Japan Options for WWII

[neil hilton]

The way I'm reading this (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that why was Japans aggressive expansion and creation of an empire prior and during ww2 vilified by the other world powers when they themselves had done similar things such as the scramble for Africa and the US actions in the Caribbean and Philippines? Is this right? after filtering out all the bile that Karl Heidenrich put in his initial post.
The simple answer is time, and Victorian morality.
Different eras of human history have to be viewed and understood according to the attitudes of the period not with the beer goggles of modern times. In the medieval period life was nasty brutal and short, chivalry only applied to the noble classes (giving quarter for later ransom was only offered to fellow knights, the PBI were just slaughtered out of hand). Different times different standards. Nowadays this would be considered a war crime, I give it as an example.
In the mid 1800s a revolution occurred that began the true liberation of the poor classes, Victorian moralistic attitudes changed. Eventually it lead to communism.
Before this time it was considered right and just for everybody who could to build an empire, power and wealth ensures security in an unjust world. Everybody who could build an empire did, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Romans, the Mongols, the Chinese, the Moghuls, the Moors, the British, the French, the etc etc. The US and the Germans literally just began their empire building phase while this moral attitude was changing.
Then in the late 1800s it was no longer right and acceptable for empires to be built, no longer fair to impose your rule on somebody else against their will. This was the time when most empires continued to expand but against the popular belief. What we nowadays consider to be the bad days of imperialism. Britain, France, the US, Germany and others were all guilty of this.
Japan, after its long self imposed isolationism, came too late to the age of empire building. When its eyes were opened by Commodore Perry it saw a world of empires and decided it wanted some of that, what it didn't see or decided to ignore was that the world had moved on and empire building was now unjust. You can blame Tokugawa Ieyasu for Japans actions upto ww2.
Different times different standards.

[lwd]

...Then in the late 1800s it was no longer right and acceptable for empires to be built, no longer fair to impose your rule on somebody else against their will. This was the time when most empires continued to expand but against the popular belief. What we nowadays consider to be the bad days of imperialism.

A bit more complicated than that I'm afraid. There was a sense in large number of people in Europe and the US that there systems and culture were superior to that of other parts of the world and that they were bringing those positive aspects to other parts of the world. In some sense they were correct in this and one of the side effects of this was to raise the cost of maintianing the colonies, often to the point that they became net drains on the economy of the controling power.

Britain, France, the US, Germany and others were all guilty of this.

Or not. Certainly most of the US colonies came from military conflicts with European nations and in most cases there was little interest in retaining them. Self determination also seemed to be a rising theme in British colonies.

... Japan, after its long self imposed isolationism, came too late to the age of empire building. When its eyes were opened by Commodore Perry it saw a world of empires and decided it wanted some of that, what it didn't see or decided to ignore was that the world had moved on and empire building was now unjust. You can blame Tokugawa Ieyasu for Japans actions upto ww2.
Different times different standards.

I'm not so sure. Certainly Japans actions up through WWI were consistent with Eurpean actions during that time period. It was only after WWI that Japan's Empire building crossed the line(s) although it should be pointed out that the Soviets weren't behaving all that differently nor the Italians for that matter.

[RF]

The way I'm reading this (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that why was Japans aggressive expansion and creation of an empire prior and during ww2 vilified by the other world powers when they themselves had done similar things such as the scramble for Africa and the US actions in the Caribbean and Philippines? Is this right? after filtering out all the bile that Karl Heidenrich put in his initial post.
The simple answer is time, and Victorian morality.

Different times different standards.

I don't think so. What the Japanese did in the 1930's in invading China included attacking western owned property and assets and an attempt to exclude the occidental powers from trading with China or enjoying the treaty rights they had previously gained. Coupled with this were the outright breaches of the Geneva Convention to which Japan was a signatory, particulary the bombing and shelling of Chinese cities in which western interests were damaged or threatened.

Now of course the British, French and going back in time earlier Spanish colonists had brutally treated the indigenous populations of their colonial possessions long before Japan came along. But the key thing here over the colonialisation of Latin America and later Africa was that these continents were carved up by international agreement between the colonial powers. The Pope brokered an agreement between Portugal and Spain to divide up Latin America, the Congress of Berlin provided international agreement on Africa. The colonial powers stuck to the boundaries they had agreed to.

