Japan Not in WWII
- Thread starter Max Rakus
- Start date
There has been a thorough discussion here a few days ago. The consensus is that since Japan has managed to get several deep oil fields running in the 1920 onward, finding the oil fields is only a matter of supreme luck. Which is doable in a nice and potent PoD.
Rubicon
Banned
Please point to where I stated that the Japanese leaders didn't know the relative GDP between the USA and Japan?
But incidently GDP as a measurment didn't become a standard until 1944. So no, the Japanese leaders probably didn't know the relative GDP.
Where the Japanese leaders unable to feed themselves? Walk, talk or think? By any standard they had a brain, functional one at that.
Thank you for conceding the argument.
First of all I'm not angry, resigned? Yes. Frustrated? Yes. Weary? Yes. But Angry? No.
Second of all I've not read the entire study you posted there, only the summary and conclusion. But I'm not impressed by it, I'd say it's a good start but it comes woefully short on a number of issues such as the radicalisation of the Japanese army (and to a later extent the navy) and the problems of the Japanese civilian government to control either of the branches, the percieved bullying by the USA in a longer sense (from a Japanese point of view since 1853), the apparent rasicm in the USA against Japanese and the percieved hypocrisy of the USA in regards to amongst other things China and the Phillippines. There is also just in the conclusion a couple of factual errors not to mention speculation.
And you've already conceded the argument that the USA was ten times more industrial powerfull then Japan, move on.
First of Japan is not an island, it is in fact several islands. But you've already conceded the argument that the USA was ten times more industrial powerfull then Japan, move on.
Because contrary to you, I actually know and understand slightly more then you apparently do in the matter of pre-war Japan and the reasons why the leaders thought it a good idea of declaring war on the USA. I don't have the time or inclination to give you a lecture on the subject which you sorely need. But just to give you a taste:
Edwin P. Hoyt said:
Sure I don't take this at face value, I'm still looking for second opinions on several matters from Hoyt's book.
Amphibulous, I'm not particularly fond of your belittlement of me, calling me 'Mr.Whiner'. Please cease this. Now.
Nor am I notably attached to your quite dishonest debating techniques. You attach arguments to me that I've not made, and debate against those arguments and you concede a point only to keep arguing it.
Rubicon
Banned
Admiral Yamamoto as Commander in chief of the Combined Fleet was not in a favourable position to influence policy of the Japanese government and in fact when asked by navy minister Oikawa if he (Yamamoto) consented with the signing of the Tripartite pact, Yamamoto did not object. He had reservations, but did not object.
amphibulous
Banned
You don't understand the meaning of "Firstly", do you? It doesn't mean "You are wrong only for this reason" but "You are wrong for MORE than one reason." As multiple posters have shown, Japanese industrial output WAS 1/10 that of the US! That I stop to make fun of your pedantry *first* shouldn't stop you from reading the part of points where I show that you are literally wrong as well as uptight. Really - I'm trying to help you here, but you have to make an effort.
So you whine for sources and then don't read them. Great!
Excuse me - can you actually read? How is
1 to 10 is the commonly accepted ratio of **industrial power**
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...mary.cfm?q=905
a concession that it was not?
Last edited:
amphibulous
Banned
Notice "Mr I Need A Source!" never gives them...
And isn't "reservations, but did not object" pretty much "I object, but I'm not willing to resign/commit suicide"? I.e. "I object to maximum practical extent"?
I've read this, too, & not in Buchanan. I understood FDR wanted a ban on things like avgas, to hurt Japan's war with China. I also understood there was misunderstanding over what was & wasn't "China": that the U.S. meant "outside Manchuria".amphibulous said:
This I've never heard before. It also contradicts what I've read about Chiang's willingness to cut a deal.amphibulous said:
I can't cite it offhand, either, but that sounds right--conservative, if anything.
The big problem isn't the U.S. anyhow, it's Japanese internal politics. If IJA gets its way, it gets an even bigger (than its already quite large...) share of the budget, & IJN can't stand that. So IJN sells Hirohito in a plan, claiming the U.S. will come to Britain's aid if they don't attack Pearl Harbor. That this is, at best, dubious, makes no difference, because it achieves the main objective--keeping the budget balance.
