Japan takes German New Guinea in WWI

A very small POD, but a very important one. Say that the Japanese manage somehow to beat the Australians to German New Guinea and occupy it. It is added to the Southern Pacific Mandate.

Now we come to WWII. Does it change the course of the war at all?
 
A very small POD, but a very important one. Say that the Japanese manage somehow to beat the Australians to German New Guinea and occupy it. It is added to the Southern Pacific Mandate.

Now we come to WWII. Does it change the course of the war at all?
Simply put? Kiss Australia and New Zealand goodbye...
 
A very small POD, but a very important one. Say that the Japanese manage somehow to beat the Australians to German New Guinea and occupy it. It is added to the Southern Pacific Mandate.

Now we come to WWII. Does it change the course of the war at all?

Simply put - how will the Japanese do that? They have to steam the farthest to get there. Heck the Australians just have to cross the border and walk in.
 
Simply put - how will the Japanese do that? They have to steam the farthest to get there. Heck the Australians just have to cross the border and walk in.

The POD is ASB, I know. That, or the German garrison defeated the intial Australian attack. Whatever the reason, the point is what would have happened if somehow German New Guinea was assigned to Japan.
 
The POD is ASB, I know. That, or the German garrison defeated the intial Australian attack. Whatever the reason, the point is what would have happened if somehow German New Guinea was assigned to Japan.

German New Guinea would be rewarded to the Australians, who while unlikely being temporarily thrownback, were joined by New Zealand and Fijian forces who successfully seized the territory.

The Australians will raise hell at Versailles. Besides the Japanese are stuck trying to siege Tsingtao.

In the end the Japanese don't get it.
 
OK, I'll bite. If Japan was able to seize northern New Guinea and a Versailles mandate affirmed this, next comes the Washington Treaty. This would radically change the dynamic of these negotiations and you can bet the Japanese mandate in New Guinea would be a negotiating chip right off the bat. Britain, on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, would be looking for ways to neutralize this mandate or reverse it. Rather than the 5:5:3 ratio of capital ships Japan was forced to live with in OTL, they might "trade land for ships" as it were and acheive a ratio more favorable to their interests. This in turn might affect the US willingness to de-fortify its Pacific mandates. Given the distances between Japan and New Guinea, my guess is that Japan would probably cede their northen New Guinea mandate to Australia in exchange for a different Washington Treaty than gave them an equal or near equal ratio (5:5:4) of ships or allows them to keep some of the BCs or BBs under construction. Extending the butterfly net farther, maybe they don't convert Kaga and Akagi to carriers. Maybe in turn the US negotiates to keep two Lexingtons as BCs. All of this could result in a very different Pacific war when and if it occurs.
 
OK, I'll bite. If Japan was able to seize northern New Guinea and a Versailles mandate affirmed this, next comes the Washington Treaty. This would radically change the dynamic of these negotiations and you can bet the Japanese mandate in New Guinea would be a negotiating chip right off the bat. Britain, on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, would be looking for ways to neutralize this mandate or reverse it. Rather than the 5:5:3 ratio of capital ships Japan was forced to live with in OTL, they might "trade land for ships" as it were and acheive a ratio more favorable to their interests. This in turn might affect the US willingness to de-fortify its Pacific mandates. Given the distances between Japan and New Guinea, my guess is that Japan would probably cede their northen New Guinea mandate to Australia in exchange for a different Washington Treaty than gave the equal or near equal ratio (5:5:4) of ships or allows them to keep some of the BCs or BBs under construction. Extending the butterfly net farther, maybe they don't convert Kaga and Akagi to carriers. Maybe in turn the US negotiates to keep two Lexingtons as BCs. All of this could result in a very different Pacific war when and if it occurs.
If the US gets to keep two Lexington-class battlecruisers, than you can be damn sure that they'd be running around with their carrier sisters.
 
If the US gets to keep two Lexington-class battlecruisers, than you can be damn sure that they'd be running around with their carrier sisters.

Not necessarily. The other Lexingtons might still be cancelled under this ATL Washington Treaty, as well as any Kagas or Akagis the Japanese were not allowed to complete as BBs or BCs. For both the USN and IJN, the availability of two large, fast, carriers built on BC hulls gave them the opportunity to develop and perfect their naval aviation doctrines. If their carrier fleets were developed incrementally via new construction evolving from ships like Langley and Hosho, nether nation would enter WW2 with naval aviation capabilities remotely equivalent to what they had in OTL.
 
Not necessarily. The other Lexingtons might still be cancelled under this ATL Washington Treaty, as well as any Kagas or Akagis the Japanese were not allowed to complete as BBs or BCs. For both the USN and IJN, the availability of two large, fast, carriers built on BC hulls gave them the opportunity to develop and perfect their naval aviation doctrines. If their carrier fleets were developed incrementally via new construction evolving from ships like Langley and Hosho, nether nation would enter WW2 with naval aviation capabilities remotely equivalent to what they had in OTL.
I'm operating under the assumption that the carrier-conversion loophole is left in the treaty...
 
OK, I'll bite. If Japan was able to seize northern New Guinea and a Versailles mandate affirmed this, next comes the Washington Treaty. This would radically change the dynamic of these negotiations and you can bet the Japanese mandate in New Guinea would be a negotiating chip right off the bat. Britain, on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, would be looking for ways to neutralize this mandate or reverse it. Rather than the 5:5:3 ratio of capital ships Japan was forced to live with in OTL, they might "trade land for ships" as it were and acheive a ratio more favorable to their interests. This in turn might affect the US willingness to de-fortify its Pacific mandates. Given the distances between Japan and New Guinea, my guess is that Japan would probably cede their northen New Guinea mandate to Australia in exchange for a different Washington Treaty than gave them an equal or near equal ratio (5:5:4) of ships or allows them to keep some of the BCs or BBs under construction. Extending the butterfly net farther, maybe they don't convert Kaga and Akagi to carriers. Maybe in turn the US negotiates to keep two Lexingtons as BCs. All of this could result in a very different Pacific war when and if it occurs.

The problem here is that New Guinea wouldn't be covered by this portion of the WNT, but by the accompanying Five or Six Power Treaty, which governed the fortification of Pacific and Far East territories. One could see that the Japanese retain New Guinea, but have not treaty rights to build or garrison any bases there.

It would be tempting to consider that the HMAS Australia may be kept in service longer, but that seems unlikely.
 
Top