What if Japan was not expansionist pre and during World War Two?

RNG

Banned
What if Japan was not expansionist pre and during World War Two? What if they just accepted their empire and didn't anymore for some reason. Would America still enter the war? And with full focus on Germany how would their downfall play out? Or would it? Would nuclear weapons be developed as fast or at all? If nuclear weapons were not developed or only America had them and depending if the war was quicker would Britain, France, and America carry on and take on the Soviet Union? How would that play out? Would the Soviet Union be vanquished or would their take over Europe? What you think?
 
Assuming the European half of the war goes as IOTL the U.S. will eventually get involved due to Hitler's attacks on our merchant fleet. The war most likely wraps up somewhat sooner. Having the huge amount of naval and logistical assets, landing craft, and amphibious troops (especially the whole USMC) that became tied up in the Pacific freed up instead will be a huge asset.
 
Plus Japan being a growing industrial power could still partly play the role it had OTL during ww1 as a neutral or distant ally: giving money and weapons plus clothes and others to the Allies. This also completely secure New Zealand and Australia plus the British troops fighting in Burma OTL: we're talking of the equivalent of two field armies here, plus the Dutch who have more ships and secure their oil to the Allied war effort (and can use the KNIL to create an Army Corps) while Indochina will probably become Free French like the other colonies in 1943 (meaning the equivalent of an Infantry Division plus tons of rice and rubber).
Plus of course the entire US Navy, Air Force, Marines and US Divisions now being sent in Europe like said in previous post.
If a distant ally, Japan will probably act like during WW1: protecting convoys? sending destroyers and light cruisers, submarines and air squadrons? No problem but I don't think Japan will be willing to send its big units or Army Divisions (or perhaps its older battleships and Battlecruisers and old carriers, in which case the Royal Navy power just doubles in size, and for Army units, perhaps to secure the Middle East, serve as occupation troops, freeing european manpower for the frontline).
In other words, US declare war in early 1942 against Germany and Italy and Japan being neutral or vaguely ally has huge indirect consequences. No problem for landing operations and the lack of landing ships for one.
 
Plus Japan being a growing industrial power could still partly play the role it had OTL during ww1 as a neutral or distant ally: giving money and weapons plus clothes and others to the Allies. This also completely secure New Zealand and Australia plus the British troops fighting in Burma OTL: we're talking of the equivalent of two field armies here, plus the Dutch who have more ships and secure their oil to the Allied war effort (and can use the KNIL to create an Army Corps) while Indochina will probably become Free French like the other colonies in 1943 (meaning the equivalent of an Infantry Division plus tons of rice and rubber).
Plus of course the entire US Navy, Air Force, Marines and US Divisions now being sent in Europe like said in previous post.
If a distant ally, Japan will probably act like during WW1: protecting convoys? sending destroyers and light cruisers, submarines and air squadrons? No problem but I don't think Japan will be willing to send its big units or Army Divisions (or perhaps its older battleships and Battlecruisers and old carriers, in which case the Royal Navy power just doubles in size, and for Army units, perhaps to secure the Middle East, serve as occupation troops, freeing european manpower for the frontline).
In other words, US declare war in early 1942 against Germany and Italy and Japan being neutral or vaguely ally has huge indirect consequences. No problem for landing operations and the lack of landing ships for one.

Yeah.

Like Italy Japan's only winning move is not to play - at least initially.

Japan can make a $%^& Ton of money building shipping for the allies, their principle infantry rifle and MG calibre was 7.7 Arisaka which is almost identical to .303 and the Navy used 7.7x56R which was a direct copy of the British .303 so they can provide ammunition to the British Empire right off the bat.

Japan can also sell weapons, equipment and raw supplies to the Russians and allow US and Allied ships to send supplies via the Vladivostok route (OTL Japan allowed only none war supplies via this route on Russian flagged vessels)

I think the savings off not having to confront the Japanese is increased resources and arms to the Russians via Vladivostok and a massively increased availability of ships able to escort increased numbers of freighters to Murmansk not to mention aircraft and escort shipping increased in the Atlantic probably resulting in that battle being won earlier than May 1943.

Several army groups worth of troops are now available to the Western Allies not to mention a massive amount of Amphibious craft - possibly looking at a cross channel invasion of France in 43 - war over by EOY 44?

Japan can then join the Allies later on in the war and can 'get a seat at the actual victors table' post war.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
What if Japan was not expansionist pre and during World War Two? What if they just accepted their empire and didn't anymore for some reason. Would America still enter the war? And with full focus on Germany how would their downfall play out? Or would it? Would nuclear weapons be developed as fast or at all? If nuclear weapons were not developed or only America had them and depending if the war was quicker would Britain, France, and America carry on and take on the Soviet Union? How would that play out? Would the Soviet Union be vanquished or would their take over Europe? What you think?

