Jump to content


Photo

What If: Kaiser Willie Dies In 1909?


  • Please log in to reply
311 replies to this topic

#301 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,507 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 0859 AM

 

This would be an interesting alternative history scenario, no?
 
Of course you then have the political implications of the Japanese taking Indo China. From the British perspective that is setting us up for potential problems with Malaya later.


It wasn't Japan that wanted to end the alliance. AFAIK, it wasn't Great Britain itself either. It was the other commonwealth countries and the US that wanted that alliance broken.

 

 

After WW1 the only conceivable enemies of Japan in the Pacific were the USA, France, and Britain itself.  The alliance with Japan had ceased to make sense for Britain with Germany defeated.


  • 0

#302 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,214 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 1207 PM

It's not a question of what the French had in total (4 battleships, 6 semi-battleships, plus a host of older pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers), but what their fleet needed to do in home waters before any surplus strength could be assigned to the Pacific.

 

A piecemeal French answer to that question in confrontation with the Japanese Navy in its own backyard sounds like a recipe for a French disaster nee Trafalgar.


  • 0

#303 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,507 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 1245 PM

Yes, provided the French are limited to their own resources.  Since French communications at home were their primary responsibility, and the Italian fleet would pose a grave danger due to British neutrality, I would hazard the guess that the French could not muster much in the way of a Far Eastern squadron.  Certainly not to deter the Japanese.  However, if the British were to bare their teeth at their allies and warn them that the Anglo-Japanese alliance would be defunct in the event of a Japanese war with France, that would radically alter calculations in Tokyo.  So here as with everything, the viability of the Entente depends on British participation.

 

Happily, the Japanese could function beneficially in harmony with the Entente by way of attacking Germany.  And this is what they did.  So, the far more interesting question is, what could Germany have done with its empire in the Far East that would have been better than what it did historically?  For example.  The United States Navy greatly desired coaling stations between Hawaii and Manila Bay.  Should Germany have leased to the Americans anchorages in the Marshalls, Marianas, and Carolines in the pre-war years?  I think they'd have done well to have done so.  Was the best scheme in 1914 for Spee to run for South America and leave the garrison at Tsingtao to surrender to Japanese assault?  What if he'd gone south to Australia with a portion of the Tsingtao garrison and landed them at Darwin, Broome, or Perth with the objective of tying down ANZAC forces?


Edited by glenn239, 02 December 2019 - 1249 PM.

  • 0

#304 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,302 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 1745 PM

This would be an interesting alternative history scenario, no?
 
Of course you then have the political implications of the Japanese taking Indo China. From the British perspective that is setting us up for potential problems with Malaya later.


It wasn't Japan that wanted to end the alliance. AFAIK, it wasn't Great Britain itself either. It was the other commonwealth countries and the US that wanted that alliance broken.
 
After WW1 the only conceivable enemies of Japan in the Pacific were the USA, France, and Britain itself.  The alliance with Japan had ceased to make sense for Britain with Germany defeated.

As you know, I don't respond to you :)
  • 0

#305 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,214 posts

Posted 03 December 2019 - 0122 AM

However, if the British were to bare their teeth at their allies and warn them that the Anglo-Japanese alliance would be defunct in the event of a Japanese war with France, that would radically alter calculations in Tokyo.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but the onus of coming to an overextended Russia's aid in the event of a Japanese decision to rectify the articles of the Treaty of Portsmouth, as well as the declaration of war, would be on France.

 

If Britain should choose to terminate its alliance with Japan rather than live up to it, better for Japan and Japanese to know sooner rather than later what the word of Britain's representatives would be worth.


  • 0

#306 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,507 posts

Posted 03 December 2019 - 0809 AM

 

 

 

This would be an interesting alternative history scenario, no?
 
Of course you then have the political implications of the Japanese taking Indo China. From the British perspective that is setting us up for potential problems with Malaya later.


It wasn't Japan that wanted to end the alliance. AFAIK, it wasn't Great Britain itself either. It was the other commonwealth countries and the US that wanted that alliance broken.
 
After WW1 the only conceivable enemies of Japan in the Pacific were the USA, France, and Britain itself.  The alliance with Japan had ceased to make sense for Britain with Germany defeated.

As you know, I don't respond to you :)

 

 

I don't care who you do or do not respond to. 


