Holding Out for a Hero: Gustav Stresemann Survives

Both the Niger Delta and the Trans-Saharan Railway are only examples of a comprehensive effort to reshape the region. There was also a plan to spend 18.4 billion francs funding industrialization in the region [9]. A small sum of money, but France's investment laid the groundwork for Senegal's textile industry, which would help the region's economy in the 1950s and 1960s.

I always wanted to see more industrial outsourcing in the colonial era.
Hopefully, the new industry in French West Africa will survive the decolonisation process.

Nevertheless, the railway would play a crucial role in linking the peoples of French West Africa together, and the eventual formation of the West African Union. [4]

...

[4] In OTL, Senegal and Mali actually hoped to form one nation, using the railroad as a unifying factor. It fell apart because Mali elected a Maoist, and richer Senegal elected a conservative Francophile. The Senegalians promptly kicked the Mali delegation back to Bamako. And then tore up the tracks between the two countries.

The name of the West African Union seems to imply that more states will belong to it than the OTL Mali Federation.

The Senegalians took the divorce from Mali very seriously. :rolleyes:

I'm really not sure how this plays out, TBH. Africa's not my strong point, but I think you might see FWA spin off on its own. (Somebody will probably proposing combining it with French East Africa at some point; if we're lucky, that never gets beyond talking).

But... I don't know. The fact that all of Africa is doing so relatively poorly in OTL makes me think it's hard to get a better ATL.

Why so pessimistic? Wouldn't a more gradual decolonisation be better for Africa?
 
And even OTL, Africa as a whole has been seeing economic growth faster than population growth for a while now: it's just that there is so much focus on the true plague spots that we don't notice that most African countries are doing better than they have in a while. Now if you could just get rid of the AIDS plague... :(

Bruce
 
An industrialized, technocratic West African Union is likely to be the strongest state in the region, and if/when it breaks free you might see it decide it needs to incorporate some of its neighbors to extend its blessing upon them..
 
I always wanted to see more industrial outsourcing in the colonial era.
Hopefully, the new industry in French West Africa will survive the decolonisation process.

We'll see. Really I'd rather see a massive crash literacy program, but only mao figured that one out OTL...

The name of the West African Union seems to imply that more states will belong to it than the OTL Mali Federation.

Yes, French West Africa is going to emerge as an independent state at first.
And even OTL, Africa as a whole has been seeing economic growth faster than population growth for a while now: it's just that there is so much focus on the true plague spots that we don't notice that most African countries are doing better than they have in a while. Now if you could just get rid of the AIDS plague... :(

Bruce

This is all true, but it's taken a while to get there, no?


Not necessarily, if it occurs in the context of a Stalinist regime of large-scale forced-labor industrialization: that leaves some serious scars, and doesn't spell good news for eventual democratization...

Bruce
This is why I'm very leery about saying "longer decolonization is better!" It depends what happens in the interim. Ultimately these are all empires, and being treated accordingly. I don't think it'll get as bad as the Congo, where the first Congolese graduated from college in 1957 (!!!), but it might be worse.


A West African Union will probably be a very messy affair.

I agree. I think you'll see at least one Biafran style Civil War. But I don't think it's insurmountable. French West Africa, remember, even combined, is less populous than Algeria. And inertia seems to keep even massive, poorly run states (see the Congo) together in Africa.

Whether or not this is a better outcome is, I admit, unclear.
 
The Butterfly Effect

If you delight in senseless valor and make a display of violence, the world will in the end detest you and will look upon you as wild beasts. Of this you should take heed.-The Emperor Meiji, January 4, 1882

Now the flag of the Rising Sun is floating over Nanking, and the Imperial Way is shining forth in the area south of the Yangtze. The dawn of the renaissance of Eastern Asia is about to take place. On this occasion, it is my earnest hope that the 400 million people of China will reconsider.- General Iwane Matsui.​

I've been moderately unhappy with the fate of Japan thus far in the timeline, and having finally gotten some decent books on Japan I can put my finger on it. Quite simply, it ignores the influences and motivations for Japan's leaders, to turn them into Kilrathi. So what's wrong, and what is a more plausible outcome?

