Lets say that during the 1920's, Japan makes overtures to Chiang Kai-shek and convinces him to join them against the remnants of the leftist and communist forces. With Chiang Kai-shek's hatred of the Russian's interference and the lack of support from the west, the Japanese could have created an allegiance that would have shut out the Allies in China and destroyed the communist's influence.

Furthermore, by working with more radical Hindus and Muslims, they might have incited an uprising against the British that would have denied most of that country from the Allies. In addition, with both countries supporting the Japanese effort, it would have freed large amounts of troops and supplies for other conquests. And other Asian nations might have been willing to join if it meant shedding their colonial masters.

Could this feasibly happen with the proper leadership in Japan, and if it did happen, how would it affect the events of the war?

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

Well there were not any 'Allies' in the sense of the alliances of WWI or WWII in the 1920s, but if you mean the forigen colonial empires that had China by the throat and benifited from the 'Unequal Treatys' then you are making sense.

Japans 'Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere' was a sort of theory and propaganda bow in that direction. The ousting of the European colonial powers through Japans leadership and military skill and establishment of Asia for Asians. The reality was the Japanses business families were as rapacious coloialists as anyone, so the Asians then ruled by the Japanese were no better off.

Now if Japan had been run by idealistic heros, or at least men of better sense, then they might have been able to slowly organize the Asians to remove the European colonists.

As it was the Japanese war of 1941-1945 weakend the Europeans to the point where the Communists were abe to take the independance ball and run with it.

My reference to the Allies is that the Chinese would be totally supportive of the Japanese and there would be no British or American activities on Chinese soil during WWII. I agree that the Japanese would have to show a lot more sense then they did, to win over other Asian nations to their cause.

One thing that would not have happened would have been the Doolittle Tokyo raid. There could be no expectations of landing in China.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

With a genuine, friendly to other Asian nations, anti colonial approach of the Japanese, it would certainly not have been out of the question to win the nationalist chinese over to their cause. It might have been that such a development would have completely excluded the allies from any influence in China, (or what was left of it after the Japanese conquests).
Whether it would have made much difference I doubt, as the Japanese, controlling large chunks of China, were as unable as the nationalists to rout the communists and having the Chinese armed forces and politicians on their side would soon have proved just as big a liability to them as it later proved to the allies, mainly the Americans.

India would have been much more difficult, first because the anti colonial nationalists were ideologically a utter diverse bunch and nigh impossible to unite. Secondly it is probable that the British would have been capable to suppress any uprisings as any sense of military strategy as well as the necessary weapons were absent on the nationalist side. Thirdly, the man who would have been most likely as a figurehead for Japanese interference in Indian affairs, Chandra Bose, was much more inclined to be client with the German nazi's than with the Japanese.

Would it have happened this way, I think it would have certainly not helped Japan's case, it would have done more to spread out wider its already thinly manned occupation/protection troops over Asia and would have greatly added to their already precarious supply lines. Apart from that such developments in China might have led to a much earlier involvement of the Soviet Union in the hostilities in North China, a thing that Japan was anxious to avoid during the entire war.

Anyway, as already stated in this thread, one did not need to be a clever Asian nationalist to see that the Japanese were not a hair better than the European colonialist rulers in their designs on the future of the Asian territory and it is logical that nothing came of it.

There was realistically no chance of such an alliance happening. To start with, the Imperial Japanese Army was extremely nationalistic, racist, and (if you believe the IJN commentary) not all-to-bright. They would not have seen the Chinese or Indians as anything but their inferiors and would have treated them that way.
Chang was not about to hand over a large chunk of China to the Japanese either. He definitely would not have done so on nothing but their promise to supply him arms and help fight Mao's communist faction. Chang had more to gain by staying with the US and Britain both of whom (particularly the US) were suppling him arms. This was a major reason the Japanese invaded Burma; to cut the supply routes the US and Britain were using to move war material into China.
While the Communists were a definite problem for the Nationalists, the Japanese were a bigger threat than either was to the other. Either throwing in with the Japanese meant losing foreign support for their side while simultaneously gaining nothing from the Japanese militarily (see the Manchuko Army Japan formed for clear evidence of this) as the Japanese had little or nothing to spare. Politically, siding with the Japanese only legitimizes their hold on much of China which again would have been unacceptable.
For the Soviets, the situation doesn't change one bit regardless of the line up. The Japanese, with or without Chinese support, lack the means to engage in a full scale war with the Soviets. The outcome is always the same: Japan loses badly.
It is as simple as the Japanese being a seapower cannot afford to be a land power. Taking on a land power in a continential war is suicide for the Japanese. Even versus the marginal capabilities of China stretched the Japanese to the breaking point in fighting a potential land power.
India would have proven even more difficult to deal with than China. They too would have realized that there was nothing to gain from a Japanese alliance.
A far better course of action for the Japanese would have been to try and negotiate a settlement with Chaing and the Nationalists to end their war in China, even ceeding some territory back to the Nationalists if necessary to achieve it.
Avoiding war with the Soviets and US should have been a Japanese imperative. Instead of fighting for a colonial expansion they could have held on to Manchuko and worked towards greater economic parity with the Soviets and US with the possibility of a military operation later if necessary rather than rushing to war as they did.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Well if this was to be achieved and that Nationalist China, Japan and India became allies then what happens to the American embargo on Japan, If Nationalist China and Japan for what ever reason make peace would America be obligated to lift all sanctions against Japan, if this did occur what would be the effects of say Japan not launching attacks on Pearl Harbour and the Philipines.

