Was Japan actions WW2 'logical'?

[PainRack]

I'm confused. Is PainRack saying that the "conquer to become strong!" mindset was right? Or saying that it's understandable how the Japanese thought that way?

I could see how a nation about one generation removed from the Middle Ages, and surrounded by examples of foreigners using their advanced weapons to control and subjugate other nations, would think strength comes about that way. Japan didn't exactly have a background that makes it easy to say 'economic power > military conquest.' They were worried about being on the receiving end of other people's conquests.

The later, not the former. And I'm arguing that this viewpoint, while wrong and unlikely to succeed due to reality, was 'logical'. It had a valid chain of reasoning from start to finish and the premise wasn't flawed.

PainRack, again, what part of it's intentionally a "gross generalization" do you not comprehend that triggered the above attempt to find exceptions and excuses? Yeah, there's the Anglo-Japanese treaty. Yeah, there are a whole bunch of politicians who earnestly tried to get peace. No, it doesn't change my main point one bit.

The main point remains that again, the Japanese doubled down on their "CONQUER TO BE STRONG" when each time they "conquered" or attempted to "conquer". Despite the fact they became less secure and even less able to achieve their objectives every time they did so?

As Skimmer pointed out, the best that you can say about the Japanese leadership is that they didn't have an actual policy and they let underlings railroad them into doubling down; but the fact that their underlings were indoctrinated with stupid "Conquer to get strong!" bullshit and allowed to get away with it demonstrates the utter lack of sentient thought in their decision-making.

Except that they didn't??? And that they actually did UNTIL they overreached into North China/Manchuria?

Look. A 'gross generalisation' only works when the Japanese were actively ADVOCATING to get into the war in Korea so as to expand their Empire and become stronger. The whole Korea will make us stronger as a reason happened AFTER the war itself, and thus was clearly NOT a justification for the war. Unless you can find speeches or policy advocating this from BEFORE the war, as a reason for the conflict, its clearly ahistorical.

As for becoming secure, they WERE. They stopped the Russians from posing an invasion of Japan and Manchuria did provide key resources and even industry for her Imperial Empire. However, they were never going to be secure from the Russians, primarily because the Russians had an entire freaking continent to draw their power from against the tiny island of Japan.

Which brings us back again to the Japanese logic. If we go from their chain of logic that the weak perish, an entirely valid premise since they have the glaring example of China up north and the ongoing historical exploitation, in the 18th and 19th century of East Asia in general by foreign powers, the stunning premise of Commodore Perry swatting aside their own isolationist policies...... then it stands to reason that the Japanese must do anything to secure themselves from becoming so weak, that they would become vulnerable to exploitation. Their actions from the First Sino Japanese war onwards demonstrates this reasoning and drove their foreign policy.

[PainRack]

The idea that people will withold key resources from you is again very, very silly. Because resources that remain unsold don't benefit the owner of those resources.

When the United States stopped selling oil to Japan, it hurt the US too. All that oil that was being bought by Japan didn't get sold to someone else. It either just sat around in storage tanks doing nothing or people simply shut down production capacity. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances threatening national security, embargos are just dumb on this basic principle.

Japan crossed the line, which is why it became the victim of an embargo where key resources where witheld from them. If they weren't such idiots who subscribed to the "CONQUER TO BECOME STRONGER" stupidity (which resulted in millions of Chinese dead), then their supply of resources would never have been cut in the first place.

Again; people who think that they should "own" resources that they don't have are stupid. Trade exists for a reason.

The argument that Japan invaded to secure key resources is actually quite misleading ALSO. Manchuria is the sole reason actually invoked prior to the US embargo and that had logistical reasons... Namely, you can build factories/railways much closer to Manchuria coal mines than shipping it across the ocean to Japan.


AFTER the US embargo..............

