What if the U.S. reacted promptly to Japan's participation in WWI and its threat to Philippine SLOCs

[raharris1973]

Japanese, British, and American naval expenditures go way higher than they were when the Washington Naval Treaty put a stop to the arms race and there is no disarmament treaty because none of them can trust that the others will - at least nominally - honor it.

Where are they are going to get all the money to pay for this? From what you say, it sounds like they spend it out of anger, but anger doesn't pay the bills.

From the British perspective: the US asked us to fuck over an ally who was willing to do most* of what was asked.

Well the U.S. is meddling, which is a little obnoxious in principle, but how harsh is the demand really. "Hey Britain, expand your Empire in this place, or I'll buy it."

From the Japanese perspective: if we can't trust our best Ally, we can't trust anyone.

Did you miss the part in the OP that the PM and Foreign Minister in Tokyo didn't even have a settled policy of taking the islands, their occupation was a freelance initiative by the Navy. Japanese Admirals may lament a lost opportunity, but the Tokyo government may not even count it as a betrayal by Britain (there was no prior agreement on what to do or not do with the islands) or trace it back to being the Americans fault.

From the American perspective: we made a mess of this and it's going to be bloody because we might have to fight both of them at the same time.

This is extremely unlikely. The British aren't fighting Americans. Full stop. Why would they? The Anglo-Japanese alliance? That alliance does not obligate Britain to fight the US under any circumstances.

Somewhat more of a chance of drifting into a conflict with Japan if the British Empire ignores US requests/demands, the Japanese Navy drifts on in, it becomes de facto Japanese occupied, the US intervenes and tries to move to plan B of purchasing the islands from Germany, and Japan publicly commits itself to staying. Even here Japan may back down.

Basically I'm more in agreement with Cuba here:

If USA leans on Britain which leans on Japan - possibly in parallel to growling at Japan - to leave the bits of sand and coral alone and as a result the ex-German islands end up as an Aussie mandate, this need not piss off Japan.
The Empire grabbing those islands was a nice to have not a must have issue.
Post WWI Japan will be pissed at the UK and USA over several matters, but the never-to-be-"Mandates" probably will not make the Top 10 of Reasons to Hate Foreign Devils.

A US purchase of the German colonies would create an issue as not sure what would happen in terms of possessions already occupied by allied powers. Suspect that the allies would insist on holding the territories they have occupied, at least until the German forces have been removed, including their fleet, or not until the war is over.

The US I could imagine living with a situation where it doesn't take possession of territories actually occupied by the Allies until the German forces have been removed, which, if the Japanese had moved ahead anyway, would just be a matter of weeks, because it would only take that long to arrest all the Germans on the islands, and Von Spee already sent the Pacific squadron sailing to South American waters, far away from the mandates before the Japanese really arrived.

Of course in that scenario, the US coming in to take over islands from Japanese conquerors would lead to US-Japanese, even a degree of US-Entente bad feeling, worse than if Japan never occupied the place. It wouldn't be much US resentment of anybody else, it would be Japanese resentment at the US grabbing the apples the Japanese Navy picked, and British resentment that Americans paid the Germans good money during wartime.

The simplest scenario for addressing US concerns is just having British Empire forces grab the place. I assume the Australians are the closest (the Canadians don't have any assets from British Columbia that can range that far, do they?), maybe the New Zealanders?

These islands are small, so their garrisons shouldn't take up much, but I wonder if the Australians being involved in more extensive Pacific operations means that Australians are slower to gather for the Middle East, Egypt, and Gallipolli fronts? Maybe Indian troops do Gallipolli instead?

Interesting point about Japan possibly trying harder to keep its gains in the Russian Far East as to save face and have anything to show for its participation in the Great War Between Foreign Devils.

You know, I never actually said Russian Far East. I might have thought it, but I never wrote it. I was referring only to Shandong.

 

[Buba]

I never actually said Russian Far East. I might have thought it, but I never wrote it. I was referring only to Shandong.

I was thinking about the USA forcing Japan to evacuate the Trans-Baikal etc. in 1920-22.

 

[ATP]

Impossible,i think.USA had navy,but now will to wage war over few islands.And it was still Republic,so they would need long media campaign to change people minds.
So,british would do nothing,becouse they knew that USA would do nothing.

 

[stevep]

Where are they are going to get all the money to pay for this? From what you say, it sounds like they spend it out of anger, but anger doesn't pay the bills.

