# Japanese perspective



## VBF-13 (Feb 21, 2014)

This might be rather interesting, if not, somewhat challenging. We’re accustomed to conceiving of the start of the Pacific War as the Japanese aggression in the Pacific, most notoriously, on December 7, 1941. What was the U.S. doing at that time to the Japanese to precipitate that aggression? Let me try and direct the replies, somewhat. Natural resources and the U.S. embargoes were at the heart, at least, per my historical accounts. Maybe we can go into those more specifically. Maybe there are other precipitating causes, as well, we can identify and go over.

In short, let’s hear it from the Japanese perspective. Again, per my understanding, the Japanese were being crowded out. This was their neck of the woods. Just look at who was there trying to control everything from the oil, rubber, lumber, ore, to the spices. Economically, Japan buckled under, their political autonomy was the next to go. That entire group of islands could have easily been starved out. This much, I think, I can say. I’d have been a little pissed off, too.

So, without further adieu; let’s get at it.


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 21, 2014)

"The World and Japan" Database Project
Database of Japanese Politics and International Relations
Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo

[Title] Imperial Rescript, December 8, 1941
[Place]
[Date] December 8, 1941
[Source] Japan Times Advertiser, December 8, 1941, p. 1., Released by the Board of Information, December 8, 1941
[Notes]
[Full text]

We, by grace of heaven, Emperor of Japan, seated on the Throne of a line unbroken for ages eternal, enjoin upon ye, Our loyal and brave subjects:

We hereby declare war on the United States of America and the British Empire. The men and officers of Our army and navy shall do their utmost in prosecuting the war, Our public servants of various departments shall perform faithfully and diligently their appointed tasks, and all other subjects of Ours shall pursue their respective duties; the entire nation with a united will shall mobilize their total strength so that nothing will miscarry in the attainment of our war aims.

To insure the stability of East Asia and to contribute to world peace is the far-sighted policy which was formulated by our Great illustrious Imperial Grandsire and Our Great Imperial sire succeeding Him, and which We lay constantly to heart. To cultivate friendship among nations and to enjoy prosperity in common with all nations has always been the guiding principle of Our Empire's foreign policy. It has been truly unavoidable and far from Our wishes that Our Empire has now been brought to cross swords with America and Britain. More than four years have passed since China, failing to comprehend the true intentions of Our Empire, and recklessly courting trouble, disturbed the peace of East Asia and compelled Our Empire to take up arms. Although there has been re-established the National Government of China, with which Japan has effected neighborly intercourse and cooperation, the regime which has survived at Chungking, relying upon American and British protection, still continues its fratricidal opposition. Eager for the realization of their inordinate ambition to dominate the Orient, both America and Britain, giving support to the Chungking regime, have aggravated the disturbances in East Asia. Moreover, these two Powers, inducing other countries to follow suit, increased military preparations on all sides of Our Empire to challenge us. They have obstructed by every means our peaceful commerce, and finally resorted to a direct severance of economic relations, menacing gravely the existence of Our Empire. Patiently have We waited and long have We endured, in the hope that Our Government might retrieve the situation in peace. But our adversaries, showing not the least spirit of conciliation, have unduly delayed a settlement; and in the meantime, they have intensified the economic and political pressure to compel thereby Our Empire to submission. This trend of affairs would, if left unchecked, not only nullify Our Empire's efforts of many years for the sake of the stabilization of East Asia, but also endanger the very existence of Our nation. The situation being such as it is, Our Empire for its existence and self-defense has no other recourse but to appeal to arms and to crush every obstacle in its path.

The hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors guarding Us from above, We rely upon the loyalty and courage of Our subjects in Our confident expectation that the task bequeathed by Our forefathers will be carried forward, and that the sources of evil will be speedily eradicated and an enduring peace immutably established in East Asia, preserving thereby the glory of Our Empire.

Data source


----------



## The Basket (Feb 21, 2014)

Not sure what youre after.
But the Invasion of Manchuria was 1931.
Its an Americanism to think war started 7 December 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Feb 22, 2014)

United States Army Forces in the Far East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We formed USAFFE for the purpose of threatening Japan with military force. 29 modern long range submarines were based on Luzon. Four heavy bomber groups were enroute to the Philippines. Plus some additional military units and a massive amount of equipment to upgrade the American controlled Philippine Army. 1941 Japan appreciated the military threat about as much as 1962 USA appreciated Soviet nuclear armed missiles in Cuba. 

Diplomatic brinksmanship is a danger game. During 1962 diplomats barely managed to avert an American military attack on Cuba to remove the Soviet missiles. During 1941 the diplomats failed.


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 22, 2014)

Well, I'm going to read this with interest, but I'm staying out of it for now because I'll just piss some people off.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 22, 2014)

davebender said:


> United States Army Forces in the Far East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We formed USAFFE for the purpose of threatening Japan with military force. 29 modern long range submarines were based on Luzon. Four heavy bomber groups were enroute to the Philippines. Plus some additional military units and a massive amount of equipment to upgrade the American controlled Philippine Army. 1941 Japan appreciated the military threat about as much as 1962 USA appreciated Soviet nuclear armed missiles in Cuba.
> 
> Diplomatic brinksmanship is a danger game. During 1962 diplomats barely managed to avert an American military attack on Cuba to remove the Soviet missiles. During 1941 the diplomats failed.


Thank you. I didn't even think of the parallels. This is the kind of thing I was trying to get out, the heat the Japanese were feeling, and the sources thereof. This shouldn't be controversial. Khrushchev was looking down the nuclear barrel in Turkey, and that's just a fact. 

Let's hear more on this. If you got it, go for it.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 22, 2014)

I think _At Dawn We Slept _did a pretty good job of showing both sides of the conflict though I am always interested in learning more from the Japanese perspective.


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 22, 2014)

LIFE dated May 9, 1938
"Horrors beyond human imagination took place in Nanking between Dec. 10 and 18, 1937. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, despite expert advices, had left some of his best troops to make a last stand inside the city. When the walls were breached, Chinese soldiers stripped to their underclothes and ran around looking for civilian clothes to disguise themselves. Japanese shot down everyone seen running or caught in a dark alley. Soldiers and civilians were tied in groups of 50 and executed in cold blood!"

Data source


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 23, 2014)

How could stationing B-17s in the Philippines threaten Japan ? Even the later B-29 couldn't fly from any of the Philippines islands, to Japan and back.

B-17s in the Philippines could however be a threat to Japan's ambitions to take the Dutch East Indies, and take over the oilfields. 

The build up wasn't a threat to Japan, it was a threat to their ambitions.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 23, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> LIFE dated May 9, 1938
> "Horrors beyond human imagination took place in Nanking between Dec. 10 and 18, 1937. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, despite expert advices, had left some of his best troops to make a last stand inside the city. When the walls were breached, Chinese soldiers stripped to their underclothes and ran around looking for civilian clothes to disguise themselves. Japanese shot down everyone seen running or caught in a dark alley. Soldiers and civilians were tied in groups of 50 and executed in cold blood!"
> 
> Data source
> ...


That would pin the aggression on that deep-seated, almost irreconcilable conflict, which would basically mean there was no turning the aggression back. Is that the way you're seeing it?


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 23, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> How could stationing B-17s in the Philippines threaten Japan ? Even the later B-29 couldn't fly from any of the Philippines islands, to Japan and back.
> 
> B-17s in the Philippines could however be a threat to Japan's ambitions to take the Dutch East Indies, and take over the oilfields.
> 
> The build up wasn't a threat to Japan, it was a threat to their ambitions.



Agree with you Tyrodtom. The concept of the invincible bomber ("the bomber will always get through") had not been entirely vanquished by this stage of the war. The USAAF saw the B-17 as a strategic deterrent - the big stick that would help cow Japan into acceding to America's demands. In reality, the actual destructive potential of strategic bombing was much less than had been anticpated during the 1930s.

