WI Japan Invades China During WW1

@Reydan Very interesting about the civil war. To be honest, I do not know whether Japanese decision-makers had thoughts along these lines in the 1910s. Regarding costs, I absolutely agree that this would be a massive, long-term venture that would require a large amount of investment and time to complete, like the two examples I mentioned.

@RamscoopRaider Obviously, I understand that the war would be a drain on the Japanese economy. What I meant was that how much of a drain it would be would depend on how capable the Beiyang regime was. The more formidable it would be, the greater the cost.

I don't think a formal peace treaty is necessary. The goal here is to capture the core political and economic areas that make a Chinese state viable. That done, it doesn't matter much if Yuan Shikai or whoever manages to maintain a rump state in the Himalayan foothills somewhere. Such a state would be no more than an annoyance, like the Ming successor regime that lasted for a few decades on Taiwan after the mainland fell to the Qing.
 
I don't think a formal peace treaty is necessary. The goal here is to capture the core political and economic areas that make a Chinese state viable. That done, it doesn't matter much if Yuan Shikai or whoever manages to maintain a rump state in the Himalayan foothills somewhere. Such a state would be no more than an annoyance, like the Ming successor regime that lasted for a few decades on Taiwan after the mainland fell to the Qing.

??????
You don't understand. Japan does not possess these capabilities. It neither has the political will, the economic strength nor the strategic thought to make such a thing possible, and if it did attempt to even directly conquer and control Manchuria and Shandong(which is fine as spheres of influence, but direct colonies are another story), the backlash from the US and Britain over such a crisis would mean the Japanese economy on death row.
 
Were the US and British more anti-Japanese in the 1910s than they were in the 30s? Because I would point out again that they did not apply economic sanctions on Japan for the Manchuria takeover nor for the Second Sino-Japanese War.
 

Deleted member 9338

If this happens in 1914-16 Japan has the US to worry about. And the US had been concerned over Japan and China at least since the 1890s.

Also the US Navy isn't doing a lot at this time.
 
Were the US and British more anti-Japanese in the 1910s than they were in the 30s? Because I would point out again that they did not apply economic sanctions on Japan for the Manchuria takeover nor for the Second Sino-Japanese War.

That's because they were still struggling from the Great Depression and have better things to do than deal with Japan.
 
@RamscoopRaider Obviously, I understand that the war would be a drain on the Japanese economy. What I meant was that how much of a drain it would be would depend on how capable the Beiyang regime was. The more formidable it would be, the greater the cost.

I don't think a formal peace treaty is necessary. The goal here is to capture the core political and economic areas that make a Chinese state viable. That done, it doesn't matter much if Yuan Shikai or whoever manages to maintain a rump state in the Himalayan foothills somewhere. Such a state would be no more than an annoyance, like the Ming successor regime that lasted for a few decades on Taiwan after the mainland fell to the Qing.
Actually it could be the other way. A formidable Beiyang Regime and the Japanese settle for taking a few provinces i.e. Manchuria after a short or moderate length war. A weak Beiyang disentegrates and Japan has to occupy all of China in one bite, and inherits many of the Beiyang problems, costing far more than the first

A formal peace treaty is neccesary. Without that Japan has to keep its forces fuly mobilized, to occupy all the area they wish to take and maintain strong forces at the border. With a formal treaty this is less neccesary. Likewise without a formal treaty they have to physically take everything they want, rather than having it handed to them. The territory they wish will suffer damage from being fought over even if they win easily, and it will be stripped of things they want by retreating Chinese unless they win extremely rapidly (unlikely with limited horse drawn logistics). An active front also vastly complicates their economy,war loans are higher interest than non war loans, businesses need to pay much more in insurance costs operating in war zones. An active front will also keep guerillas more prevalent than if a peace treaty is signed, given how much on paper the majority of their OTL occupation was, this is very bad for them
 
Actually it could be the other way. A formidable Beiyang Regime and the Japanese settle for taking a few provinces i.e. Manchuria after a short or moderate length war. A weak Beiyang disentegrates and Japan has to occupy all of China in one bite, and inherits many of the Beiyang problems, costing far more than the first

