What if the Japanese made a bigger direct contribution to the Entente in WWI?

[raharris1973]

Option A. The French realize their desperate need for more bodies and support by the end of the Verdun battle in the first half of 1916, and seek a major Japanese troop commitment to Europe (metropolitan France, and Salonika front) and major naval commitment (Mediterranean).

They offer to pay off Japan with the colonial territory of (fill-in-the-blank), with the transition from French to Japanese ownership to to begin in wartime but the transfer to only complete postwar after Japanese wartime service. Maybe a cash component is involved. The Japanese to pay a monetary balance if the remainder of the war is very short (6 months or less), France to pay a balance if the war (and Japan's Expeditionary Service runs much longer than expected (2 years).

The Japanese naval route via Suez to the Med to stiffen the blockade and ASW is shorter than to the Atlantic. Some Japanese ground forces put in at Salonika to reinforce or replace French troops & try to attain progress in 1917 there - it is logistically shorter than all the way to France. But for morale and manpower purposes, sending a force all the way to Marseille and Toulon, to reinforce the French southern sector of the western front, is also desirable.

The colonial territory of choice to pay off Japan? French Indochina - most desirable to Japan, but also most valuable to France. Cambodia can be transferred to Japanese as a downpayment during the war. Less dear alternatives France can offer - concessions in Chinese ports - Tianjin, Shanghai French Concession, Ft. Bayard/Guangzhouwan, and/or French Polynesia, New Caledonia, share of the New Hebrides, possibly some Indian Ocean islands like Reunion.

Option B - Britain brokers such an offer in late 1916 after having to move to conscription and facing the casualty lists of the Somme battles, through the second half of 1916. Britain can employ Japanese reinforcements virtually anywhere - Mesopotamia, Palestine, Salonika, Italy, the western front, completing colonial clean-up in Tanganyika. Britain is less desperate than France. What can Britain offer - potentially more cash, but also colonial territory.

Potential colonies - Gilbert Islands - possibly the Phoenix and Ellice chains too, at least north of the equator. Possibly also restricted west of the international date line. Possibly some Indian Ocean islands- Not likely Borneo or Chinese concessions (except Weihaiwei in Shandong perhaps? Beijing and Tianjin?) and certainly not Malaya or Singapore.

Option C - Russia after Gorlice-Tarnow and the Great Retreat of 1915 is the most desperate, it sells off its interests in northern Manchuria and Mongolia, perhaps even northern Sakhalin island to Japan, in return for direct Japanese military support.  This can come in the form of not only supplies but a Japanese expeditionary force deployed via the Trans-Siberian railway to reinforce the Russian Army's front against Austria-Hungary and Germany.  The Japanese can also provide naval and military support to Russia in repayment for Russian northeast Asia concessions by slightly more indirect route, by sending forces to work with the British against the Ottomans in Mesopotamia to get the Ottomans off the Russians' backs in the Caucasus, and possibly by joining in on British support operations to the Arab Revolt in the Red Sea.

[Max Sinister]

They might send a small expedition corps to Europe, but at best they might get some more German islands. Not just those north of equator as IOTL. But even the German part of New Guinea might be too much.

[raharris1973]

Oct 7, 2022 23:44:04 GMT Max Sinister said:

They might send a small expedition corps to Europe, but at best they might get some more German islands. Not just those north of equator as IOTL. But even the German part of New Guinea might be too much.

There weren't any more German islands left to take. Except Nauru. Without taking islands away from Australia and New Zealand. I think Australia and New Zealand would be really upset by the shabby treatment.

And Nauru, a literal pile of birdshit (which can be sold for a good price for its phosphates) would be almost an insulting pittance in return for sacrificing men in the trenches of Europe.

[stevep]

   I think the best bet might be the French offering FIC. Its useful to France but not really critical and would be a potential bonus for Japan who already has Taiwan so isn't too far off.  Britain can't really offer Pacific possessions because that would worry Australia and New Zealand, plus since they occupied the former German possessions it would have to come from 'their' gains.  Agree that Malaya and Singapore as one of the few profitable parts of the empire would be too big a cost in Britain's view as well as really upsetting both ANZ and also probably other interests.

  With Russia I think there would be problems since the two nations were at war only a decade ago plus your likely to see more racial tension than with either of the western powers - which is still likely to be a problem with them.  Plus Japanese forces fighting directly in Russia would have long supply lines which would also take capacity away from Russian imports along the Trans-Siberian, which is by far their best access to the rest of the world once Turkey closes the straits.

  Even so its going to be difficult as getting substantial numbers of Japanese forces to France or even Salonika and then maintaining them there would be a substantial task.  Plus there would be issues of command, doctrine and equipment.  For instance would they be equipped with heavy artillery from France, which would give commonality and ease supply or Japan?

[lordroel]

Oct 7, 2022 23:44:04 GMT Max Sinister said:

But even the German part of New Guinea might be too much.

But could be helpful 22 years later.

