Thinking this through. I say the only chance Japan had to conquer China was right after WWI. China was more screwed up than 1937. Everybody was tired of war. The USSR was too busy with itself. And the League of Nations was not borned yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fall of France
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostThinking this through. I say the only chance Japan had to conquer China was right after WWI. China was more screwed up than 1937. Everybody was tired of war. The USSR was too busy with itself. And the League of Nations was not borned yet.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostI'm afraid I'm not following you. Where would they expand their Empire if not into China?
1) Re-trenched from China into Manchuria
2) Taken Hainan Island
3) Played the Nationalists against the Communists, attempt to prolong the Chinese Civil War as long as possible
4) Restricted conquests in SE Asia to Indochina, possibly as client states instead of direct occupation, with Thailand as an ally
5) Imported Fischer-Tropsch technology from Germany, taken 10 years to develop a mature petrochemical base utilizing the vast deposits of coal in Korea and Manchuria
6) Not gone to war with US, UK, NL, AUS, NZ
7) Provided support of a more covert type to de-stabilize European rule in their East Asian colonies, create client states in the event of successful independence movements
8) But not do the above to the US, which had an anti-colonial outlook even despite possessing colonies of our own
9) Put the IJN on a more defensive footing vis-a-vis the American/European navies than was historically the case, conserving oil and limiting the potential theater of operations in the event of a possible war with those powers. Try to reverse the tyranny of geography factor with regards to naval operations, to the fullest extent possible.
Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Japan and Germany simply went too far, too fast, when the lessons of history should have taught them that Empire is a process of consolidation and steady gains. The most rapidly created empires were always the most rapid to fall, fracture into smaller successor states, or assimilate into the peoples they conquered.
This assessment may very well be worthless and a non-starter, feel free to second-guess it and pick holes in it. :-)Last edited by Ironduke; 11 Apr 18,, 01:32."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostIf I were Japan, and making decisions not based on racial bushido code, but instead went for limited, practical gains at a steady pace, I would have:
1) Re-trenched from China into Manchuria
2) Taken Hainan Island
3) Played the Nationalists against the Communists, attempt to prolong the Chinese Civil War as long as possible
4) Restricted conquests in SE Asia to Indochina, possibly as client states instead of direct occupation, with Thailand as an ally
5) Imported Fischer-Tropsch technology from Germany, taken 10 years to develop a mature petrochemical base utilizing the vast deposits of coal in Korea and Manchuria
6) Not gone to war with US, UK, NL, AUS, NZ
7) Provided support of a more covert type to de-stabilize European rule in their East Asian colonies, create client states in the event of successful independence movements
8) But not do the above to the US, which had an anti-colonial outlook even despite possessing colonies of our own
9) Put the IJN on a more defensive footing vis-a-vis the American/European navies than was historically the case, conserving oil and limiting the potential theater of operations in the event of a possible war with those powers. Try to reverse the tyranny of geography factor as far as naval operations to the fullest extent possible.
Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Japan and Germany simply went too far, too fast, when the lessons of history should have taught them that Empire is a process of consolidation and steady gains. The most rapidly created empires were always the most rapid to fall, fracture into smaller successor states, or assimilate into the peoples they conquered.
This assessment may very well be worthless and a non-starter, feel free to second-guess it and pick holes in it. :-)
Ironically, it was the 2nd Sino-Japanese War that saved the Communists. CKS had them on the ropes. Forcing CKS to defend Shanghai and other cities deny CKS the oppertunity to marshall his forces to finish the Communists.Chimo
Comment
-
frankly japan already HAD everything she wanted by 1919.
she had hegemony, China was badly fragmented, and Japan could (and did) fund a bunch of puppet warlords.
the big mistake was wanting to turn hegemony into outright control. that was -stupid-.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Japan probably lacked the incentive to go full imperial at 1919--the US and UK were quite willing to accomodate Japan as a great power and their partener in Asia. What if Japan forgoed this madness, what with picking a fight with everyone at the same time, and instead sided with the actual winners of history?All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Triple C View PostJapan probably lacked the incentive to go full imperial at 1919--the US and UK were quite willing to accomodate Japan as a great power and their partener in Asia. What if Japan forgoed this madness, what with picking a fight with everyone at the same time, and instead sided with the actual winners of history?Chimo
Comment
-
They might have avoided the WWII damage but no way were they rich enough to hold back the nationalist movements that erupted after WWII.