[Sea Skimmer]

The great thing is, the US never put a single sanction on Japan for invading Manchuria, nor did its progressively tighter embargos ever demand that Japan return Manchuria to China. They just had to stop fighting in central and south china, and of course French Indochina which is what triggered the final complete halt in trade and asset freeze.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yeah, Manchuria hadnt been sovereign to China itself for a while.


And the main resource both the Nazis and Japan lacked was oil. If Manchuria had been able to provide Japan with sufficient amount of oil, then about half the reason for being pissed at the USA goes away.


If the Nazis had sufficient oil, say Kuwaits oil wells teleported or coal liquefaction having a much larger industry much much earlier in the war...well thats horrifying to think about.


So basically every break down of both powers strength that doesnt include oil reserves and production is fucking useless.

[CaptHawkeye]

You haven't read the last 3 pages of this thread have you? We all just went over how oil was far from the only important resource dogging the Axis war machine. Having reliable access to oil would not have singly led to "HITLER WINS ZOMG!" Just because you have access to wells doesn't mean you have the capacity to refine and transport the oil found in them. Japan found this out the hard way.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah the Germans and Japanese were both loosing the war horribly before they began having really serious fuel shortages in the first place. See say, Midway, when Japan had enough fuel to put its entire freaking fleet to sea at the same time, and then choose to scatter it across half the Pacific and end up totally defeated.

[Dominarch's Hope]

You haven't read the last 3 pages of this thread have you? We all just went over how oil was far from the only important resource dogging the Axis war machine. Having reliable access to oil would not have singly led to "HITLER WINS ZOMG!" Just because you have access to wells doesn't mean you have the capacity to refine and transport the oil found in them. Japan found this out the hard way.

No shit. No fucking shit.


I cant leave anything to common assumption, can I? No, too many anal retentive obtusive dickweeds.



They have the oil and can utilize it. Under no circumstances, do they need to import it or have it refined for them.

Nazi Germany and Japan faced similar but different problems. No, Japan did not have enough oil in its possesion. IN EFFECT.


Which means that, EFFECTIVELY, they dont have it. Cant ship it or use it? It doesnt count as a resource for the strategic math. Its like how China has a billion people plus the pop of USA over that. As far as the military goes, it doesnt mean much beyond unlimited conscript infantry. So as a military resource, dont matter in operations beyons China itself.




So the Germans have plenty of manpower to draw upon from Western/Central Europe. Cant use it for military purposes since they cant be transported or effectively equipped, so they dont matter. No one counts the able bodied men of France as Nazi Manpower, even though its a resource they controlled.




So assume they have the oil, IN MANCHURIA, then all they have to is build the refineries and merchant ships. Which is more than possible.


Sea Skimmer, Japan v America is such a horrific lopsided match that as long as it happened, the outcome was decided in the long run. Its not a debate. Its never a debate.


Where as the Nazis, if they had fuel, could have mobilized the entire army and said fuck you to horses and donkeys.

And that "might" have made a small amount of difference.

[Dominarch's Hope]

In fact actually, they not only dont have it, its a net drain. So yeah.

[Zinegata]

PainRack, could you provide one shred of evidence that the Russians planned to conquer Japan prior to the Russo-Japanese War? As in serious plans that involve building enough ships and transports to pull off an invasion?

Because again, arguing that they "secured" themselves by beating up the Russians only works if the Russians had actual plans to invade Japan; rather than Japan having paranoid delusions and then pretending that these delusions must become basis of national strategy.

===

Also, there is nothing misleading about stating that Japan invaded other territories for the sake of resources. See Dutch East Indies Oil.

You have to be extremely selective with your examples to make this claim.

[Zinegata]

Why are you assuming that the nation being embargoed is the only customer for those resources? Especially for vital resources like oil, if we cut off trade in it to one country, why on earth wouldn't it be sold to another country or private enterprise?

Alternate customers won't matter, because Belgium or whoever else won't suddenly start buying oil that Japan can't anymore. Because Belgium isn't going to be dumb enough to buy oil they don't need. Seriously, half the problem with retard dictatorships (e.g. Nazis) is that they think "owning" a pile of rocks means something, as opposed to finding an economic use for those rocks.