Japan came late to empire building in a world already crowded with colonial empires. Japanese expansion reached a point in which any further expansion was to the detriment of other colonial powers. That point was reached in 1915 with the Twenty One demands on China.

Had there been no outside interests threatened then the Rape of Nanking would hardly have been noticed in the outside world. Any more than the world cared for example about the extermination of the Kulaks and Stalins' other purges. But Stalin didn't bomb and sink US gunboats or seize western property.

[RF]

I might add with respect to the US and its gunboats the contrast in the degree of US reaction between the sinking of the Maine and the Panay. While the Maine was literally on the US doorstep and provoked a US declaration of war on a European power, the US didn't declare war on Japan over the Panay, in spite of the believed deliberate attack being to US opinion an act of war.

Another point overlooked is that in the 1850's the USA did have the opportunity of occupying Japan and colonising it. It chose not too. I do think that the allegation that the Americans and British didn't respect Japan's right to be a nation state and indeed a colonial power is overstated. Indeed the British signed an alliance with Japan in 1902. Hostility towards Japan only really developed when it was seen that Japan posed a threat to them. Up to that point how Japan treated the Chinese and Koreans was a non-issue.

[lwd]

I might add with respect to the US and its gunboats the contrast in the degree of US reaction between the sinking of the Maine and the Panay. While the Maine was literally on the US doorstep and provoked a US declaration of war on a European power, the US didn't declare war on Japan over the Panay, in spite of the believed deliberate attack being to US opinion an act of war.

Part of that was that there was a major news paper publisher enterested in provoking a war when the Maine sunk. There wasn't the media push for the Panay (and it maybe that the case of the Maine at least to some extent innoculated the US against future efforts of that sort.

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
As regards to Japanese options for WW2 I think the obvious answer is don't start something you cannot finish! Or the old adage about the bigger they are the harder they fall doesn't always apply!
Sorry for being facitious.

[Byron Angel]

Another point overlooked is that in the 1850's the USA did have the opportunity of occupying Japan and colonising it. It chose not too.

..... IMHO this is rather dramatically over-stating the case. The pre-Civil War USA had nowhere remotely near either the military power or the logistical support apparatus to undertake such a venture. Gaining a trading concession through a show of force was one thing; subjugating the entire nation of Japan was quite another.

B

[RF]

I don't think it does overstate the case, as Japan had such a primitive army at the time - which the Japanese fully recognised when Perry displayed western goods such as the steam locomotive. Only a small force could have subjugated Japan from Civil War onwards; Japan would be far more open and vulnerable than China was.....

[lwd]

If they properly understood the culture and in particular the place of the Emporer perhaps. Cerainly the power the US fielded in the ACW could have if turned in that direction but holding it would have been another matter. A trade port or 5 especially if some of the other European powers were cut in would probably be possible. On the otherhand the US didn't occupy a trade port in China. As noted secruing the whole country would have taken a huge and perhaps insurmuntable logistics effort not to mention financial one. I don't see the will being there but that was kind of the point was it not?

[Byron Angel]

I don't think it does overstate the case, as Japan had such a primitive army at the time - which the Japanese fully recognised when Perry displayed western goods such as the steam locomotive. Only a small force could have subjugated Japan from Civil War onwards; Japan would be far more open and vulnerable than China was.....

..... I would point out the following -

[ 1 ] In 1850, the population of of the USA (23 million, including 3 million slaves) was actually considerably less than that of Japan (27 million).

[ 2 ] The US Regular Army between the Mexican War and the American Civil War was never more than about 10,000 men, who were in any case largely occupied at that time with the great expansion of the country westward. All other troops which had participated in the Mexican War (and in the Civil War for that matter) were state volunteer militia.

[ 3 ] The productive manufacturing center of the United States in 1850 was concentrated in the northeast quadrant of the country from Maine through Pennsylvania. There was no trans-continental railroad. There was no Panama Canal There were no major port facilities on the Pacific coast, which in any case had only just been seized from Mexico within the past three years. It took four months alone for a steamer to make the passage from New York to the West Coast.

