What Happens to the Japanese In China In a No-WWII Scenario?

A question for the neglected side of the Greatest War...

So, for the sake of discussion lets assume the followig scenario:

The Great Depression comes mostly as per OTL, but instead of the Nazis, Germany winds up under a DNVP-type right-wing dictatorship. There are a couple of indecisive wars with the Soviets, but no real European War-and thus, no occupation of Indochina, and much less Japano-American friction.

Thus, the American government, not seeing much use in busying itself in the far corners of the globe when there's a perfectly good crisis back home, mainly leaves the Japanese alone (though the fortifications on the Phillipenes are improved). There isn't an embargo on oil, and the Japanese don't see a reason to go about a war with all of those scary Westerners with big navies and friends. Maybe throw in a discovery of the Manchurian oilfields and BAM! the focus is on China, which they believe as in OTL that victory is in sight.

So, with a Militarist government going on an all-out tear to conquer/puppetize China, how do their campaigns go? Do they succeed in taking over China? Or do they eventually fail?

My own opinions in a moment.
 
I believe that the Japanese were doomed in China.

They were facing the worst enemy imaginable, plauged by all the problems of Napoleon's and Hitler's Russia campaigns. The enemy they faced was massive, poorly armed, and indistinguished from civilians. A combination of real atrocities and propoganda had thoroughly destroyed any sympathy the Chinese had for them, and the puppet states were well-controlled-and obvious. Actual victories were cheap, so the Miliarists could probably stay in power for quite some time. They could also, probably, drive the Nationalists into a corner, almost destroying them or maybe even wiping them out.

But what then? Victory is just around the corner, but it never actually arrives. The Japanese are inevitably going to chase warlords and the Communists into the mountains, where they'll be facing Soviet-backed partisans. And the puppet states, well they aren't going to do so well.

End of rant.
 
Japan is not going to win. It's plausible to have Japan withdraw to Manchuria and maintain whatever territories it already has under its banner without trying to upset its suppliers of petroleum. China would probably be a mess.
 

Cook

Banned
Thus, the American government, not seeing much use in busying itself in the far corners of the globe when there's a perfectly good crisis back home, mainly leaves the Japanese alone (though the fortifications on the Phillipenes are improved). There isn't an embargo on oil, and the Japanese don't see a reason to go about a war with all of those scary Westerners with big navies and friends.

Why would the U.S. not introduce the various embargoes on Japan?
These were prompted by Japans actions in China and the first of them were introduced prior to the European War taking place.

If anything, I’d expect that a United States that wasn’t distracted by events in Europe, and not needing to transfer ships to the Atlantic, would be more confrontational with Japan rather than less.
 
Even in the highly unlikely scenario that everyone else decides that China is part of Japan's sphere of influence and gives them free rein victory is not going to happen. As Gosing said Japan is facing a unbeatable enemy, China is simply to big and to populous for Japan to entirely conquer, never mind hold down and any puppet government which is independent enough to have actual support from the population, is too independent for the Japanese.
 
I believe that the Japanese were doomed in China.

They were facing the worst enemy imaginable, plauged by all the problems of Napoleon's and Hitler's Russia campaigns. .

Hm - I don't disagree with the general point - the Japanese simply aren't going to be able to hold down all of China in the long run, especially since the Soviets aren't going to let them - but all the problems? The Japanese weren't fighting an enemy as well or better equipped as themselves, and well-disciplined and fairly (occasionally even brilliantly) well led to boot...

Bruce
 
My understanding is that the Japanese would have run out of hard currency by the middle of 1942 in the absence of war with other powers. No hard currency would have pretty much scuppered the Japanese. They had to import oil and much of their steel, and much of their shipping was carried on non-Japanese merchant ships, which would have required hard currency.

In the absence of a European War, the Soviets would probably have continued their aid to the Chinese, continuing to bleed the Japanese. The western powers would have done some sporadic aid, enough to keep the Chinese in the war.
 