Let's turn to OTL 1936, after the suppression of the February 26 incident. Perversely, this was the time when what you could call the Total War Faction, led by Colonel Ishiwara, was at its height. Ishiwara, a Nichiren Buddhist who was responsible for the entire Manchurian Incident, was opposed to further expansion in East Asia. Ishiwara and his supporters were, quite simply, scared shitless by the USSR. In 1932, the Soviets had four rifle divisions in the Far East; in 1936, they had fourteen. To combat the Soviet Union, Japan needed to develop the resources of Manchuria and embark on crash industrialization program, mixed it with radical reform.[1]

But to develop and industrialize, Japan required peace, and so Ishiwara moved to smooth ties with China. As the head of the Army's Operation Seciton, Ishiwara was unique in welcoming the Xian incident and the end to the Chinese Civil War, on the grounds that a strong China would discourage reckless expansionism. He moved to replace Kwantung Army officers who were recklessly causing incidents, and replcaed them with men of his own.

But once you let army officers decide to start incidents at will, things have a habit of snowballing. [2] As Sino-Japanese relations worsened [3], all it took was for a few shots to be fired for the Marco Polo Bridge Incident to escalate [4]. But the Imperial Japanese Army believed it would take three divisions, three months, and a mere hundred million yen to solve the Marco Polo Incident. But then a Japanese Liteuenant, Oyoama Toshio was shot in Shanghai on August 9; the Navy demanded that the army send three divisions to Shanghai, and things escalated. [5] By the middle of August the Japanese government planned to field fifteen divisions for at least six months. The Japanese Diet also passed a series of laws to regulate the Japanese eoconomy: the Synthetic Oil Industry Law, the Gold Industry Law, the Iron and Steel Industry Law, the Trade and Regulated Industries Law, etc. Japan girded itself for a protracted struggle with an unclear goal.
Even as the nation girded for war, Japan's own military shortfalls became apparent. For one thing, the invasion of China had diverted over half of Japan's manpower from Manchuria, where the (perceived) main threat lie. Munition stocks were exhausted by early 1938.

Things were so desperate that Lieutenant General Hayao, the army's vice-chief of staff, warned that if the USSR entered the war the situation would be disastrous. In response to these warnings, the Japanese government declared that Chiang did not lead the legitimate Chinese government, and there would be no negotiation with him.

Anyway, to war requires more guns; more machine tools; more oil; more steel. To pay for this, Japan was forced to ship abroad its half its gold reserves in 1937 to pay for military equipment and fuel in 1937 alone. By June of 1938 factories were ordered to use 37% less fuel, and Japan's fishing fleet was to revert entirely to coal or wind power. Instead of modernizing, the Japanese economy was regressing; in the words of Ishii Itaro, head of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asian Bureau, "an octopus eating its own tentacles."

Oh, and the Soviets were still there. The Changkufeng Incident of July, 1938 illustrated that the Japanese army could not take on the Red Army; a shortage of heavy artillery and antitank shells convinced the Japanese General Staff that withdrawal was necessary. This led to proposals for a "moderate" peace with China modelled on Bismarck's treaty with Austria in 1866, but since this moderate peace proposal entailed Chiang stepping down and Japanese hegemony in northern China, nothing came of it.


Japan's problem was that the were stuck in a quagmire without an exit strategy, and that Japan couldn't afford the war in the long run. The Japanese assault on Hainan was delayed form July of 1938 to 1939 due to a shipping shortage. Things were so bad that the Army Generla Staff sent its Chief of Staff before the emperor to warn that the diversion on the continent would result in Japan being outfought and outgunned by the other powers, who hadn't been bleeding themselves to death for... North Chinese cotton? [6]

In response to this report, Japan planned to suspend further offensives in China in 1939, and adjusted its economy policy. Instead of starving civilizan industries, the government invested in a substantially reduced version of Ishiwara's five-year plan, and cut the military's modernization program. This only meant that the plan to defend Manchuria and Korea against the Soviets fell further behind, and the General Staff's initial audacious plan to thrust towards Lake Baikal was replaced with a siege of Vladistovok. And now things diverge wildly from OTL.

