What if Germany allied with China in WWII

[Tecibbar]

Germany was friendly with both Japan and China. In fact, Germany was the only western Country that traded with China fairly and Germany helped China modernize her military.

Hilter tried to stop Sino-Japan war, but to no avail. He perceived a Japan victory, so he stopped exporting weapen to China, and allied with Japan.

What if Hilter allied with China?

 

[scy12]

China was worse of an Ally than Japan. Italy sucked much too. Only If Hitler allied with Great Britain and they did not invade Russia he may had won.

 

[say1988]

Once Japan attacks the US, China bails and joins the Allies.

While it is not an unreasonable situation (Germans played a key role in training and equiping parts of the Chinese army).
Not going to make a big difference.
The Sino-Japanese war started in '37, when there was still much cooperation between them. Hitler would not have provided much aid to China as he was going to be busy in Europe (and China looked like it was going down, fast).
In '41, China would be way to busy to attack Russia, and would end up on the same side as the Allies anyways.
Japan would do the exact same things, as there is no huge difference to them (Germany played a very small role in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.

Keep in mind that the Germany-Japan alliance was not strong. It is not comparable to US-Britain, or US-USSR alliances.

 

[Infantry#14]

China wouldn't be much help to Germany, the Japaneses were at the upper hand and remember there was huge enmity between Chinese Nationalist and Communists.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

China was not a natural ally of Germany, since it lacked any will or capability to attack the allies in the region. It was too vulnerable to Japanese attack to strike southwards even if it did have the means to do so.

In any case, I don't see what the timetable for this would be. Japan attacked China in 1937 and Germany could do nothing to stop them. Once this happened of course, the Chinese were in no position to defend themselves, never mind conquer India or march on Moscow.

Germany made the very sensible decision to join the winning team (Japan) and realistically their performance in east Asia was an astounding success compared to what a Sino-German alliance could have managed against a Japan-Allied force.

 

[aronnax]

China would be severly beaten by Japan anyway. China at the start of the war, was a poor, backwards, highly disordered, warring nation that only had land size to its advantage. Japan would had swept through it anyway.

Germany also could not help China seeing it was more focus on invading Russia than in Asia.
He wanted Europe

 

[scy12]

Germany made the very sensible decision to join the winning team (Japan) and realistically their performance in east Asia was an astounding success compared to what a Sino-German alliance could have managed against a Japan-Allied force.

I think in this hypothetical we must forget about any Japan-Allied force. Japan still attacks USA. USA still wins against them ... But what do the Americans do against Germany now ? Do they declare war ? Of course Germany still loses. The question here is not if the war would have ended differently but what would be now different.

That is the most interesting part of the Hypothetical. The fact that Germany is not allied with Japan.

 

[Traitorfish]

...a Japan-Allied force.

Problem with that is that Japanese expanionism conflicted with the British and French spheres of influence within East Asia as much as the US's. The Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere would've extended to the borders of French Indochina and British India, which would've made the European powers understandably uncomfortable.
The war between Britain/France and Japan was more than a diplomatic technicality, despite the neglect that the South-East Asian theatre is shown compared to the Pacific theatre. And, as Scy12 said, Japan posed a threat to the US, which, even before it's entry into the war, was a major source of support for the UK and Free French.

 

[Tecibbar]

Japan didn't help Germany fight the Soviet either. China could provide Germany with resources, though not likely. USA declared war on Germany for Japan's sake. so I would say China was a better ally. Here are some interesting points to consider.

1. The prime reason for Japan to invade southeast Asia is to get oil supply. If Japan and Britain had allied, Japan would have focused its war on China. Britain had trained Japan's air force and helped with Japan's Navy. With a common enemy, an ally between Japan and Britain could happen.

2. Would the US join the war?

3. What would be the outcome?

 

[scy12]

Britain would not ally with Japan. It's a natural ally with US. One of the two (US or Japan) would be a winner , and Britain needed to safeguard it's investments. And it certainly invested more in US than with Japan.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Japan joining the allies might be very unlikely, but if China was involved in a foreign war of any kind, they definitely would seize the opportunity to strike. In that case, the allies would have to be either neutral towards Japan or in a temporary alliance with them.

Whether the Japanese would end up at war with anyone other than China would depend on whether they decided to take advantage of the fall of France and take over Indochina. Historically, this was what tipped the balance against Japan and started the US oil embargo, which guaranteed the collapse of Japan and prompted the desperate attack on America.
With a more secure position in China both militarily due to China's distraction and diplomatically due to China's belligerence, the Japanese could easily decide to play it safe and stick to conquering just China. This would avoid any conflict with the west.


EDIT- And Britain was allied with Japan earlier in the 1900s and would readily join again if it allowed it to defeat China more easily and secure it's vulnerable Asian/Pacific flank, freeing up troops for the German war.

 

[say1988]

1. The prime reason for Japan to invade southeast Asia is to get oil supply. If Japan and Britain had allied, Japan would have focused its war on China. Britain had trained Japan's air force and helped with Japan's Navy.

Japan would still likely have to take the Dutch East Indies by force. And Britain's Alliance with the UK had ended in the 20s, when it chose to side with the US over Japan (before Hitler rose to power and well before the Germans quite aiding China militarily, in 1937).

With a common enemy, an ally between Japan and Britain could happen.

No it wouldn't. Japan wanted British assets, and the assets of its allies in Europe (France, Netherlands), and Europe is far more important than Asia.
Not to mention that the Brits were not going to oppose the US. And FDR was strongly opposed the Hitler (the more important war for the Brits), and was getting the US involved whenever he could.