A formal peace treaty is neccesary. Without that Japan has to keep its forces fuly mobilized, to occupy all the area they wish to take and maintain strong forces at the border. With a formal treaty this is less neccesary. Likewise without a formal treaty they have to physically take everything they want, rather than having it handed to them. The territory they wish will suffer damage from being fought over even if they win easily, and it will be stripped of things they want by retreating Chinese unless they win extremely rapidly (unlikely with limited horse drawn logistics). An active front also vastly complicates their economy,war loans are higher interest than non war loans, businesses need to pay much more in insurance costs operating in war zones. An active front will also keep guerillas more prevalent than if a peace treaty is signed, given how much on paper the majority of their OTL occupation was, this is very bad for them
Also, unlike the 1930s, Japan has no money to invest in Manchuria or Shandong. His a double blow.
 
What they said.

Also, I would like to see an earlier invasion, if only so it collapses one of the greatest threats to Asia's stability in this time (future militaristic Japanese officers). Would be interesting, to say the least.
 
Regarding US intervention, it had largely recovered from the Great Depression by the late 1930s, and it still didn't apply sanctions to or go to war with Japan over the Second Sino-Japanese War. It might never have, if it hadn't been for Japan associating itself with Nazi Germany.

Regarding monetary investment in occupied territories, I have repeatedly said that this will be a multi-decade process.

Regarding Japan's ability to take down the Beiyang regime, I would point to the example of the Qing. It took the latter two years to overrun China proper after the Ming fell apart. The Qing were (a) far more outnumbered demographically than Japan would be here (b) were far more outmatched economically than Japan would be here and (c) had no technological superiority over the various Ming successor regimes they were fighting, whereas Japan would have a staggering one here.

Regarding Japan's ability to thwart a rump state that refuses to recognize its gains, how much of a burden was thwarting the Tungning kingdom to the Manchus?

I am perfectly open to being shown I am wrong. However, if I can be honest, it seems to me that a lot of the reactions that I have been getting so far are of the format "Japan didn't do this historically. Because it didn't do this historically, it couldn't have been done," which is in my opinion a fallacious argument on an alt-hist forum. Whether it could or couldn't have been done successfully is something to be established, not presumed.
 
At this point not only are you directly answering any of the points raised, you're also accusing me and others for - what, a "fallacious argument"? You're the one who were arguing "this, which didn't happen OTL, will likely happen TTL because of this one change." If you want a proper argument you better hold up the other end.
 
At this point not only are you directly answering any of the points raised, you're also accusing me and others for - what, a "fallacious argument"? You're the one who were arguing "this, which didn't happen OTL, will likely happen TTL because of this one change." If you want a proper argument you better hold up the other end.

What points do you think I didn't answer?
 
Let's all take one step back and calm down a little.

I think zeppelinair means that your arguments aren't clashing. Like he says something, you say something, but they aren't directly fighting each other.

He said, "Also, unlike the 1930s, Japan has no money to invest in Manchuria or Shandong." to disprove your point that Japan would invade to get economic resources.

I'll clarify, just in case that's necessary. By the way, I'm too lazy to underline other arguments, so you guys might have to do it (if you want to).

He's saying that Japan cannot access these resources until they spend a lot of money on building infrastructure. And they have no way to get the money to build infrastructure, so they can't access said resources.

I'll repeat it, just in case it's necessary.

Japan cannot access Chinese resources.
 
Let's all take one step back and calm down a little.

I think zeppelinair means that your arguments aren't clashing. Like he says something, you say something, but they aren't directly fighting each other.

He said, "Also, unlike the 1930s, Japan has no money to invest in Manchuria or Shandong." to disprove your point that Japan would invade to get economic resources.

I'll clarify, just in case that's necessary. By the way, I'm too lazy to underline other arguments, so you guys might have to do it (if you want to).

He's saying that Japan cannot access these resources until they spend a lot of money on building infrastructure. And they have no way to get the money to build infrastructure, so they can't access said resources.

I'll repeat it, just in case it's necessary.

Japan cannot access Chinese resources.

As far as I can tell, there are basically four arguments that have been used against the war's feasibility and goals, and I will try to rephrase my answer to make it clearer exactly what my response is.

