Could Japan ever balance against China (w/o a 30s/40s expansion campaign)

Japan's big issue in the 20th Century (among other issues) was that if China were to get its act together and consolidate, it'd be bigger and stronger than Japan. This was a big motivator for the Japanese moving from Manchuria into China proper.

My question is, could Japan have ever had the capacity to balance against China without some sort of war of expansion in the 30s and 40s?

Japan's Empire in 1940 was 105 million people.
China in 1940 had 520 million people.

Had the Japanese taken the Philippines from Spain (or Germany) rather than the US getting them, it'd have just been 121 to 520. The Imperial Japanese population would probably be larger if more farmers were settled in the Philippines and proceeded to have larger families I suppose.

Japan with better negotiation (or worse on the Russian side) could feasibly have gotten North Sakhalin in 1905. That's not much of a population boost, but I figure it's something. Plus there's oil, something Japan didn't have that much of OTL.

I proposed in another thread that Japan could have tried to cut a deal with China, trading Qingdao for Liaodong and Kando. That's maybe 20 million more people in 1939.

Japan looked at taking in 18,000 to 600,000 Jews during WWII and putting them in Manchuria and Shanghai. Perhaps this migration could go to a Japanese Philippines, as it seems the Japanese didn't want Jews going to the home islands, Korea, or Taiwan. Maybe round that to a full million?

The Russian Civil War would provide opportunities, but I think any Japanese expansion from that would put them in a worse position because Russia (White or Red) is going to want to take back whatever Japan took from them.


How from 1900 to 1940 could Japan's population and resources be larger without some sort of war at the expense of Britain, France, the Netherlands, or China?
 

Vuu

Banned
Doubt, with a POD that late they can't really match

The only country that could match China is either Russia or the USA - but if they were populated up to carrying capacity. Neither are even close, especially Russia.

Japan needs literally all of Oceania, Manchuria, a part of the Russian far east, Indonesia and Indochina to MIGHT be able to punch that hard
 

nbcman

Donor
By direct rule, probably not. But if China divided into a series of warlord states that could be influenced by or made into puppet states by Japan, they could counterbalance unfriendly Chinese states by their puppets and their own forces.
 
Japan had a GDP nearly ten times the size of united China’s in 1990 without Korea or Taiwan or Manchuria or Karafuto or much immigration.

If Japan has the economic structures in place and China doesn’t, a relatively small Japan can still be stronger than a huge united China.
 
Doubt, with a POD that late they can't really match

The only country that could match China is either Russia or the USA - but if they were populated up to carrying capacity. Neither are even close, especially Russia.

Japan needs literally all of Oceania, Manchuria, a part of the Russian far east, Indonesia and Indochina to MIGHT be able to punch that hard

I'm trying to think of ways for Japan to expand without starting an aggressive war with China. Is there a way for Japan to semi-peacably take Manchuria? I think it's inevitable that China would try to take Manchuria back if Japan doesn't get it diplomatically.

Maybe the Russo-Japanese War ends in Japan's favor (even moreso than OTL) and all of Manchuria is recognized as being in the Japanese sphere. When the Chinese Revolution happens, Japan establishes Manchukuo two decades sooner as a rump Qing entity. Japan also gets Sakhalin. Later Japan returns Qingdao to RoChina in exchange for recognition of Manchukuo.

I already brought up the idea of a Japanese Philippines that are a result of Japan taking the islands from Germany.

The Far Eastern Republic could perhaps have survived east of the Amur if it had its act together. The Amur River as the boundary between Japan in Manchuria (inner and Outer) and Russia is feasible.
 
I'm trying to think of ways for Japan to expand without starting an aggressive war with China. Is there a way for Japan to semi-peacably take Manchuria? I think it's inevitable that China would try to take Manchuria back if Japan doesn't get it diplomatically.

I'd go back even earlier to 1895 and the Triple Intervention. If Japan can solidify its hold on southern Manchuria there's a chance that when China collapses Japan just annexes the whole region. And only one of the three Manchurian provinces had a Han majority then so Japan might be able to integrate the whole area better if neither the Han or the Manchu has a crushing majority in population. Getting Russia on board is difficult given that their whole Far Eastern policy was just a giant pit they dumped a huge amount of money into for decades regardless of logic or common sense.

And if Japan can kick the Spanish out of the Philippines before America and either keep it or puppet it then they're pretty much secure in Asia for the long haul.
 