Regarding the threat of the Philippines to Japan, you need only look at a map - it wasn't the threat to the Japanese homeland, it was the threat to Japanese aspirations. In order to get oil from the Dutch East Indies, you have to sail pretty close to the Philippines. As an island nation, Japan depended heavily on maritime transport for supplies and trade. The American presence in the Philippines was also a direct threat to Japanese forces in Formosa and on the Chinese mainland.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 23, 2014)

I believe Formosa and parts of occupied China were within range of the B-17s as an attack was launched on Formosa but later recalled early on. You are also forgetting that the Japanese might not have been aware the B-17's loaded with bombs could not reach Japan


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 23, 2014)

I'm seeing that, Buff. We had to get to Okinawa for anything serious off the land to the Japanese homeland. The Philippines held a different strategic threat to Japan than that.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 23, 2014)

The Pacific Fleet was based at San Diego. The basing at Pearl was deliberately provocative and a direct warning to Tokyo.
And that angered the Japanese lots. 
But be clear on one point. Japan chose war. They wanted it.
They wanted imperial expansion and this meant they would eventually come into conflict with European powers and USA and the USSR.
They had a choice. Go hard or go home. 
They must have had an inflated sense of invinciblity if attacking US makes perfect sense.
And such hubris is never a good thing.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 24, 2014)

The Basket said:


> The Pacific Fleet was based at San Diego. The basing at Pearl was deliberately provocative and a direct warning to Tokyo.
> And that angered the Japanese lots.


Then the Japanese intelligence must have been terribly behind the times...

Pearl Harbor has been a strategic U.S. Naval base since 1899


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 24, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> That would pin the aggression on that deep-seated, almost irreconcilable conflict, which would basically mean there was no turning the aggression back. Is that the way you're seeing it?



Sorry, VBF-13, if I may have put you in any anger or annoyance.

I am not necessarily standing on the Japanese nationalists' side and the Chinese communists' side either but their arguments are not only in parallel but harsher day by day. This is my anxiety. Books, evidences, testimonies and opinions about the issue made public in the both sides after the war ended are much different with exaggeration with political intention and emotion like the John Rabe for example but I thought fresh reports introduced soon after the incident happened in Dec 1937 could be telling us "What actually happened" very closely to the fact.

I know LIFE reporters were clearly standing on the Chinese side but see the article I have introduced in above. Doesn't it look quite fair for both sides? I have posted wishing such a 'fact' as this to be a common perspective among Japan, China and the old Allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 24, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Then the Japanese must have been terribly behind the times...
> 
> Pearl Harbor has been a strategic U.S. Naval base since 1899



Wrong. San Diego was the home port. It moved to Pearl May 1940 as a forward position. 

Against the wishes of the Navy.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 24, 2014)

That does not change the fact it was a strategic port.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 24, 2014)

Threat = Capability + Intent. 

Having a strategic port at Pearl Harbor provided the capability but forward-deploying the Fleet to Pearl Harbor demonstrated the intent.


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 24, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> How could stationing B-17s in the Philippines threaten Japan ? Even the later B-29 couldn't fly from any of the Philippines islands, to Japan and back.
> 
> B-17s in the Philippines could however be a threat to Japan's ambitions to take the Dutch East Indies, and take over the oilfields.
> 
> The build up wasn't a threat to Japan, it was a threat to their ambitions.



Those B-17 and B-24 were a flying fortress which Japanese fighters did not know how to attack.
Even after captured some B-17s in the Philippines and Indonesia, Japanese experts were unable to understand its design conception soon well, especially the Norden bomb sight and the turbo charger.

Army fighter pilots anyway studied tactics flying together with them and taught the navy Zero pilots how to make effective Approaching Attack.

A book says like above


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 24, 2014)

The Basket said:


> Wrong. San Diego was the home port. It moved to Pearl May 1940 as a forward position.
> 
> Against the wishes of the Navy.


Do not think for a moment that Pearl, Wheeler, Hickham and other installations sat vacant prior to that date.

And while you're at it, tell me where was the U.S. Asiatic fleet based...

The Japanese leadership saw the U.S. as a potential threat to their expansion and drew up plans to neutralize it. As the U.S. started to withdraw trade of raw materials and oil in 1940 and 1941, they were drawn to the conclusion that the U.S. would be a potential adversary and felt that the neutralist American public would not have a stomac for war. Based on that assumption, the Japanese leadership wrongly beleived that a successful attack, or series of successful attacks, on American interests would force the U.S. to the bargaining table. 

There were several among the Japanese leadership who disagreed, including Admiral Yamamoto, who even expressed that attacking the United States at Pearl may hold a victory, but would invite disaster for the Empire in the long run.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 24, 2014)

With the exception of the sizeable submarine force, the Asiatic Fleet was little more than a speck in terms of combat capability compared to the forces at Pearl Harbor. Also, although the facilities you mentioned were not sitting empty, it's equally true that they underwent considerable reinforcement by more capable/modern aircraft from late 1940 onwards. Those actions were perceived in Tokyo as an increase in threat to Japan's interests.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 24, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Those B-17 and B-24 were a flying fortress which Japanese fighters did not know how to attack.
> Even after captured some B-17s in the Philippines and Indonesia, Japanese experts were unable to understand its design conception soon well, especially the Norden bomb sight and the turbo charger.
> 
> Army fighter pilots anyway studied tactics flying together with them and taught the navy Zero pilots how to make effective Approaching Attack.
> ...



Maybe the army pilots should have asked for some advice from Saburo Sakia, he led the group of Zeros that shot down the first B-17 lost in air combat in the Pacific, just 3 days into the war. That was the B-17 piloted by Colin Kelly.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 24, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Sorry, VBF-13, if I may have put you in any anger or annoyance.
> 
> I am not necessarily standing on the Japanese nationalists' side and the Chinese communists' side either but their arguments are not only in parallel but harsher day by day. This is my anxiety. Books, evidences, testimonies and opinions about the issue made public in the both sides after the war ended are much different with exaggeration with political intention and emotion like the John Rabe for example but I thought fresh reports introduced soon after the incident happened in Dec 1937 could be telling us "What actually happened" very closely to the fact.
> 
> I know LIFE reporters were clearly standing on the Chinese side but see the article I have introduced in above. Doesn't it look quite fair for both sides? I have posted wishing such a 'fact' as this to be a common perspective among Japan, China and the old Allies.


I'm sorry, I think we're misunderstanding our replies. In this question I was seeking to take a dispassionate look into the Allied provocations, if any, to the Japanese aggression on December 7th, 1941. Something caused that. Something ignited it. Something touched it off. That's what I was looking to explore. Your earlier reply seemingly pinned that Japanese aggression on the longstanding, deep-seated differences between China and Japan, which, in effect, would make that Japanese aggression on December 7th, 1941 inevitable, unstoppable. It was in the cards. The die was cast. Those longstanding, deep-seated differences were there. They weren't going away. They were, at bottom, the reason for the Japanese aggression on December 7th, 1941. No amount of Allied diplomacy or negotiation could have changed that. That aggression was a part of that plot. It fit right into those Japanese imperatives in relationship to China. To stop it, those longstanding, deep-seated differences had to be resolved, and they couldn't be, there was no chance. They were, for the most part, irreconcilable. 

I hope that's better. I hope you understand, I'm not pointing the finger at anybody, or judging anybody, here. Quite the contrary, I'm trying to make sense of what you said your understanding was for that Japanese aggression. You pointed to the troubles with China to explain that aggression away. I can't say that's wrong. In fact, quite frankly, it makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 24, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> With the exception of the sizeable submarine force, the Asiatic Fleet was little more than a speck in terms of combat capability compared to the forces at Pearl Harbor. Also, although the facilities you mentioned were not sitting empty, it's equally true that they underwent considerable reinforcement by more capable/modern aircraft from late 1940 onwards. Those actions were perceived in Tokyo as an increase in threat to Japan's interests.


With over 20 years of expansion and occupation in neighboring countries in the Western Pacific and Eastern Asia, at what point do you suggest the Japanese realized that the United States presence in the region was a threat to their goals?

Granted, the U.S. Asiatic Fleet was not impressive as many fleets go, it was still a long-established military force on Japan's doorstep.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 24, 2014)

It was one factor among many but let's start with Asiatic Fleet specifically. On 22 Jul 41, the new port facility at Mariveles was completed, providing modern berthing for more vessels. In Oct 41 the existing, but largely elderly, fleet of 13 submarines was effectively doubled with the arrival of SubDiv15 and SubDiv16. That's clearly an expansion of offensive rather than defensive forces, as is the arrival of B-17s in increasing numbers during the latter half of 1941. Then there's the rapid expansion in fighter aircraft defences and the considerably qualitative improvement from P-26s to P-40s. Taken from the Japanese perspective, this all adds up to a major rearmament effort and it's happening right in what Japan considered to be her "back yard"...and was seen as a knife pointed at the throat of Japan's economic lifelines from China and the wider Co-Prosperity Sphere. 