honestly i think if japan kept up with its 1920s Taisho period strategy of working with the UK/US, both parties would have turned a blind eye to the little games that Japan was playing in China as part of Japan's sphere of influence. and i don't know why Japan couldn't hold onto Korea or Taiwan, after all the USSR held onto Ukraine and the other subject Stans without much of a problem.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Taiwan I can see Japan keeping but CKS was just as ruthless as Tojo. Japan was simply not rich enough to hold back Chinese unification. After that, it would be a matter of time before the Koreans took their inspirations from China. Japan would still be top dog in Asia but China would simply be too powerful to contain. Do recall that in the real timeline, the Chinese smashed into Korea less than 2 years from their Civil War.Chimo
Comment
-
Do recall that in the real timeline, the Chinese smashed into Korea less than 2 years from their Civil War.
CKS might be as ruthless as Tojo but he sure wasn't as ruthless as Mao, nor did he have Mao's vision.
i do agree that Japan would have lost power relative to China, but if Japan wasn't directly invading China, a lot of that Chinese unification would have been in name only.
that's what happened with all the warlords who "surrendered" to CKS. yeah, they no longer got to call themselves The Top Dog but they kept their own private armies under a KMT name, their own patronage networks, and CKS basically let them do whatever it was they wanted-- even if it meant the Communists were making enormous propaganda gains.
you'd end up with Japan being top dog, China being a power but not a great power.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postthat was only possible with the enormous stockpile of US arms captured by the CCP and with the enormous number of defecting, US-trained former KMT troops. plus of course a huge amount of Soviet aid.
Originally posted by astralis View PostCKS might be as ruthless as Tojo but he sure wasn't as ruthless as Mao, nor did he have Mao's vision.
Originally posted by astralis View Posti do agree that Japan would have lost power relative to China, but if Japan wasn't directly invading China, a lot of that Chinese unification would have been in name only.
Originally posted by astralis View Postthat's what happened with all the warlords who "surrendered" to CKS. yeah, they no longer got to call themselves The Top Dog but they kept their own private armies under a KMT name, their own patronage networks, and CKS basically let them do whatever it was they wanted-- even if it meant the Communists were making enormous propaganda gains.
you'd end up with Japan being top dog, China being a power but not a great power.
Sure, Japan would have a bigger say outside of Asia but in Asia? Can Japan seriously stopped China from helping to liberate Korea?Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostThis would deny them their primary objective, China. The more time you give to CKS, the more united China would become and at the very least, adding more and more Western trained divisions to the NRA.
Ironically, it was the 2nd Sino-Japanese War that saved the Communists. CKS had them on the ropes. Forcing CKS to defend Shanghai and other cities deny CKS the oppertunity to marshall his forces to finish the Communists.
Basically:
1) Keep the Chinese down
2) Kick the Europeans out through covert means, through the support of independence movements and the creation of client states from successful independence movements
3) Keep the Americans and Soviets not pissed off to whatever extent possible - ostensibly share their anti-colonial outlook while creating client states and alliances with newly independent/client state Asian states
4) Long-term - projecting outward to the 1960s/70s, basically a Japan-led NATO that is anti-China, consisting of the 1919 Japanese Empire and the entirety of SE Asia as client states, while neutral/amiable to the European powers and America.
But as you oft like to say, too many butterflies.Last edited by Ironduke; 13 Apr 18,, 01:06."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postthe big mistake was wanting to turn hegemony into outright control. that was -stupid-."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostIn my scenario, the only objective in China is to keep it weak, divided, and down. Not conquer it.
Frankly, I do not see anyway for the IJE to keep China divided exccept for direct military intervention. The Communists had the best shot and they were on the ropes and the Japanese have no way to send money or support to them without going through Soviet territory.Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 13 Apr 18,, 18:43.Chimo
Comment
Comment