[American hist]

I don’t really see it happening although John Jay Pershing really wanted it to happen as he well noted the lack of manpower from the French and British armies and how it took a long time for America to send all her soldiers to France.

Japan did not want her boys to be wasted in the battlefields of Europe where they would have nothing to gain from instead pick the easy way out with minimal losses and much to gain. However if Japan decided to play significant role in World War I at least in the European theater then I don’t see Japan becoming snubbed at The Treaty of Versailles and I could see Japan being accepted as an equal partner.

[stevep]

Oct 23, 2022 3:19:51 GMT American hist said:

I don’t really see it happening although John Jay Pershing really wanted it to happen as he well noted the lack of manpower from the French and British armies and how it took a long time for America to send all her soldiers to France.

Japan did not want her boys to be wasted in the battlefields of Europe where they would have nothing to gain from instead pick the easy way out with minimal losses and much to gain. However if Japan decided to play significant role in World War I at least in the European theater then I don’t see Japan becoming snubbed at The Treaty of Versailles and I could see Japan being accepted as an equal partner.

  Probably not a full equal one, as there would be issues of race, especially if Japan tried to put a racial equality stance into the LoN as that would be unacceptable for both Britain with its empire and the US with its treatment of blacks and native Americans.  Probably with other European imperial powers as well.  However definitely they would be more respected due to their commitment. 

  It might also be interesting to see what such a commitment would have on their military as well as their political position.

[American hist]

Oct 23, 2022 12:40:04 GMT stevep said:

Oct 23, 2022 3:19:51 GMT American hist said:

I don’t really see it happening although John Jay Pershing really wanted it to happen as he well noted the lack of manpower from the French and British armies and how it took a long time for America to send all her soldiers to France.

Japan did not want her boys to be wasted in the battlefields of Europe where they would have nothing to gain from instead pick the easy way out with minimal losses and much to gain. However if Japan decided to play significant role in World War I at least in the European theater then I don’t see Japan becoming snubbed at The Treaty of Versailles and I could see Japan being accepted as an equal partner.

  Probably not a full equal one, as there would be issues of race, especially if Japan tried to put a racial equality stance into the LoN as that would be unacceptable for both Britain with its empire and the US with its treatment of blacks and native Americans.  Probably with other European imperial powers as well.  However definitely they would be more respected due to their commitment. 

  It might also be interesting to see what such a commitment would have on their military as well as their political position.

Well if they won’t be treated as eguals then they shouldn’t help them and I could imagine this would be sorted out early on. That is true about Black people and Native Americans but different races were seen as superior and weaker ton another. The Europeans had known of great civilizations in Asia and I think if they were desperate enough they might be willing to swallow their pride. If Europeans really think they’re superior than Asians they can look back at their history of almost 20 years ago at the Russo Japanese war. The racial prejudice toward Black people was great but it was different to Asian people. Another thing that helped lead to World War 2 was the protective tariffs And territorial ambitions.

[stevep]

Oct 25, 2022 1:06:49 GMT American hist said:

Oct 23, 2022 12:40:04 GMT stevep said:

  Probably not a full equal one, as there would be issues of race, especially if Japan tried to put a racial equality stance into the LoN as that would be unacceptable for both Britain with its empire and the US with its treatment of blacks and native Americans.  Probably with other European imperial powers as well.  However definitely they would be more respected due to their commitment. 

  It might also be interesting to see what such a commitment would have on their military as well as their political position.

Well if they won’t be treated as eguals then they shouldn’t help them and I could imagine this would be sorted out early on. That is true about Black people and Native Americans but different races were seen as superior and weaker ton another. The Europeans had known of great civilizations in Asia and I think if they were desperate enough they might be willing to swallow their pride. If Europeans really think they’re superior than Asians they can look back at their history of almost 20 years ago at the Russo Japanese war. The racial prejudice toward Black people was great but it was different to Asian people. Another thing that helped lead to World War 2 was the protective tariffs And territorial ambitions.

  I think it would be fairly easy for the Japanese to be treated as equals in Europe, especially with a clear commitment to the allies there.  The US would be more difficult - along with possibly the white dominions of the British empire because of issues of migration and also the US/Japanese tensions in the Pacific.  However a statement of racial equality shortly after WWI would be politically impossible for most of the western world.