The US had been competing with Japan for 60+ years in the Pacific rim but it the increase in tensions during 1940 and 1941 prompted a major US reinforcement of the Philippines which appeared to Japan like a huge increase in threat posture.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 24, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> The US had been competing with Japan for 60+ years in the Pacific rim


Along with other many other Western nations 



buffnut453 said:


> increase in tensions during 1940 and 1941 prompted a major US reinforcement of the Philippines


And why do you suppose the U.S. was enhancing their numbers in the region?

The aggressive Japanese expansion in the region had many nations on edge


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 24, 2014)

Entirely agree but we're supposed to be discussing the Japanese perspective...and that's all I'm trying to articulate here. What certain Japanese viewed as their destiny, other nations saw as blatant and illegal expansionism. What British and American leaders viewed as considered measures to "encourage" Japan towards tangible, meaningful reductions in military expansionism were interpreted by some Japanese as attempts to choke their nation.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 24, 2014)

Also bear in mind that Japan was a historic friend and ally of the U.S. and when the U.S. started to draw-down it's material support, the Japanese took that as an insult.


----------



## davebender (Feb 24, 2014)

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/australia/oceania_pol01.jpg
Formosa and Japanese occupied SE China can be reached by heavy bombers based on Luzon. Japanese naval base at Palau can be reached by heavy bombers operating from the new B-17 base on Mindanao.

Given the amount of military cooperation between 1941 Britain and USA Japan had to assume Philippine based heavy bombers could stage through British airfields in Hong Kong, Malaya etc.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 24, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> Entirely agree but we're supposed to be discussing the Japanese perspective.


Yes, Buff, that's it, what the Japanese were seeing as the provocations, the precipitating causes, for their aggression. I want to see that perspective.


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 24, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> Entirely agree but we're supposed to be discussing the Japanese perspective...



Was wondering when someone was gonna mention this.

Geo


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 24, 2014)

I also believe the US was responsible for showing Japan how to expand their empire using force if necessary. While trying to open trade routes with Japan against their will in the mid 1800's, we threatened military action if they did not concede to our trade treaties, we sailed ships into their harbor and threatened bombardment. We showed Japan how to use force to accomplish their goals. I believe these actions also contributed to Japan modernizing their military, making it strong enough so they could not be bullied by western nations. They adopted our own tactics in some ways.
Also do not forget the Washington Naval Treaty after WWI. Japan took it as a mjor insult, limiting the size of their WWI allies ships and navies, even when they fought alongside Great Britain and the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 24, 2014)

Signing the Tripartite Pact with Germany in Sept 1940 was a clear indication of future intent.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 24, 2014)

And Britain withdrawing from its treaties with Japan...again, trying to put the Japanese perspective.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 24, 2014)

Anyhoo back to Pearl Harbour. Basing the Pacific Fleet there is a clear game changer as it is a message to the Japanese. The actual battleships are secondary. Red rag to a bull.

The tripartate pact clearly indicate that Japan saw the western powers as future enemies.

Can a Western person see things from a Japanese Perspective? Not really. I have owned 4 Japanese motorcycles though! So that must make me an expert! Only a Japanese national can really tell you.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 24, 2014)

Obviously the thread is from the "Japanese Perspective"...

The point I was trying to make, was whether or not the Pacific fleet was moved to Pearl, there was going to be a showdown between the U.S. and the Empire of Japan. The Japanese had considered west coast targets and if the fleet were not in Pearl Harbor, then the confrontation would have most likely been on continental U.S. soil. Either way, it was going to happen.

There was a huge rift between the two that was getting wider and wider as the Empire's intentions came into conflict with the American's interests. Placing embargoes and halting raw material shipments to Japan was pretty much the last straw as far as the Japanese were concerned.

Moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl didn't expedite Japan's intentions, it just made their first move easier.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2014)

japans war with China and the West was a war about trade. Basically the japanese wanted most favoured nation status, something the Chinese had given to the wetern european nations under the uneaqual treaties of the 1800s, but not to them. they resented that. And the japanese policy toward China was diametrically opposite to the US Open Door policy toward China.

Japan observed the deeply racist and white supremacist policies of the west in the Far East and determined that they had to lead asia out of its bondage. They viewed the colonial expansions as a deep affront to emerging Asian identity.

Unfortunately at the same time as japan was emerghing from her isolation , she also adopted some rather nasty traaits that was to seal the collision with the west. Japans samurai codes and military traditions lent themselves well to the rise of ultra nationalism in Japan, and from that extreme militarism. The result was that when Japan did actually start on its 20th century expansion, it soon came up against Asian and western resistence 

Nanking was a massacre, lets not beat around the bush, for which there are few excuses. it is a stain on japanese honour Im afraid, particulalry since the commander, a relative of the emperor no less, continued to issue orders to continue the slaughter, long after it was obvious that no legitimate military targets remained in the city


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 25, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Japan observed the deeply racist and white supremacist policies of the west in the Far East and determined that they had to lead asia out of its bondage. They viewed the colonial expansions as a deep affront to emerging Asian identity.


How much did they care about "Asian identity" when they slaughtered all those Chinese in Nanking? No, I'm sorry, it's not that easy. "Japanese identity," now we're talking. And I'm seeing, now, they were unprovoked. They had a plan and military they thought was tough as a nickel steak. I could get it all off an episode of "Victory at Sea." They were going ahead with their plan to conquer that region, and that was that, nothing, no amount of negotiation, was stopping it.


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 26, 2014)

I think this thread title had better be changed to 'American Perspective'  but complying with it with my great respects to you VBF-13, a genuine Japanese perspective was, unlike you imagine with my apology, the Pacific Ocean was not their back yard but sacred front yard. 

When armed Americans one day suddenly came in there paying no respects and even killed a number of Filipinos in front of them, no natural threats like the typhoons or earthquakes were bigger than that for the Japanese. They had no choice but expanding their armaments further to confront like "Come on guy. Draw your gun". 

That's it and no way but I don't think the PH attack would have come earlier than the Dec 7 as I know Japanese leaders hesitated another war in Asia until the last moment in the end of October, 1941.　You could see there are same dilemma in China and North Korea today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 26, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> How much did they care about "Asian identity" when they slaughtered all those Chinese in Nanking? No, I'm sorry, it's not that easy. "Japanese identity," now we're talking. And I'm seeing, now, they were unprovoked. They had a plan and military they thought was tough as a nickel steak. I could get it all off an episode of "Victory at Sea." They were going ahead with their plan to conquer that region, and that was that, nothing, no amount of negotiation, was stopping it.



They didnt care much, and reality Japanese "liberation" was really exchanging one form of imperial ruler for another. However the Japanese themselves did not see it that way. They saw it their manifest detiny to lead other nations in Asia. That doesnt mean they wanted to get all warm and fuzzy with them . They wanted to lead an independant Asia as a separate block to what they saw as emerging power blocs in the world 

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was an imperial concept created and promulgated for occupied Asian populations by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It promoted the cultural and economic unity of the East Asian race. It also declared the intention to create a self-sufficient "bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers". It was announced in a radio address entitled "The International Situation and Japan's Position" by Foreign Minister Hachirō Arita on June 29, 1940.

An Investigation of Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus was a secret document completed in 1943 for high-ranking government use — laid out the superior position of Japan in the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, showing the subordination of other nations was not forced by the war but part of explicit policy. It explicitly states the superiority of the Japanese over other Asian races and provides evidence that the Sphere was inherently hierarchical, including Japan's true intention of domination over Asia

the phrase "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was proposed by Kiyoshi Miki, a Kyoto School analytic philosopher who was actually opposed to militarism.

An earlier, influential concept was the geographically smaller version called New Order in East Asia, which was announced by Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe on 22 December 1938 and was limited to Northeast Asia only.

The original concept was an idealistic wish to free Asia from colonizing powers, but soon, nationalists saw it as a way to gain resources to keep Japan a modern power, and militarists saw the same resources as raw materials for war. Many Japanese nationalists were drawn to it as an ideal. Many of them remained convinced, throughout the war, that the Sphere was idealistic, offering slogans in a newspaper competition, praising the sphere for constructive efforts and peace.

Konoe planned the Sphere in 1940 in an attempt to create a Great East Asia, comprising Japan, Manchukuo, China, and parts of Southeast Asia, that would, according to imperial propaganda, establish a new international order seeking "co prosperity" for Asian countries which would share prosperity and peace, free from Western colonialism and domination. Military goals of this expansion included naval operations in the Indian Ocean and the isolation of Australia. This would enable the principle of "hakkō ichiu".

This was one of a number of slogans and concepts used in the justification of Japanese aggression in East Asia in the 1930s through the end of World War II. The term "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" is remembered largely as a front for the Japanese control of occupied countries during World War II, in which puppet governments manipulated local populations and economies for the benefit of Imperial Japan.

