Weimar Lasts: Pacific War?

Japan already had considerable concessions along the pattern of the Unequal Treaties. From the Chinese PoV Formosa, Manchuria, & Korea were giant concessions.

A larger piece of the Chinese pie, my apologies. Of course, Britain and France (and possibly Italy) would have to be allowed to join in the fun, which would mean Japan coulden't be hegemon, per say. But if guaranteed pre-emenance and recognition of the conquests she'd made in the North, as well as a plurality of access to the raw materials and food supplies she was hoping to obtain in order to feed her ever-expanding population and industrial capacity there are sufficient common interests in keeping Asia in colonial subjugation mode that compromise is possible, especially if you could tie China to the Soviets somehow in the public imagination.
 
Alternatively, could Japan reach reproachment with Europe for a piece of the Chinese pie if they end up dawdling long enough? After all, once he's subdued the Warlords Chaing's next target are those exact European concessions, in which she's supported and aligned by the other powers seeking revisions to the post-Versallies order (The USSR and Germany). Britain and France's colonial security is just as threatened if not more so by a China waving the anti-European banner as Japan, which is a fact Tokyo could leverage to restart warm relations with Britain, to back when they were allies

Japan's stake went up as it filled the Russian vacuum, as the Great War raged they courted Russia as the new ally to offset American strength as they saw it growing and becoming a threat to Japan, with greater Anglo-American cooperation Japan already felt left out or sacrificial, cemented by WNT, and Japan really turned its outlook once it took Tsingtao from Germany. This left Germany (and A-H) without any concessions or footholds, thus Weimar aligning with KMT versus Japan is logical. Just as the revanche USSR aligns with KMT to offset the "Capitalist" powers. The USA has concessions but no territory in China, her delusion is she is above the Unequal treatment and fairly pursues an Open Door. Thus the USA is not wholly in the British/French camp but clearly not in Japan's. China was a loser at Versailles like Russia and obviously Germany. Japan got snubbed later. Italy did not get what it wanted. The pattern is set. China was a significant place to earn profits, most of all for Japan, it could be for a Germany acting outside the old set-up and she has nothing to lose disrupting things. Long-term Weimar was more likely to run up against the British and French who had the most to lose. A stronger Britain should pursue suppressing the KMT, containing China and reducing Germany's aid to China since that is easier than stopping the USSR.

I think Weimar could be bought, Japan would be less aggressive with Britain exerting more power in Asia and the USA will not exactly back Britain but will support keeping Japan in line. That leaves the USSR, as things go on the Europeans likely do see anti-communism as more vital than retaining Versailles, Weimar will get let back in the camp and Japan too could retain more for less as the anti-communist bulwark to the East. China remains the loser here. I see how her best bet was Weimar, not strong enough to kick China down and capable of modernizing her, the only European power willing to benefit China aside from the USSR but they could put designs on China and are a very dangerous ally. For me the question becomes how does Britain turn Weimar back to exploiting China in ways that keep China down rather than make her stronger? And with no genuine threat from Weimar how does Britain actually shift focus to Asia and wrestle with Japan. For me the USA is only a danger if provoked, so long as Japan does nothing overt she simply gets pissed on but has nothing more to fear.
 
... And with no genuine threat from Weimar how does Britain actually shift focus to Asia and wrestle with Japan. ...

As I remember Britain did not consider Germany any kind of threat until circa 1937/38. It's 'threat' focus was in Asia/Pacifica. Post 1919 Japan moved away from being a Brit client state to competitor in the east. Note the lack of Brit support for French efforts to enforce reparations pmts & the Ruhr occupation 1923/24. Or very low priority to military intelligence on Germany vs high priority to Japan or the USSR.
 
Last edited:
As I remember Beitain did not consider Germany any kind of threat until circa 1937/38. It's 'threat' focus was in Asia/Pacifica. Post 1919 Japan moved away from being a Brit client state to competitor in the east. Note the lack of Brit support for French efforts to enforce reparations pmts & the Ruhr occupation 1923/24. Or very low priority to military intelligence on Germany vs high priority to Japan or the USSR.