The Americans had the wealth to build their 1916 programme and probably even the latter one, although maintaining and manning it would have been a continued issue. However they lacked the political will to complete the 1916 one. The Japanese had the political will but not the cash, even before the 23 quake screwed over much of the Tokyo area.

The British programme, or at least the 1st 4 G3s were actually fully funded, along with interesting enough 4 more triple 16" turrets. Possibly if they had been built then less of the new treaty heavy cruisers in the 1920's but the real tragedy for Britain with the WNT was that those 4 ships would have totally changed Britain's strategic position in the late 30's. Whatever had happened with building in the US and Japan and possibly knock on effects in the three nations.

Well the U.S. is meddling, which is a little obnoxious in principle, but how harsh is the demand really. "Hey Britain, expand your Empire in this place, or I'll buy it."

Did you miss the part in the OP that the PM and Foreign Minister in Tokyo didn't even have a settled policy of taking the islands, their occupation was a freelance initiative by the Navy. Japanese Admirals may lament a lost opportunity, but the Tokyo government may not even count it as a betrayal by Britain (there was no prior agreement on what to do or not do with the islands) or trace it back to being the Americans fault.

The issue is that as you say Japan had already occupied a number of those locations very quickly, something that Britain was glad of as it saved us from having to do so. [Until they started getting far enough south that Australia and New Zealand started worrying.] With the bulk of British forces, especially naval, concentrated in the N Sea even if there had been plans for such a contingency it wouldn't have happened in time before Japan occupied islands. So you effectively have a Britain already at war being told to dispose its primary ally in the Pacific of territories its already occupied because the US is throwing a hissy fit about potential threats to an isolated colony. - Ignoring totally that that same colony is a serious potential threat to Japan's vital supply lines.

This is extremely unlikely. The British aren't fighting Americans. Full stop. Why would they? The Anglo-Japanese alliance? That alliance does not obligate Britain to fight the US under any circumstances.

Somewhat more of a chance of drifting into a conflict with Japan if the British Empire ignores US requests/demands, the Japanese Navy drifts on in, it becomes de facto Japanese occupied, the US intervenes and tries to move to plan B of purchasing the islands from Germany, and Japan publicly commits itself to staying. Even here Japan may back down.

Basically I'm more in agreement with Cuba here:

I would agree that war between Britain and the US is unlikely, although not sure that the alliance doesn't prevent Britain being formally committed to supporting Japan in the event of a US attack. IIRC, although some time since I last checked, the 1911 version of the alliance had an agreement it wouldn't apply if the power attacking Japan had a treaty with the UK that confirmed it would settle any disagreements between it [that power] and the UK by diplomatic means - forget the formal term at the moment. Japan was upset about this as it was clearly aimed at the 3rd party being the US, which was the primary threat to Japan after the defeat of Russia but agreed to maintain the alliance. Britain offered such a treaty to the US but it was rejected, IIRC by the Senate. As such while very unlikely Britain would support Japan against a US attack, especially while in the midst of war with Germany and its allies, technically it might be diplomatically bound to.

I suspect more likely that either Japan or the US would back down as neither would be that willing to go to war over the islands. Britain would definitely be seeking to negotiate between the two to avoid a conflict. However if the US was demanding that Japan withdraws from islands its occupied, especially before any such US-German agreement, there is going to be a lot of resentment.

The simplest scenario for addressing US concerns is just having British Empire forces grab the place. I assume the Australians are the closest (the Canadians don't have any assets from British Columbia that can range that far, do they?), maybe the New Zealanders?

These islands are small, so their garrisons shouldn't take up much, but I wonder if the Australians being involved in more extensive Pacific operations means that Australians are slower to gather for the Middle East, Egypt, and Gallipolli fronts? Maybe Indian troops do Gallipolli instead?

As I pointed out above the northern ones, which the US is most obcessed about, are already going to be in Japanese hands even before Britain could receive such a suggestion from the US, let alone act on it.

You know, I never actually said Russian Far East. I might have thought it, but I never wrote it. I was referring only to Shandong.

I have seen it suggested that if there was no WNT - which might well not happen in this scenario because of mistrust between Japan and the US - then Japan would have stayed on in eastern Siberia, with the support of the allied powers as a check on the Soviets. Which would drastically affect politics and developments in many areas.

 

[raharris1973]

@stevep

Date of Japanese DoW on Germany: August 23rd, 1914

Date of Japanese occupation of Marshall Islands: September 29-30, 1914

That's a little over a month before Japanese occupation is a fait accompli, plenty of time for the American hissy fit to have an effect at shaping events.

