Who is the better ally for Nazi Germany? China or Japan?

Who is the better ally for Germany?

  • China

    Votes: 95 57.2%
  • Japan

    Votes: 71 42.8%

  • Total voters
    166
I'd take the 1917 Reichsheer over the IJA at any point between 1939-1945 ;)

But, see, that is what is so baffling to me about the fact that China is winning in the poll. The IJA was pretty much a pre-WWI army, and yet they were able to destroy much larger Chinese armies in the field over and over again. In the Second Shanghai Incident/Battle of Shanghai, the Chinese fielded over 600,000 troops, including their crack German-trained units. And yet, despite outnumbering their foe two-to-one and fighting a defensive battle, they lost over 250,000 KIA, compared to about 70k Japanese killed, and lost the city. If the IJA was that outclassed by modern European armies (and they were), what does that say about China's military might? If Nazi Germany has to pick an ally with a second- or third-rate army, shouldn't they at least pick one that isn't already being trounced in a war?
 
Germany's real interests is for both China and Japan to make peace which is what Germany initially tried to mediate. Ultimately, it was forced to pick based on the following.

1) Germany could not impact the outcome of the Sino-Japanese War in anyway.

2) Japan had a fleet, and China did not.

3) Japan, like Germany, wants to overturn the established international order.

4) If Germany picks China, it gets absolutely nothing at all because China is not capable to doing anything. Japan on the other hand can be useful.

The Germans picked the right side given what Hitler wanted to do.
 
O rly?

Lots of people are saying neither China or Japan would be the "ideal" ally for Nazi Germany. But, in the geopolitical world of the late 1930's and early 1940's who else would be a better ally than Japan - presuming of course the other main members of the Axis and Allies remain the same? Argentina? South Africa? Only Japam had the military power to pose a potential threat to both the USA and the USSR.

Obviously the best possible realistic ally for Germany is the Soviet Union. Had Hitler an ounce of sense instead of insane anti-Slav racism, he probablycould have played to Stalin's greed and had access to Soviet materiel and resources for several more years - possibly long enough to defeat or at least neutralize Britain and strengthen his position against the USA.

If the Nazi Germans did actually conduct proper sense of diplomacy and not constantly exude Deutschland Uber Alles beyond the propaganda realm they could have leveraged their alliances instead of treating them as doorstops or mere puppets while recruiting volunteer brigades. But that is of course a bit much to ask out of a bunch of racist sycophants capitulating to a demagogue. :rolleyes:

In that regard Japan is the way to go as they had enough industry as well as political stability to take care of themselves while providing (like other mentioned) a large distraction by capturing European (and American if you count the Philippines) colonial holdings. Also, Nationalist China was already leaning towards US support. If it is not obvious to you, imho it was hopeless from a policy standpoint for Nazi Germany to forge any true alliance with anyone.
 
Japan, as it historically won every single battle it fought against the Chinese save ones where its operational and strategic goals were unclear and/or Japanese leaders made mistakes. Then Chinese formations could defeat their Japanese counterparts, it is no co-incidence that the moment the Japanese repaired their military failings Changsha and other places Chinese armies had defended against poor operational/strategic concepts with some success fell immediately and without issue. Japan also overran more territory in six months than Germany had in two years of arduous struggling, and during the first year after that of WWII gave the USA as good as it got, and was still fighting the USSR and USA both after Germany surrendered.

China would be an Asian Italy.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
But, see, that is what is so baffling to me about the fact that China is winning in the poll. The IJA was pretty much a pre-WWI army, and yet they were able to destroy much larger Chinese armies in the field over and over again. In the Second Shanghai Incident/Battle of Shanghai, the Chinese fielded over 600,000 troops, including their crack German-trained units. And yet, despite outnumbering their foe two-to-one and fighting a defensive battle, they lost over 250,000 KIA, compared to about 70k Japanese killed, and lost the city. If the IJA was that outclassed by modern European armies (and they were), what does that say about China's military might? If Nazi Germany has to pick an ally with a second- or third-rate army, shouldn't they at least pick one that isn't already being trounced in a war?

I think the rational behind the posters' Chinese choice is more of economic/political potential than military.
 

Tannhäuser

Banned
With the benefit of hindsight, the majority of posters say that China is the better choice: Japan drew the US into the war, and our perceptions of China's power at the time is skewed by its current rise in the world. With the benefit of hindsight, China would probably have been the better choice. No US in the Allies means a much longer war for Germany, and it might even win.

If China were to join the Axis, it raises the question of whether Japan would still attack the US. Even if it didn't, however, it would probably still have eventually lost to China (unless, perhaps, it developed the atom bomb...). But regardless of whether China or Japan won, Germany would still be better of allying with the former, since all Japan did was hurt it.

However, Hiter & co. did not know what we know now, and made what was at the time a rational decision. Japan was militarily and economically superior to China. It was ideologically closer. Its geopolitical interests in upsetting the status quo aligned perfectly. It could create a second front for the USSR.