Which is again why embargos are usually not enforced unless somebody (Japan) is acting like an enormous douche.

Which is why, again, the reality is that you do not gain more markets or resources when you go on a "conquering" spree. You actually lose markets and access to resources as other nations decide that you're a blight upon humanity who should suffer the extreme act of a total trade freeze.

[PainRack]

PainRack, could you provide one shred of evidence that the Russians planned to conquer Japan prior to the Russo-Japanese War? As in serious plans that involve building enough ships and transports to pull off an invasion?

Because again, arguing that they "secured" themselves by beating up the Russians only works if the Russians had actual plans to invade Japan; rather than Japan having paranoid delusions and then pretending that these delusions must become basis of national strategy.

===

None. However, Japan did serve to view Russia expansion to the East as a security threat to herself. If this was somehow illogical or stupid, its one shared by every single other nation who viewed Russia and the Soviet Union as a national threat since the era of Peter the Great, so, UK. USA, Germany.......... Japan is in more than good company then.

I can however point out to you that your argument that Japan conquered Korea for the sake of economy/resources is ahistorical, based entirely on the speeches of Japanese ministers before the war. While there were certainly assessment of how Korea would be useful to Japan economically, most of it fell by the way of security of national interests. At best, we could argue that the First Sino Japan war had an economic motivation, the closest we could lean to your viewpoint. The arguments about keeping and exploiting Korea resources was made AFTER hostilities had started.

Also, there is nothing misleading about stating that Japan invaded other territories for the sake of resources. See Dutch East Indies Oil.

You have to be extremely selective with your examples to make this claim.

And that happened AFTER the US embargo................ You know.... when Japan actually had no recourse to trade to get access to resources it need?

[Dominarch's Hope]

Wasnt Korea just an extension of trying to dominate East Asia for its own sake?

[Zinegata]

So, again, to emphasize: There is NO evidence that Russia wanted to conquer Japan.

So, again, what the fuck are they being paranoid about? Any logical person would determine the actual threat level first, before drafting plans based on imaginary threats.

And sure, everyone was worried about Russia. But that didn't exactly cause people to actually fight wars with Russia (except for that mess called the Crimean War; which actually encouraged Britain and France to seek peace and eventually ally with Russia!).

===

Also, bemoaning that "Japan had no resources" is silly and stupid. How the hell were they able to buy guns and other technology during the early years of the Meiji period then?

Pretending "Japan has no resources" is an extremely childish and simplistic view of things. They had resources - the most important of which is the productive capability of its people. Again, owning a pile of coal, iron, or oil is stupid and laughably useless unless you can actually turn that coal, iron, or oil (through your artisans and factory workers) into stuff that people can actually use.

This is why ideas like "King Cotton" belong on the wrong side of history. Making yourself the king of a huge pile of cotton - no matter how high the dollar value of cotton - is laughably useless unless you actually possess the means to convert that resource into useful goods (e.g clothes) or the ability to trade those goods to someone who does possess the conversion ability.

Japan's economy was based almost entirely on trade and conversion of raw materials. So again, where is the sense or logic in risking its trade networks for the stupid besotted idea that they should go on a conquering spree and that this will somehow make up for the loss of trade?

As Skimmer said, the US didn't even embargo Japan for Manchuko. They only embargo'd Japan after they clearly and unreasonably crossed the line. I have no idea why you keep pretending that this somehow validates Japan's position, when the logical thing to do would have been to fucking stop their conquests and be happy with Manchuko!

[Dominarch's Hope]

Zinegata. Just who the fuck are you talking to and what points are you trying to address? Its almost like you are using some of my own reasoning, but strangely in the opposing manner.


King Cotton? The fuck does that have to do with the relevance of oil in the 20th century?

[Zinegata]

Dominarch->

Pain Rack obviously. You weren't talking about the Russo-Japanese war. Your meaningless flailing and tough guys interjections has been discredited to death and does not really warrant more dogpiling.