To combat the protectionist dollar and sterling zones, Japanese economic planners called for a "yen bloc." Japan's experiment with such financial imperialism encompassed both official and semi-official colonies. In the period between 1895 (when Japan annexed Taiwan) and 1937 (the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War), monetary specialists in Tokyo directed and managed programs of coordinated monetary reforms in Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and the peripheral Japanese-controlled islands in the Pacific. These reforms aimed to foster a network of linked political and economic relationships. These efforts foundered in the eventual debacle of the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

The negative connotations that still attach to the term "Greater East Asia" remain one of a number of difficulties facing the annual East Asia Summits, begun in 2005 to discuss the possibility of the establishment of a stronger, more united East Asian Community.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 26, 2014)

When you look at the Bataan death march, and the Siam-Burma railways deaths, usually only the western personnel deaths are given any notice. But every American that died on the Bataan death march, possible as many as 10 Filipinos died.

And the number of deaths on the Siam-Burma railway were similar. !3,000 allied deaths, 80-100,000 Asian civilian deaths.

From the Japanese perspective, the Co-Prosperirty Sphere was their opportunity to plunder Asia, instead of Westerners.

But to non-Japanese Asians, the Co-Prosperity Sphere was a disaster of holocaust proportions.


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 26, 2014)

...and indiscriminate bombings followed. Wake up please. Where was the beginning?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 26, 2014)

I've been on a kick of late reading books on WW2 written by Japanese soldiers and it is quite eye opening as most were no different than their Allied counterparts. There have been 2 pictures posted on this site of grave markers erected by the Japanese for Allied pilots killed in action (in in Alaska and another one on an island in the South Pacific). Yes prisoners were treated unfairly by Western Standards, but in a lot of cases they were treated no worse then the Japanese Soldiers were treated themselves(esp the IJ Army).

After WW1 (as already has been mentioned) the West did not treat the Japanese with the respect of an equal power, even with all the contributions they made to WW1. Then to turn around and be treated the way they were with the Washington Treaty I can fully understand why they were upset, I certainly would have. Nothing like helping people and afterwards are ungrateful.

The Japanese were no different IMO then any of the Western Powers at the time in wanting resources to survive and grow.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 26, 2014)

I think that just about nails it. Conditions in the IJA were extremely harsh, which became even worse as the war progressed. however, that would still fall short of why the japanese behaved at times, so boorishly. Japanese soldiers received indoctrination on the code of the bushido, in which allowing oneself to be captured meant dishonour to oneself, ones family and the community as a whole. if one submitted to your enemy, the prisoner was essentially "owned" by his captoirs. There was no differentiation betwen soldiers or civilians. It was a medieval concept, applied in a modern world, and applied to peasant soldiers with no thorough grounding such as the true samurai of the 17th century had received. So here we have soldiers, not well educated, given a gun, and told they are masters of all that had surrendered or conquered by them, and further, that those people had shamed their lives in so surrendering. 

It has been estimated that between 19,500 and 50,000 Japanese military personnel surrendered to Allied forces prior to the end of the Pacific War in August 1945, of which about 15-30000 were captured by the Australian Army. Only a fraction of those numbers actually made it to a POW camp. An unknown number, but many, are believed to have been summarily executed at the front, for a variety of reasons. The number of Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen who surrendered was limited by the Japanese military indoctrinating its personnel to fight to the death, Allied personnel often being unwilling to take prisoners, and many Japanese soldiers believing that those who surrendered would be killed by their captors.This latter point is significant, because it shows the average Japanese soldier only gave out what he expected to receive himself. 

Western Allied governments and senior military commanders directed that Japanese POWs be treated in accordance with relevant international conventions. In practice though, many front-line soldiers were unwilling to accept the surrender of Japanese personnel due to a combination of racist attitudes and reports of atrocities conducted against Allied troops. A campaign launched in 1944 to encourage prisoner-taking was partially successful, and the number of prisoners taken increased significantly in the last year of the war.

Japanese POWs often believed that by surrendering they had broken all ties with Japan, and many provided military intelligence to the Allies. The prisoners taken by the western Allies were held in generally good conditions in camps located in the Australia, New Zealand, India and the United States. Those taken by the Soviet Union were treated harshly in work camps located in Siberia. Following the war the prisoners were repatriated to Japan, though the United States and Britain retained thousands until 1946 and 1947 respectively and the Soviet Union continued to hold hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs until the early 1950s.


Estimates of the numbers of Japanese personnel taken prisoner at the front during the Pacific War differ. Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata claims that up to 50,000 Japanese became POWs before Japan's surrender. The Japanese Government's wartime POW Information Bureau believed that 42,543 Japanese surrendered during the war (prior to 1945); a figure also used by Niall Ferguson who states that it refers to prisoners taken by United States and Australian forces. Ulrich Straus states that about 35,000 were captured by western Allied and Chinese forces and Alison B. Gilmore has calculated that Allied forces in the South West Pacific Area alone captured at least 19,500 Japanese. Only about half this number turned up in POW camps at the end of the war, so mistreatment is not necessarily a one way street. 


During the war, the Japanese government sought to suppress information about captured personnel. On 27 December 1941, it established a POW Information Bureau within the Ministry of the Army to manage information concerning Japanese POWs. While the Bureau cataloged information provided by the Allies via the Red Cross identifying POWs, it did not pass this information on to the families of the prisoners. When individuals wrote to the Bureau to inquire if their relative had been taken prisoner, it appears that the Bureau provided a reply which neither confirmed or denied whether the man was a prisoner. Although the Bureau's role included facilitating mail between POWs and their families, this was not carried out as the families were not notified and few POWs wrote home. This only added to the misery for the famillies and the POWs alike.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 26, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> I think this thread title had better be changed to 'American Perspective'  but complying with it with my great respects to you VBF-13, a genuine Japanese perspective was, unlike you imagine with my apology, the Pacific Ocean was not their back yard but sacred front yard.
> 
> When armed Americans one day suddenly came in there paying no respects and even killed a number of Filipinos in front of them, no natural threats like the typhoons or earthquakes were bigger than that for the Japanese. They had no choice but expanding their armaments further to confront like "Come on guy. Draw your gun".
> 
> That's it and no way but I don't think the PH attack would have come earlier than the Dec 7 as I know Japanese leaders hesitated another war in Asia until the last moment in the end of October, 1941.　You could see there are same dilemma in China and North Korea today.


OK, good, Shin, I needed to hear that. Can we say that nothing by 1940 could have stopped it? This may sound rather simplistic, but I've actually even heard it proposed, the Japanese military was so geared-up, by that time, it had to pick a fight with somebody. That never really registered with me, though. Just look at what those manufacturers after the war became. Maybe the leaders needed to pick a fight? I could probably agree with that a little more, but as incidental, not as a major cause.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 27, 2014)

parsifal said:


> japans war with China and the West was a war about trade. Basically the japanese wanted most favoured nation status, something the Chinese had given to the wetern european nations under the uneaqual treaties of the 1800s, but not to them. they resented that. And the japanese policy toward China was diametrically opposite to the US Open Door policy toward China.
> 
> Japan observed the deeply racist and white supremacist policies of the west in the Far East and determined that they had to lead asia out of its bondage. They viewed the colonial expansions as a deep affront to emerging Asian identity.
> 
> ...



The racial friction between the US was probably a factor; among other things, during the first few decades of the 20th Century, California (Santa Cruz County History - Santa Cruz Public Libraries) and Washington (Alien Land Law) had laws forbidding Asians from owning land and a there was a federal law rendering Asians ineligible for naturalization. Possibly because of this racism, the US had a much more fraught relationship with regard to Japan in China than it did with any of the European powers. Regardless, when the militarists took charge of Japan, and started assassinating people who argued for restraint (Yamamoto was, supposedly, sent to sea so the extremists wouldn't kill him), they pretty much closed the doors to peace. Right now, we think the ayatollahs in Iran are bad. These guys were probably worse.


