Japan Options for WWII

[RF]

Japan was spurred on in its invasion of China by the Lytton Report produced by the League of Nations. They didn't need to see how toothless the League was in respect of Italy and considering that the Japanese embassy in Addis Ababa was hit by bombs dropped by the Regia Aeoronautica (accidental of course) they had plenty of prompters for further aggression.

The key to opposition to Japanese aggression in China was not simply the attacks on western owned property or warships. It was the perceived threat to western colonies in the Far East, for if Japan didn't respect western property and treaty rights in China then what respect would the Japanese show for these colonies if they had the chance to invade there?

The limited opposition to Italy in Ethiopia was partly due to the use of poison gas in breach of international law and the Italian bombing of Red Cross tents. Western property was also indiscriminantly attacked, including as I say bombs dropping on both the German and Japanese embassies in Addis Ababa.

[19kilo]

It does kinda seem that the West acted somewhat hypocriticaly towards Japan............IMHO it doesnt seem that the Japanese werent doing anything that the West hadnt done.

[RF]

On the basis of what happened in the previous century probably not. But in the 1930's there was a different framework of international law which the Japanese went against, and the technology of war and conquest had changed. Western colonial powers (except for Italy) did not use air forces to bomb their colonial peoples or have policies of engineered, deliberate genocide of millions of people post WW1. The world was moving on, the Axis went against that trend.

[19kilo]

I completly agree with! However, that doesnt lessen the basic "unfairness" (for want of a better word) of policies. It being a case of: We have descided to stop doing what we were doing and you have to follow our rules now, not our example.

[RF]

Well yes. But Japan has managed very well indeed post 1950 without an actual colonial empire, which begs the question as to whether one was needed prior to WW2. indeed some of Japan's former colonies - such as South Korea, Taiwan- have also done very well in the post colonial era. Which in turn begs the question of whether Japan got the best out of its existing colonies before moving into China...

With respect to ''unfairness'' this was a term used by the Japanese to justify expansion, they crossed a threshold in the 1930's where ''unfairness = Japan deserves a bit more'' to ''unfairness = Japan should get ALL of the western territories in east Asia'' with the adoption of the ''Co-Prosperity Sphere.''

[Byron Angel]

On the basis of what happened in the previous century probably not. But in the 1930's there was a different framework of international law which the Japanese went against, and the technology of war and conquest had changed. Western colonial powers (except for Italy) did not use air forces to bomb their colonial peoples or have policies of engineered, deliberate genocide of millions of people post WW1. The world was moving on, the Axis went against that trend.

..... Of course, another way to view this is that "the different framework of international law" was in essence a convenient construct of the Western powers to enshrine the existing Asian status quo which at that time rested comfortably in their favor.

B

[RF]

This is of course a value judgement that the ''framework operates in their favour.'' It overlooks the point I am making that Japan stood to benefit equally from it with its existing extensive colonial empire, had they bothered to properly develop them. And of course post WW2 Japan benefitted from that framework to become the world's eventual second largest economy.

[lwd]

Well a big difference would be the fact that large numbers of Scottish Protestents were brought over to settle Northern Ireland. Their decendents are the ones that for the most part didn't want to seperate from Great Britain. There has been no such settlelment in Puerto Rico. My impression is at times the US government, or significant portions of it anyway, has actually wanted to get rid of Puerto Rico or failing that for them to become a state.

Is the point you're trying to make here that the protestants (descendants of Scots) of Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK because they have Scottish ancestry? That implies the English and the Scots get on well which is most definitely not the case. The protestants of Northern Ireland want to remain in the UK because they don't want to be subsumed by a Catholic country and then undergo whatever subtle form of conversion would then happen.

Well the UK isn't just English but the religious angle was of more significant.

The similarity I mentioned was in that the majority of the people want to remain with the UK but there is a minority that don't, like Puerto Rico regarding US presence.

However in the case of Northern Irealnd the "majority" was settled there specifically to oppose the locals. This was not the case in Puerto Rico.

Anyway this is getting way off topic. Japanese aggressive imperialism is the topic I believe.

Completely agree.

Would the rest of the world have vilified Japanese action in China if they had not attacked western holdings?

Villified almost certainly. Events like the "Rape of Nanking" would have insured that. There were also quite a few Christian missionaries in China at the time. Most from Europe or the US and their accounts combined with the newspaper acounts of what was happening there probably had more impact on the populace of the various countries than the economic ones.

