A Case for Japan in WW2?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I always like to try to see both sides of any conflict, as there are usually both good and bad actors on both sides, and good and bad impulses within most individuals.

So how about World War 2 Japan?

From what I can tell, the USA and Britain and other imperial western powers had taken over or occupied many countries in Japan's immediate area, and had exerted blockades of trade against Japan. Japan had attempted negotiation but it had failed. Pearl Harbour was not on the mainland USA but way over in Hawaii near Japan? So the propaganda of the USA being at risk was mostly propaganda.

They did have an emperor who styled himself a God (that doesn't give them any points) and they did invade and kill thousands of Chinese civilians.

Is there any other case for Japan here? Has US propaganda blinded us to any points in WW2 Japan's favour?

 

[Sarpedon]

Thousands? Try Millions.

There's the truth, and then there's Japanese propaganda. The Japanese propaganda is that they were liberating Asia from Western imperialists. No one believed this, because every single Asian country they conquered they treated terribly.

Also, shame on you for bringing this up on Pearl Harbor Day, Pig.

 

[repoman]

They treated almost all badly, Taiwan may have been an exception - at least early in the occupation.

Having the relatives of the Emperor in the military was a terrible thing. They could do atrocities with no fear of reprisal and set a poor example. Strict leadership would have helped, the Japanese foot soldiers were likely no more or less bloodthirsty than any other soldiers.

Even so, I would think that at least 10-20% of the atrocities would still have happened with a tight ship, such is the nature of war. Still that is at least hundreds of thousands were killed needlessly. Who knows, maybe less killings could have led to at least a begrudging loyalty from the conquered people.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That wasn't the question. The question are the best arguments in their favour?

Is it just that the USA was engaged in the region? To what extent were they? For example, Iran could make a good case against the USA today for this.

Or were there other points in Japan's favour at the time?

 

[Sarpedon]

I told you. They tried to convince people they were liberating Asia from Western Imperialists. That was the best argument for them, and it was full of bullshit. I could raise it, and disprove it with a single disdainful paragraph.

And the fact that you are so oblivious to how offensive you are being that you would dismiss it being pointed out as off topic is proof that you are a grade AAA asshole.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The Japanese around WWII were just engaging in Empire building. They wanted to rule the area and dominate and oppress the native populations because they thought that they were the superior race. Their actions on the ground reflect this and any bullshit rationalizations they wrapped around this to give themselves the moral highground are really just bullshit rationalizations that they wrapped around this to give themselves the moral highground.

 

[repoman]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I told you. They tried to convince people they were liberating Asia from Western Imperialists. That was the best argument for them, and it was full of bullshit.

I was asking the others here if there was anything else to it. Any better case that could be made for it. You are not the end all be all.

And the fact that you are so oblivious to how offensive you are being that you would dismiss it being pointed out as off topic is proof that you are a grade AAA asshole.

I don't care what you think of me. Call me what you like.

I enjoy looking at positions I can not understand and sometimes find interesting points I was not aware of when I ask my views to be challenged. And that includes the most extreme. I'm sorry if you can't relate.

- - - Updated - - -

The Japanese around WWII were just engaging in Empire building. They wanted to rule the area and dominate and oppress the native populations because they thought that they were the superior race. Their actions on the ground reflect this and any bullshit rationalizations they wrapped around this to give themselves the moral highground are really just bullshit rationalizations that they wrapped around this to give themselves the moral highground.

So it was basically Japanese imperialism, just a few centuries late as compared to Britain and the rest of Europe?

From what I have read elsewhere there was something about shipping lines and a trade battle going on. What was especially interesting was that they were in diplomatic talks when the Japanese attacked. Apparently the Japanese asked for something regarding trade and then attacked when the USA wouldn't agree. There is some debate over whether or not it was meant to be a sneak attack. Read that from the wiki.

