(Alternate History) The Second Sino-Japanese War

[X] Arrange a memorial - it'll do everyone good to see the fighting generals reconciling.
 
[X] Arrange a memorial - it'll do everyone good to see the fighting generals reconciling.
 
Post-War Turn 1, pt1: International Report
International Report:



THE SECOND SINO-JAPANESE WAR IS OVER

PEACE OF NANKING


MILITARY DEAD: 460,000
MILITARY WOUNDED: 1,380,000
CIVILIAN DEAD: 220,000 (125,000 KOREANS & 92,000 CHINESE & 3000 JAPANESE)
Total DISPLACED: (estimate) 3,000,000

KOREAN FRONT:


CountryJAPANKOREACHINA
Dead61,98026,496173,407
Wounded151,24271,359503,881

OVERALL TERRITORIAL CHANGES:
COUNTRYJAPANKOREACHINA
TERRITORIAL GAINLiaoning Demilitarised ZoneYonbyon-Baishan-JilinN/A
TERRITORIAL LOSSN/AN/AMongolia, Tibet, Sinkiang, Yonbyon-Baishan-Jilin

...



THE WAR OF FIVE EMPIRES IS OVER

TREATY OF BRUSSELS



Military Dead: 1,900,000
Military Wounded: 5,300,000
Prisoners of War: 3,380,000
Civilian Dead: 2,100,000 (+1,000,000 Armenians before outbreak of war)
Total Displaced: (estimate) 10,000,000-12,500,000

Austria-Hungary gains: Congress Poland after British mediation
Germany gains: Luxembourg, Benin, French Congo & Morocco
Ottomans gain: 1878 borders with Russia, population exchange with Greece
Bulgaria gains: North Macedonia, Dobrich
Albania gains: Kosovo

Russia loses: Kars region (1878 borders) to Ottomans, Congress Poland to Austria, Bessarabia to Moldova, Tuva (to Mongolia), Independence to Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Circassia, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Tatarstan[1], Turkestan[2], Ukraine.
France loses: Morocco, Benin & French Congo.
Serbia loses: North Macedonia & Kosovo
Romania loses: Dobrich to Bulgaria, Moldova to independence




REBEL LEGEND:
Black Square = Black Anarchists
White left-right stripe = White Monarchists
Red Rhombus = Bolshevist
Green Right-Left Stripe = Green Peasants
Light Blue Vertical Stripe = Ukrainian Separatists (Yes the ones in Manchuria too)

The end of an era was, with this treaty, firmly and irrevocably realised. Russian dominance over eastern Europe looked for all the world to be forever crushed, as the country descended into rebellion and fire and secessionist movements rose up at the drop of a hat. Imperial Russia, without arms or armies to resist the oncoming Bolshevist and independence movements, had been forced back to St. Petersburg and Novgorod, with Imperial forces also holding Vladivostok.

Russia is now divided into four camps: the Bolshevist Reds, the Monarchist Whites, the reactionary anti-confiscation Greens and the Anarchist Blacks. The Bolshevists, the camp with the most currently active soldiers, are centered around Moscow and Tsaritsyn (which they call Volgograd), but their alpha strike failed to bring down the White's control of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, which is where the Whites now cling to power. The Greens field 3 armies, and are led primarily by Lavr Kornilov, and hold power in most of the countryside but are most powerful in the regions of Astrakhan and Dagestan, as they are a reactionary movement that resents the bolshevist oppression of the peasant class in their struggle to achieve the supremacy of the working class. The Blacks have the greatest concentrations centered around Kursk and Voronezh, but are found all over the country leading anarchist guerrillas to fight against the reds and whites.

Meanwhile, the minorities of Russia have seen the chains holding them down vanish, as division after division of the Imperial Russian Army is dragged into the free-for-all of the civil war. In response, they are throwing their own lot into the ring, with dozens of regions declaring independence.

In Japan, the atmosphere is relieved. Newspapers all over the world are reporting on the excellence of Japanese industry and fighting spirit, bondholders are satisfied by an increasingly steep rise in the economy and every day folks are entertained by the massive victory parade in Tokyo. On the surface, all seems well, but you are well aware of two major conflicts brewing in the general staff. The rise of mechanised brigades, as well as divisions has now led to an interesting split, where some generals favour infantry-support armour, others favour divisions composed entirely of tanks, and others still support a mixed division, with motorised infantry supporting the armour. The other major conflict is between the Navy and the Army, regarding the newly minted Air Service. Both the Army and the Navy are wholly convinced that they should have some degree of primacy when it comes to the Air Service, while the Air Service itself is attempting to hedge for full independence.

