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.
You were doing fine, and I had no quarrel with you, right up to your last paragraph:
So, yes, the US placed an embargo, but that embargo was the direct result of Japanese expansion in SE Asia. The embargo forced Japan into a position of either abandoning their expansion plans and standing down or lashing out and taking what they wanted. They chose the latter and the only path was south towards with US territory standing in the way.
Why was US "expansion" into territory in the path of Japanese expansion justifiable, but Japanese expansion was not? Even taken all the way to Hawaii, what gave Americans (and French and British and Dutch) natural rights to sovereignty over Pacific islands, "taking what tney wanted", but not the Japanese?
I agree with the above. It was the west which forced the isolationist Japan to open its doors to foreign influence in the middle of the 19th Century. The Japanese took the lesson as "Don't be one of the exploited nations, remake yourself as a western style exploiter of others.
This they did in a remarkably rapid turnaround, adopting western industry, political and social institutions, western style dress and music. They also embarked on developing a western style naval arm.
The Japanese culture was one which held themselves in high esteem, seeing the difference between themselves and other Asians in the manner that we saw the difference between the Romans and the Barbarians. They expected that if they reformed themselves and emerged as a western imperialist type power, they would be welcomed to the club by the European imperialists. They believed that their regional interventions which would bring stability to the area, would be hailed as favorable development.
Instead, in the aftermath of WW I, Japan learned in a series of events that the west was not ready for an Asian power flexing its muscle. Beginning with the Naval Treaty where Japan was to be allowed to build only a percentage of the warships constructed by the US and Great Britain, and continuing through the hostile reaction to Japan's attempts at establishing hegemony over China, Japan saw what they perceived as racial prejudice, racial arrogance. What was good for Europeans was apparently too good for Japan. This did not sit well with a nation whose culture placed so heavy an emphasis on pride.
The oil embargo was the final straw in this struggle against humiliation. Japan's choices were to abandon their imperial program, which they saw in the same manner the Americans had seen Manifest Destiny or Britain saw in bringing civilization to the primitives , or go to war to secure alternative sources for oil.
So who started the Pacific War? If you take the short view it was Japan with the attack on Pearl Harbor. If you take the long view it began in 1853 when Commodore Peary arrived at Uraga Harbor with his black ships.
You were doing fine, and I had no quarrel with you, right up to your last paragraph:
So, yes, the US placed an embargo, but that embargo was the direct result of Japanese expansion in SE Asia. The embargo forced Japan into a position of either abandoning their expansion plans and standing down or lashing out and taking what they wanted. They chose the latter and the only path was south towards with US territory standing in the way.
Why was US "expansion" into territory in the path of Japanese expansion justifiable, but Japanese expansion was not? Even taken all the way to Hawaii, what gave Americans (and French and British and Dutch) natural rights to sovereignty over Pacific islands, "taking what tney wanted", but not the Japanese?
I think the issue comes down to a change in geo-political norms betweeen the 1900s and the 1920s. Imperialist expansion was acceptable before World War I and unacceptable afterwards. We have Woodrow Wilson and his 14 points to thank for that.
At first,imperialism was something that was unacceptable only in a European context. Think the break up of Austria-Hungary, and the creation of the Irish Free State. The Russian Empire had to become the Soviet Union to mask its reality. But beyond Europe, by the 1920s imperialism in the Middle East and even Africa had to be masked as League of Nation mandates. As disillusionment with World War I grew in the West during the 20s and 30s, imperialism was simply not viable as a justification for territorial expansion. Self-determination of like minded peoples was the only acceptable path - Saar/the Austrian Anschluss/Sudetenland. It was only in the Polish corridor that Hitler pushed too far beyond what had become acceptable.
Regarding the existing European Empires, the attitude was more of a we won't roll it back, be we won't expand either. However, even Gandhi's Indian independence movement gained some sympathy in Britain during the 1930s. By the 1920s, geopolitical norms were no longer being set by the French and British who had an aggressively imperialist past, but by the begrudgingly imperialistic Americans. The Japanese seizure of French Indochina violated these changing norms. It threatened to extend the life and justification of imperial conquest by transferring territory from a sated imperial power to a hungry imperial power.
