Just like Thailand sent troops WI Japan did the same thing around late 1916 early 1917.
1. As a symbolic gesture.
Or
2. Send a serious amount of men.
How would noth scenarios pan ou.
If they fought hard and well, maybe spearheading an attack or two, holding a difficult section in the face of a determined attack, and crucially bled for the cause they may get a better deal at Versailles.
The deal they got was pretty swish given they didn't do an awful lot, but they felt badly short changed and betrayed by the Allies - add the lack of racial equality clause in the LoN and you've got seeds for trouble.
The funny thing is Japan was important in hunting down raiders and supplying destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea
Oh nobody is suggesting they didn't do anything - of course they did. But at Versailles the chat was all about death tolls. Wilson was effectively told to shove it because he only spoke for 50k dead. Japan got the scraps from the table because at the highest estimate they contributed 4k lives to the cause.
The British Empire laid down nearly a million lives. France over a million. Italy about half a million.
Didn't they get everything they wanted except racial equality? I can't see the Americans or the British agreeing to that.
Oh nobody is suggesting they didn't do anything - of course they did. But at Versailles the chat was all about death tolls. Wilson was effectively told to shove it because he only spoke for 50k dead. Japan got the scraps from the table because at the highest estimate they contributed 4k lives to the cause.
The British Empire laid down nearly a million lives. France over a million. Italy about half a million.
I have wondered about getting Japanese Troops in the Middle East during WWI. Supply Lines seem slightly shorter. And Japan might be more willing to commit troops to the ME than the horrid grinder of the Western Front.
The dying bit would not make that much difference. The Chinese did that then got well screwed at Versailles.True, it's CERTAINLY far easier. However, they're likely to get far less "credit" there, even if they're fighting along Brits, Anzacs, etc and they do as much fighting an dying.
The question is explored by Maverick in "The Sun and the Mirror".Just like Thailand sent troops WI Japan did the same thing around late 1916 early 1917.
The dying bit would not make that much difference. The Chinese did that then got well screwed at Versailles.
So did the US.Not to mention,Japan actually prospered economically as a result of the war.
But the US was vital to the ententes winning.Japanese support was marginal.So did the US.
Did not say that they did. The point I made was that China provided support in manpower and some on them died, In return, China expected something back from the Entente, eg less treaty ports, but did not receive anything.The Chinese didn't send any combat troops.Besides that,the workers they sent over were paid and supplied by the major powers,not the Chinese.
Did not say that they did. The point I made was that China provided support in manpower and some on them died, In return, China expected something back from the Entente, eg less treaty ports, but did not receive anything.
Most countries didnpt get what they felt they deserved.Did not say that they did. The point I made was that China provided support in manpower and some on them died, In return, China expected something back from the Entente, eg less treaty ports, but did not receive anything.