WI:Japan sent an expeditionary force to the Western Front in WWI?

Assuming Entente managed to pressure Japan into sending an expeditionary force instead of tolerating Japan mostly sitting idly as it was in OTL,would there be significant changes in how the Japanese army operates later on?At least,will they finally realized that 'superior spirit' is totally worthless compared in face of superior firepower?
 
Last edited:
Assuming Entente managed to pressure Japan into sending an expeditionary force instead of tolerating Japan mostly sitting idly as it was in OTL,would there be significant changes in how the Japanese army operates later on?At least,will they finally realized that 'superior spirit' is totally worthless compared in face of superior firepower?

IIRC, one of the command magazine war-games, 1918, actually had an optional scenario for this very occurrence. The Japanese Expeditionary Force had the ability to conduct infiltration combat like the German stormtrooper units, but didn't have the ability to be replaced by the allies.
 
Aren't there several threads discussing this? But the Japanese could send troops to the Balkans to free up Entente troops for the Middle East, Western Front and Italy, although this is my preference. Now, the casualties would cause butterflies for the invasion of China, Second World War and [especially] the Pacific section.
Has anybody in the few threads considered the butterflies if Tojo, Yamashita, Ozawa, Sugiyama, Homma and other Japanese military commanders were dead on the WW1 battlefield in 1915-1918[9]? And add a Japanese Naval Squadron that participates in Jutland only to be destroyed for one German capital ship sunk between them [if any]. Of course, the British can lose no ships and the Germans must lose at least one without Japanese or torpedo help. And, what about the trust from the Asians if Japan fought with imperialist powers in WW1? Not to mention the logistics and money needed to be spent on the Expeditionary Force to the Entente's help.

I don't think there was,not this year at least.I really don't think the death of a few commanders is going to make much differenes.If a commander dies,what could potentially happen of course is that someone more competent who might not have the opportunity to be promoted in OTL might now find himself promoted to higher stations than OTL.
 
I think the main effect would be in that it shatters the Japanese military's doctrine on emphasizing morale. Before the horrors of World War I with its sundry assortment of murderous weapons it was assumed that superior morale could win the day. It turns out you need superior firepower too.

That is not to say that morale is unimportant, but some hard experiences on the Western Front could have developmental effects on Japan so large scale military formations such as the Kwangtung Army are entirely different in their composition and tactics.
 
I think 'superior morale' was more an excuse than a real reason for the lack of resources in Japan. Whether they like it or not, they simply lack the tech and resources to wage war against a major power.
I doubt that joining WWI changes the OTL strategy at large.
 
And, what about the trust from the Asians if Japan fought with imperialist powers in WW1?

I can't comment on any part except the part quoted here which I do have knowledge and expertise on. Japan had already participated in 1899-1901 in suppression of the Boxer Rebellion as an ally of European powers (and the US) in the Eight Nation Alliance (France, UK, Russia, Japan, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Germany). The Japanese never cared for "trust from the Asians", the "co-prosperity sphere" was just a euphemism for propaganda and more directed at the US, Australia, and European powers and I suppose Indian independence movements. If Japan cared about trust from Asians they wouldn't have invaded China. And it's not like there were a lot of independent Asian countries to begin with- China, Tibet, Mongolia, Nepal, and Thailand/Siam and a few others for short bursts like Tuva. None of which were in a position that Japan really cared what they thought as the Japanese position was one of being more like the Europeans in China by that point anyways.
 
I can't comment on any part except the part quoted here which I do have knowledge and expertise on. Japan had already participated in 1899-1901 in suppression of the Boxer Rebellion as an ally of European powers (and the US) in the Eight Nation Alliance (France, UK, Russia, Japan, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Germany). The Japanese never cared for "trust from the Asians", the "co-prosperity sphere" was just a euphemism for propaganda and more directed at the US, Australia, and European powers and I suppose Indian independence movements. If Japan cared about trust from Asians they wouldn't have invaded China. And it's not like there were a lot of independent Asian countries to begin with- China, Tibet, Mongolia, Nepal, and Thailand/Siam and a few others for short bursts like Tuva. None of which were in a position that Japan really cared what they thought as the Japanese position was one of being more like the Europeans in China by that point anyways.
>Annexation of Korea
>21 Demands
Yep, sounds about right.
 
WI Japanese soldiers had been sent to "assist" in Tanganika or Gallipoli?

OTL The French imported labourers from Indo-China.
Meanwhile the British imported logistics labourers and tank mechanics from Northern China, even shipped them across Canada in sealed railway cars.
 
WI Japanese soldiers had been sent to "assist" in Tanganika or Gallipoli?

OTL The French imported labourers from Indo-China.
Meanwhile the British imported logistics labourers and tank mechanics from Northern China, even shipped them across Canada in sealed railway cars.

They lose catastrophically.
 
Top