If No Nazis, then Japanese China?

An odd thought. German training, investment in China, etc. was crucial to Chiang's decision to declare war on Japan after the Marco Polo Incident in 1937. German training may or may not have helped Chiang's forces defeat the Communists in 1936 as well.

This suggests that without German aid, Chiang would have been much less willing to respond as he did to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, and the Japanese would have walked off with some more of Northern China. This, in turn, would have precipitated a crisis in the GMD, possibly leading to Chiang's fall. Certainly the Guangxi Clique, in southern China, would refuse to obey him anymore.

By 1939, the Japanese have effectively secured all of China, dividing it into various puppet states.

Thoughts?
 
An odd thought. German training, investment in China, etc. was crucial to Chiang's decision to declare war on Japan after the Marco Polo Incident in 1937. German training may or may not have helped Chiang's forces defeat the Communists in 1936 as well.

This suggests that without German aid, Chiang would have been much less willing to respond as he did to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, and the Japanese would have walked off with some more of Northern China. This, in turn, would have precipitated a crisis in the GMD, possibly leading to Chiang's fall. Certainly the Guangxi Clique, in southern China, would refuse to obey him anymore.

By 1939, the Japanese have effectively secured all of China, dividing it into various puppet states.

Thoughts?

OTL, weren't the Japanese pretty unsuccessful in winning warlords over to their side? Even if this leads to the fall of Chiang and the breakaway of several dissenting groups, it doesn't mean that they are going to side with the same people whose humiliation of China caused the collapse of Guomindang influence in the first place. Any relatively strong post-Chiang leader with a policy of "no more surrenders" is going to find a lot of support, and any "pro-Japanese" groups will probably be weak reeds at best for any Japanese plan of Chinese dominance.

Also, there's the USSR, which has less reason to concentrate it's energies on it's European flank in a no-Nazis world, and therefore has a freer hand to support anti-Japanese forces in China: after all, with no Nazis, the Japanese are Imperialist Menace No. 1, and although they're not currently strong enough to be a serious danger, that may change, especially if they manage to consolidate control over China. So, destabilizing their position now is a good thing.

Bruce
 
An odd thought. German training, investment in China, etc. was crucial to Chiang's decision to declare war on Japan after the Marco Polo Incident in 1937. German training may or may not have helped Chiang's forces defeat the Communists in 1936 as well.

This suggests that without German aid, Chiang would have been much less willing to respond as he did to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, and the Japanese would have walked off with some more of Northern China. This, in turn, would have precipitated a crisis in the GMD, possibly leading to Chiang's fall. Certainly the Guangxi Clique, in southern China, would refuse to obey him anymore.

By 1939, the Japanese have effectively secured all of China, dividing it into various puppet states.

Thoughts?
I agree, in general, and barring my lack of knowledge of China.
However, just because Germany isn't ruled by Nazis, that doesn't mean that China won't gain German aid and training.;)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
And just because Germany isn't ruled by the nazis we can't rule out some kind of war in Europe. Who knows what would have happened there without the nazis. But if the USSR doesn't have enemies in Europe they might support the Chinese even more than IRL.
 

Typo

Banned
If I recall correctly the Chinese recieved most of the aid from Weimar Germany, I could be wrong though.

Without the Germans, the nationalists would most likely have done what they did after what the Germans withdrew their aid-get Soviet help
 
If I recall correctly the Chinese recieved most of the aid from Weimar Germany, I could be wrong though.

Without the Germans, the nationalists would most likely have done what they did after what the Germans withdrew their aid-get Soviet help

I also seem to recall that the aid to China was just a continuation of Weimar policies, and a quick check of wikipedia backs us up on that.

In fact, given that the close ties to Japan were a product of Nazi foreign policy as Hitler saw them as being more capable of threatening the Soviet Union, we might well see German aid to China continuing after the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war.
 
I also seem to recall that the aid to China was just a continuation of Weimar policies, and a quick check of wikipedia backs us up on that.

Wikipedia is wrong, and is actually a poorly written summary of one book.

Weimar Germany had ties with China; it needed new markets, after all. But the military ties, while toyed with by the Reichswehr, only rose to prominence because Germany needed raw materials China had for its military buildup.
 
Wikipedia is wrong, and is actually a poorly written summary of one book.

Weimar Germany had ties with China; it needed new markets, after all. But the military ties, while toyed with by the Reichswehr, only rose to prominence because Germany needed raw materials China had for its military buildup.

Well, that's why I don't rely on wikipedia for much beyond checking things I thought I already knew.

IMO, even if the Nazis fail to take Germany Weimar is likely to fall to some flavor of radical nationalist, so a military buildup is still likely to take place.
 