2. Would the US join the war?

Yep, The US was going to war with Japan with or without Pearl Harbour, just a matter of time.

3. What would be the outcome?

No big difference.


Keep in mind that WWII was not one big war. It was two separate conflicts (with their roots well before 1937 and 1939). No matter what Germany did, Japan was going to war with China and the US (and therefore most likely Britain, France, and the Netherlands). US isolationism wouldn't change this because US territory was at the centre of the conflict (Philippines).
Meanwhile in Europe, same thing. Maybe Hitler doesn't declare war on the US, and that draws out the war, or even gets the Soviets the rest of Germany, and some other territory in the end, but once the US got going, FDR was directing it at Hitler, and before '44.

 

[Traitorfish]

USA declared war on Germany for Japan's sake.

Not really. Roosevelt has been itching to get involved in Europe, but the American public-as well as most politicians- were reluctant to go sticking their nose into Old World conflicts unless they felt they needed to. The German-Japan alliance acted as justification for the US to go to war against a country which posed no direct threat to the US, but was a threat to international democracy.
Why else did the US commit so much to Europe in the end, if they had no real interest in fighting Germany?

 

[say1988]

To expand on Traitorfish:
The US government supported the Allies before the war began.
US industry (and government) sold weapons to Allies (and had laws that made it so that they essentially could only sell to the Allies), in addition to the government's Destroyers for Bases, and lend lease. See also the Atlantic Charter.

Not to mention: I am assuming that the comment should read "Germany declared war on the USA for Japan's sake". But the biggest difference there might be, is the US putting more assets into the Pacific war and Soviets taking more of Central Europe.

 

[scy12]

Why else did the US commit so much to Europe in the end, if they had no real interest in fighting Germany?

Economic interests and fighting against the enemy of their natural ally ? But i also agree that did want democracy to be the the goverment system. That is also for economic other than political and ideological reasons.

 

[neutrino]

A hypothetical China as an ally to Germany in WW2?!? You gotta be kidding!

I think a good starting point is to check out General Joe Stillwell's experience in China at WW2. (Stillwell represented the US in Nationalist China back then.) Overall, it was a very frustrating tour of duty for him. Loads of corruption (lots of fat officers but starving grunts), too much warlordism (oftentimes, local Chinese commanders acted on their own without proper coordination with the central government), and lackluster attitude towards waging war as part of an alliance (not unusual for a Chinese faction to make truce with their Japanese opponents, so it can go after another faction).

In many ways, the Japanese had more decent time in China. Much of Japanese actions consisted of anti-guerilla campaigns and occupation. They never had to go through the kind of bloody nerve-wrecking ground campaigns taking place in Europe. Nor they had to chew their fingernails, as their Chinese opponents were neither well-equipped nor well-disciplined.

 

[say1988]

Nor they had to chew their fingernails, as their Chinese opponents were neither well-equipped nor well-disciplined.

Except for the ones trained by the Germans and armed with German weapons.

And the Japanese had some long brutal campaigns through some of the worst terrain on the planet. Yes, there was lots of guerrilla warfare, but there was open battles fought as well, through China, into Burma and to the edge of India, and then they started going backwards.

 

[SuperSloth]

In many ways, the Japanese had more decent time in China. Much of Japanese actions consisted of anti-guerilla campaigns and occupation. They never had to go through the kind of bloody nerve-wrecking ground campaigns taking place in Europe.

from wikipedia: "The Kuomintang fought in 22 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,171 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides, and 38,931 skirmishes.".

during the second sino-japanese war, the japanese suffered well over 1 million casualties. the chinese suffered more than 3 million military casualties alone. pretty bloody and nerver-wracking if you ask me. chinese casualty numbers rank second only to the russians.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not to mention that the Brits were not going to oppose the US. And FDR was strongly opposed the Hitler (the more important war for the Brits), and was getting the US involved whenever he could.

Though until the early Twenties it was a real worry by the United States that rising tensions with Japan would bring the UK into war with the US. The Brits valued the friendship of the second largest navy and largest producer of steel in the world more than it did an Eastern ally, so it let the treaty expire in 1921.

Yep, The US was going to war with Japan with or without Pearl Harbour, just a matter of time.

Do you mean Japan going to war with the US? Because I cannot see the US taking the initiative in war during this time. But I do agree that Japan and the US were bound for war, and had been ever since the Meji Restoration. The US saw its imperial future in the South Pacific, as did industrializing Japan. When the US came into posession of the Phillipine Islands in 1898, it became a guarantee of war between the two powers, since any expansion into the Indies would necessitate ownership of the Phillipines. It was precisely for this reason that Japan attacked the US in 1941.

 

[say1988]

Though until the early Twenties it was a real worry by the United States that rising tensions with Japan would bring the UK into war with the US. The Brits valued the friendship of the second largest navy and largest producer of steel in the world more than it did an Eastern ally, so it let the treaty expire in 1921.

Yep, and it would pick US over Japan in any situation. They relied on many US exports. The US was the bigger threat to Britain (imagine WWII if Canada, the US, and the Carribean were truly neutral and cut off trade, let alone oppose Britain).

As for US-Japan. I didn't mean which would start the war, but one of them would have. Japan needed the Philippines, and the US had some other nice islands. Meanwhile FDR wanted to fight the Japs (not as bad as he wanted to fight Hitler, but he would have jumped on any excuse). There was legislation passes (or rather not passed) in this regards [Neutrality Act, I think which would have effectively only allowed the US to supply Japan, not China] as well as other examples.