By the way, "King Cotton" is called an "example". Because again, only idiots claim that holding on to resources makes you rich or powerful. It applies to all resources; even oil.

Heck, all of those countries sitting on oil deposits? The moment people start switching to alternative energy sources they simply die.

The Middle East for instance? Their combined exports - if you take away their oil products - is less than Finland. The moment people no longer have a need for oil, they die because they don't have an actual industry to convert resources into other useful goods. People stop trading with them. People stop caring about them. They fade into irrelevancy like the Confederacy with its attempts to mythologize the power ot Cotton.

Industry is the cornerstone of the modern economy for a reason. It's not about possessing a pile of rocks; it's just meaningless wanking. What's important is being able to turn rocks into something people can use. If you can do that, you can prosper no matter how little "resource" you own.

[Ziggy Stardust]

EDIT: Nevermind. I didn't read the entire thread.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Hey, um, Zin.

I kinda have already said basically the exact same shit.

And the Confederacy didnt mythologize Cotton. They simply didnt know or apparently realize that Egypt was producing a good amount. What do you think those Textile Mills ran on? You know, the thing that started and was central to the Industrial Revolution getting underway?

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually the whole issue was that Egyptian and Indian cotton had shorter threads and was generally lower in quality then Southern cotton, and using it required adaptions of the industrial equipment and new fabric designs. It took until 1864 for British mill production to fully adapt and recover. But thanks for showing yet again that you are capable of doing nothing but polluting threads with endless ignorance.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yes, but they assumed that Britain needed there cotton more then they could do without. Which wasnt the case.


Nice googling, btw.


Up until then though, cotton was king, because it did make a hell of a lot of money. When that changed, the Boll Weevel driving it in, the whole King Cotton changed.


It would be no different than the mideadt going allbking oil.

[PainRack]

So, again, to emphasize: There is NO evidence that Russia wanted to conquer Japan.

So, again, what the fuck are they being paranoid about? Any logical person would determine the actual threat level first, before drafting plans based on imaginary threats.

And sure, everyone was worried about Russia. But that didn't exactly cause people to actually fight wars with Russia (except for that mess called the Crimean War; which actually encouraged Britain and France to seek peace and eventually ally with Russia!).

Say what? You're creating an incoherent mess of a post here.

AGAIN, Japan concerns over Russian fears of invasion drove her foreign policy. We seen NUMEROUS countries do the same, when there was no existing plans to actually invade them EITHER. Hell, Russian expansion into Central Asia drove Britain into the Great Game, so, why is the exact same reasoning now logical for the UK but not for Japan?

Its not as if Japan didn't have any events triggering a fear of Imperial exploitation, from the Trans Siberian Railway and the Tsingtao reversal.....Afterall, Russia screwing Japan out of the same territory she laid claim to post Boxing expedition is just as alarming as Russia putting down an Iron Curtain.

Also, bemoaning that "Japan had no resources" is silly and stupid. How the hell were they able to buy guns and other technology during the early years of the Meiji period then?

Again, Japan DIDN"T launch wars of aggression JUST to lay stake to resources. Look, you been asserting this claim over and over again, fucking BACK IT UP. The proof of Korea was AFTER the fact and you can only point to Manchuria PRIOR to the US embargo for any proof of this claim. Show fucking proof that the Japanese fought the Russians, the Chinese for resources or concession accepted.

Japan's economy was based almost entirely on trade and conversion of raw materials. So again, where is the sense or logic in risking its trade networks for the stupid besotted idea that they should go on a conquering spree and that this will somehow make up for the loss of trade?

As Skimmer said, the US didn't even embargo Japan for Manchuko. They only embargo'd Japan after they clearly and unreasonably crossed the line. I have no idea why you keep pretending that this somehow validates Japan's position, when the logical thing to do would have been to fucking stop their conquests and be happy with Manchuko!

