalin and the Russian Far East in exchange for Micronesia. However it does seem a bit too cynical to fit with Wilsonian rhetoric. Could this have been palatable to him and if not to him perhaps to a President Charles Evans Hughes instead? Or would Hughes have also practiced a rhetoric and policy of no annexations and no indemnities?
How about in the latter part of 1916? By that point you reach the balance point of their having mostly been already lost and American loans to the Entente starting to increase so that the Germans could be minded to sell them off whilst the Entente are in a awkward position to refuse to hand them over.
Not Soviet Far East (probably) - just the island chains that Japan already claimed. Sakhalin/Karafuto, in particular, was viewed by the Japanese as an extension of Hokkaido in many ways.
Give the Japanese something they really wanted instead of a bunch of tropical islands they didn't have a lot of use for. Especially if they got to keep one or two.
(Although it would be amusing to give them Kamchatka, as well, as a white elephant...)
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Simon- this happening in the middle of the war is something that had not occurred to me before. At first my instinct was to say «nah, couldn't happen» but maybe it could.
It would be psychologically easier for Germany to sell at this point. With the Area under Japanese and ANZAC occupation as it was by this time, it would be a gutsy American demand.
Britain would not so object to the US having the territories and would be thinking about its need for loans. However Britain would not want Germany paid during the war and would certanly blockade any physical payment. But Japan would be highly offended as they probably prized gaining territory over defeating Germany. The ANZACS would feel disregarded if America pressed and Britain acquiesced like how the Canadians felt after the Alaska panhandle arbitration, only worse.
It would be psychologically easier for Germany to sell at this point. With the Area under Japanese and ANZAC occupation as it was by this time, it would be a gutsy American demand.
Britain would not so object to the US having the territories and would be thinking about its need for loans. However Britain would not want Germany paid during the war and would certanly blockade any physical payment. But Japan would be highly offended as they probably prized gaining territory over defeating Germany. The ANZACS would feel disregarded if America pressed and Britain acquiesced like how the Canadians felt after the Alaska panhandle arbitration, only worse.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
The Sakhalin Micronesia trade does sound like an intriguing answer directly meeting the op's terms dathi. How cynical would it have looked in the wilsonian diplomacy era? I wonder what justification would be used.