What if Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't grab any new territory in the northern Pacific from 1897-1914?

[Buba]

I think that Japan going to war with Netherlands will piss off the White Man Club very much. President Wilson will be vewy, vewy upset. Also Siam - this is poaching in British and French spheres of interest.
Even if no immediate reaction - because war in Europe - after the war the Big Boys will come knocking on Japan's door ...
AFAIK post 1905 Japanese state finances were kept afloat (or greatly helped) by British banks.

Fascinating scenario, indeed might be a great opportunity for Japan to make big when the Big Boys are away and busy, but I'm not sure if feasable.
I'm such a killjoy

 

[raharris1973]

@ Buba - These points all may be valid.

I think that Japan gpoing to war with Netherlands will piss off White Man Club very much.

The white man mutual massacre club? This still doesn't seem like enough to get the Entente and Central Powers to stop fighting each other. The biggest effect I could imagine would be a demand by the ANZACs to get their boys home, just in case.

President Wilson will be upset.

Indeed. This will be upsetting, and another distraction. It will draw attention to Pacific defenses and the Philippines. But I can't imagine SecState Bryan being ready to leap into war over this, and his successor SecState Lansing will have his attention divided between the Far East, Mexico, and the Euro-Atlantic. Meanwhile, the US will have scarce real military power to throw around in the short term.

Also Siam - this is poaching in British and French spheres of interest.

Well it is close and 'cozy' with Indochina, Burma and Malaya. The British and French won't be happy and will complain.

The Japanese counter will be, 1) Look at how much our exports to your countries have shot up in your time of need, 2) Look at all the invitations to the Central Powers I've been getting in the mail and throwing in the trash, and 3) We've been perfectly respectful of *your* colonies, and London, didn't you ask us to go further and even help you defend *India* if needed.

Even if no immediate reaction - because war in Europe - after the war the Big Boys will come knocking on Japan's door ...

The same British Big Boys who retreated from Turkish rabble at Chanak, and Bolshevik rabble in Russia, and returned to "normalcy" in the US.

AFAIK post 1905 Japanese state finances were kept afloat (or greatly helped) by British banks.

This may have been true up to the war, but the war quickly turned Japan's financial frown upside down. Japan quickly got out of debt, gained a positive trade balance and current account balance and became a creditor. During 1914, it might still feel a bit financially subordinate, but by '15, '16, or '17 it will be feeling pretty confident economically.

 

[Atarlost]

Not in the war as the Italians ended up on the other side.

This is at least as much a problem for your terminology. Italy left the Triple Alliance, but the misleading term "allies" is associated with a different war in which the Italians ended up on the other side.

However that boat has already sailed as the term is in common use and is unlikely to change.

It used to be common usage to refer to Blacks, Jews, Irishmen, and Chinamen using terms that I expect would get me in trouble even here. Common usage can be corrected if people start pushing back against misleading terminology as it was corrected by people pushing back against racist terminology.

I will continue to be part of the solution. Why are you so attached to being part of the problem? If you avoid "allies" entirely and use "entente" and "central powers" no one will complain that you are choosing distinct terms that minimize ambiguity and confusion with terms used in other time periods.

 

[stevep]

Presuming Japan remains neutral towards the European war- not going to war with Germany and the CPs, because in this TL, there is nothing to gain from it, but not going to war against its own ally Britain and the Entente because that's too risky, I could imagine a third, unorthodox, off the wall option for Japan:

Japan as a neutral in the Great War, could have its own private war with another neutral power in the Great War, the Netherlands, over the latter's possessions in the East Indies. If Japan were a member of the Entente or CPs, attacking the DEI would "complicate" the situation for its allies by bringing in Netherlands on the opposite side, but since Japan is neutral, the Dutch can blame the Japanese but neither of the other two alliance blocs.

A somewhat less adventuresome "private war" for Japan would be for them to invade Siam to establish a protectorate. Theoretically, they could try the same with China. It is of greater interest to Japan than either DEI or Siam, but it is also thicker with the interests of other great European powers and the US.

I suppose all three are possibilities. OTL Japan tried pressurising China and despite WWI commitments the allies and the US kicked up enough of a storm, along with opposition in China itself, that they had to back down a little.

The DEI or Siam are easier in that either is less powerful than China and there's not the same degree of ecomomic interests among the allies/neutrals as for China. However politically and strategically both are a far greater threat to French and British interests given that they would threaten important colonies - Burma, Malaya, FIC and in the former case possibly even Australia at least in the eyes of many powerful people while an attack on the DEI would be a clear threat to European superiority in the theatre. As such I think they would prompt a stronger reaction from Britain and France - leaving aside anything the US might say. Also their less important to Japan than influence/power in China and without the actions against German colonies of OTL Japan is less clearly an 'ally' and more a neutral causing problems in an important area. As such I suspect that if Japan was to do anything clearly military in nature its more likely to seek control of parts of China, probably avoiding direct clashing with their allies primary spheres of influence.

With any of those options a clear military act against a neutral power of significant - whether economic or strategic or both is going to have impacts and until its clear how exhausted the allies will be by WWI that is a risk I think Japan is unlikely to take.

 

[stevep]

This is at least as much a problem for your terminology. Italy left the Triple Alliance, but the misleading term "allies" is associated with a different war in which the Italians ended up on the other side.


It used to be common usage to refer to Blacks, Jews, Irishmen, and Chinamen using terms that I expect would get me in trouble even here. Common usage can be corrected if people start pushing back against misleading terminology as it was corrected by people pushing back against racist terminology.

I will continue to be part of the solution. Why are you so attached to being part of the problem? If you avoid "allies" entirely and use "entente" and "central powers" no one will complain that you are choosing distinct terms that minimize ambiguity and confusion with terms used in other time periods.

So your basically using a political correctness argument. I must admit I wasn't expecting that. Especially since there's no actual abuse of anybody here.

I can think of many other use of terminology that are actually inaccurate. For instance being British I'm aware of how often England or Anglo is used for Britain as a whole. Which I find a pain and in the former case I will often point out the inaccuracy. In the latter I consider factors such as Anglo-American relation, Anglo-German naval race and Anglo-Japanese alliance to take the three that most immediately come to mind in accurate but a lost cause in terms of changing people's opinion.

Similarly English kings are numbered dating from William I in 1066. This is obviously inaccurate as there were at least two Edwards prior to that date - don't think other names have been used for monarchs both sides of 1066. However while I would definitely like to see people being aware of the error I can't see any way that we're going to get tens of millions of history books re-written to make the man called Edward VIII renamed Edward X for instance.