Japan again, Because Biden

[Murph]

It was completely hypocritical for the US to condemn Japan for the conquest of Manchuria, and at the same time demanding they accept US colonialism.....  

[sunday]

Then there were the Opium Wars, also, that solidified in the field of international relations that wonderful diplomatic innovation, the unequal treaty.

[DKTanker]

16 minutes ago, Murph said:

It was completely hypocritical for the US to condemn Japan for the conquest of Manchuria, and at the same time demanding they accept US colonialism.....  

I wasn't aware that Nanjing and Shanghai were in Manchuria.

[Murph]

They were not, and the Japanese needed to be condemned for those atrocities. but the colonization of Manchuria was a different matter.  But as read in the book The Rising Sun, the Japanese government was completely in the control of the Army due to the Meiji constitution.  Plus there was a massive undercurrent of Gekkokujo (disobedience) that ran through the Japanese Army.  Plus the they were afraid that the Kwangtung Army would declare Manchuria independent of Japan.  

The Army was the tail that wagged the dog in many cases.  If the Army refused to appoint a War Minister that was to their liking, the Government would fall, and a new Prime Minister would have to be selected.  Plus radicals murdered Prime Minsters and other Government officials.  The closest I can call it is Elected Anarchy in the 20's and 30's.  

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

They were not, and the Japanese needed to be condemned for those atrocities. but the colonization of Manchuria was a different matter. 

Yes, but it wasn't the colonization of Manchuria that provoked the embargo of oil and other resources from Japan, the result of which was Japan's rationalization for attacking the United States.  The embargos, especially that of oil was a direct result of Japan invading French Indo-China, in 1940, thus preventing China from easily importing oil and other resources.
If you grant that the trade embargo with Japan gave them the right to start a war against the United States, then using the same logic, Russia has every right to wage a war on the United States because of trade restrictions instituted because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

[Murph]

No, I do not agree.  While the colonization of Manchuria was not what caused WWII, and allowed the rationalization for the attack, I think that our refusal to recognize Japan's colonization was a factor.  Also a point of contention was the US embargo on immigration for Asian people to the US.   Japan was majorly at fault, but the US was not pristine either.

[urbanoid]

I'd say nobody has the obligation to trade with anyone else.

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

No, I do not agree.  While the colonization of Manchuria was not what caused WWII, and allowed the rationalization for the attack, I think that our refusal to recognize Japan's colonization was a factor.  Also a point of contention was the US embargo on immigration for Asian people to the US.   Japan was majorly at fault, but the US was not pristine either.

I'm still having a problem understanding your rationale for blaming the United States for Japan starting a war with the United States.  So the United States wasn't pristine, how exactly does that translate into the United States deserving to be attacked by Japan?

[futon]

9 hours ago, DKTanker said:

I wasn't aware that Nanjing and Shanghai were in Manchuria.

The Second-Sino Japanese War started in the Summer of 1937.

And yet, a "second united front against Japan" was presented to a captured CKS in December 1936. This was called the Xi'an incident.

So it was a united front for a war that was not going on.

This was a big factor that took the Chinese into what would become full scale war and invasion.

Why did they do it then? CKS was captured. The primary purpose was to save the Chinese communists. 

And as the war got going, the Chinese communists took the back seat most of the time, letting it bleed the KMT. 

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by futon

[R011]

14 hours ago, Murph said:

It was completely hypocritical for the US to condemn Japan for the conquest of Manchuria, and at the same time demanding they accept US colonialism.....  

What US colonialism?

[sunday]

35 minutes ago, R011 said:

What US colonialism?

Philippines, for starters. That "Civilize them with a Krag" thing.

[Rick]

4 hours ago, sunday said:

Philippines, for starters. That "Civilize them with a Krag" thing.

So the Philippines would remain Spanish until December, 1941.

[futon]

55 minutes ago, Rick said:

So the Philippines would remain Spanish until December, 1941.

Well, the resistance against Spain was heating up just as the Americans moved. There was some interest in Japan in expanding into the Philippines via immigrant community. As to how far it would go is a different matter, not fair to assert that Japan would aim for occupation of the Philippines, be it Spanish Philippines or self achieved independent Philippines. In the context of the Pacific War, the Philippines became a target because it is was seen likely that the US would enter war eventually even if Japan didn't attack the US. So long as the Philippines (independent or Spanish) would assure it not being part of the allies operation, then there's little reason to invade it. At most Japan would want basing rights for strategic areas. In the example of French Indochina, the French administration was left intact. Japan just wanted it for strategic purposes. Same with Siam.  Would leave more manpower available for the Solomon islands and a capacity to move down there quicker. Although if the US didn't have the Philippines, they may not be in position of thinking of moving up yhe Pacific fleet from California to Hawaii, forming Flying Tigers group, etc., together with demand to leave all of China. The US could just refuse to sell their oil and Japan just grab dutch indies oil. And that be that.

Edited April 24, 2023 by futon

[urbanoid]

To be fair for some ~300 of those 350 years the Japanese kept to themselves, there was no need to keep them out of anything.

[rmgill]

No, but when they decided they wanted a piece of colonialism, and they needed to be brutal, they turned it up to 11. Unit 731, Nanking and other incidents show that. 