----------



## yulzari (Feb 27, 2014)

My understanding of the Japanese perspective is that it regarded itself as being one of the leading powers, having defeated Russia and been an active allied power in WW1. They found no active opposition from their actions in Formosa, Korea and Manchuria and Britain had been courting Japan as a balance against the US navy in the Pacific. By the 1930s Japan thought that they could push expansion further with no more than token complaints. The first shock was that Japanese actions and US pressure left Britian having to choose between Japan and the USA and they chose the USA. Next the realisation that the modern Japanese military relied on oil. Especially the Navy which had little in the way of a strategic reserve. War in Europe and North Africa left British Commonwealth and Dutch forces weakened. Militarists saw this as an opportunity to advance Japanese power. In the background the militarists had sought and gained political power over a civilian government already unhappy with military adventurism ignoring the home government. When the supply of oil was threatened Japan saw itself surrounded and being forced to cease expansion and make concessions. Thus being humiliated by the established powers to whom it felt it deserved to belong. They saw a window of opportunity to strike whilst their enemy was temporarily weakened and humiliate them into a negotiation that would maintain the pre existing Japanese situation.

This is my understanding and I am happy to be corrected.

Incidentally, too much emphasis has been put on the 'Samurai Tradition'. Traditionally (and especially after the matchlock was introduced) the Samurai were a class who were being militarily marginalised by peasant troops quickly trained and armed with guns. The militarists took advantage of the samurai traditions to encourage the common people to identify with them, not their true peasant mass soldiers ancestry. This built up a momentum in the post WW1 society through active propaganda. As an Allied Power in WW1 German soldiers and sailors captured in the far east were treated reasonably well and Russian prisoners in the earlier conflict were not mistreated quite as we saw in WW2. I speak as one whose father dug up the bodies of two Australians in our back garden who had been taken outside and bayonetted for being too noisy and irrespectful so I am not excusing Japanese atrocities. Given the right (wrong) life experiences and teaching any race, nation or group can be induced to behave abominably. Fortunately it is difficult, in the 21st century world, to do so in secret. Sadly (eg Congo) it can still be done.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 27, 2014)

We fight for freedom, we kill for freedom, we die for freedom. Only we don't know it when we have it, we know it when we used to have it, and lost it. So, let's face it. From the standpoint of the precipitating causes for the unilateral aggression that ensued in both the Pacific and European theaters, was this Pacific War really any different than this European War? It wasn't, when you get right down to it. Try to lift a critical thought up off the ground, in either of those two tyrannies, Japan or Germany, you're gone. That's what was at stake. It was the freedom to lift that thought, however critical of government, or otherwise, right up off the ground, and not be punished for it. That's what was being fought for, killed for, and died for. It was antithetical to tyrannies. That's why that aggression couldn't be stopped.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 27, 2014)

There's only one Japanese citizen that post regular on this site, and even his perspective is going to be second hand since I'm pretty sure he's not old enough to have lived during the period. So his impressions will be from talking with some older people that did live in that era, or reading Japanese language writings about the period.

Asking anyone else for the "Japanese" perspective is like asking a man what's it's like to have a baby, from the woman's perspective.


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 27, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> OK, good, Shin, I needed to hear that. Can we say that nothing by 1940 could have stopped it? This may sound rather simplistic, but I've actually even heard it proposed, the Japanese military was so geared-up, by that time, it had to pick a fight with somebody. That never really registered with me, though. Just look at what those manufacturers after the war became. Maybe the leaders needed to pick a fight? I could probably agree with that a little more, but as incidental, not as a major cause.



It is no wonder that the US Government had its own propaganda for the people like you mentioned in above but Japan did not want war with the US when they were busy in China. Here is my summary classified by the event and its year. Sorry to say but, after classification, I was obliged to think that the US did want war with Japan first. 

US Economic Sanctions Blockade against Japan (1937-1941)
==============================================
October, 1937......."Quarantine Speech" by Roosevelt
July, 1939................Notice of discarding US-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation
December, 1939.....Notice of stopping export production facilities of aviation gasoline and rights of its manufacturing technology
January, 1940.........Revocation of US-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation
June, 1940...............Permit system for export of special machine tools and others to Japan.
July, 1940.................'An Act to Expedite the Strengthening of the National Defense' approved by Congress
July, 1940................Export laws for iron and steel scrap and cutting oil to Japan 
August, 1940..........Export licensing system for the petroleum products, mainly aviation gasoline of octane 87 or more, the tetraethyl lead for aviation gasoline as 

additive and the iron scrap
August,1940...........Full embargo of aviation gasoline to countries outside the Western Hemisphere 
September, 1940....Ban on exports of iron and steel scrap
December, 1940......Export licensing system for manufacturing equipments of aviation lubricant plus other 15 items
June, 1941...............Export licensing system for oil
July, 1941.................Freeze Ordinance on Japan's assets in the US 
August, 1941...........Full oil embargo against Japan

Japanese Reaction
==============
January, 1941.........Isoroku Yamamoto ordered his staff to make attack plan on the Pearl Harbor and general plan completed by March.
July 1, 1941.............Japanese Government decided war with the United States and the Great Britain in case future diplomatic negotiation should have failed.
September, 1941....Imperial GHQ began making total attack plan but Yamamoto's plan was disapproved as too risky. 
October, 1941.........His plan approved and formally decided war against US and UK to be carried out in early December if negotiation failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 27, 2014)

As far as I can see and have seen in my life time countries decide to go to war and then make the "facts" fit the criteria they want. GB declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, why not after Czechoslovakia or the Rhineland.


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 27, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> There's only one Japanese citizen that post regular on this site, and even his perspective is going to be second hand since I'm pretty sure he's not old enough to have lived during the period. So his impressions will be from talking with some older people that did live in that era, or reading Japanese language writings about the period.
> 
> Asking anyone else for the "Japanese" perspective is like asking a man what's it's like to have a baby, from the woman's perspective.




Sorry tyrodtom if you have had wrong feeling.

I am a simple man.
My father's last words to me was "Contribute to your country".
I have my own country but that is not the United States.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 27, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> There's only one Japanese citizen that post regular on this site, and even his perspective is going to be second hand since I'm pretty sure he's not old enough to have lived during the period. So his impressions will be from talking with some older people that did live in that era, or reading Japanese language writings about the period.
> 
> Asking anyone else for the "Japanese" perspective is like asking a man what's it's like to have a baby, from the woman's perspective.



That is true but any Brit can post about the British perspective any North American can post about the USA or Canadian perspective and any Aussie or New Zealander can post about their perspective why is a Japanese posters perspective somehow invalid. Personally I find it interesting, it is clear from Shipachis posts that Japan and the USA and UK were sliding into war long before Pearl Harbour, just as Europe was prior to the invasion of Poland.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2014)

pbehn said:


> As far as I can see and have seen in my life time countries decide to go to war and then make the "facts" fit the criteria they want. GB declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, why not after Czechoslovakia or the Rhineland.



Because the situation was not in British interests to do so. We lacked the strength and the will to go to war at those earlier times, and we still trusted Hitler as an honourable man. After the debacle of the Czech crisis, we trusted him no more and knew that war was inevitable. Britsih are a bit funny like that. they tend to give people the full benefit of the doubt, until that person is caught out, red handed, lying to us. Then we tend to become a little intransigent and obstinate. Something about the British the Germans never quite understood.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Sorry tyrodtom if you have had wrong feeling.
> 
> I am a simple man.
> My father's last words to me was "Contribute to your country".
> I have my own country but that is not the United States.



There are lot of latent prejudices Shin, you need to understand that. People do not mean ill will to you or Japane over this. You need to rememeber that us older guyus have been brought on an anti-japanese diet for a long time. Be patient, you are doing good, is my advice


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 27, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> There's only one Japanese citizen that post regular on this site, and even his perspective is going to be second hand since I'm pretty sure he's not old enough to have lived during the period. So his impressions will be from talking with some older people that did live in that era, or reading Japanese language writings about the period.
> 
> Asking anyone else for the "Japanese" perspective is like asking a man what's it's like to have a baby, from the woman's perspective.


Actually, there's several, though they've been quiet since the recent earthquake/tsunami.

Shinpachi has had the opportunity to live among Japanese WWII veterans and hear first-hand accounts just as most of us in the west have had to opportunity to hear first-hand accounts from Allied veterans (and western Axis veterans). He has shared many first-hand accounts with us that would have otherwise been missed.

And I would certainly trust Shinpachi's contributions as being alot closer to the source than otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 27, 2014)

pbehn said:


> That is true but any Brit can post about the British perspective any North American can post about the USA or Canadian perspective and any Aussie or New Zealander can post about their perspective why is a Japanese posters perspective somehow invalid. Personally I find it interesting, it is clear from Shipachis posts that Japan and the USA and UK were sliding into war long before Pearl Harbour, just as Europe was prior to the invasion of Poland.



You totally misunderstood my post, if you think I'm implying Shinpachi's perspective was invalid.