Is that an insane reason to attack? Yes...
It is also, apparently, the real one.I invite the therapists among you to solve that before saying Japan will not go to war.
Last edited:
Well, the trouble with the Japanese not going to WW2 is that it goes against nearly a century of development of Japanese relations with the outside world. Japan viewed Western Pacific basin as its own backyard and playground and wanted to be the decision maker in this part of the world. In this aspiration, she inevitably clashed with established powers, primarily Britain, France and US. To make things considerably more difficult for Japan they lacked the raw materials for a self sufficient economy. These were virtually at hand, but under control of others.
Probably the last moment for Japan to avoid being entangled into WW2 was 1929. The effect of crisis on Japan was quite bad. Their leading industrialists perceived as being threatened with Communist revolution and extended their links with the military. Military viewed China as their playground and basis of a Pacific spanning Empire under Japanese control.
As a result of previous dealings with Europeans and Westerners, Japanese quite wrongly perceived that the moral values of Japanese would trump any advantage those have in technology and production capacity. None of them, with few exceptions, wanted to believe that US soldiers, sailors or pilots would sacrifice their life under any circumstances. This opinion was seemingly confirmed after the first few battles, when US and British soldiers surrendered under circumstances that the Japanese perceived as dire, but redeemable. It never occurred to them that in a hopeless situation, western people would actually surrender, but would fight to the last breath if part of a larger entity and with a reasonable chance of success.
All of this resulted in a decision that to Japanese decision makers seemed quite rational at the time. They decided to start a war against the westerners, grab what they knew would be easy pickings and organize a formidable defensive perimeter that would be fortified for at least two years, after which it would be impenetrable, and war in Europe will be over with Germany victorious, so it will not be needed anyway. Their entire rationale hinged on an assumption that American soldiers value his life more than anything else and that US will collectively resign to accept the outcome of the Japanese offensive as it was only barely of their concern. They even imagined Americans would be glad to be rid of the Phillipines. It honestly never occurred to most of the Japanese that Americans would be every bit as formidable warriors as Japanese and they were surprised when they turned out to be.
While on the surface Japanese ignoring American industrial potential seems short sighted and downright irrational, the truth is that Japanese gambled that US will to fight the war would fall short of total war and that the war itself will be over by the time Americans mobilize their industry and reasons for this assumption are already mentioned, so I will not repeat them.
POD for Japanese abstaining from war would probably be no later than 1929 and would probably have butterflies all over the world. However if there is a WW2 as we know it, pitting Germany against the rest of Europe, Japan will probably take part in it.
Probably the last moment for Japan to avoid being entangled into WW2 was 1929. The effect of crisis on Japan was quite bad. Their leading industrialists perceived as being threatened with Communist revolution and extended their links with the military. Military viewed China as their playground and basis of a Pacific spanning Empire under Japanese control.
As a result of previous dealings with Europeans and Westerners, Japanese quite wrongly perceived that the moral values of Japanese would trump any advantage those have in technology and production capacity. None of them, with few exceptions, wanted to believe that US soldiers, sailors or pilots would sacrifice their life under any circumstances. This opinion was seemingly confirmed after the first few battles, when US and British soldiers surrendered under circumstances that the Japanese perceived as dire, but redeemable. It never occurred to them that in a hopeless situation, western people would actually surrender, but would fight to the last breath if part of a larger entity and with a reasonable chance of success.
All of this resulted in a decision that to Japanese decision makers seemed quite rational at the time. They decided to start a war against the westerners, grab what they knew would be easy pickings and organize a formidable defensive perimeter that would be fortified for at least two years, after which it would be impenetrable, and war in Europe will be over with Germany victorious, so it will not be needed anyway. Their entire rationale hinged on an assumption that American soldiers value his life more than anything else and that US will collectively resign to accept the outcome of the Japanese offensive as it was only barely of their concern. They even imagined Americans would be glad to be rid of the Phillipines. It honestly never occurred to most of the Japanese that Americans would be every bit as formidable warriors as Japanese and they were surprised when they turned out to be.
While on the surface Japanese ignoring American industrial potential seems short sighted and downright irrational, the truth is that Japanese gambled that US will to fight the war would fall short of total war and that the war itself will be over by the time Americans mobilize their industry and reasons for this assumption are already mentioned, so I will not repeat them.