Because Japan position was that it needed to be in a position of autarky to ensure self defence. This was the position held by many other countries and there is no reason to disbelieve this, despite your claims to the contary. Japan furthermore had a very glaring example of what will happen if she was unable to secure her territory.

Again, that WAS the whole question. We argue that Imperial Japan chain of logic was absolutely fucked up because it couldn't achieve their goals and they had no plans. I'm NOT disagreeing about that. It would still not be rational. The question is asking, was their chain of logic true? Which required us to test the premises and the chains.

The premise that they set off from, that a Japan that couldn't defend itself would be vulnerable to Imperial exploitation is what I'm asking everyone to disprove. So far, what has been posted here is that

[Zinegata]

I'm confusing?

The reason this thread is going all over the place is because Pain Rack keeps bringing up new excuses for the IJN's insane actions. Which is again totally useless. It doesn't matter if Russia was feared by other nations; because as I've shown other nations didn't simply go to war against every country they disagreed with!. Alternatives existed (e.g. France ALLYING with Russia!), which Japan ignored.

Some Japanese politicians weren't in it for conquering resources? Woo-fucking-hoo, that's totally useless and irrelevant too. Because the basic premise of "invading other countries" for WHATEVER REASON and souring foreign relations is fundamentally fatal for a TRADING POWER.

(And really, I've had enough of you claiming I back up shit that isn't even central to my argument! So what if some Japanese politicians weren't in it for the resources? Whatever their demented logic, IT WAS WRONG on a factual level! As you already conceded to Skimmer, there was NO COHERENT JAPANESE POLICY anyway, so pretending as though Japan really wasn't in it for the resources and I should prove otherwise is stupid dishonest. At best, you can only say "they had no coherent policy", which you don't want to focus on because it again shows what an insane mess the Japanese decision-making process was, which in turn undermines your vain quest for finding logic in Japan's insane actions)

Pain Rack is really just demonstrating why trying to figure out if people were "logical but insane" is a tiring and pointless exercise. It boils down to excuse-making; when the simple reality is that facts and other alternative methods of resolving conflict were available at the time to show that the premise is wrong and a fundamentally different course of action must be taken. They didn't have to fight Russia. They didn't have to attack other countries and undermine their own economy which was based on trade. Whatever their reasons (which again can at best be described as "No coherent policy" and at worst be called "Stupid ideology"), they screwed up because they ignored fundamental facts.

[ray245]

Pain Rack is really just demonstrating why trying to figure out if people were "logical but insane" is a tiring and pointless exercise.

Why is this pointless? Understanding the motivation and rational of various powers and their desire to wage war is something quite useful. It's stupid to dismiss the actions of Imperial Japan as a result of their insanity.

[PainRack]

I'm confusing?

The reason this thread is going all over the place is because Pain Rack keeps bringing up new excuses for the IJN's insane actions. Which is again totally useless. It doesn't matter if Russia was feared by other nations; because as I've shown other nations didn't simply go to war against every country they disagreed with!. Alternatives existed (e.g. France ALLYING with Russia!), which Japan ignored.

Dude.... France allied with Russia against GERMANY.
How on earth is this disproof?

You essentially drew the thread into another direction by pulling a bait and switch.
Meanwhile, your point that Japan had no reason to fear Russia because Russia had no direct plans to invade, therefore, Japan= illogical would hold true, but you HAVE to dismiss every other nation foreign policy towards Russia too. Britain feared Russia, France feared Russia. Germany feared Russia, albeit, as a result of Germany own foreign policies too. The US feared Russia.
All of them in your eyes acted illogically because Russian expansion didn't invade their territories.


Again. Japan defined Korea as a core interest, initially as a buffer zone against Russian aggression because Russian expansion in the Far East was viewed as threatening to Japan security, this triggered the initial Sino Japan war when China sent troops into their traditional client state without informing Japan. The importance of Korea as a buffer zone and then economic interests meant that an Imperial conflict with Russia over Russia OWN desire to expand in the Far East drove both of them into negotiations over their respective imperial zone of influence. Both sides were unable to resolve their differences over Imperial zones of influence.


