WI: Germany supports Japan in 1895

IOTL, the Triple Intervention (1895) was a "three-person slap" on Japan's intended terms towards China in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, after the First Sino-Japanese War. France, Russia, and, surprisingly, Germany forced Japan to back down from its claims over Korea and the Liaodong Peninsula.
But what if Germany had not dogpiled on Japan alongside France and Russia? IOTL, they backed the Triple Intervention in another mostly futile attempt to gain Russia's favour. Could this be enough to preserve Japan's position in the Shimonoseki negotiations?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think Germany joining Russia and France was a shock to the Japanese, as the Germans had been on quite friendly terms with them, while being natural enemies to the other two. I think the Japanese always assumed that Germany would not oppose them, and that the trade implications of the treaty, which benefited the Europeans as well as Japan, would keep Britain out as well, as it did, as they were the greatest beneficiaries of this clause.

This would leave just Russia and France, and there was no guarantee at that time that the French would join in. They had no great interests to protect in that region. The Russians on their own may not have felt confident enough to act unilaterally. Also, without the German element, the Russians and French would have been far more wary of British intervention on the Japanese side.

I think this is what the Japanese gambled on, but Germany joining in scuppered any chance of a successful outcome.
 
Yes, I think Germany joining Russia and France was a shock to the Japanese, as the Germans had been on quite friendly terms with them, while being natural enemies to the other two. I think the Japanese always assumed that Germany would not oppose them, and that the trade implications of the treaty, which benefited the Europeans as well as Japan, would keep Britain out as well, as it did, as they were the greatest beneficiaries of this clause.

This would leave just Russia and France, and there was no guarantee at that time that the French would join in. They had no great interests to protect in that region. The Russians on their own may not have felt confident enough to act unilaterally. Also, without the German element, the Russians and French would have been far more wary of British intervention on the Japanese side.

I think this is what the Japanese gambled on, but Germany joining in scuppered any chance of a successful outcome.
Willy's shrewd diplomacy strikes again.
 
Willy's shrewd diplomacy strikes again.

Yes, it was a cheap way of diverting Russian attention east and away from Europe, gaining favour with the new Tsar, and keeping Japan off the Chinese mainland, thus facilitating the later grab of said territory by Britain (Wei Hei Wei), Germany (Kiaochow) and Russia (Port Arthur) only 2-3 years later.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
it was a cheap way of diverting Russian attention east and away from Europe
As Russia got embroiled in the Manchurian War from which - and resulting Revolution - it still hadn't recovered by 1914, this policy can be said to have worked, from a certain point of view ...
 
As Russia got embroiled in the Manchurian War from which - and resulting Revolution - it still hadn't recovered by 1914, this policy can be said to have worked, from a certain point of view ...
If the Central Powers had won WW1, then historians would probably applaud the Kaiser for his wise foresight in 1895.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OTL Germany's pro-Russian approach worked somewhat. It brought about an ultimately failed chance for reconciliation with Russia, it weakened Russia and contributed to German colonial gains - Tsingtao in China a few years later, also a strengthened position in the 2nd Morocco Crisis that secured more territory for Germany in Central Africa.


ATL, being pro-Japanese would seems to have no European dividends and fewer Asian dividends. However, the latter is not certain. Germany could have piled on against China, at the side of Japan before the Sino-Japanese War ended, and secure Tsingtao (or an alternate port like Amoy, Swatow, Zhoushan Island) for itself two years ahead of OTL's schedule.

I doubt the European powers (or Japanese) at this time will begrudge Germany a treaty port or threaten her.

I think that without Germany supporting a Russian demarche against Japan, France is in no hurry to go out on a limb and support Russia either.

And I think that Russia would have been reluctant to deliver a unilateral ultimatum against Japan. That is so even if Russia would be favored for victory because of its resources if it actually came to war.

Probably Russia would "compensate" itself at China's expense in northern Manchuria, Mongolia and northern Xinjiang in the 95-96 timeframe. Britain and France may similarly get new port leases in the same period.
 