Decisions:
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Infantry Support Armour Doctrine. Armoured vehicles are not yet mature enough for independent operations.
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.
-[X] Back the Armour Primacy Doctrine. Armoured vehicles are the way forward, and more is better. As of yet, they have flaws, but they will be hammered out and refined in five to ten years, tops!

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
-[X] Don't take a side (???)
-[X] Side with the Army, the Navy can get their own Air Service if they want it so bad! (Army likes this, ???, Navy does not like this)
-[X] Back the Navy (Unavailable)



Sorry this update is so late and short. RL happened, and it sucked a lot of motivation out of me for a good while.
 
Last edited:
Is it going to be any debate? We don't want to get into the army/navy conflict and certainly don't want the air wings to be beholden to them either.

[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
Tanks need infantry, without them they're sitting ducks. The first option seems to go for the "Infantry-tank" concept that UK tried to float during the Inter-War years, while the second option is the Wehrmacht Armoured Division model. I'm going for the second one since that's the concept that won out.

[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
Last edited:
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.
[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.
[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.
[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.
[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy
likes it, but both can live with it)
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground.
[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service

I also like splitting the air service off since they will provide a good counterweight to the traditional Army/Navy rivalry that often troubles Japan.

Perhaps 'peacekeeping' operations around Manchuria are necessary?
 
[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Infantry Support Armour Doctrine. Armoured vehicles are not yet mature enough for independent operations.
I'm going to buck the trend here. My understanding of things is that option 3 is just wrong, tanks need infantry no matter the technology level. My reason for going option 1 over 2 is that my understanding is that while option 2 will be the correct answer eventually, i.e. in 15-20 years, the actual technology to implement such a strategy simply doesn't exist and won't exist for some time. I think pushing straight for a combined arms motorized formations runs the risk of pushing too far too fast and unfairly discrediting the idea, better to start conservatively and push for experimentation when technology, and perhaps more importantly Japan's industry, develops a little more.

[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)

Potentially problematic when carriers start developing but far better than the alternatives I think and historically has worked out.
 
Last edited:
Huh, the Russian Civil War looks even more chaotic this time than IRL.

Still, the Russian Army wasn't as wrecked by this war as in WWI, which is why the Whites are doing better.

Austria and the Ottomans came out on top here, not sure how I feel about that. It could revitalize both of these ailing Empires, but all I really see it doing is earning them another couple decades of life until the next major conflict wrecks them.

Meanwhile, Imperial Germany got their overseas colonies. Which was their main intention to begin with OTL and ITL. Good for them and hopefully no need for a certain Austrian artist to take over.

[X] Armoured Warfare
-[X] Back the Middle Ground. Armoured vehicles are the future, but as of yet they are slow and cumbersome, but with great potential. A mix of infantry support and combined arms is the way to go in the near future.
[X] Air Service
-[X] Back the Air Service, they'll be more useful independent than if the Navy and Army keep squabbling over it (Air Service likes this, neither Army nor Navy likes it, but both can live with it)
 
Huh, the Russian Civil War looks even more chaotic this time than IRL.

Still, the Russian Army wasn't as wrecked by this war as in WWI, which is why the Whites are doing better.

Austria and the Ottomans came out on top here, not sure how I feel about that. It could revitalize both of these ailing Empires, but all I really see it doing is earning them another couple decades of life until the next major conflict wrecks them.

Meanwhile, Imperial Germany got their overseas colonies. Which was their main intention to begin with OTL and ITL. Good for them and hopefully no need for a certain Austrian artist to take over.

The Russian Civil War IRL was much more of a chaotic free for all than this is, if only because the Greens have some form of leadership that amounts to more than whichever charismatic peasant is currently shouting loudest.

The analysis on the Russian army is correct. The Whites are doing much better than IRL because of it, as the failure to take Petrograd and Novogorod is a serious setback for the Reds.

The Ottoman Empire... well, they honestly got really lucky. The main causes of their poor performance were all somewhat mitigated, Enver Pasha not screwing the entire war effort over on Day 1 was a major boon. In general they had the most favourable terrain and circumstances, and with German advisers and no Royal Navy to worry about... Can't really speak for their long term stability though, since the Pashas are now faced with... interesting developments.

As for Austria-Hungary, this is more or less the IRL peace proposal. Austria-Hungary is pretty much going to become a battle royale in the near future, because once Franz Joseph bites it, Franz Ferdinand won't play ball with the Hungarians for even a moment...

Germany is feeling pretty good, France got shown what for, even if not in the spectacular fashion of 1871 and the acquisition of Colonies and the crippling of Russia is all in their favour. The new Austrian border isn't ideal though...
 
Back
Top