My understanding is that the Japanese would have run out of hard currency by the middle of 1942 in the absence of war with other powers. No hard currency would have pretty much scuppered the Japanese. They had to import oil and much of their steel, and much of their shipping was carried on non-Japanese merchant ships, which would have required hard currency.

In the absence of a European War, the Soviets would probably have continued their aid to the Chinese, continuing to bleed the Japanese. The western powers would have done some sporadic aid, enough to keep the Chinese in the war.

Japanese industry ran on coal, so the currency collapse would not have led to an immediate economic collapse. But in the absence of a discovery of oil in Manchuria, their military machine - tanks, planes, etc. - would have ground to a halt.

Of course, if there is no WWII, international trade, etc. will be taking place at quite different levels than OTL - perhaps the Japanese will be better placed to sell stuff for currency if Europe isn't being blockaded by the British and the British don't have every penny tied up in the war effort.

(BTW, the embargo didn't kick in until Japan moved into Indochina - the "China lobby" wasn't quite as powerful as it has sometimes been made out, and the US generally found Japan a far more profitable trade partner than China. Also, Japan looks generally less menacing since there is no Axis for it to join in 1940).

Bruce
 
I think that the absence of war in Europe will have a big impact on world reaction to the ongoing Sino-Japanese war. Sure, America won't be distracted by events in Europe, but more importantly there will not be the appearance of the world dividing into warring factions. Many Americans will be appalled by the continuing atrocity stories coming out of China, but in the end it's still just a war between two Asian countries on the other side of the world. You may well see many Americans boycott Japanese goods, and maybe even a boycott towards American or international firms that seem to be too openly supplying war material to Japan, but I don't think there will be too much official response. This world will still be in the shadow of the Great Depression, so I don't see American (or Dutch) oil companies turning away anybody willing to pay cash. Far easier for the Western powers to make noises and maybe give token aid to China than to turn away paying Japanese customers.

The only people who can get Japan out of China in this scenario are the Japanese themselves. I'd expect them to leave on their own sometime in the early 40's. They are facing the classic problem of modern war: controlling the enemy civilian population. The IJA can easily destroy any Chinese army they meet in the field, but they only control the land directly under their soldier's boots. The main Japanese war aim was merely to prevent any force unfriendly to Japanese interests from forming in China, but the war itself means that no Chinese government, no matter how local, can be friendly to Japan and retain any popular legitimacy.

Once Japan accepts that a lasting "victory" is impossible, they will start to leave. Every day Japan spends in China they burn through oil, blood, and treasure they can't afford to replace. Some oil can be saved by keeping the IJN in port, but that isn't a permanent solution. Oil can only be bought overseas with hard currency (as others have stressed), and popular opinion abroad will make it harder and harder for Japanese exports to earn that hard currency. The Japanese economy won't be able to hold the strain forever, and at some point we'll see events that make the 1919 rice riots seem like children's games. The war in China is not sustainable, and some point, even this era's Japanese leadership will be able to see it. Besides, even if every man, woman, and child in China hates Japan after the war, after an even worse war the nation as a whole will be too weak for a generation to worry Japan. Losing the market will hurt, but by the time China rebuilds, Japan has a decent chance of being seen by America as a bulwark against communism...
 
Why would the U.S. not introduce the various embargoes on Japan?
These were prompted by Japans actions in China and the first of them were introduced prior to the European War taking place.

If anything, I’d expect that a United States that wasn’t distracted by events in Europe, and not needing to transfer ships to the Atlantic, would be more confrontational with Japan rather than less.

Really? I thought that the embargoes were mostly in reaction to the occupation of French Indochina, and the alignment with Germany?

Hm - I don't disagree with the general point - the Japanese simply aren't going to be able to hold down all of China in the long run, especially since the Soviets aren't going to let them - but all the problems? The Japanese weren't fighting an enemy as well or better equipped as themselves, and well-disciplined and fairly (occasionally even brilliantly) well led to boot...

