Midway: Jap Carriers survive

[lwd]

My understanding is that the war with China was actually started by some relativly low ranked army officers and the government felt they had to back them or loose face. So it would be fairly easy to come up with a POD where Japan doesn't attack China.

As for what Japan has to gain by siding with the allies:
1) access to raw materials
2) international acceptance of her conquests in Manchuria
3) technology
4) Potentially signficant increase in foreign exchange
5) Diplomatic stature
6) Being on the winning side

They might (especially given German aid to China) even be able to roll some further conquests into the war (French Indoc China is also a possiblity).

What they bring to the allies is complete security in the Pacific and Indian oceans. This means even if the Japanese don't send anything to Europe the British Empire can concentrate there.

[RF]

I am not really convinced that Japan would gain very much in the points listed. Spain and Portugal helped the Allies by being neutral and it didn't really do them that good. Their empires are long gone.

In 1940 Japan was neutral, admittedly a hostile neutral, but Britain could still have lost if Hitler had gone about things properly.

Access to raw materials? Well the Dutch didn't make it easy for them. It was their hard bargaining which very largely pushed the IJA into pressing for the seizure of the East Indies. The severe rice crop failures in Japan around 1940 forced the Japanese to buy rice at inflated prices - giving a push for seizing Indo-China. Bearing in mind US neutrality and that Hitler was not seen as a major threat to the US I cannot see Roosevelt doing any favours for the Japanese.

Technology? I can't see this happening, in fact far more could have been gained from collaboration with Germany, which Hitler never really allowed. The technology transfers and benefits fom the 1950's only happened because of the Soviet threat, which was a far greater threat to the US than Hitler.

Foreign exchange? The terms of trade were against Japan, unless it became the major exporter it did become in the 1960's and 1970's. In a world of ''beggar thy neighbour'' trading policies, and protectionism not free trade being on the agenda in the 1930's this isn't going to happen. Even if Japanese manufacturing exports were increased, there was a major problem in the poor quality of Japanese consumer goods - look at the record of Toyota when it first tried to sell cars in the US in the early 1950's.

Diplomatic stature - well being in with the Allies in WW1 didn't really improve this, certainly not for immediately after the end of WW1. And being on the winning side - yes, if Japan was allied to Hitler and the Axis won, no if Japan is hemmed in by US domination of the Pacific.

Ironically your arguments would actually carry far more weight if applied not to Japan but to Italy. After all Mussolini would have carried considerable clout if he had sided with the Allies in 1939, and I think the Italians would have been far more motivated to fight the Germans than they did the British and all the points you cite could have been fully exploited by the Italians.

[lwd]

I am not really convinced that Japan would gain very much in the points listed. Spain and Portugal helped the Allies by being neutral and it didn't really do them that good. Their empires are long gone.

But they were declining powers and Japan was a rising one.

In 1940 Japan was neutral, admittedly a hostile neutral, but Britain could still have lost if Hitler had gone about things properly.

However even if Hitler wins he can't do much to the Japanese and if they were on the allied side they could become "protectors" of some of the former British possesions possibly without a fight.

Access to raw materials? Well the Dutch didn't make it easy for them. It was their hard bargaining which very largely pushed the IJA into pressing for the seizure of the East Indies. The severe rice crop failures in Japan around 1940 forced the Japanese to buy rice at inflated prices - giving a push for seizing Indo-China. Bearing in mind US neutrality and that Hitler was not seen as a major threat to the US I cannot see Roosevelt doing any favours for the Japanese.

If they are an ally all that changes. Hitler by the way was seen as a m jor threat. If the Japanese do not go to war with China in the period from 1937-1941 then there is far less anti-Japanese feelings. I'm not sure the Dutch would be able or willing to push the bargaining as hard either. I seam to recall that the US and British being more than willing to take the Dutch oil was one of the reasons they didn't end up selling the Japanese the additional oil they requested. If Japan is an ally the cash strapped Dutch should be more than willing to sell them additional oil and the US isn't going to embargo scrap metal or anything esle for that matter.

Technology? I can't see this happening, in fact far more could have been gained from collaboration with Germany, which Hitler never really allowed. The technology transfers and benefits fom the 1950's only happened because of the Soviet threat, which was a far greater threat to the US than Hitler.