Instead, it dragged the most powerful nation in the world into the war, did nothing to help against the USSR, and possibly lost Germany the war. But Hitler had no way of knowing that would happen (on the other hand, it was partially his fault -- he didn't have to declare war on the US). And neither did this German adviser, who unhesitatingly gave his support to the alliance with Japan.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
Instead, it dragged the most powerful nation in the world into the war, did nothing to help against the USSR, and possibly lost Germany the war. But Hitler had no way of knowing that would happen (on the other hand, it was partially his fault -- he didn't have to declare war on the US).
The problem is, it did nothing to help against the USSR because Germany never gave any sign that it might want a coordinated attack. Let's face it: If Hitler was willing to let Japan in on its plan, there's the possibility that the IJA might have not signed off an invasion against USSR, sinking the Advance South strategy. The isolation of Japan even with its "Allies" was part of the reason why it committed itself to the Pacific War.

So, basically, if Hitler was going to make the same basic decisions as in OTL (aside from the alliance with Japan), China would be the better ally. However, changes in how Hitler planned to get Barbarossa launched could actually make Japan the better choice.
 

Tannhäuser

Banned
You're right that Hitler could and should have communicated better. However, Barbarossa occurred before Pearl Harbor. Japan didn't need to attack the US. I know that the embargo was triggered by the Advance South, but Japan didn't end up getting any oil out of the US in OTTL, anyway. It could have instead attacked the USSR from the East, and used its oil. Then the Axis would have been in control of most of Eurasia, at war with no major powers, and in possession of a heap of oil, instead of struggling to survive (and eventually failing) in a simultaneous war with the two most powerful nations on Earth.

Honestly, it was both their faults. If either Germany or Japan hadn't been so horribly stupid, they might have stood a chance.

Now that I think about it, should we even be discussing who would be the better ally? It really seems like we're talking about who would be the least bad one, since Hitler seems intent on not actually utilizing whoever it is. China as an ally would do nothing at all to help; Japan would do nothing to help (through Hitler's fault) and bring in the US (through its own fault).
 
I think the rational behind the posters' Chinese choice is more of economic/political potential than military.

What economic potential does China have in 1937? According to the OP, the Second Sino-Japanese War has already started. China is going to be economically devastated for some time to come. Even during normal times, they don't make anything Germany wants. They will probably be willing to buy up German arms (if they can somehow afford them), but the German crash rearmorment program means German forces need everything German factories produce. They might get some benefit from seeing their weapons tech in action, but they already have the mess in Spain for that. I don't see any economic benefit in allying with China in 1937.

As for political considerations, I am not sure what you mean. If you mean public opinion in tne US and UK was pro-China in the war, you are correct. I don't see the benefit for Germany in courting the British public, however, when they know they will be at war with tnem soon. If I am missing something, then please do fill me in.

The other alleged benefit of allying with China--no Pearl Harbor--I have already explained why I think the alliance with Japan was actually Germany's best chance. 1940 is not 1916. There was good reason to think that the US would be at war with Germany sooner or later. As soon as that happens, huge amounts of US troops floods accross the Atlantic. The choice for Germany is not to fight the US or not fight the US. The choice is fight them alone, or fight them while they are distracted with another huge fight on the other side of the world. The IJN is Germany's only hope for slowing down the US push into Europe.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
You're right that Hitler could and should have communicated better. However, Barbarossa occurred before Pearl Harbor. Japan didn't need to attack the US. I know that the embargo was triggered by the Advance South, but Japan didn't end up getting any oil out of the US in OTTL, anyway. It could have instead attacked the USSR from the East, and used its oil. Then the Axis would have been in control of most of Eurasia, at war with no major powers, and in possession of a heap of oil, instead of struggling to survive (and eventually failing) in a simultaneous war with the two most powerful nations on Earth.
There was no sign of oil being in Siberia or Manchuria at the time. Therefore, oil couldn't have been a factor in the decision to go to war with USSR for Japan.


What economic potential does China have in 1937?
First, there were particularly militarily important materials such as tungsten and antimony, which China could supply in bulk. While Barbarossa would probably have cut the supply, Germany might have had four more years to stock up on the raw materials, which MIGHT help (can't say this for sure).

Second, there was no real economic benefit for trading with Japan. Germany could not access the Northern Chinese and Manchurian markets. When we include the loss of the "Free China" market, we're seeing a great deal of loss in terms of market partners. While I don't expect for China to be trading that much since it is being clobbered, the amount would surely be more than what went on with Japan.

As for political considerations, I am not sure what you mean. If you mean public opinion in tne US and UK was pro-China in the war, you are correct. I don't see the benefit for Germany in courting the British public, however, when they know they will be at war with tnem soon. If I am missing something, then please do fill me in.
Personally I don't see much benefit in politics except possibly making the US less anti-German. You'll have to ask others for that.


