Japan again, Because Biden

[glenn239]

11 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.

Toland is spinning a yarn.  The Hull note is here,

Hull note - Wikisource, the free online library

It states,

The principle of inviolability of territorial integrity and sovereignty of each and all nations.\

And later, this,

The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan will not support-militarily, politically, economically-any Government or regime in China other than the national Government of the Republic of China with capital temporarily at Chungking

 

There was no miscommunication.  The American position was that there was one legitimate government in China.  Not two.  Manchuria was part of China - 'inviolability of territorial integrity'.  

[Murph]

13 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.

No, I am not.  What I am stating, is that there were mis-steps, mis-understandings, and mis-communications that caused Japan to feel that they were backed into a corner.  Ambassador Grew made a similar statement in a telegram to Roosevelt before things got bad.  Perhaps I could suggest you read RIsing Sun by Toland?  Please do not attribute opinions to me that I do not have.  

[Colin]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

No, I am not.  What I am stating, is that there were mis-steps, mis-understandings, and mis-communications that caused Japan to feel that they were backed into a corner.  Ambassador Grew made a similar statement in a telegram to Roosevelt before things got bad.  Perhaps I could suggest you read RIsing Sun by Toland?  Please do not attribute opinions to me that I do not have.  

Japanese politics at the time were pretty nasty, could it be that the groups inside Japan choose to interpret US moves in certain ways to further their own agendas?

[R011]

14 hours ago, futon said:

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. 

Gee, I wonder why they'd do that?  I'm sure that waging a war of aggression against China, invading French Indochina, and allying with Nazi Germany had nothing to do with it.

[R011]

14 hours ago, futon said:

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. 

And what would have been discussed at this meeting that couldn't be discussed over normal diplomatic channels? Was the Army going to let Konoye withdraw from China and Indochina?

[futon]

4 hours ago, R011 said:

And what would have been discussed at this meeting that couldn't be discussed over normal diplomatic channels? Was the Army going to let Konoye withdraw from China and Indochina?

Yes. That was the plan. Give Konoye a chance. If he fails, then Tojo takes over. The US was playing delay tactic to let the oil clock tick and give US military gear up as much time to prepare as possible. The US never thought something like a PH attack being possible and to just let the  Philippines take the hit. 

[futon]

4 hours ago, R011 said:

Gee, I wonder why they'd do that?  I'm sure that waging a war of aggression against China, invading French Indochina, and allying with Nazi Germany had nothing to do with it.

Allying with Germany would have been easy to correct. War in China may have been over by 1940 had lines of credit not start getting sent over and the Burma road not been built. The US electorate living out of region makes their senses inadequate to judge right or wrong. That's how communism ended up getting all over. 

[R011]

2 hours ago, futon said:

Yes. That was the plan. Give Konoye a chance. If he fails, then Tojo takes over. The US was playing delay tactic to let the oil clock tick and give US military gear up as much time to prepare as possible. The US never thought something like a PH attack being possible and to just let the  Philippines take the hit. 

Again, what prevented Japan from bargaining in good faith without a summit?

[R011]

2 hours ago, futon said:

Allying with Germany would have been easy to correct. War in China may have been over by 1940 had lines of credit not start getting sent over and the Burma road not been built. The US electorate living out of region makes their senses inadequate to judge right or wrong. That's how communism ended up getting all over. 

You mean let Japan profit from war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity or else.

[futon]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

Again, what prevented Japan from bargaining in good faith without a summit?

Take your "again" lip service for the TN establishment and shove up your troll ass.

Edited April 26 by futon

[futon]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

You mean let Japan profit from war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity or else.

The TN establishment can't even say "Wang Jingwei" just like how Obama couldn't say "Islamic terrorists".

Edited April 26 by futon

[futon]

No different than PRC nationalistic posters elsewhere.

A solid sarcastic good job.

Edited April 26 by futon

[bojan]

9 hours ago, futon said:

No different than PRC nationalistic posters elsewhere.

You?

Absolutely. Just like some others, you are all for imperialism and rule of "might makes right", as long it is your side doing it. When it is not... well, we have seen that here and elsewhere.

[futon]

7 minutes ago, bojan said:

You?

Absolutely. Just like some others, you are all for imperialism and rule of "might makes right", as long it is your side doing it. When it is not... well, we have seen that here and elsewhere.

My view on cause of Pacific War between US and Japan is 50/50. I have never said that Japan was justified. 

[rmgill]

On 4/23/2023 at 12:24 PM, Murph said:

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.  

 

Plus the assassination attempt by Army Cadets on Yamamoto. 

