Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, the Japanese would not have followed the example of Germans, claiming that they needed to gain more "Lebensraum", or "living space", and natural resources.
The Japanese expansionist policies were in no way inspired by the Germans. As far back as 1882, there were those in Japan advocating the idea of Japanese imperialism and the notion that Japan should be the leader of Asia. The thought was that Japan could or should be the force to expel foreign nations from Asia, even if it meant using war as the means to accomplish it. This idea gained a tremendous amount of traction when Japan became the first Asian country to ever defeat a Western power, in this case Russia during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05.
The common belief amongst the Japanese leadership as far back as the late 19th Century was that Japan had the same rights as Western nations to acquire colonies in the rest of Asia. Accumulation of colonies to exploit their resources was viewed by the Japanese as a means to gain international recognition of being on equal footing with the likes of Britain and France. This was one motivator behind the annexation of Korea in 1910 as well as the occupation and setting up of the puppet state of Manchukuo in China in 1932.
We can blame Nazi Germany for many things, but Japanese imperial ambitions is most definitely not one of them.
Japan was about to surrender before the A-bombs were dropped and Truman knew this. Despite this, the decision was made to go ahead, based on the huge development costs of the A-bomb, which needed to be justified, the desire to show the world what the US could do with this new weapon, and racism. It's highly doubtful that the bombs would have been dropped on any European country under the same circumstances.
This above comment can only be described as poppycock and the evidence against that suggestion (that Japan was about to surrendor) has been supported in about 30 pages of well supported and well documented responses here time and again.
Even the biggist opponent of the A bomb here, that TKramer guy, isn't saying Japan was about to surrendor. His suggestion is we should have starved them out.
Your comments sounds like what some pony-tailed professor in your first community college said when this topic came up - no historical accuracy or relevance. I have to remind people again - this is the history forum. People here know their history for the most part. If you come on here blabbering nonsense like they do in the politics forum here you are going to get ridiculed.
If you can do so in a one on one fight, you can do it in a war.
Or do you always KILL your opponent?
The idea is to force your opponent to give up and yield to the demands associated with your war aims. The war aim of the Allies against Japan was not to simply drive them out of the areas that they had occupied, rather it was to permanently arrange things so that Japan could not rearm, refit and make another go of it.
The conflict began because of US opposition to Japan's invasion and occupation of China, an occupation which was still in full swing at the time of the surrender. There wasn't going to be any sort of negotiated surrender where Japan retained its foothold in China, and there wasn't going to be any Japanese departure from China unless they first surrendered unconditionally to the Allies. Consequently, what did happen was quite necessary.
The idea is to force your opponent to give up and yield to the demands associated with your war aims. The war aim of the Allies against Japan was not to simply drive them out of the areas that they had occupied, rather it was to permanently arrange things so that Japan could not rearm, refit and make another go of it.
The conflict began because of US opposition to Japan's invasion and occupation of China, an occupation which was still in full swing at the time of the surrender. There wasn't going to be any sort of negotiated surrender where Japan retained its foothold in China, and there wasn't going to be any Japanese departure from China unless they first surrendered unconditionally to the Allies. Consequently, what did happen was quite necessary.
Why? Because you say so? Asia was none of our concern.
Why? Because you say so? Asia was none of our concern.
Not because I say so. Because compelling Japan to surrender unconditionally was the stated war goal. I am not arguing the justice of either side fighting one another, but they did fight and they both had goals associated with the fight. Since the US wound up at war because of their opposition to Japanese hegemony in China, it would have made little sense to have fought the war and then quit with Japan still in occupation.
If you wish to debate whether or not the west had any right to intervene in Japanese empire building in the Pacific, that would be a different topic.
[quote=TKramar;4545287]That actually WAS ended by Pearl Harbor, the Navy's love of the battleship. But, it seems that they were right to value its use, since the battleships became a target for those enemy forces in the first place.
Even today, the aircraft carrier is simply a part of a larger battle group that contains submarines, auxiliary vessels, and surface combatants like cruisers, destroyers, and frigates.[/qu
Sorry to be so late in replying. No the big battle that most navies thought would decide the naval war was not even then accepted as a carrier battle after pearl harbor. That only became apparent to them as the war progressed.Look at the ships even the japanese built. Both navys still thought that the decisive battle would be foughyt between large abttle ships.It was called the decisive battle theory. That is one reason it took years for the carriers needed to come on line. Carriers were thought of as mobile bases for air craft to support land invasion still.
Not because I say so. Because compelling Japan to surrender unconditionally was the stated war goal. I am not arguing the justice of either side fighting one another, but they did fight and they both had goals associated with the fight. Since the US wound up at war because of their opposition to Japanese hegemony in China, it would have made little sense to have fought the war and then quit with Japan still in occupation.
If you wish to debate whether or not the west had any right to intervene in Japanese empire building in the Pacific, that would be a different topic.
The war was declared on Japan only because they attacked our territory. Had they not done so, we might never have gotten involved.
The war was declared on Japan only because they attacked our territory. Had they not done so, we might never have gotten involved.
Yes. And if your parents had never met, I wouldn't be reading the above.
The US already was heavily involved in the Pacific arena. There was the powerful Chinese Lobby placing pressure on Washington and keeping the story alive in the newspapers. There were the American volunteers flying combat missions for the Chinese. There was the massive economic aid being sent. There was the imposed oil boycott on Japan because of their refusal to leave China. There was the American colonial client, The Philipines, which had to be protected. The Japanese attacked because of American involvement, so it makes no sense to say had they not attacked , we would not have been involved.
Americans had an isolationist policy at the time, one they'd do well to go back to.
Some Americans had an isolationist policy. The president (FDR) didnt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
