Why didn't Japan send some of its own troops to the Western Front during WWI?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,708
SoCal
Why didn't Japan send some of its own troops to the Western Front during World War I? I mean, the US did this even though it was on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, why not Japan as well--especially considering that Japan was on the side of the Entente from the very beginning of WWI?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,455
Dispargum
Distance. Japan didn't have the interest or the power projection capability that the US had.

What kind of reward was in it for Japan? They quickly gained control of Germany's Pacific possessions. No one was going to take those away from Japan, possession being 9/10s of the law etc. Woodrow Wilson was willing to fight for idealistic reasons. Japan was not. (There's also that bit about American investment in Allied victory that Japan hadn't made.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,877
Portugal
Distance. Japan didn't have the interest or the power projection capability that the US had.

What kind of reward was in it for Japan? They quickly gained control of Germany's Pacific possessions. No one was going to take those away from Japan, possession being 9/10s of the law etc. Woodrow Wilson was willing to fight for idealistic reasons. Japan was not. (There's also that bit about American investment in Allied victory that Japan hadn't made.)
I think that more than the distance, the second paragraph explains it. Japan didn’t want because it wouldn’t achieve new political or territorial gains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky and Futurist

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,460
Japan
Sending troops from the USA to England (where they all went first) is probably shorter and easier than marching Japanese troops over Asia or all the way around Asia’s oceans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,013
Italy, Lago Maggiore
It's well more easy [and brief] the journey from the Eastern coast of Northern American to Europe than the journey from Japan to Europe. Not to add that the great colonial Empires [the French and the British ones] with their Navies would have done something to impede to the Japanese forces to reach the European battlefields.

The curiosity is that Japanese volunteers were active on the other side [with some advantage about knowledge for Japanese air forces]. Warfare 1914-1918 (Japan) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,708
SoCal
Distance. Japan didn't have the interest or the power projection capability that the US had.

What kind of reward was in it for Japan? They quickly gained control of Germany's Pacific possessions. No one was going to take those away from Japan, possession being 9/10s of the law etc. Woodrow Wilson was willing to fight for idealistic reasons. Japan was not. (There's also that bit about American investment in Allied victory that Japan hadn't made.)
Do you think that a less idealistic US President would have been less inclined to send US troops to the Western Front in WWI?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,708
SoCal
It's well more easy [and brief] the journey from the Eastern coast of Northern American to Europe than the journey from Japan to Europe. Not to add that the great colonial Empires [the French and the British ones] with their Navies would have done something to impede to the Japanese forces to reach the European battlefields.

The curiosity is that Japanese volunteers were active on the other side [with some advantage about knowledge for Japanese air forces]. Warfare 1914-1918 (Japan) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)
Why would Britain and France block Japanese passage to Europe when Japan is on their side in WWI, though?

Also, wasn't the Panama Canal already completed by this point in time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Druid and Rodger

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,708
SoCal
Sending troops from the USA to England (where they all went first) is probably shorter and easier than marching Japanese troops over Asia or all the way around Asia’s oceans.
It's certainly shorter, but the Entente in WWI needed all of the help that they could get.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,877
Portugal
Sending troops from the USA to England (where they all went first) is probably shorter and easier than marching Japanese troops over Asia or all the way around Asia’s oceans.
That wouldn’t be a problem if there was will to do so. Portugal, with far less resources sent thousands to men to Mozambique (something between 10000 to 20000 men). It is not exactly near and Mozambique didn't had the logistics capability of France. Many examples could be given, including British ones.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,460
Japan
They were British and French allies.

I’m sure they’d have been welcomed .... but logistically would have been a massive and EXPENSIVE undertaking for very little gain.