Argument No 1. Japan cannot invade China because if it did the US and Britain would apply economic sanctions and this would cripple the Japanese economy. My reply-they did not do so when Japan invaded China in the Second Sino-Japanese War. zeppelinair's reply-the reason they didn't do that is because of the Great Depression, which would not apply ITTL. My reply-the US and Britain had largely recovered from the Great Depression by the late 30s and still didn't apply sanctions to or go to war with Japan over the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Argument No 2. In any case, Japan lacked the economic strength to launch such a war. My reply-the Qing were in a far less favorable demographic, economic, and technological situation than Japan would be ITTL, and still pulled it off.

Argument no 3. The rump state that would emerge on the edge of Japanese-occupied territory would inevitably cause the occupation to be an unsustainable drain. My reply-such a state, the Tungning Kingdom, did emerge against the Manchus and it did not impede their consolidation of control in any meaningful way.

Argument no 4. Japan didn't have any money, unlike in the 1930s. Source? I have a hard time believing that Japan was economically worse before the Great Depression than during it.
 
On the fourth one, I think zeppelinair is trying to say:

Japan got rich by selling weapons and stuff to the Allies. Once workers have to be conscripted for the war with China, they lose a LOT of money.

By the way, what do you mean the Qing "pulled it off"? Getting overthrown? Being total failures?

It's impossible to compare 1600's Qing to 1900's Japan, by the way. 1600's China was extremely isolated, so no foreign parties had anything to lose from a Manchu takeover. Here, everybody loses with a Japanese takeover.

Other than Japan, name one country that benefits from a Japanese-ruled China.
 
Argument No 1. Japan cannot invade China because if it did the US and Britain would apply economic sanctions and this would cripple the Japanese economy. My reply-they did not do so when Japan invaded China in the Second Sino-Japanese War. zeppelinair's reply-the reason they didn't do that is because of the Great Depression, which would not apply ITTL. My reply-the US and Britain had largely recovered from the Great Depression by the late 30s and still didn't apply sanctions to or go to war with Japan over the Second Sino-Japanese War.
What did people do after the 21 Demands?
- Japanese exports to China fell by 40%. In case of an invasion, it falls by 100%. Tragic, right?
- America and Britain FORCED them to stop. Must I repeat - they FORCED them to stop.
- Japan had to withdraw a bunch of their demands.


Argument No 2. In any case, Japan lacked the economic strength to launch such a war. My reply-the Qing were in a far less favorable demographic, economic, and technological situation than Japan would be ITTL, and still pulled it off.
Once again, I've said this before, but the Qing are not relevant.

By the way, the Qing were in a better situation than Japan was in ITTL. They already had Manchuria :D even if it was useless at the time.


Argument no 3. The rump state that would emerge on the edge of Japanese-occupied territory would inevitably cause the occupation to be an unsustainable drain. My reply-such a state, the Tungning Kingdom, did emerge against the Manchus and it did not impede their consolidation of control in any meaningful way.
A 'rump' China existed in Chongqing during World War II because Japan just couldn't garner enough support.

Besides, I think I understand what you're trying to get at. You're aiming for a Chinese conquest of Japan, aren't you?

The only reason the Manchus 'gained' support was by adopting Chinese culture. "Consolidation" means the Kangxi Dictionary and becoming Sinicized. Good job on hiding your true feelings.


Argument no 4. Japan didn't have any money, unlike in the 1930s. Source? I have a hard time believing that Japan was economically worse before the Great Depression than during it.
Japan, as I said earlier, got its money from selling arms to other countries. After WWI, they had to focus on building and stockpiling weapons, or their arms-based economy would collapse. The moment that economy is disrupted to conscript soldiers to go to China (and they require a lot, I promise you), Japan is darned.
 
name one country that benefits from a Japanese-ruled China.

I'm not sure exactly what time-frame you have in mind, but I can think of between one and three if we're talking about the early twentieth century in general.

Germany-it does lose its Pacific territories, but those were prestige colonies and entirely indefensible from Britain anyway. It gains a very significant potential ally against no fewer than three real/potential enemies, Russia, Britain and the US.

Britain and the US-Japan might be a useful ally for either one against the other if Anglo-American relations go downhill.

It's impossible to compare 1600's Qing to 1900's Japan, by the way. 1600's China was extremely isolated, so no foreign parties had anything to lose from a Manchu takeover. Here, everybody loses with a Japanese takeover.