[American hist]

stevep, I dont necessarily see why because Europeans were the ones who underestimated the Japanese during Singapore. While this gets off topic,,, during ww2,,, Americans were concerned about what japan was doing in the pacific theater. Back to the world war I period Europeans where racist to blacks too.In fact the British empire refused to take in black American soldiers under their command unlike the french odly. Just because a nation or people hold rasicst views this doesn't nessarly mean that other groub misjudged their intellgiance nessarly though it usually implies it. While I would like to argue in favor of Woodrow wilson I cant because he infavored restrictions to asian immigrants and it was teddy rosevelt or perhaps taft who would have been most likey to treat japan with respect during the great war as he did under the gentlamans agreement along with applauding the japanse accomplishments in the russo japanese war.
Wilson on race
Wilsons biotry was mostly aimed toward black people and not to asian people and Woodrow Wilson aimed for more self government in the American territory such a purto ricio,phillpahpes and guam. Japan had proposed racial equality to the united congress. Wilson along with the rest of the allied leaders had japans racial equality to be felt on deft ears Rejection of egality by the allied leaders

I don't think we can blame rasism soly on America when austrilia PM stuanchely rejected such a proposal. miletus12 I know you are going to wish to comment and give your opinion and you are a good anlizer Wilson Veralus treaty and race

I honestly think if germany decided to not violate belguims netruality and instead focus on russia Japan wishing to benefit from the war spoils would have attacked the french holdings particularly in Vietnam,but that is a separate discussion

[miletus12]

I hate Woodrow Wilson's stinking Unreconstructed Confederate guts. I cannot be objective about a traitor and a liar who pretended to be a scholar and who pollutes American politics down to the present with his fascistic brand of progressivism which is still at the core of one of the American leftist movements (Progressive Southern Democrat), so I decline to comment on him.

I will say this about the British, though. They were and apparently are, in the upper classes, still just as bigotted and Unreconstructed as the American ruling elites by what I observe in behaviors shown through their official media outlets. Neither nation should be throwing bricks at anybody except the other with our tainted colonialist imperialist histories, though chucking bricks at each other is very much "fair game" since it is like table tennis. It kind of showcases the hypocrisy in both societies and is good for laughs as we see each other in our mirroring behaviors.

M.

[raharris1973]

Oct 27, 2022 2:08:16 GMT miletus12 said:

I will say this about the British, though. They were and apparently are, in the upper classes, still just as bigotted and Unreconstructed as the American ruling elites by what I observe in behaviors shown through their official media outlets.

Signs include what? Being mean to Meghan Markle?

Counter-signs include, the ruling Conservatives appointing Rishi Sunak PM?

He was rich enough to buy his way in?

But then again, polls say if the election were held tomorrow, the white Labour guy, Keir Starmer would kick Sunak's ass.

Oct 27, 2022 2:08:16 GMT miletus12 said:

his fascistic brand of progressivism which is still at the core of one of the American leftist movements (Progressive Southern Democrat

Who continued this movement in later times- Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? John Edwards? Charlie Crist? Jim Clyburn? John Lewis? Stacey Abrams? Raphael Warnock? Terry McAuliffe? Tim Kaine? Forgive the list of assorted names, just trying to get a fix on what this grouping (Progressive Southern Democrat] is in modern times.

[lordroel]

No current politics in this thread please, keep it focus on the thread.

[miletus12]

Private message Rharris.

[stevep]

Oct 27, 2022 0:57:11 GMT American hist said:

stevep , I dont necessarily see why because Europeans were the ones who underestimated the Japanese during Singapore. While this gets off topic,,, during ww2,,, Americans were concerned about what japan was doing in the pacific theater. Back to the world war I period Europeans where racist to blacks too.In fact the British empire refused to take in black American soldiers under their command unlike the french odly. Just because a nation or people hold rasicst views this doesn't nessarly mean that other groub misjudged their intellgiance nessarly though it usually implies it. While I would like to argue in favor of Woodrow wilson I cant because he infavored restrictions to asian immigrants and it was teddy rosevelt or perhaps taft who would have been most likey to treat japan with respect during the great war as he did under the gentlamans agreement along with applauding the japanse accomplishments in the russo japanese war.
Wilson on race
Wilsons biotry was mostly aimed toward black people and not to asian people and Woodrow Wilson aimed for more self government in the American territory such a purto ricio,phillpahpes and guam. Japan had proposed racial equality to the united congress. Wilson along with the rest of the allied leaders had japans racial equality to be felt on deft ears Rejection of egality by the allied leaders

I don't think we can blame rasism soly on America when austrilia PM stuanchely rejected such a proposal. miletus12 I know you are going to wish to comment and give your opinion and you are a good anlizer Wilson Veralus treaty and race

I honestly think if germany decided to not violate belguims netruality and instead focus on russia Japan wishing to benefit from the war spoils would have attacked the french holdings particularly in Vietnam,but that is a separate discussion

  I'm thinking that a Japan which plays a significant role in WWI would earn respect from the western Europeans, especially as the war became more and more costly.  Some of them at least under-estimated Japan in Dec 41 but then there were reasons as well as race that played a part here - Japanese defeat by Soviets while the Soviets had struggled against the Finns and then lost so heavily to Germans.  Plus in Dec 41 neither Britain nor the Netherlands were in much position to really defend their interests due to the war in Europe.  [Worsened in Britain's case by mistakes by the government both pre and during the war which drained resources away from the Far East region.

  I didn't say solely the US and pointed out the British white dominions, especially Australia as also having problems due to both racial policies for migrants and fear of Japanese power.  However it was the UK than allied with Japan and under different circumstances that might have had a longer life and a possibly significant interest in relations between the two powers.