W/I Japan invaded the Philippines during the Spanish-American war?

[Wesley_Lewt]

What it says in the header.

Japan was interested in the Philippines. There were negotiations re Japan buying them from Spain, but the price Spain asked was too high.

What if Japan moved fast enough to make a serious attempt to seize them (attacking from Taiwan) once they got the news that Spain was at war with the United States over Cuba? Could they have gone for Guam to boot, or is that fanciful?

Edit: Of course they find themselves a causus belli and observe the diplomatic norms of the period.

 

[raharris1973]

What it says in the header.

Japan was interested in the Philippines. There were negotiations re Japan buying them from Spain, but the price Spain asked was too high.

What if Japan moved fast enough to make a serious attempt to seize them (attacking from Taiwan) once they got the news that Spain was at war with the United States over Cuba? Could they have gone for Guam to boot, or is that fanciful?

Guam or other parts of the Spanish East Indies/Micronesia should not really be any more out of reach than the Philippines to the IJN.

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

So, how does everyone react? Do the Americans find this helpful or are they enraged at the capture of territory they wanted? Europe saw the Spanish Empire as declining and doomed. Britain was very friendly to Japan at this point. How do the major European players react?

If they succeeded then they bought themselves an insurgency. But they dealt with those OTL. And this butterflies a lot later as well as going a significant way to salving the Japanese sense of humiliation following the European reaction to their first war with China.

 

[Undeadmuffin]

I guess it would depend if they let American ships coal at the Philippines and American merchants use it as a springboard to trade with China. Since it was the main goal of the American for the Philippines.
If Japan allow some form of free trade and coaling, I could see the American government being happy to have an ally taking care of the ''Pacific'' front of the war, allowing them to secure the Caribbean.

EDIT: I guess I should precise: it was the goal of those in favor of intervention to the Philippines, there was also just Imperialist who wanted to get a US flag planted everywhere possible and those against spreading the war to the archipelago

 

[SenatorChickpea]

What's the pretext, here? Japan used surprise attacks as a military tactic, not a diplomatic one. The Russo-Japanese war took years to kick off after multiple attempts by the Japanese to reach a negotiated settlement.

Why would they attack without a casus belli? Spain may have been a very weak power, but it was a very weak white power. If Japan launched an unprovoked invasion, it would inflame public opinion across Europe and indeed America- it would be seen as proof that Asians are naturally treacherous, leaping upon their prey when the white race is advantaged. Britain's Oceanic colonies would be absolutely enraged and demand punitive action- their nightmare scenario was Japan or China expanding across the region while Britain did nothing. Either the UK does intervene- and there goes any prospect of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, not to mention the lucrative commercial treaty- or it doesn't, and sets off a political firestorm within the empire.

That's not to say anything about the chance of a second Triple Intervention, where Germany, France, and Russia use the unprovoked attack as an opportunity for themselves.

I just don't see it happening.

 

[TRH]

I guess it would depend if they let American ships coal at the Philippines and American merchants use it as a springboard to trade with China. Since it was the main goal of the American for the Philippines.
If Japan allow some form of free trade and coaling, I could see the American government being happy to have an ally taking care of the ''Pacific'' front of the war, allowing them to secure the Caribbean.

I don't think the Americans would be so myopic as to not consider the next steps here. If Japan is willing to jump on the Spanish with no casus belli and seize key territories on the South China Sea, that raises a ton of questions about Japan's ultimate intentions towards China and its lucrative trade. Extending coaling rights to American ships is nice, but such privileges can be revoked at any time.

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

I guess it would depend if they let American ships coal at the Philippines and American merchants use it as a springboard to trade with China.

They are prepared to give the Americans more or less whatever they want in exchange for a treaty not to make a separate peace with Spain, A single treaty ending the Spanish-American and Spanish Japanese war and American recognition of the former Spanish East Indies as Japanese territory.

What's the pretext, here? Japan used surprise attacks as a military tactic, not a diplomatic one. The Russo-Japanese war took years to kick off after multiple attempts by the Japanese to reach a negotiated settlement.

They find some fine words.

I am not familiar enough with the diplomatic intricacies of the area and period to give remotely as good a causus belli as they could have. Negotiations on the Japanese purchase of the Philipines started in 1905, 3 years before the Spanish American war. Japan had ties to Filipino rebels but OTL were very restrained in their support. Lets say they are not. Perhaps Spain attacks a Japanses ship carrying arms to rebels. Perhaps Japan stages a false Flag to that effect, they were good at those.

Of course they find themselves a causus belli and observe the diplomatic norms of the period.

That's not to say anything about the chance of a second Triple Intervention

Japan has the US in its corner this time.

 

[raharris1973]

What's the pretext, here? Japan used surprise attacks as a military tactic, not a diplomatic one. The Russo-Japanese war took years to kick off after multiple attempts by the Japanese to reach a negotiated settlement.