Also, the Antipodes got their anti-German Pacific operations off to a more precocious start than the Japanese, they may have pretty much finished the job south of the equator by the mid-September and been ready to move north in the ensuing weeks.

Relevant dates:

New Zealand takes German Samoa - August 30

Australians win the siege of Toma on Rabaul, New Pomerania/New Britain, and local German governor surrenders New Guinea - September 17

 

[stevep]

@stevep

Date of Japanese DoW on Germany: August 23rd, 1914

Date of Japanese occupation of Marshall Islands: September 29-30, 1914

That's a little over a month before Japanese occupation is a fait accompli, plenty of time for the American hissy fit to have an effect at shaping events.

Also, the Antipodes got their anti-German Pacific operations off to a more precocious start than the Japanese, they may have pretty much finished the job south of the equator by the mid-September and been ready to move north in the ensuing weeks.

Relevant dates:

New Zealand takes German Samoa - August 30

Australians win the siege of Toma on Rabaul, New Pomerania/New Britain, and local German governor surrenders New Guinea - September 17

Interesting as you seemed to suggest that the Japanese were jumping the gun? Which was also the impression I had from elsewhere to be fair, that the Aussies especially reacted to fears that Japan would occupy areas such as Papua New Guinea and get too close to them. If Japan are starting that late would the US raise concerns before they actually started occupying German islands? I very much doubt they would start talking with Germany to buy the islands before then.

 

[raharris1973]

Interesting as you seemed to suggest that the Japanese were jumping the gun? Which was also the impression I had from elsewhere to be fair, that the Aussies especially reacted to fears that Japan would occupy areas such as Papua New Guinea and get too close to them. If Japan are starting that late would the US raise concerns before they actually started occupying German islands? I very much doubt they would start talking with Germany to buy the islands before then.

Well the Japanese as a nation weren't jumping the gun relative to their declaration of war. The Japanese navy was jumping the gun in terms of making a move on the islands, in October, before the Japanese civilian government provided any orders, or permission, for the Navy to act in the Central Pacific theater.

There's a related article here, if you have JSTOR access: Bureaucratic Politics, Military Budgets and Japan's Southern Advance: The Imperial Navy's Seizure of German Micronesia in the First World War on JSTOR


The foresight, or the "advanced math", that the US side would need to add up to act in a timely manner would be to connect the dots in late August that a) Japan and Germany are now at war on the China coast + b) German fleets, and possessions are active and present throughout the Pacific, c) those possessions are isolated and could be vulnerable, d) several of these German positions sit between US held islands in the Pacific, e) this adds up to a chance Japan can take them. If the Americans haven't added all this up after Japan has been at war for a week or so, some little news flashes coming can help push it along- newsflash #1, 29 August German Samoa falls to New Zealand and American Samoa next door probably radios or telegraphs the news back to the US mainland in short order, -newsflash #2, 8 September - as a reminder Germans are on the run in the Pacific, the Nurnberg makes a stop in Honolulu. This is almost certainly cabled or radio'ed back to Washington.

 

[stevep]

Well the Japanese as a nation weren't jumping the gun relative to their declaration of war. The Japanese navy was jumping the gun in terms of making a move on the islands, in October, before the Japanese civilian government provided any orders, or permission, for the Navy to act in the Central Pacific theater.

There's a related article here, if you have JSTOR access: Bureaucratic Politics, Military Budgets and Japan's Southern Advance: The Imperial Navy's Seizure of German Micronesia in the First World War on JSTOR


The foresight, or the "advanced math", that the US side would need to add up to act in a timely manner would be to connect the dots in late August that a) Japan and Germany are now at war on the China coast + b) German fleets, and possessions are active and present throughout the Pacific, c) those possessions are isolated and could be vulnerable, d) several of these German positions sit between US held islands in the Pacific, e) this adds up to a chance Japan can take them. If the Americans haven't added all this up after Japan has been at war for a week or so, some little news flashes coming can help push it along- newsflash #1, 29 August German Samoa falls to New Zealand and American Samoa next door probably radios or telegraphs the news back to the US mainland in short order, -newsflash #2, 8 September - as a reminder Germans are on the run in the Pacific, the Nurnberg makes a stop in Honolulu. This is almost certainly cabled or radio'ed back to Washington.

Interesting link thanks. Sounds like there was division even within the navy but the more aggressive elements eventually won out.