If they are an ally especially if they send some ships to the atlantic they will at least see what the US and Britain are doing. If they send ASW escorts for instance in order for them to be effective they'll have to get at least briefed on allied procedures and such. How to use technology is sometimes as big a problem as getting it in the field. Having observers will help in that regard as well. Consider how the US equipment went to other allies and what would have happened if the Japanese had said. "We have enough people for an armored division but not the tanks or the experiance to train them will you do it? We'll return the equipment after the war." The US could hardly turn it down. Japanese instead of US soldiers on the front line and no additional logistics burden (well there would probably be some uniform and food issues).

Foreign exchange? The terms of trade were against Japan, unless it became the major exporter it did become in the 1960's and 1970's. In a world of ''beggar thy neighbour'' trading policies, and protectionism not free trade being on the agenda in the 1930's this isn't going to happen. Even if Japanese manufacturing exports were increased, there was a major problem in the poor quality of Japanese consumer goods - look at the record of Toyota when it first tried to sell cars in the US in the early 1950's.

But during the war the economies of the US and Europe were devoted to war produciton. The Japanese can either produce more mitary goods for foreign sales or consumer goods for the Pacific region.

Diplomatic stature - well being in with the Allies in WW1 didn't really improve this, certainly not for immediately after the end of WW1. And being on the winning side - yes, if Japan was allied to Hitler and the Axis won, no if Japan is hemmed in by US domination of the Pacific...

But Japan is in a better position to take advantage of things than she was in WWI. And given the situation she might actually be in as good or better postion being on the alllied side even if they lost. Furthermore as I mentioned above the potential ecomoic/market expansion could well leave her in a much stronger postion in regards to the US. The Japanese leaders who were willing to look at things realistically knew that there was little chance of a victory.

[RF]

I don't find these arguments all that convincing as Japan would not be as important to the allies as you appear to think. The main advantage to the allies is in not having to fight the Japanese. I don't see these advantages that you outline accruing to Japan. And why would the Japanese put their troops in the front line for the Americans?

[RF]

[
Hitler by the way was seen as a m jor threat.

Hitler was no real threat to the USA. The KM had no major surface fleet, the USA was shielded by the width of the Atlantic which the Luftwaffe couldn't bridge.

The experioence of WW2 was that the Germans couldn't bomb the US, the Americans could and did bomb Germany.

U-boats sinking ships off the US coastline was the closest the Germans got to the US, but these sinkings were at worst of nuisance value to the US. They would not induce US surrender.

I would suggest that Germany presented a greater threat to the US in WW1, with its large surface fleet and the attempts to gain Mexico as an ally.

[lwd]

I don't find these arguments all that convincing as Japan would not be as important to the allies as you appear to think. The main advantage to the allies is in not having to fight the Japanese. I don't see these advantages that you outline accruing to Japan. And why would the Japanese put their troops in the front line for the Americans?

The biggest one is probably not getting cut off from fuel or resources. But if Japan doesn't go into China in 37 she probably gets that any way. The advantages are huge if you compare it to going to war on the axis side (ie fighting a war that's almost impossible to win). The pluses are not nearly as great if you compare it to staying neutral. You are right in that the biggest advantage to the allies is not having to fight Japan and knowing that they won't have to. On the other hand considerable diplomatic pressure was applied to relativly minor countries to declare war vs the axis right up to the end of the war. Many of them did so and contributed almost nothing but got a windfall in the way of military gear. Clearly the allies wanted as many countries as possible in the alliance and were willing to sweeten the pot in order to get them.

[
Hitler by the way was seen as a m jor threat.

Hitler was no real threat to the USA. The KM had no major surface fleet, the USA was shielded by the width of the Atlantic which the Luftwaffe couldn't bridge.
... U-boats sinking ships off the US coastline was the closest the Germans got to the US, but these sinkings were at worst of nuisance value to the US. They would not induce US surrender...

Just because Germany had little prospect of invading the US doesn't mean it wasn't a threat. Indeed if you read Wages of Destrution one of Hitler's driving goals was to be competative with the US. A German occupied Europe especially a hostile German occupied Europe is most definitly not in the US's interest and a serious economic and political threat.