POD for Japanese abstaining from war would probably be no later than 1929 and would probably have butterflies all over the world. However if there is a WW2 as we know it, pitting Germany against the rest of Europe, Japan will probably take part in it.
This is why Japan carved an empire out of China during the 1920s, when China was weaker than it was in the 1920s, and also why it held on to Vladivostok after its intervention in the Russian Civil War. And who can forget its refusal to sign the Washington Naval Treaty...
Rubicon
Banned
Now English isn't my native tongue, but where did you state anything as 'firstly' in our debate?
No poster has given any evidence towards the 1/10 ratio, I've seen anywhere between 1/2 to 1/80th.
Wrong? Where have I stated anything in this thread that is or were wrong?
I read what needed to be read from that source. Like I said I'm not impressed by it and it has as I said several glaring errors and neglected points for me to take it very seriously.
You conceded right here:
So was Japan 1/4th the industrial power of the USA or the 1/10th which you claim ? Jeffrey Record (your source) just states:
Without giving any sources whatsoever where he got that number from, which numbers he used or what method did he use to arrive to that number.Record said:
I give very little credence to his opinion on the matter without any hard numbers.
Throughout the entire period Japanese plotted to make China part of their empire. Either as a client or under their outright control later on. Their designs began in 1915 with 21 demands.
They withdrew from Vladivostok only after it became untenable and they needed troops at home. They never forgot it.
Well they barely signed the treaty. It was touch and go, IIRC.
Which were withdrawn, unlike the British and French plot to install puppet states throughout the Middle East.
They needed the troops at home? What?
Japan decreased military spending in the 1920s.
Obviously, the fact that they hesitated to sign a treaty which guaranteed their navy would be inferior to the UK and US (which, as an island nation, presumably needed naval superiority to assure its heartland wasn't exposed to U-boats) is a sign that they were warmongers.
Again, Japan serves as AH's Kilrathi, deprived of any agency or thought other than a desire to KILL KILL KILL.
I am not saying that. I just say that it was a perfectly understandable evolution of Japanese society for the period they entered the world at large. They saw imperialism and wanted to imitate it. They knew where they wanted their empire to be and that is it. The kill kill kill aspect evolved later and I do not claim Japanese are mindless killing robots, Daleks or whatever. Their culture was in some crucial aspects different from western culture and this divergence emphasized misunderstanding. Japanese couldn't establish their own empire because they arrived to a game too late. Finally fear of communism assured they'd try to control China. It ironically backfired.
The level of dudgeon, whine, and personal attack you are bringing here is all out of proportion to your actual arguments, which an extremely charitable person might describe as hypertechnicalities, while a person with less charity but a still-functioning brain might describe as mind-numbing sophistical ignorant pedantry. It's wrong to call Japan an island country because it consisted of more than one island?
Please try to say something worthwhile, preferably in a different thread.
Please try to say something worthwhile, preferably in a different thread.
amphibulous
Banned
I have a confirming source from Notre Dam University:
http://magazine.nd.edu/news/11332-wondering-out-loud-why-did-japan-attack-pearl-harbor/
- It doesn't give its source though.
amphibulous
Banned
The level of dudgeon, whine, and personal attack you are bringing here is all out of proportion to your actual arguments, which an extremely charitable person might describe as hypertechnicalities, while a person with less charity but a still-functioning brain might describe as mind-numbing sophistical ignorant pedantry. It's wrong to call Japan an island country because it consisted of more than one island?
Please try to say something worthwhile, preferably in a different thread.
I'd actually have no problem with his posts if he didn't commit the cardinal sin of internet time wasters: demanding sources from everyone else, even on the most basic points, but never giving them himself.
People like this may or may not have functioning brains - but I'd still kill the lot of them!
amphibulous
Banned
No, the Japanese could have established their own empire. The problem was that they were not rational imperialists - they were too vicious and too concerned with face. To succeed in the empire business you have to know when to fold a hand, as the British did when they decided not to try to outspend the French in the American Revolution, and the Romans when they backed off from trying to control Germania. The Romans and British were professionals, the Japanese - and arguably the USA in Vietnam and Iraq - were amateurs acting out of emotional impulse.