Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

28nov2022 t1_j4be6fs wrote

If during WW2 Japan limited their aggression to Manchuria without advancing onto China, could Japan have kept Manchuria?

4

xander_C t1_j4c7g6x wrote

If the Japanese managed to keep the rest of China in a perpetual civil war, maybe.

If the rest of China managed to consolidate, unlikely.

The scenario is complicated by the fact that the mere presence of the Japanese served as somewhat of a unifying presence. And if I remember correctly, the Chinese at the time actively worked to keep Japan from sitting back and consolidating. I think I recall hearing somewhere that the Nationalists hit the Japanese in Shanghai specifically to overextend them, but if someone can speak to that with more authority I would appreciate it.

4

Irichcrusader t1_j4ddyc9 wrote

> I think I recall hearing somewhere that the Nationalists hit the Japanese in Shanghai specifically to overextend them, but if someone can speak to that with more authority I would appreciate it.

By no means an expert, but I'm currently reading China's War with Japan 1937 to 1945, by Rana Mitter, and that's pretty much what the author said about the battle of Shanghai, it was an additional front to tie up the Japanese and show them that China was prepared to fight. This was important because the Japanese were already advancing rapidly in the north. Chang clearly put a lot of importance on the Shanghai front since he committed his best trained troops to it, and they took appalling loses.

What was most interesting for me to learn is that the Japanese, after the Marco Polo Bridge incident, were not expecting much resistance and thought it would be a repeat of when they seized Manchuria without a fight. That China resisted really baffled and surprised them. They didn't even formally declare war on China. In fact, as late as the fall of Nanjing, the war was still being referred to in Japanese circles as "The China Incident." Chinese resistance and the loses they were inflicting on Japan also caused rage and anger among Japanese troops, which was likely a factor that caused the Rape of Nanjing.

3

xander_C t1_j4dw97h wrote

Thanks! That matches what I remember, but it's been a long time since I read anything about that front and I didn't want to make a claim I couldn't substantiate.

2

Adrax334 t1_j5d4w2z wrote

It is also worth mentioning that much of China's more modern and trade industries were based in Shanghai. It was a very,very important economic hub for Chiang's nationalists. One that he threw his best troops at in order to try to preserve.

But also it was a fight within sight of the world. Shanghai was a modern city by Chinese terms and it was one with an International Settlement that could actually show themselves off to the world.

1

Thibaudborny t1_j4bj0in wrote

Japan invaded China years before WW II, in 1937 Your premise in that sense is not correct. If you mean, prior to WW II, would depend on if & how China got out of its civil war & how the USSR/USA took up position.

1

Charming-Aardvark794 t1_j4d5sde wrote

one can reasonably argue that ww2 in Asia starts in 1937. Saying that ww2 started in 39 is a very European/Western centric view point

3

Thibaudborny t1_j4d973a wrote

Besides the point, but yes, you can make that observation & it is a fair one to make. Personally, I frame it as multiple separate wars ultimately coaslesced into one, broader, all-encompassing conflict.

5

28nov2022 t1_j4blv5f wrote

Yes my bad thats what i meant. Thank you, i understand it's a bit of a hypothetical question.

1

Adrax334 t1_j5d697f wrote

Unlikely.

First, Manchuria IS China. Before the Japanese invaded it was run by a Chinese warlord who went on to literally kidnap Chiang-Kai Shek in order to get him to agree to end his encirclement campaigns of the communists and instead focus on the Japanese. Chiang himself probably also thought war was inevitable with Japan. So in that sense the Chinese were never going to allow the continued occupation of their land forever.

A lack of war would likely allow Chiang's nationalists to consolidate itself by finishing its encirclement campaigns on the Communists. The rest of the warlords would follow in due time I'd imagine. While its unlikely China would launch some sort of offensive war in the WW2 timescale, it is unlikely they would wait forever when much of their ideology and history in those recent decades was based on undoing the "century of humiliation" - which would mean the foreign concessions would gave to go, including Japan.

But beyond that, if WW2 still goes the same way - Japan is still loosing. The might of the UK, then combined with the US and then the USSR would still be more than enough to put Japan down even if it weren't tied up in Chinese affairs. The end result would probably end with much, if not all, of Manchuria being returned to China as we saw in real life. And the only reason some of it might not be is because we can't ever be too sure what the allied powers would've taken had they been given a freer hand in Manchuria at the end if the war. Either way the clock was ticking for Japan.

1