I think that especially given the slow start of the Japanese on the occupation of islands and the divided nature of opinion in Japan it would take something to make Washington assume Japan was definitely going to occupy so many of them. Plus given that Britain has a much larger fleet than Japan, that the US has traditionally considered Britain as its opponent - in fact the USN repeatedly made this their primary argument for large expansions - and that the British empire started occupying areas 1st wouldn't there be at least as much concern about Britain controlling those islands as Japan?

 

[raharris1973]

Interesting link thanks. Sounds like there was division even within the navy but the more aggressive elements eventually won out.

I think that especially given the slow start of the Japanese on the occupation of islands and the divided nature of opinion in Japan it would take something to make Washington assume Japan was definitely going to occupy so many of them. Plus given that Britain has a much larger fleet than Japan, that the US has traditionally considered Britain as its opponent - in fact the USN repeatedly made this their primary argument for large expansions - and that the British empire started occupying areas 1st wouldn't there be at least as much concern about Britain controlling those islands as Japan?

Indeed, I'm sure in any U.S. discussion of this, somebody on the U.S. side would say, "But isn't the British Empire stronger and thus the bigger threat" at least as a devil's advocate. I don't think they would carry the day, but the argument would be voiced by someone.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

I find it doubtful that Britain would betray an ally at this point. Not exactly a good idea to screw over your ally until the end of the war.

I find it more likely that Britain tells them to 'fuck off' politely, and the US simply buys the Islands. This would facilitate good relations with the Germans, and greatly dissuade a timeline where we join the Entente. I'd say Germany doesn't send a telegram to Mexico and instead they send one to the U.S, where offers of ownership of Canada are given.

Either way the Great War continues far longer. More than likely ending in a Central Powers victory. But even then it would be costly. the British would have to quickly withdraw from the lines in Europe to defend Canada, and would have to cut ships from the blockade. Perhaps giving enough room for a German counterattack.

Even then I doubt the French and British would give up. Only troops landing in the British Isles would force Britain to surrender, and the French would likely fall back to France, such as in the Second World War.

The timeline would be bloody, and I would say that the world would be gutted. Perhaps with casualties running to two times more than in the OT, more if Japan is particularly nasty.

I would not see a WW2 coming until the fifties to sixties, as in such a war, there would simply not be enough men to fight.

 

[Atarlost]

I find it doubtful that Britain would betray an ally at this point. Not exactly a good idea to screw over your ally until the end of the war.

I find it more likely that Britain tells them to 'fuck off' politely, and the US simply buys the Islands. This would facilitate good relations with the Germans, and greatly dissuade a timeline where we join the Entente. I'd say Germany doesn't send a telegram to Mexico and instead they send one to the U.S, where offers of ownership of Canada are given.

Either way the Great War continues far longer. More than likely ending in a Central Powers victory. But even then it would be costly. the British would have to quickly withdraw from the lines in Europe to defend Canada, and would have to cut ships from the blockade. Perhaps giving enough room for a German counterattack.

Even then I doubt the French and British would give up. Only troops landing in the British Isles would force Britain to surrender, and the French would likely fall back to France, such as in the Second World War.

The timeline would be bloody, and I would say that the world would be gutted. Perhaps with casualties running to two times more than in the OT, more if Japan is particularly nasty.

I would not see a WW2 coming until the fifties to sixties, as in such a war, there would simply not be enough men to fight.

I think that it takes more than England blowing off our security concerns about the Phillipines and an offer of Canada to get the US into the war. I don't think we even really wanted Canada. Plan A is going to be to embargo the Entente and that may be enough. I've heard some interesting claims about when the Entente runs out of foreign currency to import things with if the US doesn't join the war and at some point after that the food riots hit and they have to negotiate even without any military threat against Canada.

 

[WolfBear]

The British have plenty of better uses for their globally deployed fleet units and won't like to feel so obligated, but to underline their point, the Americans could say that if they can't count on the British to preempt the Japanese, Washington will have to work out a deal, maybe a purchase deal, with the Germans, to keep the islands out of Japanese hands and move them into American hands.

Could the US preemptively occupy these islands and negotiate a purchase deal over time after it has already occupied them?

 

[raharris1973]

Could the US preemptively occupy these islands and negotiate a purchase deal over time after it has already occupied them?

Maybe

 

[WolfBear]

Maybe

Yeah. For instance, in the Danish West Indies negotiations of 1915-1916, the US threatened to occupy the Danish West Indies if Denmark refused to sell them to the US. Nasty move on the part of the US, but it succeeded.