It was around this point that the army proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany, to balance out the USSR's superiority in the Far East. But there's no chance of anything like this in the ATL. Khalkin Ghol is, if anything, overdetermined. The incident began in mid-May when Soviet-backed Mongolians fired on Manchukuoan troops, and the Army ordered a limited counterattack. The Soviets responded on June 18 with a counterattack, and things escalated until the Kwantung Army was fighting desperately against Zhukov, firing 15,000 shells a day even as they got slaughtered. [7] Although a peace treaty was signed, in the Stresemannverse Stalin is quite able and willing to send forces to the Soviet Far East, meaning that in addition to being woefully outclassed, by the middle of 1940 the Japanese in Manchuria were outnumbered. And to cap it all off, Japan's economic problems continued. One illustration of this: Japan produced less steel in 1939 than 1938, even though demand for steel had increased.

Okay, turning back: Japan did not immediately declare war on the allies in 1939. Despite the war in Europe, Japan did not move into Indochina until after France fell, and did not do so lightly. It also did not move against Britain and America until December of 1941, after the Germans had invaded and distracted the USSR. The previous incarnation of this TL positied the Japanese leaping south with an unoccupied USSR on their northern border. I have little faith in the Japanese High Command, but this strains even my credulity.

To be utterly frank, Japan is in a desperate position and should be looking for a way out. What would an exit strategy look like? And can anyone propose one without fanatics trying to kidnap the emperor?

[1] The plan called for doubling Japan's iron and steel production over five years, quadrupling machine tool production, and increasing oil output, among other things. It's the 1930s. Even the Cylons probably had a functional plan at the time.

[2] Which is why so much of the map was colored pink in the 19th century.

[3] The Japanese were not happy that China was arming itself to resist further Japanese encroachment; the Chinese were unhappy about further Japanese encroachment.

[4] Indeed, shortly faster the Marco Polo Bridge incident Ishiwara repeatedly tried to stop escalation. After shots were fired on July 7, word reached Tokyo of a local ceasefire and agreement in north China, and Ishiwara tried to suspend mobilization on July 10. Ultimately, Ishiwara declared that he would rather withdraw all forces north of the Great Wall than risk an immediate war with China.

[5] The navy also was angling for glory so that it could demand an increase in modernization and expansion of the Japanese naval air force.

[6] Honestly, the mind reels. "So, we can't beat China, and we will lose any modern war because we are pissing men and mateiral away there. But we're gonna go attack America because the only hope to turn the tide against a Chinese warlord is pissing off the largest economy this planet has ever seen."

Okay, maybe the Kilrathi analogy makes sense.

[7] This was OTL.
 
Last edited:

pike

Banned
Japan meh is always to greedy never happy with just korea and tiwan and if they dont give up Manchura then they dont deserve an exit stratagy.

It should be land of the riseing greed instead of land of the riseing sun.
 
The Japanese are going to be forced to pull out of China one way or another if they wish to maintain a modern economy and industry, and that's not going to be pretty in any way at all. Shades of Vietnam in the 70s, or Afghanistan in the 80s.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Japan doesn't have an exit strategy because they were convinced they didn't need one. They went to China to stay. When they eventually will be forced out due to Chinese resistance and Western fury, and them being forced all the way back to the Home Islands, well it won't be pretty.
 
Japan doesn't have an exit strategy because they were convinced they didn't need one. They went to China to stay. When they eventually will be forced out due to Chinese resistance and Western fury, and them being forced all the way back to the Home Islands, well it won't be pretty.

