Could there be a way for Japan and Britain to mantain their alliance into the 1930s? what would be the consequences ofthis partnership beign mantained?
Maybe even a small squadron of ships to assist the Royal Navy as well. When you have Japanese soldiers dying for the Entente on the other side of the world it would certainly be a lot harder for Britain to divorce themselves from the alliance after the war, even with American pressure.
It was, but it was mostly an issue of short-sightedness on the part of both parties to the treaty, and the IJN breaking ranks over the Washington Naval Treaty, at the same time as Wilson's behavior at the Paris Peace conference was perceived as a slap in the face back home.Churchill wrote in his History of the Second World War, that there was an opinion in some circles of the British Establishment in the 30s (Can't recall if it was Conservative Party specific) that Britain should have maintained the Alliance.
It depends on the wider geopolitical context. If the US is seen as something of a threat, the Japanese do become essential to securing british possessions in the Pacific. Especially after 1914-1915, when they're physically separating the two thanks to occupied Micronesia and Polynesia, with Guam and the Philippines being the only gap.The problem is no matter how much the Japanese contributed the British Empire maintaining good relations with the US is far important due to sharing physical borders, same can be said for China concerning Burma.
By itself it isn't. What it will do is allow civillian government to continue playing the IJA and IJN off against each other.I'm very interested in whether the maintaining of the Alliance is enough to preserve Japanese Democracy though - otherwise the Alliance will come to a natural end by way of Japanese Aggression.
The problems come in the 1930's when the Japanese become more aggressive in China. With the Treaty being a defensive one the British don't have to do anything (they didn't anyway) when the Japanese invade China. The Americans may become unfriendly but they wouldn't actually do anything either except say that they were annoyed.
Relations between the US and Britain were cool in the 1930's anyway and didn't become friendly until Hitler became a real danger and after Churchill became PM.
Japan would probably not deal with Hitler if they had a British Alliance but I would expect a natural cooling as the 30's progressed.
When WW2 breaks out I would expect Japan to stick to the letter of the Treaty and say that since Britain declared war on Germany and not the other way around Japan was under no obligation to join. When France falls I can see the Japanese occupy French Indo China as a 'favour' to their British Allies even if no one else sees it that way.
After that I think things are too unpredictable.
I tend to agree. Had it been maintained, IMO, there would have been no Pacific War, nor any alliance with Germany. Possibly a negotiated settlement with China.euromellows said:there was an opinion in some circles of the British Establishment in the 30s ...that Britain should have maintained the Alliance.
Not really in Japan's hands, AIUI: it was under pressure from the U.S., or from Oz & Canada (depending on which story you believeeuromellows said:Perhaps if Japan sent a division or two to the western front ...Maybe even a small squadron of ships to assist the Royal Navy as well.
It couldn't hurt, since it gave IJN more clout. It also meant more exposure to British & American officers, & to the issues of blue water fighting. This could only help show Japan's senior military leaders (who were a rank collection of dimwits, IMOeuromellows said:whether the maintaining of the Alliance is enough to preserve Japanese Democracy though
Actually, when Italy joins in, Japan is obliged...& that creates all sorts of potential headaches. Like, does Japan still keep the peace with the Sovs? Does it make Britain a co-belligerent against ROC?Devolved said:With the Treaty being a defensive one the British don't have to do anything ...
When WW2 breaks out I would expect Japan to stick to the letter of the Treaty and say that since Britain declared war on Germany and not the other way around Japan was under no obligation to join.
Possible, but less likely IMO, given the above conditions. In fact, with Japan offering (some) aid, it's conceivable France's will to fight is a trifle stiffer...Devolved said:When France falls I can see the Japanese occupy French Indo China as a 'favour' to their British Allies even if no one else sees it that way.
I agree with the rest of what you say above that. This, however, makes me wonder: do you get Britain being less inclined to give away tech like radar when war breaks out? Do you, in fact, get a U.S. less inclined to provide Lend-Lease? Or old DDs?NothingNow said:That said, maintaining the Alliance would stress US/UK relations enough that keeping it would be important, especially if British investors get bullish on East Asia, Australia and Continental Europe, so there isn't that much of a vested intrest in being very close to the Americans.
Who says anything like WW2 would even happen. We're talking about a pre-Versailles POD after all.I agree with the rest of what you say above that. This, however, makes me wonder: do you get Britain being less inclined to give away tech like radar when war breaks out? Do you, in fact, get a U.S. less inclined to provide Lend-Lease? Or old DDs?(I can't imagine actively hostile, let alone belligerent, but more strongly isolationist? Yes--& that's not good for Britain.
)
Fair point. I do think the butterflies won't start to be felt til after the war, at best. How much does this change Germany's politics before 1914? Or Japan's desire for German territory? Or dominance over China & Korea? Not much IMO.NothingNow said:Who says anything like WW2 would even happen. We're talking about a pre-Versailles POD after all.
I'm not seeing the connection, here. The U-boat threat in the Indian Ocean was always pretty small, & raiders were pursued by cruisers anyhow, while IJN didn't do commerce raiding on an appreciable (or noticeableNothingNow said:Besides, with the IJN capable of securing pretty much everything east of Singapore, the RN would have the Destroyers and Sloops needed for adequate ASW coverage of any convoys.
Could there be a way for Japan and Britain to mantain their alliance into the 1930s? what would be the consequences ofthis partnership beign mantained?