[urbanoid]

5 minutes ago, rmgill said:

No, but when they decided they wanted a piece of colonialism, and they needed to be brutal, they turned it up to 11. Unit 731, Nanking and other incidents show that. 

Colonialism came to them, forcibly opened them up, the Japanese simply had enough sense to modernize the country in the image of those colonial powers, in order not to end like half-colonised China.

They were no more brutal than other colonialist powers since 1890s, when they began their expansion, up to WW1. The treatment of Russian POWs of 1904-05 was not just good, it was exceptional. Nothing bad happened to the German POWs they captured during brief campaign against German possessions in East Asia.

When they decided to be brutal, their brutality was exceptional too, but it only began in the 1930s.

[futon]

33 minutes ago, rmgill said:

No, but when they decided they wanted a piece of colonialism, and they needed to be brutal, they turned it up to 11. Unit 731, Nanking and other incidents show that. 

So long as the bad history isn't used exploitatively, yeah, it happened.

Otherwise its a never ending story of knee-jerk reacting by opening others closets full of atrocities while point the finger with single one liners of justification. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The experiments include the exposure,tests which involve mind-altering

Get other things right please.

[Murph]

19 hours ago, DKTanker said:

I'm still having a problem understanding your rationale for blaming the United States for Japan starting a war with the United States.  So the United States wasn't pristine, how exactly does that translate into the United States deserving to be attacked by Japan?

I am not blaming the US, I am pointing out that the US was not completely innocent.  We did not deserve to be attacked, but we also had some culpability by diplomatic blunders which might have postponed the war for another year or so.  Hull and FDR deserve some of the blame for misreading things, and treating the Japanese as an "inferior" power.  But it was all part of the US anti-Asian bias that was so prevalent at that time period, especially in California and the West Coast region as well as Washington.

[R011]

6 hours ago, Rick said:

So the Philippines would remain Spanish until December, 1941.

This would be the Philippines which were transitioning to full independence, a process interrupted by the Japanese invasion.

[rmgill]

And the US did not walk away and still continued the independence process. 

[Tim Sielbeck]

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Colonialism came to them, forcibly opened them up, the Japanese simply had enough sense to modernize the country in the image of those colonial powers, in order not to end like half-colonised China.

They were no more brutal than other colonialist powers since 1890s, when they began their expansion, up to WW1. The treatment of Russian POWs of 1904-05 was not just good, it was exceptional. Nothing bad happened to the German POWs they captured during brief campaign against German possessions in East Asia.

When they decided to be brutal, their brutality was exceptional too, but it only began in the 1930s.

Except for Korea around 1600.

[DKTanker]

10 hours ago, Murph said:

I am not blaming the US, I am pointing out that the US was not completely innocent.  We did not deserve to be attacked, but we also had some culpability by diplomatic blunders which might have postponed the war for another year or so.  Hull and FDR deserve some of the blame for misreading things, and treating the Japanese as an "inferior" power.  But it was all part of the US anti-Asian bias that was so prevalent at that time period, especially in California and the West Coast region as well as Washington.

Why does the US deserve blame for Japan attacking the United States?  You keep saying that isn't what you mean, and then you repeat the line that the United States deserves to be blamed for Japan attacking the United States.

[R011]

I ercall Toland mentioning that an American proposal that Japan withdraw from China in return for a lifting of the embargo was rejected by Japan because the Japanese thought the Americans meant withdraw from Manchuria as well when they did not.  The problem with blaming the US for this is that the japanese made no attempts to clarify or counteroffer.  That getting the Army to accept any such deal might be an issue is not brought up.

Sometimes the so called misunderstandingsa mentioned in that book aren't quite as spun.  For example, Toland makes a point that the Japanese response to the Poytsdam declaration included a term that could either mean a neutral "no comment" to a more hostile "treat with silent contempt".  That the very next sentence "we will fight to the end" makes the exact meaning of previous one moot gets ignored.

[futon]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

I ercall Toland mentioning that an American proposal that Japan withdraw from China in return for a lifting of the embargo was rejected by Japan because the Japanese thought the Americans meant withdraw from Manchuria as well when they did not.  The problem with blaming the US for this is that the japanese made no attempts to clarify or counteroffer.  That getting the Army to accept any such deal might be an issue is not brought up.

Sometimes the so called misunderstandingsa mentioned in that book aren't quite as spun.  For example, Toland makes a point that the Japanese response to the Poytsdam declaration included a term that could either mean a neutral "no comment" to a more hostile "treat with silent contempt".  That the very next sentence "we will fight to the end" makes the exact meaning of previous one moot gets ignored.

The Japanese wanted to setup a meeting between Konoye and FDR. Without such a meeting to make agreement, then it can't move forward. There US side never offered to setup a meeting and rejected Japanese request for a meeting. 

Edited April 25, 2023 by futon

[futon]

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Why does the US deserve blame for Japan attacking the United States?  You keep saying that isn't what you mean, and then you repeat the line that the United States deserves to be blamed for Japan attacking the United States.

The US started severe economic warfare on Japan. Oil is not only necessary for military operations but also for modern life. If the US had only wanted to not sell oil to a country at war, then they could have done so without making conditions that put the US military in the path of Japan's alternative effort to secure oil elsewhere. The US put KMT center stage of its Asia foreign policy. Right/Wrong aside, that's why.