You can see a corollary of this situation in the 19th Century debate over the expansion of slavery. Expanding slavery from the South into new territories in the west inflamed passions and destabilized accepted compromises. After slavery became unacceptable, it could be tolerated where it existed, but it was intolerable for it to expand. That is the sort of situation into which Japan sought to expand its empire in Asia. The consequence was to inflame passions and destabilize the status quo.
Only reason I needed. They started a War with us and we ended it. Grandpa came home safe instead of a being being buried at sea or ground into hamburger somewhere near Kogoshima in Operation Olympic.
We are still issuing purple heart medals manufactured for the Japan invasion to this day. Now there is a clue.
Last edited by Bulldogdad; 08-13-2013 at 07:39 AM..
Only reason I needed. They started a War with us and we ended it. Grandpa came home safe instead of a being being buried at sea or ground into hamburger somewhere near Kogoshima in Operation Olympic.
We are still issuing purple heart medals manufactured for the Japan invasion to this day. Now there is a clue.
Indeed. My father was stationed on Tinian during August 1945. Would he have come home and started a family if not for the atomic bomb? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
On this issue, can anyone note how the Japanese feel about the issue today? Is there perhaps an argument for 'victimization' going on there? Really what is the thinking in Japanese historical circles on their conduct of the war and did Japan ever apologize?
While I don't disagree with what lilyflower said from the perspective of everyday average people, especially young people, the Japanese government and historians are rather different. There isn't much in the way of it being classified as abject "victimization" but there are some circles in Japan that strongly question the necessity of the bombings, much as people in the US do. Japanese histories tend to place equal weight on the Soviet entry into the war and the atomic bombings as reasons for the surrender. Some take a more subtle view of the atomic bombing influencing the emperor and hence being more important, while others say it was almost all do to Soviet entry and the atomic bombings did nothing and were unnecessary.
When you get to Japanese conduct during the war and "apologies" is when things become far more controversial. There is a strong conservative element in Japan that has tried very hard to white wash the Japanese war record and has outright asserted that Japan has never committed war crimes. Among this block there is a heavy dose of revisionism including some text books published that state the reason for the war was to "liberate SE Asia from western imperial aggression".
The Japanese government has apologized several times for specific acts that occurred during the war, but in the complicated Japanese way of apologizing none of the apologies amounted to the deepest, sorrowful apologies. Many of the Prime Ministers who apologized then faced backlash from the conservative members of Parliament who would issue bills declaring that the Japanese had done no wrong. One of the more troubling things is that many prominent Japanese businessmen and members of the government are part of this conservative block and share these deep views that Japan had done no wrong in persecuting the war. While you will never hear a member of the German government attempt to defend Nazism, it is not all that rare to hear a member of the Japanese government defend and place a spin on the Japanese war record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
The difference between the atomic bomb and any other weapon deployed in WW II was that it was the most efficient, so much so that it is the one weapon from that war which can arguably be called the war winner. I do not equate most efficient with automatically immoral.
A factor which Goat did not address is first usage. Once the nuclear bomb came into being, and before the actual effects were known with any certainty, the temptation to use one would exist. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki informed the world of what would happen in a manner which the Trinity demonstration blast in the desert never could. Had they not been employed against Japan, then when would the first use have been? During the attempt by the Soviets to starve Berlin? In a last desperate effort to prevent Mao's victory in China? At one of any of the Korean war crisis points? The Cuban Missile Crisis?
We are incredibly fortunate that the first use took place when it did because every other scenario is far worse. The bombs which were dropped on Japan were less powerful than the following generations of nuclear weapons. First use after 1952 would have meant thermonuclear bombs. More importantly, the attack on Japan took place while the US had a monopoly on atomic weapons, no retaliation in kind was possible. Any scenario where one nuclear power attacks another is going to be far worse.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki registered the power and horror of the nuclear bomb in our minds and I believe that it is because of this that there has never been another use.
