From: Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Opinion on Japan being "forced" to attack
Followup-To: sci.military
Summary: Land grabs didn't start the War
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:29:15 GMT


From Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>


In a previous article I mistakenly wrote "China and her fascist 'friends' "
when naturally I meant "Japan and her fascist 'friends'" apologies to all
those who read this. It was a stupid mistake. The point was that only Japan
Germany and Italy recognised Manchuria as separate from China, the Chinese
naturally did not.

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
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
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.

>> Would you like to compare the Japanese behaviour
>> in China with the US suppression of Philippino Independence fighters on Samar?

>  But that is not what we are doing.  We are discussing Jpanaese motives for
>attacking the US -- not if the US was acting in a hypocritical fashion.

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. 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 Nanking has
>> little to do with this discussion as does the alledged Japanese desire for
>> land. If it was alright for the US it was alright for the Japanese. Whatever
>> caused the War it plainly was not Japan wanting to extend their meager Empire.

>  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.

BTW I have strong opinions about Nanking and the Japanese in China in general
Do not assume that I hold *any* unusual sentiments about these events as you
will probably cause immense offense indeed. The phrase 'kill all those who
took part and their families' springs to mind as my first sentiment. I think
you can probably guess the rest. I am not trying to defend the Japanese!!!


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.