In a sense I agree with you. Japan wanted China to be Finlandized. The analogy that the IJA used in the Tokyo War Crimes trials was that China should be Japan's Mexico (no clue if this made any of the Americans feel awkwrd). North China was to have Japanese influence, and at their height the Japanese were envisioning garrisons and control of the Japanese economy.

But they didn't invade in 1937 with a plan to conquer China; and there were times when they recognized that their plan was unrealistic and had limits.

The Japanese are going to be forced to pull out of China one way or another if they wish to maintain a modern economy and industry, and that's not going to be pretty in any way at all. Shades of Vietnam in the 70s, or Afghanistan in the 80s.

I could actually see a near civil war break out in Japan over any talk of leaving. We're talking about a society where two atomic bombings weren't enough to silence the die hards.

I don't know yet if the Japanese people will just bankrupt themselves for another decade to fight a protracted struggle, or if the government can try to cobble an exit strategy. But to there's no good option here, and I simply think the Pacific War was too stupid even for them.
 

abc123

Banned
This is actually an ironic twist on OTL. Royalist partisans, known as the Chekists, were supported by the Italians who thought the Croats under Pavelic were making the place a mess.

Chekists? I was under impression that Chekists are members of CHEKA.;)
 
Chekists? I was under impression that Chekists are members of CHEKA.;)

An acronym can mean two contradictory things, especially in two different languages, even languages as closely related as various South Slavic dialects and Great Russian.

I think Faeelin may have this right then. To the Wikipedia!
....
No, it's close which is why I thought it might be right, but I do believe he means Chetniks.
 
Regarding an exit strategy:

I have to agree with several posters here, even some who put it rather unnecessarily rudely:

If they want an exit strategy, they should exit from Chinese soil and take the consequences.

Short of that, why did the Japanese government, in both OTL and this timeline, insist on the removal of Chiang as a minimal condition? That's obviously a deal-breaker, except maybe for the Communists (whom I doubt the Japanese intended to put in Chiang's place!:rolleyes:)

I've been guessing it's because Chiang was insisting the Japanese withdraw completely from Manchuria and he would make no deals with them until they did this. So, we're back to "exit strategy=exiting." Or, put in their own puppet ruler in China, which I guess had become Plan A. (That's pretty much what making China Japan's Mexico would amount to anyway).

But if Chiang was willing to consider a truce and a possible peace conceding Japan at least some role in Manchuria--say they resubmit the province to the Chinese Republic but are granted the right to run their factories and plantations and so on there as private enterprises subject to Chinese government taxes, then insisting that Chiang must go was a stupid condition for them to impose, if they had any intention of "exiting."

Anyway it isn't clear now whether this timeline has committed to Khalkin Ghol happening as OTL but with Stalin here free to escalate at his discretion, or whether we still have time for the Japanese to finesse their way out of that battle starting. If it's happening already, then I guess one possible "exit strategy" is, the Soviets come in and steamroller everything the Japanese have on the mainland outside of Korea (and what's to stop them at the Korean border, at that?:eek:) Then they're good and exited!

Perhaps, if Khalkin Ghol has not started yet but the danger is foreseen by the Army (unlikely, it wouldn't be very "bushido" to quail before a mere threat) or it has started but the regime finally sees the writing on the wall and throws up a white flag for both the Soviets and the Chinese, they can parley the conflicts of interest between Chiang and Stalin into a withdrawal in some order from Manchuria, with some treaty guarantees of the Korean border, and maybe even cut some kind of economic deal as I mentioned above with Chiang. Stalin and Chiang both want Japan gone from Manchuria, but Chiang probably doesn't want the Red Army there instead; civilian Japanese enterprise under Chinese law in Manchuria might provide both revenue and a tripwire buffer between the Soviets and his own forces. Stalin gets out of the deal a greatly disarmed southeastern frontier.

The problem here is, Stalin might not think he needs to minimize his commitments in the East, since (unless I've lost track of something) he isn't threatened on any other frontier anyway.