Whether Japan was militarily weak or not, I cannot see how the United States was in any position either militarily or logistically to subjugate a nation of 27 million warlike people on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean.

B

[neil hilton]

I don't think it does overstate the case, as Japan had such a primitive army at the time - which the Japanese fully recognised when Perry displayed western goods such as the steam locomotive. Only a small force could have subjugated Japan from Civil War onwards; Japan would be far more open and vulnerable than China was.....

..... I would point out the following -

[ 1 ] In 1850, the population of of the USA (23 million, including 3 million slaves) was actually considerably less than that of Japan (27 million).

[ 2 ] The US Regular Army between the Mexican War and the American Civil War was never more than about 10,000 men, who were in any case largely occupied at that time with the great expansion of the country westward. All other troops which had participated in the Mexican War (and in the Civil War for that matter) were state volunteer militia.

[ 3 ] The productive manufacturing center of the United States in 1850 was concentrated in the northeast quadrant of the country from Maine through Pennsylvania. There was no trans-continental railroad. There was no Panama Canal There were no major port facilities on the Pacific coast, which in any case had only just been seized from Mexico within the past three years. It took four months alone for a steamer to make the passage from New York to the West Coast.

Whether Japan was militarily weak or not, I cannot see how the United States was in any position either militarily or logistically to subjugate a nation of 27 million warlike people on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean.

B

I totally agree with this. Its not a case of the US deciding not to subjugate Japan because of any anti-imperialistic sentiment or out of the goodness of their hearts they plain and simple couldn't have done it and certainly couldn't have held it. The question is if they had the ware-with-all to subjugate Japan would they have? and I think they would have. The Mexican war showed they were willing to fight for more territory and Manifest Destiny showed a very imperialistic ruthlessness.

[neil hilton]

Now of course the British, French and going back in time earlier Spanish colonists had brutally treated the indigenous populations of their colonial possessions long before Japan came along. But the key thing here over the colonialisation of Latin America and later Africa was that these continents were carved up by international agreement between the colonial powers. The Pope brokered an agreement between Portugal and Spain to divide up Latin America, the Congress of Berlin provided international agreement on Africa. The colonial powers stuck to the boundaries they had agreed to.

This is ignoring all the colonial wars that occurred between the rival European colonial powers, the British and French fighting each other in north America, India and All the powers fighting everybody for the Caribbean islands. etc etc etc.

[neil hilton]

Or not. Certainly most of the US colonies came from military conflicts with European nations and in most cases there was little interest in retaining them. Self determination also seemed to be a rising theme in British colonies.

Puerto Rico and the Philippines are just two examples where the US decided not leave.

[RF]

Now of course the British, French and going back in time earlier Spanish colonists had brutally treated the indigenous populations of their colonial possessions long before Japan came along. But the key thing here over the colonialisation of Latin America and later Africa was that these continents were carved up by international agreement between the colonial powers. The Pope brokered an agreement between Portugal and Spain to divide up Latin America, the Congress of Berlin provided international agreement on Africa. The colonial powers stuck to the boundaries they had agreed to.

This is ignoring all the colonial wars that occurred between the rival European colonial powers, the British and French fighting each other in north America, India and All the powers fighting everybody for the Caribbean islands. etc etc etc.

Well, yes to start off with. My point is that the colial empires were eventually delineated by treaty. after the squabbling.

[RF]

I totally agree with this. Its not a case of the US deciding not to subjugate Japan because of any anti-imperialistic sentiment or out of the goodness of their hearts they plain and simple couldn't have done it and certainly couldn't have held it. The question is if they had the ware-with-all to subjugate Japan would they have? and I think they would have. The Mexican war showed they were willing to fight for more territory and Manifest Destiny showed a very imperialistic ruthlessness.

The British conquered and ruled the Indian subcontinent in the face of odds that ordinarily mean't they wouldn't have had a chance of holding it. The way it was done was by getting support in India for British rule. Basically the same thinking I had viz the US possibly gaining hegemony over Japan. Outright conquest and complete military occupation, as you point out, wouldn't be sustainable.