Indeed, but in OTL Churchill was one of the main obstacles to the Admiralty (i.e. Beatty) calling for preparation for a future war with Japan (about 1931). It is not a high hurdle but I feel Britain never appreciated the Japanese rise or gave it the consideration it called for until too late. But here without Europe sinking towards war Britain should have the window to get serious about China. So the UK needs to play faster catch up in Asia, does that further appeasement with a less threatening Weimar who is more rationale in its demands? And its demands will be rearmament first of all, Danzig next.
 
Indeed, but in OTL Churchill was one of the main obstacles to the Admiralty (i.e. Beatty) calling for preparation for a future war with Japan (about 1931). It is not a high hurdle but I feel Britain never appreciated the Japanese rise or gave it the consideration it called for until too late.

Britain seems to have been giving the Japanese more consideration than anyone else, however adequate on inadequate it was.

... does that further appeasement with a less threatening Weimar who is more rationale in its demands? And its demands will be rearmament first of all, Danzig next.

An alternate government to the nazis? If one goes by the track record of the previous governments to 1933 there were not much in the way of 'demands'. Just some political and economic machinations to reduce reparations and cheat on military restrictions. The Brits in general were sympathetic to the German positions in those years, tho residual anti Germans prevented any substantial offers that would give any German leaders any significant success.

That latter is one of the many tragedies of the post WWI world. It was possible to help strengthen the German governments & centrist leaders of the Weimar era, but neither the Brits of French offered anything useful. French bitterness explains the inability to actually work with the German governments, but the Brits seem simply rudderless. They were to weak in support of the French position 1923/24 & did little to reconcile with the Germans.
 
No Weimar does not mean no war in Europe. It’s still possible that a stable democratic Germany seeks to address the diktat of Versailles. This likley does not lead to a war as one would assume would be far less likely to take risks like reoccupying the Rhineland, The Anschluss, etc. it’s also possible that they are too diplomatic, reasonable, and willing to compromise and talk so their is no fear factor which does not motivate anyone to address anything as they think Germany won’t go to war over this leaving them no option but war. No Hitler also means any attempt by the SU to add areas of Finland/Romania and the Baltic states would perhaps bring western Europe together to oppose the Soviet expansion and the spread of communism with a Weimar Germany aligned with France, the UK and the little Entente. No Hitler can also mean no German help for Franco and the Nationalists.

Is there still a Spanish Civil War? I'm not sure you get a Popular Front victory in this timeline in the elections, or even a Popular Front!
 
Is there still a Spanish Civil War? I'm not sure you get a Popular Front victory in this timeline in the elections, or even a Popular Front!

Don't see why not. Racist or conservative coups, revolts and movements had occurred in other nations, & many long before the nazi success. Without the existence of a nazi led Germany the character of the Spanish war will be different, but Italy will still be present to midwife the early days of the revolt.
 
Don't see why not. Racist or conservative coups, revolts and movements had occurred in other nations, & many long before the nazi success. Without the existence of a nazi led Germany the character of the Spanish war will be different, but Italy will still be present to midwife the early days of the revolt.

How does the left win the election in 1936 without the popular front?
 
I don't understand the question, sorry hit my head a few to many times :confused:

The Spanish Civil War came about because the Popular Front won the 1936 election, and the Nationalists were able to pull off their coup. Why do both of these things happen in the ATL? There's no reason for the communists and socialists to unite in the general election in the absence of a Popular Front pushed by Stalin.
 
I don't see why the Popular Front would not still be formed. Facism and other anti leftist political groups had long been active in Europe, the nazi government in Germany was a relative latecomer in this. Italy and Hungary had Facist style governments since the early 1920s. The continuation of non nazi government in Germany does not waive away coalition efforts by leftist parties.
 
Top