Nationalist China and Japan would certainly have to fight side by side to defeat Communist Chinese forces and could this bring in the Soviets to openly militarily support the Communist Chinese, meaning that Japan would be brought into direct conflict with the Soviets thus opening up a second Soviet Front. So it is very confusing to consider all the possibilities.

I have to ask,

1. Why would China ally herself with Japan?

2. Why would Japan ally herself with China ( a sub-human race according to the Japanese )?

3. Why would India join either one of these countries?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

1. You have to remember that in the time frame I am looking at, Russia was working on getting the Nationalists and CCR to work together because there were so few communists and their best bet was to get in with the leftist faction of the Nationalists and split them up. Chiang Kai-shek recognized this and would not work with the communists. Eventually, this split the country into three factions with three separate capitals. Chiang Kai-Shek was bent on destroying the opposition and would have probably done so, if the Japanese had not interfered. My premise here is that the Japanese go to Chiang Kai-Shek and say, if you join with us, we will not invade China, and will provide support in your civil war. China in turn, does not help the Allies. Think of it like Spain before WWII.

1. Why would China join up with Japan? To gain military supplies and support which was not forthcoming from the west.

2. Why would Japan join up with China? Because Japan has a long history of feeling inferior to China. They have always been self conscious about their status as a nation. By making the Chinese a subservient nation, even if they do not invade it, gains them status.

3. India does not have to join the alliance. However, there were factions in India that were not into the peaceful protest of Ghandi, and there was a lot of anti-colonialism feeling around the country. Remember the violence in the early days of British conquest. Just by tying up Allied force with acts of sabotage, they could make things very difficult. And don't forget that there were cases of this during WWII anyway

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

So Japan would waist its own men, equipment, money and resources which she herself was in dyer need off, on an inferior nation ( according to their ideology ) and gain what.. Status?

Doesnt sound like a good deal for Japan does it?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

All Japan had to do was to provide the Nationalists with a few older weapons and ammunition that is not up to service by their front-line troops. For that, they waste fewer troops and weapons, plus do not have to fight an additional front. The Chinese would either declare neutrality and deny access to the Allies, or join the Japanese. Both the Chinese and the Japanese would be better if China was a neutral because then any attempts from Russia to attack China would be censored.

Within the limits of their participation, the Chinese could be providing Japan with available raw materials and creating a trade route.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

I think a great "deal" for Japan, (food/raw materials) but I don't believe the Chinese (any faction) would honor an agreement, or really expect one from Japan to be honored in return.
A tremendous burden off Japan, to get all she wanted from China with words/promises instead of war.
China (Russia too) kept a lot of Japan busy/worried and without that (pair of lead boots) she could have consolidated her initial gains. Perhaps having an upper hand in peace/settlement negotiations.
Japan would still have to be "brutal" in her conquered territories, and would still irritate overflowed Chinese populations in Indonesia/Korea/Indochina.
India (I feel)(as was said), would rather just keep both out. Fighting as necessary.
In China, (for the Japanese) another "quagmire" of who/where the friendly/(deal made) Chinese were, and how to tell the difference.

__________________
"Danger Will Robinson!"

Interesting scenario. Good points raised by all who posted here.
One thing that I would like to add is this: given the parameters of this what if, I would assume that the militaristic cabal that took over the Japanese govt would lose its steam in the years following the establishment of such an alliance. Thus, the Japanese govt would be more likely be in the Western mold instead of what arose in World War II. Since the 1920's was mentioned, the Japanese govt and military then was more professional and conservative and patterned after the British, based on what I've read.
Of course, I'm operating from hindsight. Feel free to pick holes.