Japan More Involved in WWI

[Hannibal.Caesar]

WI Japan was more involved in WWI than they were IOTL, sacrificing more men and ships to the Allied cause, and lending more economic support? I'm aware that it'd be a little ASB for them to get heavily involved in the European Theater, but WI they launched invasions of German holdings in the Pacific and helped out the RN?

Would the Western Allies still see them as outsiders at Versailles, or would the Japanese have gained more out of the peace process? Do we have any chance of Japan not feeling forced into a corner in the 1930s and 1940s, and thus not getting involved in WWII? Could a militarist Japan survive long in this TL's Pacific?

 

[Youdontwanttoknow]

Actually the Japanese DID seize the majority of the German Pacific holdings, especially the places the Germans owned in China and the Marianas/Caroline Islands. The lack of deaths incurred was from the lack of German manpower in the region (the fact that Germany concentrated in Europe and not the Pacific)

As for the Japanese failure to gain a 'racial equality' clause in the Treaty of Versailles is more attributed to the serious campaigning of the Australian prime Minister, Billy Hughes, at the Paris Peace Confrence. One notable exchange had President Woodrow Wilson against Hughes in a debate on this subject. Hughes made note of the lack of casualties compared to Australia's. (Australia had the highest percentage of combat casualties in ww1 compared to total combatants of any Allied nation/dominion) Hughes was also driven by the now infamous White Australia Policy promoting white only migration to Australia and the real fear felt in the Australian populace of the Yellow Peril to the north, (there was a few protests at the signing of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty in 1902 and many in Australia felt Great Britain had betrayed them)

 

[strangeland]

I have a VERY hard time imagining Woodrow Wilson arguing in favor of racial equality.

 

[Youdontwanttoknow]

It was only really in relation to the Japanese. It was also one of the principles of the League of Nations he espoused.

Wilson obviously saw it more along the lines of actual equality between the nations of all races, not the races inside nations (eg USA)

 

[Grey Wolf]

Yeah, the problem was that they ran out of people to fight

Australia and New Zealand aren't going to allow them to go near New Guinea, the Bismarcks or Samoa

Tsingtao put up resistance but was never going to fight to the death - IIRC they're defensive strategy was to hope the war in Europe ended soon enough that they might still be holding out

There was hardly anyone in the Marianas/Carolines to fight - no point in the Germans having troops there since the natives were ruled by civilians (and often didnt know or care whose empire they were in) and if they thought to garrison against the Japanese, Japan is ALWAYS going to be able to overwhelm them, hence making it a waste of effort

The IJN for a while escorted convoys across the N Pacific and, I think, Indian Ocean when Graf Spee and the Emden were, respectively, about. I think they offered more ships to the European theatre but were turned down - maybe they got a few destroyers on anti-submarine duty into the Med, I'm not sure. In these cases it was what the Western Allies would accept, not what the Japanese offered

Then they got involved in Vladivostock etc after the Russian Revolution, trying to do their bit for the Allied cause (and for themselves of course, too)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[stevep]

Yeah, the problem was that they ran out of people to fight

Australia and New Zealand aren't going to allow them to go near New Guinea, the Bismarcks or Samoa

Tsingtao put up resistance but was never going to fight to the death - IIRC they're defensive strategy was to hope the war in Europe ended soon enough that they might still be holding out

There was hardly anyone in the Marianas/Carolines to fight - no point in the Germans having troops there since the natives were ruled by civilians (and often didnt know or care whose empire they were in) and if they thought to garrison against the Japanese, Japan is ALWAYS going to be able to overwhelm them, hence making it a waste of effort

The IJN for a while escorted convoys across the N Pacific and, I think, Indian Ocean when Graf Spee and the Emden were, respectively, about. I think they offered more ships to the European theatre but were turned down - maybe they got a few destroyers on anti-submarine duty into the Med, I'm not sure. In these cases it was what the Western Allies would accept, not what the Japanese offered

Then they got involved in Vladivostock etc after the Russian Revolution, trying to do their bit for the Allied cause (and for themselves of course, too)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

GW

I think after Jutland Britain tried to borrow some of the Kongo class BCs. However I think I heard that the RN wanted to man them itself and the Japanese wanted to keep them under their own control.

Steve

 

[Jukra]

(Australia had the highest percentage of combat casualties in ww1 compared to total combatants of any Allied nation/dominion)

Just a nitpick, Wiki says Serbia had about 275 000 military casualties, as well as 450 000 civilian deaths to same population as Australia. Other allied countries which had more proportional casualties than Australia include France, Britain, Romania and Italy.

Even for forces deployed, I find it hard to believe Australia had more casualties than France, Romania and Italy, for example.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Just a nitpick, Wiki says Serbia had about 275 000 military casualties, as well as 450 000 civilian deaths to same population as Australia. Other allied countries which had more proportional casualties than Australia include France, Britain, Romania and Italy.

Even for forces deployed, I find it hard to believe Australia had more casualties than France, Romania and Italy, for example.

I think he meant the highest % of those deployed killed

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Jukra]

I think he meant the highest % of those deployed killed/quote]

Yes, I still wonder how Australia would beat up Serbia or France in this morbid regard. Out of Serbia's 400 000 strong military some 275 000 died, some 70%. Out of French total of some 7,935 million 1,397 million died, some 18%.

In case of Australia, 331 814 men were sent of which 18% (61 859) died, a number similar to France but much less in proportion to total population, not counting the numerous French civilian casualties.

 

[I Guangxu]

To be perfectly honest, Japan was about as involved in WW1 OTL as it really could have been. It chose the most effective course which guaranteed the most overall gain for the least amount risked (the acquisition of comparatively under-defended colonial holdings, gains in international prestige with the more democratic Entente in keeping with the policy directions of the Taisho era, etc.).

Basically everything that Japan could do to the Central Powers in East and Southeast Asia it did OTL, and despite the acknowledged might of the IJN, their ability to project their power very far beyond this sphere is limited. The only real way for Japan to become more involved in WW1 is for some side-switching to occur, which I don't think is the point of this TL.

 

[Sid the Bandit]

bump

I agree. The Japanese pretty much took all the Pacific holdings as possible to look better. The only way they could be more active would be to have a larger navy, which they didn't have the industrial power to make that much (yet). Sides even if they did start building a larger Navy, the war would be nearing completion.