WI: Japanese expansion stopped after WWI, how the world is changed?

Japan made the major breaks with Britain as its patron in the early 1920s, it was suggested up thread this may not occur or there is a Anglo/Nipon rapprochement, that has some large effects on a war in Europe & Japan as a possible Brit ally as in the Great War.
 
Actually they did care about Japanese expansion. isolationism was mostly oriented towards Europe, and aided there by a lack of threat to US economic interests there. Conversely Japans expansion/domination of Asian markets disrupted US business in the region. The Japanese taking control of markets and taking a middleman's cut from markets that had been directly acessable to US businessmen in the 'China Trade' was a one of the causes of the China Lobby in the US. The only reason it was not a bigger issue was the small portion of overseas trade Asia & Pacifica represented. That the US kept a fleet stationed in Chinas territorial waters, infantry regiments ashore, was expanding a naval base in the nearby Phillipines, intervened in China with a expeditionary force 1927-28, and that War Plan Orange was the only well developed, tested and prepared war plan of the US n that era says something about the engagement of the US in Asia & China.

Yup; pretty much why I think Japan and the US would be much friendlier here than IOTL. Japan's not messing with America's trade with China, so the biggest issue between Japan and the US is gone.

That merely requires a regional-class navy though. Which is my point: for a non-expansionist Japan focused on defending/thoroughly exploiting Korea and Formosia, the entire political culture around their military and geopolitical perspective is bound to change. Everything is smaller and more tightly focused on the mid-west Pacific, with a corresponding cut-back on the number of tasks they need to be prepared for and the degree of redundancy see need to see it through, seeing as they can keep their naval forces concentrated in a single regional fleet. A world-class fleet, on the other hand, like the US, UK, or France have, is different in the sense that its built up to operate across the world in multiple regions simultaneously.

Large navies, especially with extensive "Blue Water" capabilities (Range, logistical support networks, ect.) are very expensive, and in this scenario I can't see how any naval lobby is going to be able to justify getting the money for a force of the size or quality of the friendly Anglo powers. If anything, the fact the change of the situation brought on in China and the Soviets breathing down their regional neck (on the border with the Korea which is their crown jewel) mean that even if you get a sufficient militarist influence for even OTL's military budget its going to be going to beefiing up the army and constructing a powerful air wing, with the Empire acting as a fine series of unsinkable aircraft carriers

Correction; Formosa is Japan's crown jewel. It always was. Their model colony. Korea was a very problematic colony for Japan, all things considered. Also, aviation wasn't that big in the 1920s as one might think, battleships were still the arbiter of power at the time. That said, with Japanese policy and mentality now set on peaceful coexistence with the West after WWI, perhaps Japan might not push for a bigger ratio in the WNT, and be content with as much as what France and Italy get. Five battleships would be at a disadvantage against ten American/British battleships, but it would be enough for defense against China or the Soviet Union. Japan would also be a very enthusiastic supporter of the LNT when it comes around ITTL, and would probably push for similar limitations on carriers, to prevent a naval arms race over them as much as it would with battleships.

Japan does need carriers though, to cover the large gap between the Home Islands and Formosa. However, instead of the large carrier fleets the IJN wanted IOTL, four would be enough, a core for a single CTF to cover the gap between Formosa and the Home Islands. Lots of light cruisers and destroyers, with greater focus than IOTL on ASW technology and doctrine, with an eye on preventing Chinese or Soviet submarines from wreaking havoc on Japan's merchant fleets. In the future, Japan may shift away from large, fleet carriers, to smaller light carriers again with a focus on ASW and fleet escort duties, relying more on ground-based air forces as technology advances.
 
... That said, with Japanese policy and mentality now set on peaceful coexistence with the West after WWI, perhaps Japan might not push for the bigger ratio in the WNC, and be content with what France and Italy get. Five battleships would be at a disadvantage against ten American/British battleships, but it would be enough for defense against China or the Soviet Union. Japan would also be a very enthusiastic supported of the LNT when it comes around ITTL, and would probably push for similar limitations on carriers, to prevent a naval arms race over them as much as it would with carriers.

Japan does need carriers though, to cover the large gap between the Home Islands and Formosa. However, instead of the large carrier fleets the IJN wanted IOTL, four would be enough, ...

Japan had some good concepts for land based air in the 1930s. The execution can be criticized, like flimsy aircraft, but the doctrines and other details were sound. By the standards of 1938-42 anyone trying to fight a naval battle near Japanese land bases might have some surprises. that is as a British ally they might be more capable against Axis Navl ops in the Mediterranean.
 
Last edited:

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Japan made the major breaks with Britain as its patron in the early 1920s, it was suggested up thread this may not occur or there is a Anglo/Nipon rapprochement, that has some large effects on a war in Europe & Japan as a possible Brit ally as in the Great War.

To be fair, Britain was equally part of making those breakups too. If the US and Australia still view Japan as a possible foe, there's still reasons for the treaties not to be renewed.
 
Japan had some good concepts for land based air in the 1930s. The execution can be criticized, like flimsy aircraft, but the doctrines and other details were sound. By the standards of 1938-42 anyone trying to fight a naval battle near Japanese land bases might have some surprises. that is as a British ally they might be more capable against Axis Navl ops in the Mediterranean.

AFAIK, the flimsy design of Japan's aircraft were due to Japan's strategy for the Pacific, that is they compromised on reliability and durability for range and offensive power. ITTL, the G3M and G4M probably wouldn't be as long-ranged as IOTL, but wouldn't be flying death traps. Though, if Japan's militarism is butterflied, the inter-service rivalry may be butterflied as well. Together with a more sensible strategy in a potential war, good relations with the Commonwealth and America, Japanese aircraft design could be better. Instead of the unreliable and flimsy death traps of OTL, Japan's aircraft in the late 30s onward ITTL may be on par with OTL's mid-40s aircraft, like the Ki-61/Ki-84 and the Ki-67.
 
2) Yes: Korea is actually a bit like the Algeria analogue for France

Yes, but hardly the things would go as it went OTL with Algeria, first of all France is a republic and it was heavily affected by the collapse of the concept of a prestigious colonial empire on the 1950s, while Japan on the other hand, while it has a imperial diet and parties, it is still a heavily authoritarian state with centuries of militaristic tradition, they are not going to leave Korea, a better analogue would be Portugal with Angola, but the main difference is that Korea is closer to it and that Japan has a larger population.
 
Top