Wait, is this one of those timelines where the British once again are thinking of striking at the USSR from India and/or Iran?

But if so, perhaps all the more reason for him to scoop up China, and then Tibet.

So, possibly without other threats to worry about or perhaps because of some of them, he decides that wiping out the Japanese Army in Manchuria is good exercise for the Red Army and if Chiang says anything cross about them not leaving afterwards, or even if he doesn't, pushing on south from there and joining forces with his good comrades the Chinese Communists (and purging the ones he doesn't think are so good, like say that loose cannon Mao--wait, again I'm forgetting, is this the timeline where Mao has already been executed...

Oh yes, all this

Well, you did say we are backtracking and retconning, all that is post-1945. The post-'45 Western intervention on Chiang's behalf implies they might do it in '38 on his behalf against Stalin.

Damn, this retconning business just unravels everything, doesn't it?
 

abc123

Banned
An acronym can mean two contradictory things, especially in two different languages, even languages as closely related as various South Slavic dialects and Great Russian.

I think Faeelin may have this right then. To the Wikipedia!
....
No, it's close which is why I thought it might be right, but I do believe he means Chetniks.

I know what he means, but he did spell it wrong.

Original: Četnici English: Chetniks

;)
 
Regarding an exit strategy:

I have to agree with several posters here, even some who put it rather unnecessarily rudely:

If they want an exit strategy, they should exit from Chinese soil and take the consequences.

I think people are getting the impression that I think the Japanese are poor victims here. I don't mean that at all. I just mean this is peculiarly self-destructive and . . . surreal to me. The nation's elite were aware that the China Incident was unsustainable and a diplomatic disaster, but nobody could figure a way out. If you read the Cabinet minutes from the weeks and months before Pearl Harbor, the Japanese government recognized that this could be disastrous but it was their only hope; and it was better, in essence, to go down swinging.

This strikes me as a bit different from Germany, where people were convinced that victory was likely. Does that make sense?

Short of that, why did the Japanese government, in both OTL and this timeline, insist on the removal of Chiang as a minimal condition? That's obviously a deal-breaker, except maybe for the Communists (whom I doubt the Japanese intended to put in Chiang's place!:rolleyes:)

They did drop it at a couple of occassions, but yes. It was a bit of a pride thing; the Japanese thought they would lose face if they did not make Chiang, who'd they spent three years calling a warlord/bandit/despot, step down.

I've been guessing it's because Chiang was insisting the Japanese withdraw completely from Manchuria and he would make no deals with them until they did this. So, we're back to "exit strategy=exiting." Or, put in their own puppet ruler in China, which I guess had become Plan A. (That's pretty much what making China Japan's Mexico would amount to anyway).

Actually, Chiang was willing to recognize the loss of Manchuria. This was not enough for Japan.

If it's happening already, then I guess one possible "exit strategy" is, the Soviets come in and steamroller everything the Japanese have on the mainland outside of Korea (and what's to stop them at the Korean border, at that?:eek:) Then they're good and exited!

I am leaning towards something like this, after the British-led sanctions kick in in 1940 and the Japanese have stripped all but 8-14 divisions from Manchuria.

but Chiang probably doesn't want the Red Army there instead; civilian Japanese enterprise under Chinese law in Manchuria might provide both revenue and a tripwire buffer between the Soviets and his own forces. Stalin gets out of the deal a greatly disarmed southeastern frontier.

Chiang was willing to give the Soviets military bases in Manchuria in return for them withdrawing support from the Communists, actually.

(Does anyone reading this know a lot about armor, by the way?)

Wait, is this one of those timelines where the British once again are thinking of striking at the USSR from India and/or Iran?

Yes, but the Soviets are active in Northern Iran as well. I might recap the Soviet position in the next post.

Damn, this retconning business just unravels everything, doesn't it?

Sorry. But it's worth it. Trust me.
 