So its impossible to compare two situations unless they're identical? By the way, saying that China was extremely isolated overlooks a very significant party in 1600s Asia-the Mongols. Yes, the Ming had often fought them, but they also had significant periods of good relations and had even formed military alliances with some Mongol confederations, which all lost out massively from the Manchu takeover and were eventually taken over themselves by the Qing.

I would dispute your characterization of the Qing as "total failures," by the way. They started out from an absolutely minuscule population, territory, and resource base, took over an empire that outnumbered them dozens-to-one, took more of Central Asia than any dynasty before them had ever done, achieved absolute dominance of the Asian continent, and presided over two centuries of unprecedented prosperity. Yes, they fell in the end, but that's like saying a great athlete is a failure because he too eventually grew old and died. If lasting forever is your measure of success, then everything is a failure.

Japan got rich by selling weapons and stuff to the Allies.

It was already prosperous following the successful conclusion of the Meiji Restoration. Selling stuff to the Allies may have helped, but I have never read anything that indicated it was cash-strapped or about to go bankrupt before then.
 
I give up on trying to explain how implausible it is. (Yes, I know, I gave up on that pretty easily).

If you knew that Japan could invade China, what was the purpose of the thread? Just write a timeline, then.
 
I give up on trying to explain how implausible it is. (Yes, I know, I gave up on that pretty easily).

If you knew that Japan could invade China, what was the purpose of the thread? Just write a timeline, then.

I am open to being convinced it is implausible. Examples of things that would convince me-

documentary evidence that American and British leaders said and meant that they would apply sanctions on or go to war with Japan if it followed through with the Twenty-One Demands.

economic data showing that pre-WW1 Japan was on the verge of bankruptcy and was incapable of supporting the necessary war effort.

research that shows that I am underestimating the military power of the Beiyang regime.
 
OK, look. This is just an idea that hit me off the top of my head that I decided to post on. I sincerely apologize to the people who disagreed with me for saying that they were using fallacious arguments. I am sure that you all know a lot more about WW1 Asia then I do, and I guess I'll just accept the consensus that it is an implausible idea.
 
I am open to being convinced it is implausible. Examples of things that would convince me-

documentary evidence that American and British leaders said and meant that they would apply sanctions on or go to war with Japan if it followed through with the Twenty-One Demands.

economic data showing that pre-WW1 Japan was on the verge of bankruptcy and was incapable of supporting the necessary war effort.

research that shows that I am underestimating the military power of the Beiyang regime.

Ok, so, I'm back on this thread (forgot to subscribe so last track of it since I last posted).

Firstly, as people have said, we're not trying to talk you out of a timeline. I'm sure if you wrote it people would read it.

Secondly, some points to think about:

*I don't think that Britain or the US would act in this timescale to prevent a Japanese attack on China. BUT it would irrevocably destroy relations between Japan and the west. OTL the 21 demands and the tension over them were the end of Anglo-Japanese friendship. So whilst you are right and its unlikely Britain or the US would be able to stop Japan, it would face an isolated c20th. This would have large butterflies for Japanese strategic thinking.

Robert Gowen 1971:
"The demands were the visible outgrowth of a fundamental divergence of Policy between Britain and its Asian Ally".

*Japan's economy was at a crossroads in the 1910s. You are right it was getting stronger but, as I and other posters have pointed out, it was very much in its infancy. Shifting from an agricultural economy to a developed industrial one, the large funding bodies that became the Zaibatsus were only just developing in this period. So yes a developed economy but, as people have pointed out, a very fragile one that a major war might ruin.

Source: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/japanese-industrialization-and-economic-growth/

One of the key problems is that you keep talking about there being one Chinese opposition to overcome. But the realities of 1910s China was a shifting landscape of factions. You've not just got the large armies of Beiyang but the growing power of the nascent KMT. Plus Sun Yat Sen is still around in this period and whilst the man wasn't the best organiser he WAS an amazing rallying force for Chinese nationalism.

It depends, really, on what the aim of this Japanese incursion is. You've talked vaguely about Manchuria, the coastal cities, the heartland of the north....each area would provoke a different reaction in China and in the West. Whilst Britain might not have a huge problem with Japan taking over Manchuria, there's no way they are going to let them seize Guangzhou or other southern areas without mobilizing the Hong Kong station fleet to block them. Plus, we've not talked about Russia yet, who were a major power player here....
 
Top