I doubt the European powers (or Japanese) at this time will begrudge Germany a treaty port or threaten her.

Indeed. This was before the Naval Law of 1898 and the Kruger Telegram of 1896. Britain still viewed Germany as a nominal ally, and a good counterweight in the east to Russian expansion.

Outright German backing for Japan would definitely have kept Russia, and therefore France also, out of any interference with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Japan in turn would have been grateful, and more than happy to see Germany get their base in China.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Indeed. This was before the Naval Law of 1898 and the Kruger Telegram of 1896. Britain still viewed Germany as a nominal ally, and a good counterweight in the east to Russian expansion.

Outright German backing for Japan would definitely have kept Russia, and therefore France also, out of any interference with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Japan in turn would have been grateful, and more than happy to see Germany get their base in China.

Do you agree with the knock-on consequences I suggest, other powers decide "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and advance their own separate claims on China, without standing in Japan or Germany's way?
 
Do you agree with the knock-on consequences I suggest, other powers decide "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and advance their own separate claims on China, without standing in Japan or Germany's way?

Yes, partly. Britain would probably still get Wei Hei Wei. The big loser is Russia, but they had plans to be friendly to Japan in order to achieve gains in the east. There were proposals to let Japan have most of Korea and Southern Manchuria, in return for NE Korea, and an ice free port, and northern Manchuria. Faced with the changed political situation, this is probably what they would have requested. I don't see Japan being displeased with that arrangement.

This would in effect bring Russian expansion in the east to an end. Coupled with an increased resentment and mistrust of Germany, their focus might shift back to Europe and traditional expansion in the Balkans/Turkish straights. Imbued with their new French alliance, and now clearly seeing Germany as their main obstacle, perhaps war in Europe would come sooner, but with Britain and Italy on the Germans' side?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes, partly. Britain would probably still get Wei Hei Wei. The big loser is Russia, but they had plans to be friendly to Japan in order to achieve gains in the east. There were proposals to let Japan have most of Korea and Southern Manchuria, in return for NE Korea, and an ice free port, and northern Manchuria. Faced with the changed political situation, this is probably what they would have requested. I don't see Japan being displeased with that arrangement.

This would in effect bring Russian expansion in the east to an end. Coupled with an increased resentment and mistrust of Germany, their focus might shift back to Europe and traditional expansion in the Balkans/Turkish straights. Imbued with their new French alliance, and now clearly seeing Germany as their main obstacle, perhaps war in Europe would come sooner, but with Britain and Italy on the Germans' side?


Perhaps- although it is not all about Europe and the Far East - there is the Middle East to consider. Around this time, the British were talking about partition of the Ottoman Empire at this time, or at a minimum, a major pressure campaign to halt the Ottoman massacres of Armenians.

Perhaps with it becoming clear by 96 that there is only limited room to grow in the Far East, St. Petersburg warms to Britain's anti-Ottoman efforts, rather than cold-shouldering them? Maybe the Russians occupy Turkey's Armenian-heavy provinces in northeast Anatolia.
 
Imbued with their new French alliance, and now clearly seeing Germany as their main obstacle, perhaps war in Europe would come sooner, but with Britain and Italy on the Germans' side?
Italy would be on the side were they can get the most from Austria. So if a war starts like WW1 and the Russians start of well against Austria like in otl I could easily see Italy throwing their chips in win th France and Russia early.

So in the end you'll get a war with Britain, Germany and Austria-Hungary vs Russia, France and Italy. The ottomans in his will join Britian and Germany since they'll be anti Russian and two Germany in the early 1900 was heavily investing in their country (Berlin to Baghdad railway) and Japanese will join Britain efforts.

Such a scenario would mean that the Atlantic will be Britains lake while the Med will be more contested. In he end I could see a Anglo-German victory with Austria collapsing, Russia carved up, france humbled again and Italy turning coat. The biggest winner USA as they'll be providing loans to both sides.
 
Top