 

[Bronzeage]

There are a few cultural aspects of Japan that tend to be overlooked. Japanese military culture developed in isolation, where the Japanese warrior mainly fought other Japanese Warriors. The led to a very rigid social structure and code of ethics, which made the actions of ones advisories rather predictable. When they had to deal with people outside the Japanese culture, they tended to miscalculate.

The strategic goal of the attack on Pearl Harbor was not to start a war. The goal was to force the US into negotiations which would allow Japan free rein in the Pacific. The loss of the Pacific Fleet and our Pacific possessions was supposed to leave us in a position to sue for a truce, which would give Japan time to consolidate her gains, and most importantly, insure access to oil reserves. The Japanese military thought this was a logical and plausible reaction for the US. Unfortunately for Japan, there were cultural aspects of the US, which were overlooked.

The idea that Japan was only trying to discourage the US from interfering in their conquest of Asia, never occurred to the Americans. To the US, the attack on Pearl Harbor was either insane, or the prelude to an invasion of the West Coast. The only possible reaction was a total mobilization and preparation for total war. The idea of asking the Japanese to sit down at a table and discuss how to work things out, never occurred to anyone. Besides that, even if it had, such a thing was politically impossible.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Thanks Bronzeage. Now that is interesting. I read the same that the Japanese were not trying to start a war, which is rather odd given a sneak attack on a military base.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The Japanese around WWII were just engaging in Empire building. They wanted to rule the area and dominate and oppress the native populations because they thought that they were the superior race. Their actions on the ground reflect this and any bullshit rationalizations they wrapped around this to give themselves the moral highground are really just bullshit rationalizations that they wrapped around this to give themselves the moral highground.

So it was basically Japanese imperialism, just a few centuries late as compared to Britain and the rest of Europe?

From what I have read elsewhere there was something about shipping lines and a trade battle going on. What was especially interesting was that they were in diplomatic talks when the Japanese attacked. Apparently the Japanese asked for something regarding trade and then attacked when the USA wouldn't agree. There is some debate over whether or not it was meant to be a sneak attack. Read that from the wiki.

Yes, it was just plain old imperialism. There's not any more to it then there is to other imperialists.

Now, in terms of Pearl Harbour, I have no real objection to that as a military strategy. The Japanese felt that a conflict with America was inevitable and if they took out the US Pacific fleet, it would give them time to consolidate their power in the region and get rid of America's foothold in the region and perhaps avoid a more drawn out war altogether.

Unfortunately for them, a large part of the fleet was out on maneuvers and remained intact and they underestimated the ability of the US to respond. It was still a viable idea as a preemptive strike, though.

 

[steve_bank]

The rise of a version of the old Japanese warrior and emperor personality cult began in the 1800s.

Japan invaded China. Their motto was 'Asia for Asians', and brutalized non Japanese Asian cultures.

The American embargo was primarily oil. That cramped their expansionist imperial ambitions.

By the tine of WWII western powers were beginning to divest their colonies. I believe the PI was on track for independence.

 

[Bronzeage]

Thanks Bronzeage. Now that is interesting. I read the same that the Japanese were not trying to start a war, which is rather odd given a sneak attack on a military base.

It's one of the great "What did you think was going to happen?" moments in history.

Had things gone to plan, the Japanese ambassador would have presented a declaration of war to the Secretary of State, just before the attack began. It would have made little difference in ensuing events. The Americans would not have appreciated the difference.

 

[Bronzeage]

The Philippines was declared to be a Commonwealth in 1935 and was given full independence in 1946. In both cases, the Philippines remained a major US military base in the Pacific, which the Japanese could not allow to exist.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The Philippines was declared to be a Commonwealth in 1935 and was given full independence in 1946. In both cases, the Philippines remained a major US military base in the Pacific, which the Japanese could not allow to exist.

So it would be like if Russia had established a Soviet military base and weapons in Cuba during the cold war. At least the USA didn't attack Russian ships during that event. So I guess that is the difference.