Why would they attack without a casus belli? Spain may have been a very weak power, but it was a very weak white power. If Japan launched an unprovoked invasion, it would inflame public opinion across Europe and indeed America- it would be seen as proof that Asians are naturally treacherous, leaping upon their prey when the white race is advantaged. Britain's Oceanic colonies would be absolutely enraged and demand punitive action- their nightmare scenario was Japan or China expanding across the region while Britain did nothing. Either the UK does intervene- and there goes any prospect of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, not to mention the lucrative commercial treaty- or it doesn't, and sets off a political firestorm within the empire.

That's not to say anything about the chance of a second Triple Intervention, where Germany, France, and Russia use the unprovoked attack as an opportunity for themselves.

I just don't see it happening.

I don't think "white man's Voltron" is inevitable here. The Triple Intervention of white powers against Japan in 1895 was hardly based on whiteness alone, it was primarily based on the involved powers, Russia and Germany's own agendas for carving the Chinese pie, and Germany's maneuvers to try to win Russia's favor in Europe, and France being dragged along to stay competitive. Similar dynamics might play out with regard to the Philippines, if some other powers truly had some desires over the PI they were willing to assert, or were trying to gain favor with Spain, or saw a dispute between the USA and the Philippines they could exploit. But they may well not. Especially, if, to external observers it just looks like the Japanese are co-belligerents against Spain along with the Americans. Ultimately the Philippine campaign of the Span-Am war was pretty much pretext-free, but pretty much all great powers decided they didn't want to cross the USA. If Japan is acting in the PI, tying down Spanish naval and ground forces and the US appears OK with it, other powers might worry tangling with Japan could indirectly lead to tangling with the USA.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

They find some fine words.

That won't cut it.

I am not familiar enough with the diplomatic intricacies of the area and period to give remotely as good a causus belli as they could have. Negotiations on the Japanese purchase of the Philipines started in 1905, 3 years before the Spanish American war. Japan had ties to Filipino rebels but OTL were very restrained in their support. Lets say they are not.

Which takes us right back into 'non-white power backs rebels in European colony, pisses off other great powers.'

Perhaps Spain attacks a Japanses ship carrying arms to rebels. Perhaps Japan stages a false Flag to that effect, they were good at those.

What are you thinking of here? They didn't do that in 1895, or in 1905, or in 1914. It seems you're projecting the 1930s backwards to an entirely different period of history.

Of course they find themselves a causus belli and observe the diplomatic norms of the period.

Japan has the US in its corner this time.

No, the Japanese are poaching islands that many Americans want.

 

[TRH]

What are you thinking of here? They didn't do that in 1895, or in 1905, or in 1914. It seems you're projecting the 1930s backwards to an entirely different period of history.

Projecting Japan's 1930s globe-spanning ambitions back decades if not centuries is, like, half of the Japan-focused WI's around here.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I don't think "white man's Voltron" is inevitable here. The Triple Intervention of white powers against Japan in 1895 was hardly based on whiteness alone, it was primarily based on the involved powers, Russia and Germany's own agendas for carving the Chinese pie, and Germany's maneuvers to try to win Russia's favor in Europe, and France being dragged along to stay competitive.

Oh, I quite agree that the Triple Intervention wasn't about whiteness. My point is that this is an age where public opinion mattered, even in autocracies such as Tsarist Russia- and this Japanese attack on a European colony is going to occur as anti-Asian sentiment is arguably coming to a peak in Europe and America. If the three powers you name do want to take action, they'll have no trouble justifying it as a response to Japanese provocation.

Similar dynamics might play out with regard to the Philippines, if some other powers truly had some desires over the PI they were willing to assert, or were trying to gain favor with Spain, or saw a dispute between the USA and the Philippines they could exploit. But they may well not. Especially, if, to external observers it just looks like the Japanese are co-belligerents against Spain along with the Americans. Ultimately the Philippine campaign of the Span-Am war was pretty much pretext-free, but pretty much all great powers decided they didn't want to cross the USA. If Japan is acting in the PI, tying down Spanish naval and ground forces and the US appears OK with it, other powers might worry tangling with Japan could indirectly lead to tangling with the USA.

This still doesn't deal with the fact that it's going to cause serious disruptions within the British Empire. Both Britain and her settler colonies were fine with American expansion in the Pacific since most people saw it as the expansion of the Anglo-Saxon race. But it will absolutely cause anger and panic in Canada and Australia, and I can tell you from long years in the Australian and British archives reading Japanese diplomatic cables, this is a period where the Japanese are spending a great deal of effort trying to get those colonies (not just Britain) on board with their commercial treaties. The Japanese wanted to be treated as a legitimate power, and having Britain's Pacific colonies engage in trade was important to their strategy in this period.

I don't see why they'd sacrifice that for the Philippines- again, they'd piss off their most important partner in the region while undermining their diplomatic position with every other power too.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Projecting Japan's 1930s globe-spanning ambitions back decades if not centuries is, like, half of the Japan-focused WI's around here.

In fairness, we get a fair few 'Why didn't the Kaiserreich simply destroy France in 1870/1815/1890/1905?' threads too.