Drachninifel did a long video on the Japanese Concept of Kantai Kessen. He notes a point about Japan's larger strategy of dealing with the 3 most likely foes. The 3rd of which was Russia, which they effectively negated in the Russo Japanese War. The 2nd was the US. The 1st was the British. 
 

 

[urbanoid]

And since they regarded three strongest entities in the world as their likely potential foes, getting themselves into a 'forever war' against the most populous country in the world was sooo smart.

Edited April 26 by urbanoid

[TrustMe]

8 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

And since they regarded three strongest entities in the world as their likely potential foes, getting themselves into a 'forever war' against the most populous country in the world was sooo smart.

The Japanese in China did what us Brits did in India. Take a chunk at a time, so in 100 years we will control it all. 

Edited April 26 by TrustMe

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

The Japanese in China did what us Brits did in India. Take a chunck at a tiime, so in 100 years we will control it all. 

I'd say Britain was much smarter in the process of taking control of India, not to mention that international environment was a lot more favorable. 

The problem with war against China was that the Japanese could pretty much achieve as many victories as they wanted and still not win, while it drained their rather limited resources. Actually that's the way it happened, the Japanese were able to hand the Kuomintang's asses to them even in late 1944, it didn't change anything.

[Murph]

23 hours ago, Colin said:

Japanese politics at the time were pretty nasty, could it be that the groups inside Japan choose to interpret US moves in certain ways to further their own agendas?

From what reading I have done on the immediate pre war period, this is probably a pretty darn good estimation.  I think that there were those who were pushing for war regardless.  Plus from what I have read, the pre-war Japanese governmental structure was almost designed by a Rube Goldberg to be disfunctional, with the Army pretty much having a veto over both policies and Prime Minsters.  Also the ever present threat of assassination by both right wing and left wing cliques was ever present.  Also according to Toland some diplomatic correspondence was either delayed, or not presented to the Japanese Government by people who had the obligation to do so.  Also the Japanese penchant for not coming out and stating unpalatable facts but dressing them up or ignoring them did not help.  Mokusatsu comes to mind right off the bat.  

[urbanoid]

US-Japan negotiations of 1941 were a comedy of (often deliberate) errors to be honest. On Japan's side the Army was undermining the Navy, while the US has already pretty much adopted the enemies of Britain as their own enemies, even if it wasn't made official yet.

[R011]

15 hours ago, futon said:

The TN establishment can't even say "Wang Jingwei" just like how Obama couldn't say "Islamic terrorists".

First, I'm gratified to find out I've been promoted to TN Establishment.  I thought I was just another guy posting opinions here. I'd like to thank all those who helped me achieve this exalted status.

Japan didn't invade China to support Wang.  They didn't conquer Manchuria to support Wang.  They hadn't been bullying China for decades to support Wang.  Changi Prison and the Bataan Death March didn't support Wang. The Three Alls and Unit 731 weren't in support of Wang.

[R011]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

US-Japan negotiations of 1941 were a comedy of (often deliberate) errors to be honest. On Japan's side the Army was undermining the Navy, while the US has already pretty much adopted the enemies of Britain as their own enemies, even if it wasn't made official yet.

American rivalry with Japan pre dated the end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, but relations were still mostly good until 1931.  The UK also had concerns, but their focus was firmly on Europe by 1938 for obvious reasons. In Asia, it was Britain following the US rather than the other way round.

[R011]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

  Mokusatsu comes to mind right off the bat.  

As I noted, the very next sentence was "We will fight to the end" so whether it was preceded by "We have no comment" or "We won't dignify it with a response" really makes no difference.

The American position was clear - Japan must end the war with China and withdraw or sanctions would continue.  Japan was unwilling to do so and decided on a high risk strategy based on a fundamental misunderstanding of America and the American people. 

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, urbanoid said:

And since they regarded three strongest entities in the world as their likely potential foes, getting themselves into a 'forever war' against the most populous country in the world was sooo smart.

They figured, from the amount of rank decadence that the US had during the 20s and 30s that we'd roll over when attacked at Pearl Harbor. I suspect there  was also a misapprehension with regards to the nature of Kentai Kessen's reality where it came to a decisive major battle - something - Victory. 

The something being control the ocean and region. Yet they didn't really seem to do so after Pearl because the something wasn't asserted. Given it was travel to Pearl, bloody the US's nose then go back across the ocean. 

[Colin]

3 hours ago, R011 said:

American rivalry with Japan pre dated the end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, but relations were still mostly good until 1931.  The UK also had concerns, but their focus was firmly on Europe by 1938 for obvious reasons. In Asia, it was Britain following the US rather than the other way round.

The UK put the defense of the Pacific possessions and empire at a low priority and sadly sent a rather limp wristed general to oversea the defense of Malay/Singapore.