|
MrRodgers -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/1/2008 5:03:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterS
All true but will use this post to give some perspective. Ask yourself just what are the alternatives...just what IS diplomacy ?
Japan on two counts was always the aggressor. Simply to secure all comodities for their industrialization at their zenith in military power having the world's largest naval armada (post Austria) around 1933. For 8 years prior to Peal, they had started in (went to war with) the pacific islands, Burma and China.
Japan did not have the worlds largest navy in 1941...although they did have the largest battleship.
They did not attack Burma till mid 42 and the pacific islands you speak of are the Dutch East Indies late 41 into 42.
Any power including the Austrialian and Philipinos (Indonesia) etc. saw that soon it would be them. As long as Japan had oil and resources, they were on the march. All of their historians and military strategists knew America had to be dealth with.
Even a cussory reading of histor will show that Japan had no real desire to take Australia or New Zealand.
The Dutch East Indies,the Malay pennesula,IndoChina and the Phillippines were of course obvious targets. That is where the strategic materials were that Japan wanted to fuel her industrialization... not at all dissimilar to the U.S. and Iraq.
FDR reacts in every non-military way to stop or least slow the Japanese advance.
I hope you do not consider the AVG to be a diplomatic approach.
An Embargo is in fact an act of war.
The Japanese did make plans for Europe and the Nazis.
Plans????what kind of plans?
We try trade embargos and blockades although I don't know of any specific blockade we threw at Japan but suffice it to say...without firing a round we tried to stop or slow the Japanese advance.
Today we want to bomb Syria and Iran for supplying arms to the Iraquies....How is that different than the U.S. supplying arms to the Chinese.
Nothing worked, the Japanese had ruthlessly invaded Manchuria and was for 10 years drawing the world a picture of war and conquest.
I am not sure how one invades another country in a non ruthless manner.
To suggest that to cut off their oil is an act of aggression is thus rendered ridiculous.
No it is not.
The reason FDR needed the Japanese to be the agressor is because eveything else failed and war would be necessary even if 83% of the American people were against it. Yes, still WWII could still be viewed as a war for profit given the American nazi financing...but note that the Japanese upon forming the axis powers told their empire that they would merely give the nazis the opportunity...to be last.
Perhaps you should check the size of the Japanese military and compare it to the size of the German army and then consider what it would take to get an army from Japan to Europe and supply it.
Correction...upon stopping the Japanese at Guadalcanal the whole world knew that we had stopped in fact the largest naval armada on earth. Go look and come back and tell me whose navy was bigger. Also, before the nazis invaded Poland, Japan had by a large measure, the world's largest Army. It wasn't until 1940 or later that the nazis had even come close.
I prefer an in-depth reading of history not cursoy assumptions of actions first and some theory about US domination after the fact. Pure and simple...Japan was out for world domination.
Part of those plans for America, Europe and the Nazis was just that. And the Japanese by 1942 had made no hesitation in their communication throughout their country and their empire...the nazis would have the privelage of simply being last.
While you are correct on Burma and otrhers post Pearl that is irrelavant because the Japanese had built up their forces and simply waited until after Pearl including Guam and Wake. EVERBODY knew they were coming and given the heroic effort of resistance to Japanese domination the entire European colonial empire and domestics all fought on the side of the British and Europeans as they knew of the ruthlessness of ANY Japanese occupation.
All of Japanese victims were enslaved to help the Japanese cause. Translation, everybody in Japan's path to world domination, needed western military help. To provide it certainly doesn't mean anybody who did...was after empire.
What had the US done prior to 1933 when Japan invaded China ? Nothing, and only years later passed any military build-up and the draft and often by a single vote and much of this under much public and FDR's consternation from world events. Neither the US govt., military or the American public were in any way after empire in the pacific, only stopping the Japanese.
The US did not need empire for the resources to industrialize...we had already begun quite well on our own and was soon out-producing the world. However, before then we were pretty low on the naval (military) power pecking order.
Yet EVERYBODY felt sure if the Japanese dominated south Asia they'd get their oil and would be as I wrote...on the march, whether they wanted/needed Australia New Zealand, the Philipines (which they did hold under slavery for years) or not.
|
|
|
|