What I'm saying is Shinpachi's perspective IS valid. He lives in Japan, grew up in Japan, reads Japanese, and possible has talked to many Japanese who lived thru the WW2 era. 

How many others on this forum has the same qualifications ? 

I was born in 1947, but my Dad, and many uncles fought ( 3 died) as well as many other people in my growing up years were veterans.
We even had a German refugee living in my home and next door from 1939-51. My older sister Leyetta is named after her.

Though my perspective may be very close, it's still second hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 27, 2014)

The problem is there is no single perspective to be captured. We can understand the position of the political leadership in part from the collection of conferences compiled by Nobutaka Ike in his "Japan's Decision for War" but that only covers 1941. As has been pointed out, other views were repressed at the time. We can capture hundreds of individual perspectives from those who were there at the time but it will still be just a drop in the ocean as a percentage of total population. Often, average people caught up in momentous events are too close to the action to gain a broader appreciation for the causal factors and drivers that led to specific decisions.

I think we all benefit from _trying _to look at the onset of the war in the Far East from a Japanese perspective. We come from all sorts of backgrounds but that doesn't prevent us from recognizing mis-steps by the Western nations that contributed to the war in the Far East. Many on this forum are willing to put the German perspective of WWII although few posters are German and even fewer (probably none) lived through it. Why should we treat Japan any different? So long as people are respectful, we can all learn by trying to look at any problem from alternate perspectives.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 27, 2014)

Well said my friend, well said.

-------------------------------------------------

I have to say most of the items Shinpachi listed I'd never heard before. Really I only have heard about the oil and scrap metal so this is very interesting to me.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 27, 2014)

I grew up hearing the accounts first hand from those who were there. But the interesting point is _what_ I heard.

One Uncle held absolutely no appreciation for the Japanese at all. He carried this attitude from his first battles in the Solomons all the way to his grave. My other Uncle (as well as my Great Uncle) held no grudge against them at all and never had anything unkind to say about the Japanese people in general.

Two very different (and emotional) perspectives on the same subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Because the situation was not in British interests to do so. We lacked the strength and the will to go to war at those earlier times, and we still trusted Hitler as an honourable man. After the debacle of the Czech crisis, we trusted him no more and knew that war was inevitable. Britsih are a bit funny like that. they tend to give people the full benefit of the doubt, until that person is caught out, red handed, lying to us. Then we tend to become a little intransigent and obstinate. Something about the British the Germans never quite understood.


There are many facets to the discussion, Chamberlain was vilified for his "peace in our time speech and his worthless piece of paper, but what other choice did he have. If any one in Britain had really believed we had peace in our time then we wouldn't have wasted time and money building spitfires and hurricanes. The traditional "British perspective" on the build up to WW" is not quite the way it happened. At the time there were more pacifists appeasers and defeatists than the British would like to admit. Similarly from Shinpachis posts Japan was being pushed down the road to war and there were those in Japan who felt war would bring disaster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 28, 2014)

Thank you very much my friends for so many warm words.
I will take care and try to be more polite especially for seniors anyway.
Thanks tyrodtom for your generosity 

Imperial Japanese Army also began study for the military operation in the tropic area like Malay from January to June, 1941.
They printed 400,000 copies of combat manual to hand soldiers when they got aboard the transport crafts.


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 28, 2014)

Seeing from today's Japanese eye, this is a very shameful message from Japanese Embassy in US to the US government.
This could have been a good lesson for us.

******************************************

The Japanese Embassy to the Department of State Protesting the Ban on Exports of Iron and Steel Scrap, October 7, 1940

No. 235

The Japanese Government has taken note of the regulations governing the exportation of iron and steel scrap, dated September 30, 1940, amending the construction and definition of the term "iron and steel scrap" included in the regulations of July 26, 1940, and the announcement of September 26, 1940 to the effect that, under the new regulations, licenses will be issued to permit shipments to the countries of the Western Hemisphere and Great Britain only.

The above-mentioned regulations refer to the Presidential authority derived from the provisions of section 6 of the Act of Congress approved July 2, 1940, entitled "An Act to expedite the strengthening of the national defense", thereby suggesting that it was determined to be necessary in the interest of national defense to curtail the exportation of iron and steel scrap.

In view iron the situation of iron and steel scrap markets, the supply and demand of these materials and the volume shipped to Japan, the Japanese Government finds it difficult to concede that this measure was motivated solely by the interest of national defense of the United States.

In the note of the Japanese Ambassador of August 3 the Japanese Government pointed out that the measure announced on July 26, 1940, in regard to the exportation of aviation gasoline, was tantamount to an export embargo as far as countries outside the Western Hemisphere were concerned. Compared to that announcement, the announcement under review may be said to have gone a step further toward discrimination by specifically excluding Great Britain from the virtual embargo.

In view of the fact that Japan has been for some years the principal buyer of American iron and steel scrap, the announcement of the administrative policy, as well as the regulations establishing license system in iron and steel scrap cannot fail to be regarded as directed against Japan, and, as such, to be an unfriendly act.

The Japanese Government hereby protests against the measures taken by the United States Government in connection with the exportation of iron and steel scrap.

Source: U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941 (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943), p. 578


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 28, 2014)

From the Japanese perspective they wanted to compete with the western powers and expected them to continue selling them the materials and fuel to do it, or at least continue to supply them until Japan was able to seize those resources for themselves.

From the American perspective, that was a unrealistic perspective.


----------



## razor1uk (Feb 28, 2014)

Perhaps, well in my view; 

...though I think that the Control Clique's assination of the PM in '31 (or '32) that paved the way for the military to coerce and bully the imperial house(s) civilian government towards the cliques goals of acting like the rest of the big 5 naval/military members did in there expansionist, arrogant superior-race/colour-ness with those outside the club that Japan was admitted into following the Battle of Tsukashima/Port Arthur.

The West then prior to the 1990's was still quite racist/supremacist/super-nationalist, some developed nations still are too, say in their less travelled and lesser schooled areas, and things were much more blatant and worse that-wise back then before during WW2.

The Japanese, ignoring for the argument those killed in less than glorious circumstances, were the last 'power' to be admitted to the naval club, and they felt naturally somewhat theat they should have the same rights as they other members enjoyed, but being a new member, and too some, being a different colour, culture Pacific rival meant they to stay in the club they bled their forces to get into, they had to accept a lower status that would seem racist to them.

No wonder in some part perhaps that some horrible things happened as a collective knee jerk and stand against those whome were related to or part those who imposed the naval treaties and taught them how to be so racist, but not so racist enough to send all of a group of male genital mutilation obsessed religous persons to holding/prison/death camps whom were living within Japan, even against the wishes of the farting corporals regime ambassadors - although for those jewish living in Japan, they didn't have it easy during the war, they had it easier than the interred Japanese Americans did.

They from the western view, were that last power trying to be imperialist to get there hand caught in th trap, the trap of being spotted last, and so have been sometimes truthfully, sometimes politcally painted as the 'evil' ones, but that just means the west are just as bad, if not more so for getting away with it and passing it off as someone elses cause effect.

I am frequently wrong and often on the unliked/non-sheep side of discussions, but I don't mean this as an apology or a denial of events that did happen, but as another aspect of history to be taken into account; I abhore revisionism revisionists. History is never just one side or the other, it has many facets like the compound eye of an insect that must be acknowledged to get closer to an accurate truth than the stereotypically marketed/accepted political, social nationally adhered-to truth.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 28, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> It is no wonder that the US Government had its own propaganda for the people like you mentioned in above but Japan did not want war with the US when they were busy in China. Here is my summary classified by the event and its year. Sorry to say but, after classification, I was obliged to think that *the US did want war with Japan first*.



From Wikipedia:

"_On *September 18, 1931*, a small quantity of dynamite was detonated by Lt. Kawamoto Suemori[4] close to a railway line owned by Japan's South Manchuria Railway near Mukden (now Shenyang).[5] Although the explosion was so weak that it failed to destroy the track and a train passed over it minutes later, the Imperial Japanese Army, accusing Chinese dissidents of the act, responded with a full invasion that led to the occupation of Manchuria, in which Japan established its puppet state of Manchukuo six months later.* The ruse was soon exposed to the international community, leading Japan to diplomatic isolation and its March 1933 withdrawal from the League of Nations.*_"

"_The Second Sino-Japanese War (*July 7, 1937* – September 9, 1945) (called so after the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95) was a military conflict fought primarily between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan from 1937 to 1941. *China fought Japan with some economic help from Germany*, the Soviet Union and the United States. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the war merged into the greater conflict of World War II as a major front of what is broadly known as the Pacific War. The Second Sino-Japanese War was the largest Asian war in the 20th century.[8] It [is reputed to have] made up more than 50% of the casualties in the Pacific War if the 1937–1941 period is taken into account_.