Bruce

Rh, it was mostly hyperbole. But the Japanese would still have a bad mix of said problems.
 

Susano

Banned
Well, we would have to define "win". Its true that Japan can under no circumstances conquer, hold and occuy all of China. Its impossible. However, if they leave, they can very well decide the terms of their leaving. They will certainly keep Manchuko, and they might try to keep other ouposts as well. Of course, granted, thats how the war began in the first place, Japan demanding more and more concessions and lands, so... hm. But such a vietnamesque war might discredit the militarist factions in Japan, and without an uncontrolled and aggressive Japanese army things might not restart.
 
Really? I thought that the embargoes were mostly in reaction to the occupation of French Indochina, and the alignment with Germany?
The latest embargo, oil, was in reaction to the occupation of Indochina, but a) I think there were earlier embargoes as the Japanese got deeper and deeper into China
b) to some extent, Indochina was the last straw. 'we warned you guys, and we warned you. Now we show we're serious'. In some ways it was like the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia.

The embargo wasn't about Indochina, IMO, so much as about growing Japanese expansion, trying to stop it and reverse it.

The China lobby in the US was pretty strong, and while it took a while to really be heard, the increasing Japanese obnoxiousness strengthened its case with every new step.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Japan abandons China. Japan holds Manchukuo and begins to create a Japanese Tibet there. China continues to be a train wreck. Three way game continues with Chiang, Mao and the Japanese.

Eventually Mao wins, with Soviet backing. China tries to take back Manchuria in the early 50s. Initially they fail, but the cost to both sides is horrendous. Rivers of blood. The Chinese are not deterred. Would Stalin intervene? Would the US or others? Hard to say. Whatever happens, I see casualties in the multiple millions.
 
A question for the neglected side of the Greatest War...

So, for the sake of discussion lets assume the followig scenario:

The Great Depression comes mostly as per OTL, but instead of the Nazis, Germany winds up under a DNVP-type right-wing dictatorship. There are a couple of indecisive wars with the Soviets, but no real European War-and thus, no occupation of Indochina, and much less Japano-American friction.

Thus, the American government, not seeing much use in busying itself in the far corners of the globe when there's a perfectly good crisis back home, mainly leaves the Japanese alone (though the fortifications on the Phillipenes are improved). There isn't an embargo on oil, and the Japanese don't see a reason to go about a war with all of those scary Westerners with big navies and friends. Maybe throw in a discovery of the Manchurian oilfields and BAM! the focus is on China, which they believe as in OTL that victory is in sight.

So, with a Militarist government going on an all-out tear to conquer/puppetize China, how do their campaigns go? Do they succeed in taking over China? Or do they eventually fail?

My own opinions in a moment.

China's strategy was to not surrender and wait for hell to freeze over. By the time of Pearl harbor it was pretty clear to the Japanese that winning was going to take forever.

In your scenario then I think China would continue to receive aid and weapons in increasing quantities from America. If the Japanese complain then the Americans will just say leave China.

The Japanese may get an agreement to keep Manchuria and some coastal cities in the style of Hong Kong. Eventually though, China will get organized again, probably by the 1950's and they will resume the war on Japan and grind them down.
 

Cook

Banned
Really? I thought that the embargoes were mostly in reaction to the occupation of French Indochina, and the alignment with Germany?

America maintained an “Open Door” policy with regard to China. That is, all nations were to be free to trade with China. The Americans ran a fine line with their embargoes against Japan because they had a trade agreement in place with Japan prior to Japan attacking China, this had to expire before a lot of the embargoes were possible. Also, the American intention with regard to the embargoes was not to force a war, but to try to change Japanese policy without war.

The Americans sent considerable aid to China prior to direct involvement. Without having the concern of a European War the Americans would be more confident, and would be acting in unison with Britain and France who also had interests in a China that was free to trade with.

People often talk of the Israeli lobby in Washington these days; in the 1930s it was the China lobby and they had clout.
 
Top