Question:was it possible for japan not to attack china

According to my data, the nominal regent of japan-puppet manchuko was the last Qing Emperor
This put them on a very strong position regarding legitimation, and also legitimed a certain degree of collaboration.
Heck, the Japanese could even pretend of being the loyal supporters of the one legit chinese emperor, who had been de-thronized by wicked rebels founding the unholy republic.
And his regime was certaily not anti-japanese.
Even if the League of Nation did not accept its existance, China by 1935 had officially declared non-interference on it (forced by japan)
 

Typo

Banned
Nobody in the world gave a crap about the Qing Emperor in 1933, he mostly there to lend legitimacy to the Japanese occupation to the Japanese themselves. No one else was fooled. not even the League of Nations.

Even if the League of Nation did not accept its existance, China by 1935 had officially declared non-interference on it (forced by japan)
Again, things changed after Xi'an.
 
Again, things changed after Xi'an.
I knew that the X'ian agreement was forced on Chiang pratically on gunpoint (Chiang was put in jail by Zhang), and that the main effect was that Chiang swapped from persecuting Communists to get revenge on Zhang (thus also breaking the accord, and increasing civil war chaos), ending with Zhang trial for treason.
Do you have different data?

Regarding the Qing dynasty, even if it was clearly a japanese puppet, it got some legitimy from a 300-years old tradition.
The chinese republic was only 20 years old, and carved by foreign powers, warlords and civil strife
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
Is english your first language, out of curiousity?

I knew that the X'ian agreement was forced on Chiang pratically on gunpoint (Chiang was put in jail by Zhang), and that the main effect was that Chiang swapped from persecuting Communists to get revenge on Zhang (thus also breaking the accord, and increasing civil war chaos), ending with Zhang trial for treason. Do you have different data?
There wasn't really "increasing civil war chaos" afterwards, I don't think any significant fighting between Zhang and Chiang's forces occured afterwards. Zhang was arrested right after the incident, his armies disbanded, that was it.

But more importantly, the whole incident indicated to Chiang that putting off confronting the Japanese was a bad idea. Which led to the decision to escalate the Marco Polo bridge incident rather than just backing down again.

Regarding the Qing dynasty, even if it was clearly a japanese puppet, it got some legitimy from a 300-years old tradition. The chinese republic was only 20 years old, and carved by foreign powers, warlords and civil strife
That doesn't mean the Qing was legitimate in anyone's eyes in the 1930s.
 
In no way was it a guaranteed eventuality that China would attack Japan to get Manchuria back.

Whilst I would agree with the previous poster that the condition of China's economy and industrial base is slightly better than what's been alluded to they (the Chinese) were still in no position to field an army of the same skill and quality of arms as the IJA.

I think that it should also be pointed out that Japan didn't need to invade China for the foodstuffs - there was regular and robust trade between Japan and China in the pre-war years of '34 - '36. If no conflict occurs in '37 why should/would this change?

So let's follow the TL as suggested by the original poster:

Japan does not attack China in '37. Japan isn't stupid - an attack on the USA or the USSR whilst being dreamed of is not going to become a reality any time soon. However, aiming at the old colonial powers would be fair game and I would suggest wouldn't necessarily guarantee war with the USA.

China was a major tungsten trading partner of the USA both pre and during the war. The war between China and Japan upset this (especially considering that even during the war China kept trading with Japan when the Japanese outbid the US!!!) and helped lead to sanctions which led to war.

So, no war with China. A fully intact IJA and the IJN to transport it and screen it. Southeast Asia and the South Pacific doesn't stand a chance - I think that there is a very real possibility of Indochina, Singapore, Malaysia, Dutch East Indies all falling to Japan before the USA awakens to the very real threat to Guam, Phillipines and it's other interest in the Pacific.

My questions are as such:

1) Could we see a bold and brash landing in Northern Australia before the USA forcefully reacts?
2) Would a delayed or even non-occuring Pearl Harbour lead to a change in US Naval tactics - aka the belief in the Aircraft carrier (or had that already happened?)
3) Does an alliance with Germany still bring Japan and the USA/USSR into conflict with it? Does Japan still completely ally with Germany considering Germany was still arming and training the Nationalist up until the '37 war?
4) With no war in China, thus no guaranteed sanctions by the USA thus no specific 'casus belli' for Pearl Harbour when exactly does the USA and Japan come in conflict?
5) What does the Sino-Japan picture look like at the end of the conflict?

Some of my resources:
http://www.mnstarfire.com/ww2/history/campaigns/China.html

http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/papers/debinma.pdf

Thanks for reading - Blitz
 

Typo

Banned
Japan does not attack China in '37. Japan isn't stupid - an attack on the USA or the USSR whilst being dreamed of is not going to become a reality any time soon. However, aiming at the old colonial powers would be fair game and I would suggest wouldn't necessarily guarantee war with the USA.
Actually Japan is perfectly willing to fight the USSR, but not Britain.
 
Actually Japan is perfectly willing to fight the USSR, but not Britain.

Hirohito was against war with the Soviet Union.

But I do agree with you that there was a willingness in '37 for war - that led to some pretty nasty border conflicts in '38-'39 which saw Japan suffer around 50k casualties. However, those clashes were a result of the war in China.

Japan was a signatory of the Anti-Commitern Pact but if I remember right so was Nationalist China - so wierdly, if conflict did break out between the Soviets and Japan could we see Nationalist China fighting with them (as long as the Nationalist were still being supported by Germany)?

I wonder if things would still go as bad for Japan in this case?
 

Typo

Banned
Hirohito was against war with the Soviet Union.
Hirohito's opinions was marginalized after the 2-26 incident, he wasn't much for a war in China either.

But I do agree with you that there was a willingness in '37 for war - that led to some pretty nasty border conflicts in '38-'39 which saw Japan suffer around 50k casualties. However, those clashes were a result of the war in China.
Yes, and I'm inclined to think that without a war in China, the Japanese military might not have backed down from the Soviets.
Anti-Commitern Pact
It was only signed by Japan's puppet government in Nanjing
 
In no way was it a guaranteed eventuality that China would attack Japan to get Manchuria back.

Whilst I would agree with the previous poster that the condition of China's economy and industrial base is slightly better than what's been alluded to they (the Chinese) were still in no position to field an army of the same skill and quality of arms as the IJA.

If you read my posts, I never claimed China was about to field an equivalent army to Japan. It doesn't have to. It only needed to be strong enough to deter further aggression. You have to understand the balance of power at the time. Japan expected China to surrender in three months. It had few artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft guns and aircraft. No ability to manufacture basic artillery. The German submarines had not been delivered yet. China can't even make enough shoes for its soldiers. The invasion was believed to be a cake walk. 1937 was the latest the IJA was willing to wait before China would be strong enough that an invasion wont be a cake walk anymore, even by the over optimistic projections of the IJA.

The Japanese, like the Chinese, think in long time frames. A Japanese expansion onto the continental landmass claimed by China will inevitably led to future conflicts. It may not come for decades, but the risk is extremely high considering the megatrends of Chinese modernization and growth of Soviet power. If Japan did not neutralize China and the Soviet Union, they cannot guarantee holding Manchuria for the reminder of the century.
 
Top