WI Japan send troops to the western front.

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 the scenarios pan out
 
Last edited:
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.

Still difficult to see the Anglo-Japanese treaty being renewed if they still go down the road of spooking the US. Britain is going to drop them like a hot rock if America make it a condition of a close relationship.
 

jahenders

Banned
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.

I agree. If they can be SEEN to be helping (IN THE WEST), they'll get more "credit" and be treated better at Versailles and in the Naval Treaty, reducing a lot of the issues that led to tensions building toward WWII.
 

Deleted member 9338

The funny thing is Japan was important in hunting down raiders and supplying destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea.

It would be funny o have the Japanese on the Western Front with Chinese laborers supporting them.

Other than the Western Front would Mesopotamia be a good fit for the Japanese Army?
 
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.
 
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.

It was why they got to be the big three at the table.

Japan's contribution, while certainly commendable and by all accounts probably one of the best deals in the war, was small in comparison. They would probably have to commit at least a division to some spot on the Western front, but I can imagine the British would want to send them to the Middle East.

If they got sent to fight the Ottomans, I imagine their contribution could be just as downplayed as OTL while maybe scoring them some brownie points in the post-war agreements.
 
Didn't they get everything they wanted except racial equality? I can't see the Americans or the British agreeing to that.
 

jahenders

Banned
Didn't they get everything they wanted except racial equality? I can't see the Americans or the British agreeing to that.

That was the biggest thing, but they were also upset that they didn't get all of the former German provinces in the North Pacific which they wanted.

If they had sent a sizable number of troops to the Western Front and they'd fought (and died) alongside British/French troops, it might have increased their chances of getting the racial equality clause (though British Australia and India were against it).

The Japanese also felt snubbed in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, where the set ratio of ships was UK 5: US 5: Japan 3
 
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.

Not to mention,Japan actually prospered economically as a result of the war.
 
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.
 

jahenders

Banned
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.

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.

Now, if they were able/willing to get involved early enough, perhaps they could have sent a sizable force to Gallipoli and actually taken it. The Anzacs were amazingly brave, but their leadership (especially on day 1 ashore) was horribly inconsistent, with some leaders simply stopping, even though their objectives were wide open in front of them.

The Japanese DID have some good experience with combine Ground-Naval assaults from the Russo-Japanese War.

If they were the "saviors of Gallipoli", they'd get some serious street cred from that.
 
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 dying bit would not make that much difference. The Chinese did that then got well screwed at Versailles.
 
The dying bit would not make that much difference. The Chinese did that then got well screwed at Versailles.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Frankly,what they did for entente didn't warrant anything from them.It was too minuscule.There might be some moral obligations if the Chinese actually paid and supplied the labor corps themselves,but they didn't.The labor corps were as good as paid mercenaries not unlike those from the foreign legions.I am an ethnic Chinese and even I have to admit this.
 
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.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Political impact aside, might this have reduced the cultural fear of "The Yellow Peril" that was so prevalent at the time? If Englishmen (and the men of the Dominions), Frenchmen, and Americans had fought side-by-side with Japanese troops in the trenches of France and Flanders, could it have altered public perceptions in any significant way?
 
Top