Japanese aggression opposed in Manchuria

Is there any chance that the US and or Britain might have fought Japan over the invasion of Manchuria?

Would this have reduced the effects of the depression?
 
In short... no.


To elaborate, the US was too isolationist to get involved anywhere without something substantial, at least at that time. Not to mention that the American public at large was highly unlikely to get to worked up over two groups of non white peoples butchering each other on the other side of the world.

As for the British, since the Japanese weren't getting too threatening to their posessions in the area I highly doubt that they were going to go poking their noses around in that area. Although the Brits are the more likely to get involved than the US, there is very little chance at that.

Although US or British involvement in Manchuria may have reduced the effects of the Depression somewhat, it would probably not have done enough to eliminate it or simply make it a recession.
 
In short... no.


To elaborate, the US was too isolationist to get involved anywhere without something substantial, at least at that time. Not to mention that the American public at large was highly unlikely to get to worked up over two groups of non white peoples butchering each other on the other side of the world.

As for the British, since the Japanese weren't getting too threatening to their posessions in the area I highly doubt that they were going to go poking their noses around in that area. Although the Brits are the more likely to get involved than the US, there is very little chance at that.

Although US or British involvement in Manchuria may have reduced the effects of the Depression somewhat, it would probably not have done enough to eliminate it or simply make it a recession.
Note the Panay incident. The Japanese attacked a clearly marked US vessel (a perfectly good casus belli) and the US basically backed down and accepted visibly insincere apologies. So, no, the US wouldn't go to war over Manchuria.
 
Does it corrupt the thread too much if I ask what would have been the consequences if Britain and France had managed to completely ignore Japan's occupation of Manchuria? Might Japan's democracy have survived? In 1930, Japan had been willing to sign the London Naval Treaty but they gave notice of withdrawl from the naval treaties in 1934. Is it reasonable to say that the Western reaction to Manchuria caused Japan's militarization?
 
Why would Japan's democracy survive?

Anyway, what I think people are ignoring is that fundamentally, Manchukuo wasn't too different from British rule in Iraq, or French rule in Syria. So what's the ground to oppose it?
 
Why would Japan's democracy survive?

Well technically elections continued OTL. The problem was that the government depended on military support rather than the Diet. The other issue is that after leaving the League of Nations, Japan naturally allied with Italy and Germany, despite German support for China and possible claims on Pacific islands.

One possibility is that the British could do even better than nothing in 1931-3 by having someone say that they did not want to oppose the Japanese for fear of setting off an arms race. The effect would be to validate the London Naval Treaty in the eyes of the Japanese Army (who would anyway be happy to restrict the Navy budget). Keeping the Army and Navy apart would give more room for politicians.
 
Top