Finally, all of the treasure invested by all of the world's nations in all of the bombs and delivery systems ever built, is still less than what would have been the cost of fighting a World War Three without them.
This is a very good point and one I did overlook. The impact of using it has had long reaching repercussions on atomic weapons not being used again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
You were doing fine, and I had no quarrel with you, right up to your last paragraph:
So, yes, the US placed an embargo, but that embargo was the direct result of Japanese expansion in SE Asia. The embargo forced Japan into a position of either abandoning their expansion plans and standing down or lashing out and taking what they wanted. They chose the latter and the only path was south towards with US territory standing in the way.
Why was US "expansion" into territory in the path of Japanese expansion justifiable, but Japanese expansion was not? Even taken all the way to Hawaii, what gave Americans (and French and British and Dutch) natural rights to sovereignty over Pacific islands, "taking what tney wanted", but not the Japanese?
The US, Britain and France had no justifiable right to that territory other than they showed up and claimed it and no one chose to and/or could stop them. You are implying a moral argument in my statement which I did not make. Japan had every "right" to determine that they wanted that territory. Of course, choosing to take it meant going to war with other powers that claimed and occupied it. Japan understood this risk and chose to take it. I am not implying that anyone had more or less of a right merely stating the existing situation at the time. Hirohito hadn't even been born yet when the territories in question fell under the control of the various western powers.
I don't fault Japan for pursuing its own interests, I was simply challenging the statement that the US "forced" Japan to fight by imposition of the embargo. Japan made a choice to go to war and felt that it was necessary to do or risk being further seconded to the whims of the western powers as GS expounded on in his post.
[quote=NJGOAT;30940867]While I don't disagree with what lilyflower said from the perspective of everyday average people, especially young people, the Japanese government and historians are rather different. There isn't much in the way of it being classified as abject "victimization" but there are some circles in Japan that strongly question the necessity of the bombings, much as people in the US do. Japanese histories tend to place equal weight on the Soviet entry into the war and the atomic bombings as reasons for the surrender. Some take a more subtle view of the atomic bombing influencing the emperor and hence being more important, while others say it was almost all do to Soviet entry and the atomic bombings did nothing and were unnecessary.
When you get to Japanese conduct during the war and "apologies" is when things become far more controversial. There is a strong conservative element in Japan that has tried very hard to white wash the Japanese war record and has outright asserted that Japan has never committed war crimes. Among this block there is a heavy dose of revisionism including some text books published that state the reason for the war was to "liberate SE Asia from western imperial aggression".
The Japanese government has apologized several times for specific acts that occurred during the war, but in the complicated Japanese way of apologizing none of the apologies amounted to the deepest, sorrowful apologies. Many of the Prime Ministers who apologized then faced backlash from the conservative members of Parliament who would issue bills declaring that the Japanese had done no wrong. One of the more troubling things is that many prominent Japanese businessmen and members of the government are part of this conservative block and share these deep views that Japan had done no wrong in persecuting the war. While you will never hear a member of the German government attempt to defend Nazism, it is not all that rare to hear a member of the Japanese government defend and place a spin on the Japanese war record.
I agree with the bolded. However, I am a little bit confused.
Japanese government and Prime Ministers have used the expression "kokoro kara no owabi" that most closely translates to "from our heart, most sincere apologies" about this issue.
[
I agree with the bolded. However, I am a little bit confused.
Japanese government and Prime Ministers have used the expression "kokoro kara no owabi" that most closely translates to "from our heart, most sincere apologies" about this issue.
I wonder what is considered to be "sincere apology".
The word that many people and other nations want used is "shazai" which implies sorrow/regret for a deep wrong that was committed. The use of "shazai" is implicit in apologizing for and seeking forgiveness of a crime. Additionally beyond the choice of words, Japan has rarely ever made a specific apology for actions. Instead most of the apologies including the ones from Akihito refer to a general sense of being sorry for "pain and suffering" that Japanese actions caused. They rarely ever make mention of specific actions that caused the pain and suffering. It leaves the statements seeming ambivalent and that the crimes that were committed were somehow an unfortunate consequence of war.
