From: Mike Fester <island!fester@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Opinion on Japan being "forced" to attack
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:16:57 GMT


From Mike Fester <island!fester@uunet.uu.net>

In article <BxGrGr.6G7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> writes:
>
>From Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
>
>In article <Bx5D9E.JMs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>
>>From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
>
>>[discussion on Japanese territorial acquisitions deleted]
>
>             < Stuff about the US deleted >
>
>>  This is a spurious form of argument, not germane to the question at hand,
>>namely, did Japan attack the US out of a desire to expand/retain its Empire?
>>The actions of the US against Spain in 1898 and on its frontiers during the
>>rest of the 1800's (the Mexican War comes to mind especially) has no bearing
>>on the rightness/wrongness of Japanese actions in the 1930's and 40's.  Your
>>above commentary serves no useful purpose in the debate.
>
>A comparison with the US is not spurious! The previous mailer had stated
>that Japan's 'insatible desire for land' caused the War (or at least was
>a contributing factor) A comaprison with the United States quickly shows

I said that that was a leading factor, and I also mentioned that at the time
of the attack, the system was out of control. I pointed out that every single
moderate was either assasinated or removed from a postion of authority. I
pointed out that the Japanese set their own course, and blindly followed 
through to the end.

And I believe that the post to which you are responding above is trying to 
point out that, at least partially as a result of WWI, the "Imperial Powers"
had ceased to be so 'acquisitive'. Japan and Germany were notable exceptions.

>that the US was not opposed to land grabs as such. Nor is this an argument
>about the rightness or more accurately the wrongness of Japanese actions.
>It is solely about the cause of the Japanese attack on the US. As Marcus
>Stumpeter (sorry about the spelling) very intelligently pointed out the
>cause of the War might be that the US wanted to keep the Imperialist Club
>all white by excluding Japan (well, he didn't exactly say that it is just
>my interpretation of what he said). In which case it is the US that had
>the problem not Japan - you cannot expect Japan to respect a colour bar
>now can you? I do not think that the US adminstration thought this therefore

As the Spanish with whom we went to war in the late 1800's were white, and 
the Japanese with whom we allied ourselves in their conflict with Russia (white)
were non-white, this seems, at best, a weak argument.

>land grabs played no part in the decision to place an oil embargo on Japan.
>I will agree that Japan attacked in order to *retain* her Empire, the
>question is who was trying to force her to give it up and how. The US
>by threatening War and blocking oil seems the obvious answer.

Again, NO, this was NOT a condition for restoring the oil shipments to Japan.
You have been given several references on this, including Toland.

Again, you are mangling the chronology here. The US gave up its "land grab"
well before the Japanese expansion of territorial conflict in the early
30s. 

Finally, I do not imagine that the Japanese had as trivial a motive as "not 
respecting a colour bar" for taking over Manchuria. Were that to have played any
part in their thinking, they would have better directed their efforts against
the colonies of France and Britain in the region.

>I am not sure what we are doing but the previous dispute was about how Japans
>behaviour was so bad the US just had to go to War. Clearly this is not the
>case. 

>Whatever the Japanese did the only problem could possibly be that the
>US objected to massacres by nonWhite people not massacres per se. 

> I don't
>exactly believe this, I think that massacres had no influence as such on
>the decision making process. 

Excuse me, but aren't these consecutive sentences contradictory? If "the 
only problem is" x, and you don't exactly believe x, then where in that para-
graph is anything approaching a reason for war?

>Of course if someone claims they did then to
>say that the US didn't do much about other people's massacres is a very clear
>and pertinent argument.

>>> According to my source the US Commander (General Smith) burnt down every
>>> village on the Island and killed all the males over 10.
>
>>  When did this occur? (I am not being a smart-ass, I am genuinely curious)
>
>During the aforementioned suppression of Philippino independence. The 'war'
>started soon after the US grabbed the Philippines and ended about 1904.
>Theodore Roosevelt let Smith off with no punishment except forcing him to
>retire, which considering he was a Civil War vet couldn't have been all
>that unexpected anyway. (or so I have heard I will try and look it up or
>maybe someone else knows something about this...?)

I think we would all like to see some documentation on that.

>>  While I agree with the sentiments of yours on Nanking, I must disagree that
>>Japan's "alledged" desire for land has little do do with this discussion.  On
>>the contrary, such a desire (if it existed) suffices plenty for a Japanese
>>desire (or belief in the neccessity(sp)) for war.  Certainly, if it was enough
>>for the US, it would be enough for Japan.  And if Japan did not desire land
>>(at least *some* land), what was it doing in China?
>
>I am not arguing that Japan didn't want selected pieces of the world for
>itself. What I object to is the word 'insatible' being used to describe
>them. Nor does the rather modest claims of Japan (originally just the
>four Northern provinces around Peking plus Manchuria and Korea and Taiwan)
>argue for a good reason to attack the US. The argument is not about what
>Japan was doing in China, which we all can  probably agree, but what it
>was doing bombing Hawaii and invading Indonesia. The answer is not that
>they had an 'insatible desire for land' because plainly they did not expect
>to win.

Again, I have given several references indicating that they did indeed feel
they could win. You have yet to produce a single reference indicating that
those who ordered the attack felt they were certain of defeat.

I'll repeat it: the Japanese attacked with the expectation that they would
win. In fact, according to various sources given to you, they contemplating, 
well before Pearl Harbor, simultaneous war with Great Britain, the USSR, and
the USA. This, well before the embargo.

Mike

-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 

Newsgroups: sci.military