What's the saying? No matter what government, India is just a kind of managed anarchy?

I cannot think of any historical examples in which India a North Indian polity really projected power abroad. It seems North India's historically been mostly land-focused.

South India projected power overseas under the Cholas, extending naval influence to ensure friendly governments in western Indonesia. There was some relations between the Cholas and China.
 
What's the saying? No matter what government, India is just a kind of managed anarchy?

I cannot think of any historical examples in which India a North Indian polity really projected power abroad. It seems North India's historically been mostly land-focused.

South India projected power overseas under the Cholas, extending naval influence to ensure friendly governments in western Indonesia. There was some relations between the Cholas and China.
India had huge power projection under the Windsors. Far more than the contemporary RoC did, arguably more than even the modern PRC.
 
I'd go back even earlier to 1895 and the Triple Intervention. If Japan can solidify its hold on southern Manchuria there's a chance that when China collapses Japan just annexes the whole region. And only one of the three Manchurian provinces had a Han majority then so Japan might be able to integrate the whole area better if neither the Han or the Manchu has a crushing majority in population. Getting Russia on board is difficult given that their whole Far Eastern policy was just a giant pit they dumped a huge amount of money into for decades regardless of logic or common sense.

And if Japan can kick the Spanish out of the Philippines before America and either keep it or puppet it then they're pretty much secure in Asia for the long haul.

How does Japan avoid the Triple Intervention though?

At this point I think we'd need a PoD even earlier, such as Japan accepting the French offer of alliance in 1884 against China. Japan gets Taiwan 11 years early (although the French get Penghu) and possibly set up an independent Korea protected by Japan.


India had huge power projection under the Windsors. Far more than the contemporary RoC did, arguably more than even the modern PRC.

The British? I wouldn't necessarily call that Indian power projection.
 
It's a, how you say "conquest dynasty". Anyways, if the PRC ever puts fields three divisions in Italy anywhere overseas let me know.

Except the core of the British Empire was far from India.

Meanwhile the PRC has troops in Africa today. They've got a base in Djibouti and peacekeeping presences in a number of other countries.
 
Except the core of the British Empire was far from India.
Irrelevant to the matter of the British Raj's power projection capabilities.

Meanwhile the PRC has troops in Africa today. They've got a base in Djibouti and peacekeeping presences in a number of other countries.
Yes China has two overseas bases, India has seven. India also has twice as many soldiers committed to UN peacekeeping operations. This comparison isn't looking too good for China.
 
Irrelevant to the matter of the British Raj's power projection capabilities.


Yes China has two overseas bases, India has seven. India also has twice as many soldiers committed to UN peacekeeping operations. This comparison isn't looking too good for China.

India's bases are in its near-abroad with the exception of Madagascar and Tajikistan. Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives are hardly overseas. China in Djibouti is a bit different.

And there's also the geopolitical difference, I suppose. India has Pakistan to the northwest to worry about, but not much else (not even China). China has Russia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the US, etc. The issue with India balancing China is that India doesn't have much reason to worry about China unless the Chinese start mucking around in the Indian Ocean.



Can you please explain how the Raj specifically projected power, as opposed to being an entity Britain extracted resources and manpower from?
 
India's bases are in its near-abroad with the exception of Madagascar and Tajikistan. Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives are hardly overseas. China in Djibouti is a bit different.
So that's still a 2:1 lead for India.

And there's also the geopolitical difference, I suppose. India has Pakistan to the northwest to worry about, but not much else (not even China). China has Russia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the US, etc. The issue with India balancing China is that India doesn't have much reason to worry about China unless the Chinese start mucking around in the Indian Ocean.
India and China have multiple border disputes and China is mucking around in the Indian Ocean already. Now let's drop this point before we wander into current politics.

Can you please explain how the Raj specifically projected power,
The Raj had its own army and its own navy, and to suggest that their operational subordination within the British wartime command structure and shared logistics with the rest of the Allies magically transforms their feats into British feats seems rather disingenuous, given the same standard usually isn't applied to the militaries of the Dominions.
 
The Raj had its own army and its own navy, and to suggest that their operational subordination within the British wartime command structure and shared logistics with the rest of the Allies magically transforms their feats into British feats seems rather disingenuous, given the same standard usually isn't applied to the militaries of the Dominions.

I would apply the same standard. But yes, let's try to avoid current politics.
 
Top