Italy was vilified by the league of nations for its invasion of Abyssinia although war against Italy was not declared I think that was down to leftover apathy from the effects of ww1. It just showed how toothless the league was and I believe this may well have spurred Japan to its invasion of China.

Vilified they may have been but as you implied they didn't threaten economies and it didn't take all that long. One of the problems Japan had with China is the war went on so long especially if you look at it as an extension of the earlier conflict. Thus you had behavior on the part of Japan that threatened economic interest and aroused popular indignation and went on for long enough for momentum to build to take action against it.

[Byron Angel]

This is of course a value judgement that the ''framework operates in their favour.'' It overlooks the point I am making that Japan stood to benefit equally from it with its existing extensive colonial empire, had they bothered to properly develop them. And of course post WW2 Japan benefitted from that framework to become the world's eventual second largest economy.

..... If I may be permitted to say, you are comparing apples and oranges. There is no equivalence between the Japanese dream of a pan-Asian empire dominated by Japan and status as an economically comfortable client state within the realm of a global empire dominated by America. Post-WW2 Japan was <<<permitted>>> to prosper because the West found it desirable to establish a re-vitalized Japan as a powerful Asian counter-balance to Communist China. That's why Western investment flowed into Japan and it is why Japan was granted the favored trading access to Western markets which was necessary for it to prosper. However attractive the deal, Japan was reliant upon the US for its external defence, was obligated to subordinate its foreign policy to American interests, and was still dependent upon other nations for the raw materials necessary to guarantee its long term prosperity and economic viability. This state of affairs - a prosperous Japanese client state protected by a benevolent master - while comfortable from the point of view of a nation left prostrate and helpless at the end of WW2, is a far, far cry from the powerful, self supporting, independent master of its own pan-Asian empire that Japan had set out to become.

B

[RF]

I don't think that I am comparing apples with oranges. I disagree with your description of Japan being a client state of the USA post WW2. It is very similar to the argument that Britain is a client state of the US. Politically Japan was allied to the US by treaty, it had an anti-militarist culture but it was and still is an economic rival to the US. Foreign capital and manufactured imports were largely shut out of post war Japan, as the US didn't use the occupation period to buy up and acquire ownership of the major Japanese industries. Lobbies in the US, particulary the labor unions and also some Republicans, have frequently complained about the threat to US jobs and strategic industries from Japanese imports and global trading competition, going back to the 1960's. Some client state.....

Had the Japanese wanted to they could have re-armed during the 1950's and 1960's, just as West Germany and Italy fully re-armed (the only restriction was on possession of nuclear and chemical/biological weapons). The Japanese chose not to re-arm but to develop their economy and infrastructure instead. As a result the Japanese were much better off. And without needing a colonial empire.

[Byron Angel]

I don't think that I am comparing apples with oranges. I disagree with your description of Japan being a client state of the USA post WW2. It is very similar to the argument that Britain is a client state of the US. Politically Japan was allied to the US by treaty, it had an anti-militarist culture but it was and still is an economic rival to the US. Foreign capital and manufactured imports were largely shut out of post war Japan, as the US didn't use the occupation period to buy up and acquire ownership of the major Japanese industries. Lobbies in the US, particulary the labor unions and also some Republicans, have frequently complained about the threat to US jobs and strategic industries from Japanese imports and global trading competition, going back to the 1960's. Some client state.....

Had the Japanese wanted to they could have re-armed during the 1950's and 1960's, just as West Germany and Italy fully re-armed (the only restriction was on possession of nuclear and chemical/biological weapons). The Japanese chose not to re-arm but to develop their economy and infrastructure instead. As a result the Japanese were much better off. And without needing a colonial empire.

..... Who do you think provided the funding and finance the re-construction of Japanese industry after the war? Who do you think shepherded Japan into membership in all the key postwar international trade and economic development programs? Who do you think voluntarily opened its domestic markets to Japan as a most favored trading partner? How do you assert that Japan was NOT a client state of the USA, when the USA dictated the very nature of Japan's postwar constitution and government, foreign policy, and defence policy? Do you really believe that Japan could independently undertaken a nuclear armament program (the only kind of re-armament that REALLY matters nowadays) without US blessing? Are you really suggesting that Japan could have pursued its own independent foreign policy, making overtures of diplomatic alliance with the USSR for instance?