 

[Hearkener]

In fairness, we get a fair few 'Why didn't the Kaiserreich simply destroy France in 1870/1815/1890/1905?' threads too.

And in 1914, a Kaiserboo in Germany got high on his own supply and decided he'd actually try to do that and look how that turned out, suddenly our empire is gone, everyone hates us and we will never be a global superpower again.

For once I want to read a timeline that shows why you generally can't do that in actual realpolitik.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

For once I want to read a timeline that shows why you generally can't do that in actual realpolitik.

Which is why I want to be clear that I don't have some sort of moral objection to the thread, it could be an interesting scenario, but the actual outcome is almost certainly 'this ends really badly for Japan in the long-term.'

It could have fascinating consequences if there's an earlier betrayal of pan-Asianism, for example- in 1905 the Japanese victory was celebrated by subaltern peoples around the world because the Japanese were seen as something different from the other powers. Here, they'll be just another empire which is going to seriously affect the political development of Sun Yat-Sen for example.

But too often these threads ask 'why didn't such and such power seize their opportunity?' and don't want to hear that that's because there was no opportunity. Life doesn't work like a Paradox game.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why 'Fight and Be Right' is one of the greatest timelines this site has ever seen, because the entire timeline is about Britain achieving all the dreams of Empire in the late nineteenth century but the framing device is about how that short-term triumph leads to utter catastrophe.

 

[Hearkener]

It could have fascinating consequences if there's an earlier betrayal of pan-Asianism, for example- in 1905 the Japanese victory was celebrated by subaltern peoples around the world because the Japanese were seen as something different from the other powers. Here, they'll be just another empire which is going to seriously affect the political development of Sun Yat-Sen for example.

I mean whether you see this as a betrayal hinges a lot on how the actual events are realized. If the Japanese are smart about it and create a Phillipine state which they treat as friends and allies rather than as conquered subjects, that might actually be a huge boon to their interests and the cause of Pan-Asianism. They could intervene in the Chinese Revolution on the side of the ROC, for instance, and ensure the survival of that regime.

Of course, this requires of them a fair amount of foresight that probably outpaces the vibes-based, head-empty imperialism that was really en vogue in the late 19th century.

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

In fairness, we get a fair few 'Why didn't the Kaiserreich simply destroy France in 1870/1815/1890/1905?' threads too.

And in 1914, a Kaiserboo in Germany got high on his own supply and decided he'd actually try to do that and look how that turned out, suddenly our empire is gone, everyone hates us and we will never be a global superpower again.

For once I want to read a timeline that shows why you generally can't do that in actual realpolitik.

Moltke argued very strongly that Germany should destroy France in 1870. He was over-ruled by Bismark.

I don't think it is helpful to use childish slurs like 'Kaiserboo' do describe anyone who asks 'what if one of the most competent men of the era who was deeply involved in the events in question got his way'. Nor to imagine that they see geopolitics like a videogame.

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

This still doesn't deal with the fact that it's going to cause serious disruptions within the British Empire. Both Britain and her settler colonies were fine with American expansion in the Pacific since most people saw it as the expansion of the Anglo-Saxon race. But it will absolutely cause anger and panic in Canada and Australia,

Is it?

In 1898 Japan was a de facto British vassal. Britain has far more leverage over Japan than the US. Why would Britain prefer an American Philippines (which OTL helped the US squeeze Britain out of China) to a Japanese Philippines (when at this point Japan is very helpful in keeping Britain in the China Game - which is why Britain gave them so much military assistance)?

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why 'Fight and Be Right' is one of the greatest timelines this site has ever seen, because the entire timeline is about Britain achieving all the dreams of Empire in the late nineteenth century but the framing device is about how that short-term triumph leads to utter catastrophe.

I will look that up. Sounds interesting.

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

No, the Japanese are poaching islands that many Americans want.

How many wanted the Spanish East Indies and how influential were they? From what I gather there was a split on this.

 

[Hearkener]

Moltke argued very strongly that Germany should destroy France in 1870. He was over-ruled by Bismark.

The very idea suggests neatly why the Prussian military was as stupid as it was evil.

I don't think it is helpful to use childish slurs like 'Kaiserboo' do describe anyone who asks 'what if one of the most competent men of the era who was deeply involved in the events in question got his way'. Nor to imagine that they see geopolitics like a videogame.

Please read my comment again, because that's not remotely what I wrote. I called Wilhelm II a Kaiserboo, because just like those people, he was convinced of his own greatness and the invincibility of his army, and pretty much drove his empire over a cliff in pursuit of extremely short-sighted geopolitical goals.

Platz an der Sonne foreign policy was a major factor in the outbreak of WW1, and the alienation of Russia and Great Britain from Germany. It was an ideology driven by German ultra-nationalism and militarism, largely following the ambitions of the Prussian military establishment, represented by figures like Moltke. Bismarck really hated this doctrine and repeatedly warned of its long-term consequences after he was fired. And because Bismarck was essentially a political genius, he turned out to be exactly right.

So yes, Moltke the Elder and Willy II were idiots.