An example I have seen used would be if someone killed one of your loved ones in an accident that was entirely their fault and then apologized in the following ways:
a) I'm sorry for all of your pain and suffering.
or
b) I'm sorry that my carelessness led to the death of your loved one and I am sorry for all the pain and suffering that my action has caused.
The Japanese have apologized with "A" and people want them to use "B" so that there is some degree of direct acknowledgement by the Japanese government that crimes were committed.
Beyond that there is also apparently a very specific process of offering an apology and seeking atonement that one can offer when they have committed a serious wrong against someone. Many people have long wanted the emperor to perform this process as a symbolic acknowledgement of crimes and a seeking of atonment and forgiveness. Japan also refuses to pay any direct compensation to victims or accept any legal responsibility for what happened.
While I don't disagree with what lilyflower said from the perspective of everyday average people, especially young people, the Japanese government and historians are rather different. There isn't much in the way of it being classified as abject "victimization" but there are some circles in Japan that strongly question the necessity of the bombings, much as people in the US do. Japanese histories tend to place equal weight on the Soviet entry into the war and the atomic bombings as reasons for the surrender. Some take a more subtle view of the atomic bombing influencing the emperor and hence being more important, while others say it was almost all do to Soviet entry and the atomic bombings did nothing and were unnecessary.
When you get to Japanese conduct during the war and "apologies" is when things become far more controversial. There is a strong conservative element in Japan that has tried very hard to white wash the Japanese war record and has outright asserted that Japan has never committed war crimes. Among this block there is a heavy dose of revisionism including some text books published that state the reason for the war was to "liberate SE Asia from western imperial aggression".
The Japanese government has apologized several times for specific acts that occurred during the war, but in the complicated Japanese way of apologizing none of the apologies amounted to the deepest, sorrowful apologies. Many of the Prime Ministers who apologized then faced backlash from the conservative members of Parliament who would issue bills declaring that the Japanese had done no wrong. One of the more troubling things is that many prominent Japanese businessmen and members of the government are part of this conservative block and share these deep views that Japan had done no wrong in persecuting the war. While you will never hear a member of the German government attempt to defend Nazism, it is not all that rare to hear a member of the Japanese government defend and place a spin on the Japanese war record.
I agree with the bolded. However, I am a little bit confused.
Japanese government and Prime Ministers have used the expression "kokoro kara no owabi" that most closely translates to "from our heart, most sincere apologies" about this issue.
I wonder what is considered to be "sincere apology".
I recall hearing about this many years ago. I do remember Japan vehemently apologizing to China. Since when does China a communist country become the victim/ good guy anyway?
If anything, it seems like communist China has always seemed to side with our enemies. They have always been our enemies allies.
I myself am Caucasian. I am strictly writing my thoughts on the matter.
I recall hearing about this many years ago. I do remember Japan vehemently apologizing to China.
"Vehement" isn't the word I would choose. Japan offered a general apology for suffering that was inflicted and "regrets" the conflicts of the past. Japan has never admitted or apologized for any specific crimes they committed in China.
Quote:
Since when does China a communist country become the victim/ good guy anyway?
Well, China was not a communist country until AFTER WW2 (1950 to be exact) following the second phase of the Chinese Revolution. They became victims when Japan declared war on China in 1937 and killed upwards of 20+ million Chinese in the resulting war that lasted until the end of WW2. This war featured many of Japans most brutal war crimes, not the least of which was the Rape of Nanking.
Quote:
If anything, it seems like communist China has always seemed to side with our enemies. They have always been our enemies allies.
Not true at all. China itself was our ally during WW2 and also our ally during WW1. Communist China has never exactly been our ally, but they hardly "always" side with our enemies. Communist China had closer relations with the US than they did with the Soviet Union. Whether communist or otherwise, China pursues the interests of China.
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.
