Would Japan attack an Axis China?

Would Japan attack Axis China?

  • Yes

    Votes: 72 79.1%
  • No

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • It Depends

    Votes: 17 18.7%

  • Total voters
    91
As for the OP's question, the Japanese are essentially doomed to invade and get bogged down in China after 1932. Which European alliance system the two countries find it convenient to subscribe doesn't have much impact on the regional trends that are dominating Asian geopolitics in the 1930s.
 
yes, they are going to attack China.

don't believe a German warning would have much weight before 1940-41?

after all Japan declined to sign Pact of Steel in 1939, certainly a less serious request (from Japanese point of view) than their control of China.
 
What could the Germans do even if the Chinese did sign the Pact and then Japan acts as per OTL and punches them in the groin? Basically nothing other than strongly worded diplomatic stuff.
 

Deleted member 1487

What could the Germans do even if the Chinese did sign the Pact and then Japan acts as per OTL and punches them in the groin? Basically nothing other than strongly worded diplomatic stuff.
More outright military aid. A Uboat flottila based in East Asia and a Condor Legion, plus ground troops would make a pretty damn big difference. Japan did fine against untrained Chinese militia with poor equipment, but got trashed in a stand up fight against well trained and equipped western troops. The Flying Tigers German style would put a big crimp on Japanese actions. I mean how would they have handled Stukas with Me109 and Bf110 support? Those were better than the P-40s the AVG used.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
If the Japanese hold Manchuria, Korea and Formosa and, more importantly, have the right to base troops, ships and aircraft in what is now friendly territory, what need is there to invade? With the problem of getting bogged down with a million men in an essentially unwinnable war gone, Japan can throw itself fully into taking over the European and US colonies in SE Asia and the Pacific.
 
If the Japanese hold Manchuria, Korea and Formosa and, more importantly, have the right to base troops, ships and aircraft in what is now friendly territory, what need is there to invade? With the problem of getting bogged down with a million men in an essentially unwinnable war gone, Japan can throw itself fully into taking over the European and US colonies in SE Asia and the Pacific.
If they have complete control over China (and as noted, the junior officers who are driving most decisions on the ground were pretty much regularly staging military incidents and incursions; Marco Polo Bridge was just the one where the Chinese had finally had enough and decided to fight back, so just continuing the status quo as you seem to suggest is basically untenable), then they have no need to throw themselves into taking over European and US colonies.

While there was always some interest in conquering those areas, the trigger for war was the need to secure resources in the face of US sanctions. Without the continuing war in China, there are no sanctions, and thus no need for an invasion.

The first thing to remember about Japanese foreign policy in the 1930s is that it was never centralized policy; the Kwangtung Army was always creating facts on the ground and forcing Tokyo to adjust its policies appropriately, not vice versa. Eventually some incident is going to explode, and once it does, Japan will be unable to stop even if it wants to.
 
What could the Germans do even if the Chinese did sign the Pact and then Japan acts as per OTL and punches them in the groin? Basically nothing other than strongly worded diplomatic stuff.

More outright military aid. A Uboat flottila based in East Asia and a Condor Legion, plus ground troops would make a pretty damn big difference. Japan did fine against untrained Chinese militia with poor equipment, but got trashed in a stand up fight against well trained and equipped western troops. The Flying Tigers German style would put a big crimp on Japanese actions. I mean how would they have handled Stukas with Me109 and Bf110 support? Those were better than the P-40s the AVG used.

well ... you COULD have an earlier M-R Pact that would allow Germany transit to China via TSR (and use Northern Sea Lane)

in that way Sino-German alliance could keep Japan off balance (at the very least) and USSR basically has to do nothing.

Germany would benefit by keeping their trading partner and not becoming so dependent on Soviets (albeit using their transportation system.)
 

Don Quijote

Banned
But if it's a choice between the most heavily populated country in the world, and some lightly defended colonial possessions with disaffected native populations, and both offer rich resources, why take the hard option?

The British, Dutch and Americans were clearly willing to fight when they saw the threat Japan posed, but initially lacked the strength. If Japan can win an even more decisive victory than it actually did, and is backed up by China, they may accept peace on Japanese terms in order to focus on Europe. In a way this is what Britain did in 1940 when Japan demanded the closure of the Burma Road. Europe took priority over Asia, so the road was closed.

On the other hand, China lacked the industrial development to defeat Japan, but had the large and willing population base to allow it to resist from day one of the invasion. It was also like the USSR in a way, being able to give territory for time. China can't be an easy victory, but there's a slight possibility that SE Asia can.
 

Deleted member 1487

well ... you COULD have an earlier M-R Pact that would allow Germany transit to China via TSR (and use Northern Sea Lane)

in that way Sino-German alliance could keep Japan off balance (at the very least) and USSR basically has to do nothing.

Germany would benefit by keeping their trading partner and not becoming so dependent on Soviets (albeit using their transportation system.)
I doubt it would be a M-R pact earlier than IOTL, but there could be a transit agreement if worse came to worse and the French didn't let the Germans transit supplies via Indochina that allowed the Germans to move men and material in via the USSR. However there are no rail lines connecting the USSR and China by 1939 due to Japan holding all the links. So anything would have to be driven in over hundreds of miles from the nearest rail head over pretty rough terrain infested by warlords and bandits.
 
But if it's a choice between the most heavily populated country in the world, and some lightly defended colonial possessions with disaffected native populations, and both offer rich resources, why take the hard option?
For Japan as a whole? Maybe. But again, Japan was not making policy as a unified decision-maker. The junior officers of the Kwangtung Army would get nothing out of a Pacific colonial campaign, and know it. They will continue launching border provocations until the Chinese have to respond. And anyone trying to crack down on the Kwangtung Army is very likely to end up assassinated.

Remember, the entire conquest of Manchuria was essentially triggered because of some junior officers acting against orders to stage a false-flag incident; given its success, (and various smaller, later incidents between then and Marco Polo Bridge), its going to be nigh impossible to prevent some other officers to try and repeat the same thing, no matter how much it might make sense from Tokyo's perspective.

Besides, a Japan without it's pre-Pearl Harbor successes (e.g., occupying French Indochina, something only made feasible by the Fall of France) is in a much worse position to seize the resources they need; capturing the Dutch East Indies and Malaya are much more difficult when you don't have those areas under your control.

The need for resources was always there, but it only truly became acute once the Americans imposed sanctions (and convinced the Allies to do likewise); until then the Japanese were able to meet their needs by trading.
 
More outright military aid. A Uboat flottila based in East Asia and a Condor Legion, plus ground troops would make a pretty damn big difference. Japan did fine against untrained Chinese militia with poor equipment, but got trashed in a stand up fight against well trained and equipped western troops. The Flying Tigers German style would put a big crimp on Japanese actions. I mean how would they have handled Stukas with Me109 and Bf110 support? .

And just where is Germany going to find the resources to deploy these impressive military forces a third of the way round the planet, when its busy squaring up for an existential struggle on its doorstep? How is it going to sustain them in a country where logistics consist of porters carrying stuff on their bback and infrastructure makes even Russia look luxurious? Where are they going to base these submarines so that the IJN can't just shell the place flat in half a day?
Germany struggled with the logistics of sustaining operations on the other side of the Mediterranean or across the Ukraine. The UK and US found supporting operations in Asia generally a huge headache and in China near-impossible, despite much better access and experience than Germany could hope for.
I think its a pipe dream to assume Germany could achieve anything other than to embarrass itself, and the Japanese would be well aware of that. After all, they know more about operating in China than anyone apart from the Chinese.
 
Top