RIGHT now, what you're suggesting is that Japan should had abandoned Korea and Manchuria both, allowing Russia imperial influence to expand into those states respectively, despite the potential threat this will pose to Japan own core homeland. Britain absolutely refused to let Russian expansion into Central Asia threaten her hold on India. Why is this now somehow illogical?

Some Japanese politicians weren't in it for conquering resources? Woo-fucking-hoo, that's totally useless and irrelevant too. Because the basic premise of "invading other countries" for WHATEVER REASON and souring foreign relations is fundamentally fatal for a TRADING POWER.

Dude. You been contending for several pages now that the Japanese invaded Korea and attacked Russia because they wanted resources. Just fucking prove it already.

(And really, I've had enough of you claiming I back up shit that isn't even central to my argument! So what if some Japanese politicians weren't in it for the resources? Whatever their demented logic, IT WAS WRONG on a factual level! As you already conceded to Skimmer, there was NO COHERENT JAPANESE POLICY anyway, so pretending as though Japan really wasn't in it for the resources and I should prove otherwise is stupid dishonest. At best, you can only say "they had no coherent policy", which you don't want to focus on because it again shows what an insane mess the Japanese decision-making process was, which in turn undermines your vain quest for finding logic in Japan's insane actions)

Your fucking POINT is that Japan should "trade" with other nations for what she need, thus, she had no need to invade others and invading others was detrimental.

This FUCKING ignores the debate over autarky and what drove Japan to want to achieve autarky.

Pain Rack is really just demonstrating why trying to figure out if people were "logical but insane" is a tiring and pointless exercise. It boils down to excuse-making; when the simple reality is that facts and other alternative methods of resolving conflict were available at the time to show that the premise is wrong and a fundamentally different course of action must be taken. They didn't have to fight Russia. They didn't have to attack other countries and undermine their own economy which was based on trade. Whatever their reasons (which again can at best be described as "No coherent policy" and at worst be called "Stupid ideology"), they screwed up because they ignored fundamental facts.

EXCEPT, EXCEPT, that if they hadn't contested Russian influence and went on the road which would drag them into conflicts in Manchuria, the Japanese feared that their own core territories would be left open to Imperial exploitation, the same as China up north.

How on earth was this fear invalid? Because Russia had no plans to invade Japan herself? This even though this chain of logic had not affected Britain, France, Germany, USA actions against the Russians since the era of Peter the Great? Did Russia show a plan to invade the USA during the Cold War? Was the Iron Curtain a plan of conquest of the British Isles? Or are you now contesting that the entire Cold war was an illogical course of action driven by irrational fears?

[Simon_Jester]

Pain Rack is really just demonstrating why trying to figure out if people were "logical but insane" is a tiring and pointless exercise.

Why is this pointless? Understanding the motivation and rational of various powers and their desire to wage war is something quite useful. It's stupid to dismiss the actions of Imperial Japan as a result of their insanity.

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.

[PainRack]

As for being happy with Manchuko....... They WERE. The Imperial Kwantung Army overreached their political restraint when they engineered the Mukden incident and invaded Manchuria, remember? Presented with a fait accompli, Japan pacified the area and this led to the Marco Polo bridge incident...... which itself had ties back to the whole extraterritorial laws, Boxer Rebellion and anti Imperialism, anti colonial efforts China were going up against.

As it was, the whole skirmish would had died down if not for the Japanese and Chinese responding with increased resources, you know, since China was now attempting to assert its own soverignty while Japan claims response against communists(terrorists) and of course, the whole reason was them sending in troops to rescue a lost soldier, captured by those dastardly Chinese.

For the Japanese conspired to create that incident, again, military officers overstepping their bounds so as to "protect the empire", particularly, against Chinese maintaining a resistance in Manchuria..........