Your reference to a comparison between Japan and Great Britain is complete cryptography to me. There is zero relationship between the two cases.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions about Japan. Others with an interest in this topic are invited to investigate the matter independently and draw their own conclusions.

B

[RF]

..... Who do you think provided the funding and finance the re-construction of Japanese industry after the war? Who do you think shepherded Japan into membership in all the key postwar international trade and economic development programs? Who do you think voluntarily opened its domestic markets to Japan as a most favored trading partner? How do you assert that Japan was NOT a client state of the USA, when the USA dictated the very nature of Japan's postwar constitution and government, foreign policy, and defence policy?

Obviously the USA - as Marshall Aid financed the reconstruction of western Europe as well as Japan. The USA, along with the USSR, were the two global superpowers who dominated the world into their respective spheres of influence. Japan, along with West Germany were re-habilitated using US taxpayers money, but once reconstituted they were independent countries with their own elected governments. Governments that chose their own foreign and defence policies, and chose to remain within the western economic and defence ambit because they benefitted from it and it would be detrimental to their interests to break away. The fact that they chose to remain closely associated with US economic and defence interests does not automatically mean that they are the property of the US.

As an independent country Japan could have left SEATO and joined with the Soviet bloc - if the Japanese people had voted in a communist government. US forces could have been thrown out of Japan and replaced with Soviet forces if the Japanese wished it. They didn't because to do so would be detrimental to their economic interests. Japan could have pursued substantial re-armament and built up its military again, but the Japanese didn't follow that course because again it wasn't in their interests to do so. The reason why it wasn't in their interest is the reaction of the US and Japan's neighbours which would harm Japan's economic wellbeing and its trading relationships. The issue of nuclear weapons is straightforward - Japan presents an easy target for nuclear strike so possession of nuclear weapons would not be politically credible and in military terms would be very expensive and suicidal. But choosing to remain within the US alliance ambit doesn't necessarily mean that it is a satellite of the USA or a client state. If the US were to tell the Japanese to ''jump off the proverbial cliff'' would they do so? I think not.

I think the problem here is based on interpretations of ''empire'' and ''client state.'' I am pro-capitalist and pro-American and as such believe the US generally is a force for good. But there is a lot of US foreign policy that I don't completely agree with, such as what is going on in Afghanistan. So does that make me a ''client person'' of the US?

[neil hilton]

Well the UK isn't just English but the religious angle was of more significant.

However in the case of Northern Irealnd the "majority" was settled there specifically to oppose the locals. This was not the case in Puerto Rico.

Firstly my mistake, I should have said the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish have all hated each other since Before Roman times. The point was that if Northern Ireland could exist independently of the UK without being subsumed by the ROI it would, it doesn't stay with the UK because the people there get on well with the people in England, Scotland or Wales.

Puerto Rico was colonized by the Spanish in direct opposition to the local tribes (Arawaks or Tainos I think) in the early 1500s. The Scot colonisation of Ulster occurred in the early 1600s by James I (Stuart), James VI of Scotland, in direct opposition of the locals. Seems quite similar to me. Except for the taking over by the US after the 1898 Spanish American war part.

[neil hilton]

The Japanese have always resented US presence in their country but put up with it during the cold war because they feared a Soviet takeover more (A soviet takeover would have put the Emperor against a wall).

[RF]

I should have said the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish have all hated each other since Before Roman times. The point was that if Northern Ireland could exist independently of the UK without being subsumed by the ROI it would, it doesn't stay with the UK because the people there get on well with the people in England, Scotland or Wales.

Well not really before Roman times - it was the Roman invasion and the later waves of invasions from the continent up to and including the Norman Conquest which defined the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish tribal conflicts, as each new invasion pushed the earlier settlors north and west.......

With respect to an independent Northern Ireland the problem is that the province was and is heavily dependent on subsidies from the British taxpayer, either direct or via bodies such as the European Union. A breakaway risks losing such subsidies with profound implications for employment and social security/welfare payments.
In the 1980's there were moves from within the Democratic Unionist Party and smaller Unionist groups to push for an independent Northern Ireland. However the DUP leadership of Paisley and Peter Robinson opposed these moves because of the long term economic implications.