Well, that's why I don't rely on wikipedia for much beyond checking things I thought I already knew.

IMO, even if the Nazis fail to take Germany Weimar is likely to fall to some flavor of radical nationalist, so a military buildup is still likely to take place.

Assume for the purposes of this discussion that that's not the case.
 
OTL, weren't the Japanese pretty unsuccessful in winning warlords over to their side?

Well, there was Wang Jingwei. There were quite a few who defected, but their names escape me at the moment. And IMO without Chiang, they'll revert back to the way things were in teh 20s, with Zhang Zoulin getting Japanese advisors.

Any relatively strong post-Chiang leader with a policy of "no more surrenders" is going to find a lot of support, and any "pro-Japanese" groups will probably be weak reeds at best for any Japanese plan of Chinese dominance.

But they will be in a much, much weaker position.

I do agree the Soviets might try something, though.
 
Assume for the purposes of this discussion that that's not the case.
Well... there'd probably be some military buildup even with a continued surviving democracy (as there was during the Weimar Republic) but, of course, it would be far smaller...
But, following what you just said:
The West will take a closer look at Japan, and may be more willing to act, in some small way, against them, without having to worry as much about Germany, it not having very much of an army, for a state of its size and population. The same applies to the Soviet Union.
So, I suspect the lack of German aid in these circumstances will be at least partially mitigated by an increase in aid from other sources.
 
Assume for the purposes of this discussion that that's not the case.

With a less dangerous European situation the British are likely to become far more willing to stand up to the Japanese. Some sort of analogue to the Tsientsin events in 1938 will get far more attention in Britain and clamour for action. This may encourage the US to become more belligerent too.
 
With a less dangerous European situation the British are likely to become far more willing to stand up to the Japanese. Some sort of analogue to the Tsientsin events in 1938 will get far more attention in Britain and clamour for action. This may encourage the US to become more belligerent too.

Well, America won't become more belligerent; it didn't care about the rest of the world at this point.

Britain... mmm. What would it do to stop Japan? (Or Italy in Ethiopia, for that matter?)
 
Well, America won't become more belligerent; it didn't care about the rest of the world at this point.

Britain... mmm. What would it do to stop Japan? (Or Italy in Ethiopia, for that matter?)
More/stronger sanctions... altough that may apply more to Italy, to be honest, which doesn't exactly help China much.
 

Susano

Banned
With a less dangerous European situation the British are likely to become far more willing to stand up to the Japanese. Some sort of analogue to the Tsientsin events in 1938 will get far more attention in Britain and clamour for action. This may encourage the US to become more belligerent too.

Would Britain? Contrary to the opiniony ou hold Britain isnt and wasnt the worlds white knight in shining armour. As long as Japan doesnt threaten Britain's sphere, why would Britain care?
 
Would Britain? Contrary to the opiniony ou hold Britain isnt and wasnt the worlds white knight in shining armour. As long as Japan doesnt threaten Britain's sphere, why would Britain care?
Britain getting worried about Japan being belligerent relatively close to British holdings, mayhap? One could make an argument that by the time Japan had begun to, hm, be very ambitious in China, they *were* threatening Britain's sphere.
 

Susano

Banned
Britain getting worried about Japan being belligerent relatively close to British holdings, mayhap? One could make an argument that by the time Japan had begun to, hm, be very ambitious in China, they *were* threatening Britain's sphere.

British holdings in CHina? Well, the KMT government wasnt very happy about them, either, so Japan pounding it might not be something Britain would dislike to see...
 
Well, America won't become more belligerent; it didn't care about the rest of the world at this point.
Actually, American isolationism is largely overstated. It's really better to call it Europe-oriented isolation: the US had few qualms about shifting its weight in Latin America, and Asia was high in the minds of those in power. The China Lobby were the Israel lobby of the day, and increasingly influential.
 
British holdings in CHina? Well, the KMT government wasnt very happy about them, either, so Japan pounding it might not be something Britain would dislike to see...
I was thinking of Burma, too, to be honest. That, and the British holdings in the Pacific.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually, American isolationism is largely overstated. It's really better to call it Europe-oriented isolation: the US had few qualms about shifting its weight in Latin America, and Asia was high in the minds of those in power. The China Lobby were the Israel lobby of the day, and increasingly influential.

Very true. Isolationism was more of a revulsion to WW I trench warfare than anything else.

The U.S. had a very odd view of China at the time, a mix of "inside every chinese is an American trying to get out" and a quasi-anti colonial feeling (despite having gunboats stationed in country) that made the U.S. lean very heavily towards support of the Nationalist goverments (especially vs. the CCP).

IOTL much of the front burner U.S./Japan friction was over China.
 
Top