  • 0

#307 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,507 posts

Posted 03 December 2019 - 0818 AM

However, if the British were to bare their teeth at their allies and warn them that the Anglo-Japanese alliance would be defunct in the event of a Japanese war with France, that would radically alter calculations in Tokyo.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but the onus of coming to an overextended Russia's aid in the event of a Japanese decision to rectify the articles of the Treaty of Portsmouth, as well as the declaration of war, would be on France.

 

If Britain should choose to terminate its alliance with Japan rather than live up to it, better for Japan and Japanese to know sooner rather than later what the word of Britain's representatives would be worth.

 

Japan won the war of 1904/1905 so there were no provisions of that war for Japan to rectify.  If Japan were to attack Russia or France in 1914 because this pair was in difficulty with Germany, then this would be an act of aggressive opportunism.  I don't think the Anglo-Japanese alliance would cover the gap between London and Tokyo in that case.  The British were fine with Japanese aggression against Germany in 1914.  I think that's about as far as it went.  


Edited by glenn239, 03 December 2019 - 0819 AM.

  • 0

#308 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,214 posts

Posted 03 December 2019 - 1329 PM

Japan may have won the war, but unfortunately and to the regret of Japanese to this day, it lost the peace.

 

Britain risks abrogation of its alliance with Japan at its own peril in this instance.


  • 0

#309 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,507 posts

Posted 03 December 2019 - 1410 PM

The French did not have the strength for Europe and the Far East, but the Entente most certainly did, assuming that they did not do Gallipoli.   War with Japan was not at all in Britain's interests, but if the choice were the Entente or Japan, I've no doubt that London would have chosen the Entente after trying every possible diplomatic solution.

 

In terms of the situation today, I think the problem was that in 1941 the Americans didn't understand Asia.  Japan just couldn't fix that.   I don't think Washington understood China at all.  Because, if they did, Manchukuo would still exist today.  Obviously.


  • 0

#310 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,302 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 1817 PM

This would be an interesting alternative history scenario, no?
 
Of course you then have the political implications of the Japanese taking Indo China. From the British perspective that is setting us up for potential problems with Malaya later.


It wasn't Japan that wanted to end the alliance. AFAIK, it wasn't Great Britain itself either. It was the other commonwealth countries and the US that wanted that alliance broken.
 
After WW1 the only conceivable enemies of Japan in the Pacific were the USA, France, and Britain itself.  The alliance with Japan had ceased to make sense for Britain with Germany defeated.

As you know, I don't respond to you :)
 
I don't care who you do or do not respond to.

Was just FYI because you keep knocking at the door :)
  • 0

#311 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,214 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 1833 PM

The French did not have the strength for Europe and the Far East, but the Entente most certainly did, assuming that they did not do Gallipoli.   War with Japan was not at all in Britain's interests, but if the choice were the Entente or Japan, I've no doubt that London would have chosen the Entente after trying every possible diplomatic solution.
 
In terms of the situation today, I think the problem was that in 1941 the Americans didn't understand Asia.  Japan just couldn't fix that.   I don't think Washington understood China at all.  Because, if they did, Manchukuo would still exist today.  Obviously.


I am not as sure that the British would choose the dishonor of not living up to the alliances it signs, but I will agree that the prospect of taking on Russia, France, and Britain combined would not be a happy one.

Better to know what the signatures of the appointed representatives of the British government are worth sooner than later in this instance.
  • 0

#312 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,507 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 0812 AM

 

The French did not have the strength for Europe and the Far East, but the Entente most certainly did, assuming that they did not do Gallipoli.   War with Japan was not at all in Britain's interests, but if the choice were the Entente or Japan, I've no doubt that London would have chosen the Entente after trying every possible diplomatic solution.
 
In terms of the situation today, I think the problem was that in 1941 the Americans didn't understand Asia.  Japan just couldn't fix that.   I don't think Washington understood China at all.  Because, if they did, Manchukuo would still exist today.  Obviously.


I am not as sure that the British would choose the dishonor of not living up to the alliances it signs, but I will agree that the prospect of taking on Russia, France, and Britain combined would not be a happy one.

Better to know what the signatures of the appointed representatives of the British government are worth sooner than later in this instance.

 

 

I think the British would bend over backwards to try and make sure there was no collision between the Entente and Japan.  But what would be the cause of a war between Japan and Russia in 1914?  Russia will  have done nothing, the Japanese move would be seen as German meddling or pure opportunism.  The Japanese fleet was first rate in training, but not in design or numbers.  I doubt it would deter Britain, if all diplomatic attempts failed.


  • 0