Was Japan actions WW2 'logical'?

[PainRack]

What's pointless is to try and argue the difference between "irrational" and "insane."

Were Japan's actions rational? Only if you accept some of their premises, which no one today would accept. Were Japan's actions sane? Likewise- only if you accept their premises; it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you and all that. It's pretty much the same question either way.

In hindsight, analyzing history with 21st-century eyes, it's pretty obvious that Japan ended up a lot worse off than if they'd stopped fighting wars around 1919 and never started again. To Japan of the time- well, obviously if they'd seen matters any other way, they wouldn't have done what they did in the first place. It's trivial to say that Japanese grand strategy made sense to them, and equally trivial to say that it doesn't make sense to us.

PainRack seems to be defending the internal consistency of Japan's actions based on the prevailing ideas of the time. While Zinegata seems to be attacking the basic, fundamental stupidity of Japan's actions based on the prevailing ideas of our time.

Those times AREN"T that far gone. Granted, Japan had no reason to act like the Americans of today, but if you examine their proclaimed reasons, it echoes current American conservative views.

A huge difference being that in Japan case, their neo-cons were radicals and were military officers dictating the coup as well as the invasion of Manchuria, and then later, to attack China whereas it was politicians in the US example. Just subsitute Iraq for Manchuria, Iran for China and the reasons was virtually the SAME. And of course, unlike 9/11 truthers, the Kwantung army actually DID commit a conspiracy meant to drag Japan into a war for Manchuria.

[Simon_Jester]

Those times AREN"T that far gone. Granted, Japan had no reason to act like the Americans of today, but if you examine their proclaimed reasons, it echoes current American conservative views.

The big reasons for Japan to engage in conquests:
-Desire to forestall a military threat from the target. Pretty much only the Russo-Japanese War.
-Desire to forestall a military threat from someone else. Arguably the Manchurian conquest and Korean conquest.
-Desire to secure resources. Second Sino-Japanese War, Pacific War
-Manifest destiny. Same two.

I would argue that while the first two desires echo current American right-wing views (the fear of a military threat), the latter two... not so much.

Because there's a huge difference between a political movement that advocates 'small wars' for the sake of eliminating small threats, and a movement that is willing to roll the dice on huge wars for the sake of radically transforming the country's position in the world.

[Dominarch's Hope]

As long as they had the mindset of desiring to build an empire in Asia, most of there actions were fairly logical. Including attacking the US.

Still fairly stupid.

[K. A. Pital]

If Japan's generals were not following logic, they would not have abandoned the attack on the USSR after Khalkin-Gol; they'd pursue the Strike Group North venue until the bitter end. But they did follow logic, even though they made strategic miscalculations.

[PainRack]

Those times AREN"T that far gone. Granted, Japan had no reason to act like the Americans of today, but if you examine their proclaimed reasons, it echoes current American conservative views.

The big reasons for Japan to engage in conquests:
-Desire to forestall a military threat from the target. Pretty much only the Russo-Japanese War.
-Desire to forestall a military threat from someone else. Arguably the Manchurian conquest and Korean conquest.
-Desire to secure resources. Second Sino-Japanese War, Pacific War
-Manifest destiny. Same two.

I would argue that while the first two desires echo current American right-wing views (the fear of a military threat), the latter two... not so much.

Because there's a huge difference between a political movement that advocates 'small wars' for the sake of eliminating small threats, and a movement that is willing to roll the dice on huge wars for the sake of radically transforming the country's position in the world.

I need to do a lot of digging to support my statements so.... take this with a lot of salt until I back up the statements.

However, several statements released by the Kwantung army officials and etc purport that the Chinese were sponsering the resistance movement in Manchuria. This combined with the anti japanese movement in China might explain why the Japanese were so eager to escalate a border conflict into invasion. If nothing else, the official sources which protray the Marco Polo bridge incident as Japanese battling it out with Chinese forces so as to rescue a trooper abducted by the Chinese show just how different the official explaination is from the modern day perception.

I highly suspect that one could take China to be Japan Iran during this period, but like I said, I won't be able to back this up without way more digging.(And of course, public statements might not reflect actual motivation and etc etc etc)