Hendryk

Banned
I think people are getting the impression that I think the Japanese are poor victims here. I don't mean that at all. I just mean this is peculiarly self-destructive and . . . surreal to me. The nation's elite were aware that the China Incident was unsustainable and a diplomatic disaster, but nobody could figure a way out. If you read the Cabinet minutes from the weeks and months before Pearl Harbor, the Japanese government recognized that this could be disastrous but it was their only hope; and it was better, in essence, to go down swinging.

This strikes me as a bit different from Germany, where people were convinced that victory was likely. Does that make sense?
It is indeed quite a challenge to figure out a way for Japan to extricate itself from the Chinese quagmire before the commitment becomes self-expanding and we end up with the situation in OTL, Japan digging itself ever deeper in. I would be interesting to see if there was a plausible way to get there. I personally can't think of any, but then I'm no expert on imperial Japan.
 
I think people are getting the impression that I think the Japanese are poor victims here. I don't mean that at all. I just mean this is peculiarly self-destructive and . . . surreal to me. The nation's elite were aware that the China Incident was unsustainable and a diplomatic disaster, but nobody could figure a way out. If you read the Cabinet minutes from the weeks and months before Pearl Harbor, the Japanese government recognized that this could be disastrous but it was their only hope; and it was better, in essence, to go down swinging.

This strikes me as a bit different from Germany, where people were convinced that victory was likely. Does that make sense?
American here: Vietnam.

Not a closely parallel situation of course; our forces there were never subject to the risk of the sort of trouncing Stalin can give the Japanese in Manchuria ITTL, and of course the only material things and the only lives the USA had at risk in Southeast Asia were the men and materiel our powers that be chose to toss into that ring; nothing in the entire Southeast Asian subcontinent was anything like as vital to the USA, or any other Western nation, as Manchuria was to Japan's economy. But still, no one ever answered the "Fixin' To Die Blues"'s question, "What the hell are we fighting for?" to any sector of the nation's clear satisfaction. The closest to a clear answer we ever gave ourselves was, "We can't let Commies win anything, anywhere, ever!" and unfortunately the outcome was, Commies won a lot, somewhere we poured a lot of blood and money into drawing a line that was supposed to contain them, at that. Other suggestions--that we had the best interests of the Vietnamese at heart, protecting them as best we could from the atrocities of Communism, have this surreal absurdity you refer to. At best, that is just plain tragic.

And yet, it took us the better part of a decade to "exit," and when we did it was by means of our ally, or if one prefers "proxy," getting well and truly trounced.
----
I think that weakness with respect to Korea I mentioned may have had something to do with the Japanese paralysis/obstinacy. If they couldn't hold Manchuria, how could they hold Korea? Therefore withdrawing from China was not an option, not if any demonstration of weakness would lead to their losing everything they held on the Asian continent.

They did drop it at a couple of occassions, but yes. It was a bit of a pride thing; the Japanese thought they would lose face if they did not make Chiang, who'd they spent three years calling a warlord/bandit/despot, step down.

....

Actually, Chiang was willing to recognize the loss of Manchuria. This was not enough for Japan.

Well. The Japanese were just being incredibly dumb about that then. Or just that species of arrogance that is both a symptom of terminal stupidity and a cause of more of the same.

Again, not a unique disease of the Japanese.

But aye, surreal.
 
Other suggestions--that we had the best interests of the Vietnamese at heart, protecting them as best we could from the atrocities of Communism, have this surreal absurdity you refer to. At best, that is just plain tragic.

There's a quote I'm putting in the next piece, where a Japanese Foreign Minister says, "do you think we are in China for profit and plunder? Look at how much money we have spent! We will never regain that."

To which I go "... The fuck?"

Oh, what's interesting is that the US is likely to impose scrap and some oil embargoes on Japan in 1940. There was bipartisan support in Congress for it, but the White House was opposed because it didn't want to provoke Japan while the Nazis were rampaging across Europe.

Ow. Ow.
 
Top