Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 28th, 2016, 05:33 PM   #11

Blue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: ROK
Posts: 504

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatstreetwarrior View Post
Yes but with Russian withdrawal and Civil war Japan could have reinvaded Russia (they did it just a decade before) or taken parts of Eastern China, Korea and even SE Asia.
Japan started to occupy Korea before WWI.

Last edited by Blue; November 28th, 2016 at 05:36 PM.
Blue is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 12th, 2016, 04:45 PM   #12
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Europe
Posts: 9

Japan's role in WW1 wasn't exactly huge but they did a bit of fighting at sea and in Qingdao.
They therefore didn't have much leverage in negotiations after the peace, but also there weren't that many German colonies around Japan anyway, Qingdao probably being the most significant.
Anachreon88 is offline  
Old December 12th, 2016, 10:41 PM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,350

The important thing is still that Japan's claims as a colonial power were recognized — at the direct expense of China.

China had also joined the war, and got nothing, except a European+US confirmation that whereas the Germans previously had been entitled to bits of China, henceforth the Japanese were.
Larrey is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 06:12 AM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,846

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey View Post
The important thing is still that Japan's claims as a colonial power were recognized — at the direct expense of China.

China had also joined the war, and got nothing, except a European+US confirmation that whereas the Germans previously had been entitled to bits of China, henceforth the Japanese were.
I think the Japanese should have stamped themselves more authoritatively in WW1 as pre eminent East Asian Oriental power (especially SE Asia) rather than wait till WW2 as US had still not become a global player of its own accord until WW2. Japanese clearly missed the boat. They could have easily smashed up SE Asia and probably nibbled some parts out of Russia permanently as well as they had just beaten them a decade back. Japan should have permanently annexed Sakhlin by then.

Last edited by greatstreetwarrior; December 13th, 2016 at 06:16 AM.
greatstreetwarrior is online now  
Old December 13th, 2016, 07:36 AM   #15
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,350

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatstreetwarrior View Post
I think the Japanese should have stamped themselves more authoritatively in WW1 as pre eminent East Asian Oriental power (especially SE Asia) rather than wait till WW2 as US had still not become a global player of its own accord until WW2. Japanese clearly missed the boat. They could have easily smashed up SE Asia and probably nibbled some parts out of Russia permanently as well as they had just beaten them a decade back. Japan should have permanently annexed Sakhlin by then.
Well, how do you propose they do that? They attack the Philipines and go to war with the US? Or they attack the Dutch East Indies, and go to war not just with the Netherlands, but also with the UK which had zero interest in the Japanese muscling in on the comfortable understanding between the British and the Dutch there?

The only way Japan does that in the aftermath of WWI, is if the UK would be willing to go to war with the Netherlands. Since Britiain was friendly with both why would it? If it sells out the Dutch to the Japanese, they get straddled with a tricky new partnership with a rising, clearly aggressive power, rather than the more comfortable Dutch. Why would the UK want that? What would be in it for them? Especially if it would come at the expense of being seen clearly selling the Dutch out in order to give Japan a leg up. Who would think that a Good Idea?

As for Sakhalin and the Russian Far East, the Japanese army tried it in 1919, and it didn't work. All it did was cost money and make the army impopular. Even if it had been official Japanese imperial policy, how would it still not have been just a drain of money and resources for no actual gain, while still impopular? There wasn't much there to make use of at the time, not even much people, except MMBA ("Miles and Miles of Bloody Asia"). Japan already had Korea and Manchuria safe from Russia, and that was where the potential profits were.
Larrey is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 07:49 AM   #16
Dilettante
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Wirral
Posts: 4,461

To quote Max Hastings from Catastrophe, which I've just read, Japan was the "only belligerent to emerge from the struggle with exactly the prizes it sought on joining the allies in 1914, acquired at negligible cost in blood and cash".
GogLais is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
colonies, gain, japan, winning, wwi



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What was the aftermath of Japan winning the Russo Japanese war? schmitt trigger War and Military History 11 August 31st, 2015 01:12 AM
Winning elections with 104%? Verbar European History 9 April 28th, 2015 10:42 AM
What if Japan had joined Germany's side in WW1? SSDD Speculative History 3 September 11th, 2014 10:39 PM
Battles in which the Winning Side's commanders die emperor of seleucid War and Military History 18 February 18th, 2013 06:23 PM
Winning War with with power tedkaw War and Military History 12 November 4th, 2006 10:38 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.