You'll have to go back quite a ways to stop it. Japanese expansionism basically begins with the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894 and keeps on rolling. Even most non-militarist politicians still believed Japan had a unique interest in China, for instance. Most of the macro-level changes that might be required to derail the expansionist train happen a decade or more before December 7, 1941, and some of the knock-on effects can absolutely change what happens in Europe and the United States.
 
You'll have to go back quite a ways to stop it. Japanese expansionism basically begins with the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894 and keeps on rolling. Even most non-militarist politicians still believed Japan had a unique interest in China, for instance. Most of the macro-level changes that might be required to derail the expansionist train happen a decade or more before December 7, 1941, and some of the knock-on effects can absolutely change what happens in Europe and the United States.
The real moment when Japan did decide to dominate China at least on a economical pov and like an indirect colonial power was with the treaty of 1916 when Russia and Japan divided China into two spheres of influence in order to maintain the USA out and to only give to the other European countries the bare minimum.
Had Imperial or pre-October 1917 Russia survived, Japan and Russia would have become close allies in the Far East, which means that France at least would have remained relatively benevolent towards Japan. In fact, the new USSR even hesitated for a moment and was tempted to honour the previous russo-japanese agreement of 1916 before denouncing it around 1922. If the USSR had decided to follow the agreement, Chinese history would have been quite "interesting" (trading a bunch of indirect masters for two) but Japan would have probably avoided the war of 1937 if its ambitions in the area are already satisfied, thus having cold but not poisoned relations with the US while remaining a courteous partner of France and Great Britain (probably not an ally though).
Come 1941, Japan would assured its partnership from the very beginning to the USSR (the unofficial wars of the thirties would not have happened anyways) and remained at least very neutral and tacitly benevolent towards the Allies.
Again, huge indirect consequences and the US was already, in terms of public opinion, heavily in favour of joining the Allies anyway (there was a poll with like 85 percents for).
 
The real moment when Japan did decide to dominate China at least on a economical pov and like an indirect colonial power was with the treaty of 1916 when Russia and Japan divided China into two spheres of influence in order to maintain the USA out and to only give to the other European countries the bare minimum.
Had Imperial or pre-October 1917 Russia survived, Japan and Russia would have become close allies in the Far East, which means that France at least would have remained relatively benevolent towards Japan. In fact, the new USSR even hesitated for a moment and was tempted to honour the previous russo-japanese agreement of 1916 before denouncing it around 1922. If the USSR had decided to follow the agreement, Chinese history would have been quite "interesting" (trading a bunch of indirect masters for two) but Japan would have probably avoided the war of 1937 if its ambitions in the area are already satisfied, thus having cold but not poisoned relations with the US while remaining a courteous partner of France and Great Britain (probably not an ally though).
Come 1941, Japan would assured its partnership from the very beginning to the USSR (the unofficial wars of the thirties would not have happened anyways) and remained at least very neutral and tacitly benevolent towards the Allies.
Again, huge indirect consequences and the US was already, in terms of public opinion, heavily in favour of joining the Allies anyway (there was a poll with like 85 percents for).

How would this affect Chinese policies though? Who would win the Chiense civil war without Japanese interference? Would the USSR and Japan just leave the communists and nationalists to duke it out?
 
How would this affect Chinese policies though? Who would win the Chiense civil war without Japanese interference? Would the USSR and Japan just leave the communists and nationalists to duke it out?
the warlords period would already quite different. And once Stalin comes to power, I would not be surprised if he adopted a pragmatic attitude towards China. He and Japan could in fact try to discreetly expand the lifetime of the warlords era, thus dividing China into several de facto autonomous states, each of them being dominated by one of the two powers. After this, well I dunno, Perhaps two Chinese states, one "nationalist" and Japanese, the other "communist" and Soviet (the latter would have no access to the sea btw)? But after partnership often comes rivalry. Perhaps Japan and USSR will decide to end their mutual agreement one day. If it's after WW2, then as above and, supreme irony, Japan would then become a US distant ally or a Third Great Power in Asia. If it's before WW2, then Japan could return a to a near OTL History.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
What if Japan was not expansionist pre and during World War Two?
It was already VERY expansionist prior to WW 1 :
russo-japanes war,
Korea,
Taiwan(Formosa)

You would need a 180° turn of foreign politics to change that for the interwar period.
 
It was already VERY expansionist prior to WW 1 :
russo-japanes war,
Korea,
Taiwan(Formosa)

You would need a 180° turn of foreign politics to change that for the interwar period.

By the standards of the time? It was as expansionist as any of the empires. During the same time period the USA conquered similar populations.
 
It was already VERY expansionist prior to WW 1 :
russo-japanes war,
Korea,
Taiwan(Formosa)

You would need a 180° turn of foreign politics to change that for the interwar period.
Again, the Treaty of 1916 really coming to life could change that, what you need is Imperial of pre-October Russia to accept it or Soviet Russia deciding to not denouncing it.
 
Top