_The war was the result of a decades-long Japanese imperialist policy aiming to dominate China politically and militarily and to secure its vast raw material reserves and other economic resources, particularly food and labour. Before 1937, China and Japan fought in small, localized engagements, so-called "incidents". *In 1931, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria* by Japan's Kwantung Army followed the *Mukden Incident*. The last of these incidents was the *Marco Polo Bridge Incident of 1937*, marking the beginning of total war between the two countries.
Initially the Japanese scored major victories in Shanghai after heavy fighting._ 



Shinpachi said:


> US Economic Sanctions Blockade against Japan (1937-1941)
> ==============================================



October, 1937......."Quarantine Speech" by Roosevelt

From wikipedia:

"_The Quarantine Speech was given by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on October 5, 1937 in Chicago, calling for an international "quarantine of the aggressor nations" as an alternative to the political climate of American neutrality and non-intervention that was prevalent at the time. The speech intensified America's isolationist mood, causing protest by non-interventionists and foes to intervene. No countries were directly mentioned in the speech, although it was interpreted as referring to *Japan*, *Italy*, and *Germany*.[1] Roosevelt suggested the use of economic pressure, a forceful response, but less direct than outright aggression._"

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

"_By the end of 1937 captured the Chinese capital of Nanking. After failing to stop the Japanese in Wuhan, the Chinese central government was relocated to Chongqing in the Chinese interior. By 1939 the war had reached stalemate after Chinese victories in Changsha and Guangxi. The Japanese were also unable to defeat the Chinese communist forces in Shaanxi, which performed harassment and sabotage operations against the Japanese using guerrilla warfare tactics. 
In August 1937, the Japanese army invaded Shanghai where they met strong resistance and suffered heavy casualties. The battle was bloody as both sides faced attrition in urban hand-to-hand combat. By mid-November the Japanese had captured Shanghai with the help of naval bombardment. The General Staff Headquarters in Tokyo initially decided not to expand the war due to heavy casualties and low morale of the troops. 

However, on December 1, headquarters ordered the Central China Area Army and the 10th Army to capture Nanking, then-capital of the Republic of China._"

The USN Gunboat Panay is sunk by IJN aircraft on December 12, 1937.

Nanking Massacre begins as the sack of the city on or about December 13, 1937. 



Shinpachi said:


> July, 1939................Notice of discarding US-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation



It seems to me that the Russo Japanese war (1905) set up both the eventual large conflict with the West in at least a couple of ways. Newly modern Japan in its first confrontation with European imperial ambitions was wildly successful and opened the path that allowed the annexation of Korea and prompted certain military extremists to promote conquest as a legitimate means of national expansion. Subordinate commanders (or perhaps I should say, insubordinate commanders) acted independently and used their troops, stationed on the Korean-Manchurian border to invade and subsequently annex the Chinese province. 

This whole scenario is disputed by both sides: from wikipedia: Mukden Incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"_Different opinions still exist as to who blew up the Japanese railroad at Mukden. Strong evidence points to young officers of the Japanese Kwantung Army having conspired to cause the blast, with or without direct orders from Tokyo. Post-war investigations confirmed that the original bomb planted by the Japanese failed to explode, and a replacement had to be planted. The resulting explosion enabled the Japanese Kwantung Army to accomplish their goal of triggering a conflict with Chinese troops stationed in Manchuria and the subsequent establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo.

The 9.18 Incident Exhibition Museum at Shenyang, opened by the People's Republic of China on September 18, 1991, takes the position that the explosives were planted by Japan. However, the Yūshūkan museum, located within Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, places the blame on Chinese militias.

David Bergamini's book Japan's Imperial Conspiracy (1971) has a detailed chronology of events in both Manchuria and Tokyo surrounding the Mukden Incident. Bergamini concludes that the greatest deception was that the Mukden Incident and Japanese invasion were planned by junior or hot-headed officers, without formal approval by the Japanese government. However, historian James Weland has concluded that *senior commanders had tacitly allowed field operatives to proceed on their own initiative, then endorsed the result after a positive outcome was assured.*[14]

In *August 2006*, the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan's top-selling newspaper, published the results of a year-long research project into the general question of who is responsible for the "Showa war". With respect to the Manchurian Incident, the newspaper blamed ambitious Japanese militarists, as well as politicians who were impotent to rein them in or prevent their insubordination.[15][16]

Debate has also focused on how the incident was handled by the League of Nations and the subsequent Lytton Report. A.J.P. Taylor wrote that "In the face of its first serious challenge," the League buckled and capitulated. The Washington Naval Conference (1921) guaranteed a certain degree of Japanese hegemony in the Far East. Any intervention on the part of America would be a breach of the already mentioned agreement. Furthermore, Britain was in crisis, having been recently forced off the gold standard. Although a power in the Far East, Britain was incapable of decisive action. *The only response from these powers was "moral condemnation".*_" 

Shin, Please understand, the point I am trying to make is not to discredit anything you've said but rather to give some depth and to suggest that a statement that "the US wanted war with Japan" is a simplification of complex series of events that predate FDR's speech in 1937 or the embargoes of 1940. Those elements of each nation that saw war as inevitable were assisted by events. Those that desired peace were overwhelmed by events.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 28, 2014)

razor1uk said:


> They from the western view, were that last power trying to be imperialist to get there hand caught in th trap, the trap of being spotted last, and so have been sometimes truthfully, sometimes politcally painted as the 'evil' ones, but that just means the west are just as bad, if not more so for getting away with it and passing it off as someone elses cause effect.
> 
> I am frequently wrong and often on the unliked/non-sheep side of discussions, but I don't mean this as an apology or a denial of events that did happen, but as another aspect of history to be taken into account; I abhore revisionism revisionists. *History is never just one side or the other, it has many facets like the compound eye of an insect that must be acknowledged to get closer to an accurate truth than the stereotypically marketed/accepted political, social nationally adhered-to truth.*



Amen brother...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 28, 2014)

"...It seems to me that the Russo Japanese war (1905) set up both the eventual large conflict with the West in at least a couple of ways. Newly modern Japan in its first confrontation with European imperial ambitions was _wildly successful_ and opened the path that allowed the annexation of Korea and prompted certain military extremists to promote conquest as a legitimate means of national expansion..."

The Japanese out-fighting the Russians was a geo-political tsunami in the Caucasian western world .... even an internationalist (Red) like Jack London was dumbfounded that an Asian nation had so clearly mastered the white man's warfare.

But the other lesson the Japanese took from this important war was the Peace process ... in Portsmouth MA. The courtly Russians courted the peace makers and the Japanese were left feeling they had won the war but lost the peace .... not a great future motivator for international behavior.

The lessons from Japan are similar (but with racial overtones) to those of unified Germany ..... it's all about territory and markets ... and the incumbents don't like to be challenged. These contests play out in the wild naturally ... but the consequences aren't as grave as world warfare. The world has to learn accommodation ....  .... and not what is Politically Correct 'accommodation' ....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 1, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Seeing from today's Japanese eye, this is a very shameful message from Japanese Embassy in US to the US government.
> This could have been a good lesson for us.
> ******************************************
> 
> ...


I suppose I can see that, casting the policy off as *discrimination*, and not related to *national defense*.


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 1, 2014)

Thank you VBF-13. I have had a good chance to understand American perspective better with you all so knowledgeable gents.

A few years ago, I also had a chance to know what it was well in Manchukuo between 1935 and 1945 from an elderly lady, born in 1920. She used to live in Changchun and now lives in my town Osaka. She said "Manchukuo was a westernised advanced, beautiful and fertility country. Japan had no worry of starvation with it".

Photo: The lady explaining me details with the old Changchun replica map.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 1, 2014)

Shin, what a nice experience for you!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 1, 2014)

I saw this episode of the old (1973-74) British documentary *World at War* tonight (it's running now at 8:30 PM US East Coast time. ) It is episode 6 entitled "*Banzai*" of the series and covers the period 1931 thru early 1942 in the Pacific and features interesting interviews with IJN Naval Aviators Minoru Genda and Mitsuo Fuchida among many other officials, those of both East and West. It is certainly a Western-slanted view of events in some of the language used but with that caveat it is more balanced than one might expect. For example, it suggests a lack of sincerity on both sides regarding late-1941 peace initiatives. One might even interpret the dialogue to suggest that the Japanese were more hopeful of peace in Late 1941 than the USA.