The other alleged benefit of allying with China--no Pearl Harbor--I have already explained why I think the alliance with Japan was actually Germany's best chance. 1940 is not 1916. There was good reason to think that the US would be at war with Germany sooner or later. As soon as that happens, huge amounts of US troops floods accross the Atlantic. The choice for Germany is not to fight the US or not fight the US. The choice is fight them alone, or fight them while they are distracted with another huge fight on the other side of the world. The IJN is Germany's only hope for slowing down the US push into Europe.
Given the public atmosphere at the time (willing to help the Allies with material but not actually be in the war), there's a strong chance that not allying with Japan may help Hitler avoid having to worry about the US in the militarily sense.
 
Second, there was no real economic benefit for trading with Japan. Germany could not access the Northern Chinese and Manchurian markets. When we include the loss of the "Free China" market, we're seeing a great deal of loss in terms of market partners. While I don't expect for China to be trading that much since it is being clobbered, the amount would surely be more than what went on with Japan.
You are correct that Germany had more trade with China than Japan (as opposed to the US, who did much more with Japan). However, even with German aid, I don't see how China can hold on to the coast. All of the populated areas, including the major ports, will fall under Japanese control. Even if they do not, Japan is more than capable of blockading China. I don't see how any large-scale trade will go on between China and Europe. If the UK decides to allow it, some can come through Burma, or maybe Hong Kong, if it runs the blockade. However, it will be a trickle at best. Japan has less to offer Germany in trade, but it can control their own sea lanes. So, yes, goods can travel from Manchuria to Germany.
Given the public atmosphere at the time (willing to help the Allies with material but not actually be in the war), there's a strong chance that not allying with Japan may help Hitler avoid having to worry about the US in the militarily sense.

Well, we will never know. However, keep in mind that by the fall of 1940, the US was already in an undeclared naval war with Germany. All it will take is one Us destroyer to drop ash cans on a U-boat, and for the U-boat to defend itself. Then you have an innocent US warship torpedoed by evil Germans, a perfect pretext for war. This is what FDR wanted, after all, and it is in the US national interests, whether the public wants it or not.

No matter how much the US hated what Japan was doing in China, the real scanctions only came after the IJA moved into Indochina. While we hated Japanese war crimes, they didn't directly affect the US. When Japan threatened to capture the important markets of Asia--possibly locking the US out of these markets, and depriving the US of vital resources--this threatened the US long-term security, so the US had to act.

The European markets were even more vital. If it looks like they might be consolidated under an unfriendly power, the US will act, no matter how unpopular. Eventually, FDR and others will be able to explain what is at stake, and the public will come around.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
Japan has less to offer Germany in trade, but it can control their own sea lanes. So, yes, goods can travel from Manchuria to Germany.
Which never was more than a trickle. This is really a question of how much China could have traded with Germany via the USSR.
 
When did Japan ever win a victory on land against the USA? They did roll over horribly unprepared, undersupplied and not-so-competent British colonial forces though.
 
Why? The Japanese Army had no problem taking on the Brits and Americans during the period.

When their opponents were either being led by incompetents or were forced to fight the IJA on their terms, sure.

Regarding the point earlier about how Japan beat China on land at that time, it's not so much that China is better as Japan is worse. The Asian land war doesn't affect Germany, but a war in the Pacific is extremely risky, as we saw OTL. Between one war that won't make Germany any more enemies and another that will make an enemy of the most powerful nation on earth, the choice is fairly obvious.
 
Although I suppose it partly contradicts my post from a year ago (seriously, what fiendish necromantical work is this?), I do feel moved to point out that Japan was not the first or the only thing between Germany and the United States.
 
Regarding the point earlier about how Japan beat China on land at that time, it's not so much that China is better as Japan is worse. The Asian land war doesn't affect Germany, but a war in the Pacific is extremely risky, as we saw OTL. Between one war that won't make Germany any more enemies and another that will make an enemy of the most powerful nation on earth, the choice is fairly obvious.

Even if you beleive that the US would never have gotten involved in the war in Europe without tne Pearl Harbor attacks (which I find dubious, but I suppose is arguable), the OP said you are making this decision in 1937, shortly after the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War. At that time, the US was not yet obviously fated to fight Japan. You seem to be arguing that, in 1937, it was obvious that tne Pacific War was coming, and so allying with Japan was a bad idea. I don't think it was yet. Of course, the relationship between Japan and the US was already becoming tense, but then so was the relationship between Germany and the US. That just means that Japan and Germany are ideologically close.

The bottom line is, I don't think it is at all obvious in 1937 that getting closer to Japan will make a war with the US any more likely. At this time, the US and Japan are not at war, and the US has not yet even issued trade embargoes. (In 1940, I tnink it was becoming increasingly clear that *both* Japan and Germany would soon be at war with the US, which again gives weight to the logic of an alliance. After all, this is when the alliance was signed in OTL. But that is neither here nor there.) OTOH, persuing an alliance with China-who is already at war with Japan-makes you an enemy right now. What is the logic in that?
 
I once a TL where a surviving Qing Empire lead by Feng Yuxiang, and militarizes stands a fighting chance against Japan. ITTL the Nazi's choose Qing China.
 
Top