Even nearly 30 years afterward, the presentation certainly echoes in its retrospective look, the shock of the West at the succession of crushing defeats inflicted on the allies in the first months of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 1, 2014)

I think there were multiple Japanese perspectives; one of these was the perspective of the ultra-nationalists under the Showa Imperiate. The ultra-nationalists were not entirely rational, and would find threats and insults in a change in the number of sunspots.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 2, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> I think there were multiple Japanese perspectives; one of these was the perspective of the ultra-nationalists under the Showa Imperiate. The ultra-nationalists were not entirely rational, and would find threats and insults in a change in the number of sunspots.



Couldnt agree more, however, i would make one cautionary response to this. what I would be looking for is the national mood.....the attitudfe of the Japanese people. whilst there are indeed a multitude of different vie2s and perspectives, there was only one tht stood in the majority. Trying to fathom what that majority view was is not so easy. To what extent did the Japanese government impose its will on its own people, or was the government or official stance on various issues an accurate refelection of the wishes of the Japanese people?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 2, 2014)

"....To what extent did the Japanese government impose its will on its own people, or was the government or official stance on various issues an accurate refelection of the wishes of the Japanese people?"

A valid question ... for which I'm not sure there is a clear answer .... but, consider the suffering the Japanese civilian population undertook stoically ... this is some measure of the national will ... just as the response of Londoners to the Blitz (_no_ comparison of scale intended, here) ... is taken as a positive measure of Britain's resolution. Or Leningraders resisting the siege. 

Is it wrong to assume that the average Japanese, in 1941, would have been happy to win the war ...?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 2, 2014)

michaelmaltby said:


> "....To what extent did the Japanese government impose its will on its own people, or was the government or official stance on various issues an accurate refelection of the wishes of the Japanese people?"
> 
> A valid question ... for which I'm not sure there is a clear answer .... but, consider the suffering the Japanese civilian population undertook stoically ... this is some measure of the national will ... just as the response of Londoners to the Blitz (_no_ comparison of scale intended, here) ... is taken as a positive measure of Britain's resolution. Or Leningraders resisting the siege.
> 
> Is it wrong to assume that the average Japanese, in 1941, would have been happy to win the war ...?



Whenever a nation is under threat, they will tend to close ranks and try to reject the outsider. A more recent example of that is the Second Gulf War, where Iraq was invaded and the predictions (usually by hawkish neocons) was that the Iraqi people would strew roses, vs IEDs in the path of US forces. 

As to whether the aggressive actions of the Japanese government which led to war with the US were an accurate reflection of the desires of the people of Japan, that's certainly indeterminate. One must remember, though, that Japan did not have a free press and did have a "Peace Preservation Law" (Peace Preservation Law) which made any criticism of a policy approved, even tacitly, by the emperor to be a crime. So, when the Japanese Emperor named an aggressively expansionist person to the premiership, criticizing the premier was indirect criticism of the emperor, therefore a crime. Indeed, there was a specific police agency, the Tokko, to enforce the Peace Preservation Law. It certainly did not help that the Japanese constitution required the Ministers of the Navy and of War to be serving military officers: it gave the admirals and generals entirely too much control over the government, as no government could be formed without filling those two cabinet posts.


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 2, 2014)

No nation has a really true free press, as their are always people and their personalities involved in the media gathering inforning process, certainly the closer to governmental requirements/restrictiond, pressures of public-opinion marketeers-investors etc means there is always less freedom. But few seem to realise or care about this. Mmm 'Congressionals' anyone?

Anyway, back to the topic...


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 2, 2014)

I agree with MM. That war was a Jihad for the Japanese.
A former Japanese leader, if not Hideki Tojo, said after the war "We certainly imposed patriotism on the people to let them obey but their approval was far stronger than we had expected. We leaders were unable to step back any more".


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 2, 2014)

razor1uk said:


> No nation has a really true free press, as their are always people and their personalities involved in the media gathering inforning process, certainly the closer to governmental requirements/restrictiond, pressures of public-opinion marketeers-investors etc means there is always less freedom. But few seem to realise or care about this. Mmm 'Congressionals' anyone?
> 
> Anyway, back to the topic...



Avoiding a derail ... always difficult. In the pre-ww2 UK and US, it's unlikely that an editorial opposing the government's action would result in arrest and imprisonment; with the increasingly restricted ownership of the media, the press is probably controlled by far fewer people now than in the 1930s, when just about every city of any size in the US had two or more independently owned newspapers.

Before WW2, there were precious few countries which had reasonably good democratic credentials: the US, the white Commonwealth countries (probably excluding South Africa), France, and maybe as many as a dozen more.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 2, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> Whenever a nation is under threat, they will tend to close ranks and try to reject the outsider. A more recent example of that is the Second Gulf War, where Iraq was invaded and the predictions (usually by hawkish neocons) was that the Iraqi people would strew roses, vs IEDs in the path of US forces.


Actually, the Iraqi citizens were happy to be free of Hussein's long and painful oppression. The Iraqi people themselves weren't any more trouble than the Japanese citizens or the German citizens post-war.

Unlike the post-war occupation of Japan or Germany, however, is that sectarian violence broke out with an insurgency whose ranks were swelled by, and composed mostly of, foreign fighters.

So the "neocon" (as you put it) assertion that the Iraqi civilian population would welcome the "invaders" was actually correct. Just as MacArther had predicted that the Japanese civilian population would be civil and orderly post-war, and they were.


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 5, 2014)

Please let me leave the following report to understand the mutual perspectives better.

*****************************************************************************************************

Confidential Extra
Date: September 13, 1945
To: Interior Minister Iwao Yamazaki
From: Governor of Kanagawa Prefecture Takao Fujiwara

Subject: The matter on the behavior of an interpreter for the Allied
Interpreter: Kiyoshi Nagai
Status: The 5th factory's Supervisor of Mitutoyo Manufacture
160 Mizonokuchi, Kawasaki City


The above mentioned man was engaged as an interpreter at Takatsu Police Station of the prefecture on the 2nd of this month and attended Lt Col Mabie of the 511th Parachute Infantry of 11th Airborne Division of the 8th U.S. Army from the 3rd to the 8th. As he left his note in the station regarding conversation with Lt Col Mabie and other U.S. Army officers during the period, I humbly report for Your Excellency's references herewith.

Note
====

U.S. officer
Currently, U.S. Army sees all Japanese people militarists. A typical person among them is Mitsuru Toyama (*1855-1944) of Black Dragon Society. Where is he now?

Nagai
He already died.

U.S. officer
Who succeeded him?

Nagai
I don't know.

U.S. officer
We must eliminate all military personnel from Japan anyway. Japanese grudge against the United States will not go away unless we correct the people's idea like His Majesty is God which has been fostered for many years. 

Nagai
I understand that is your thought. Please let me explain our thought too. We believe Japanese are made up of a large family holding His Majesty its head and his family is also the head family to worship His Majesty as God naturally. Japanese people worship the nature and the nature is our religion. Because of this religion, once the cease-fire order has been issued by His Majesty, we comply with it even when we are ready to fight for more two or three years. Now that your occupation resulted in success with few troubles, please be aware that disorder would be inevitable absolutely if you should destroy what we hold in reverence. Our religion is different from yours but your occupation this time succeeded due to this religion. If you should annihilate it, communists will try to control this country and you are to see more extreme communits here than in Russia. Is not it the United States that holds the most wealth in the world and may suffer the maximum damage from our disorder?

One bigoted officer did not agree with above explanation but all others. "Nagai says it's religion. It's thankful our occupation completed in peace no matter what religion it may be, isn't it? " They concluded the present Japanese family national polity religion had better be left as it was.

U.S. officer
What we wonder and feel weird is why Japanese who fought bravely has allowed such a peaceful occupation like this.

Nagai
You wonder because you see only the half side of Japanese Bushido. In Bushido, we fight bravely when we have to fight but accept defeat frankly when lost.
This is Bushido little known to you.

U.S. officer
We U.S. Army makes any country we go better. 

Nagai
It is easy to be idealistic after victory but harder not to lose the gentlemanly attitude after defeat. I hope you understand this and correspond to Japanese with justice.

U.S. officer
We paratroopers had 3,000 at first but it's 200 now. We pledged vengeance in their homeland but now we see Japanese who are totally different from those we saw in the battlefields. In their obedience, We are surprised how peaceful they are!

Nagai
That is because your goverment taught its people 'Japanese are a brutal race' in order to lift hostility and they believed it. Japanese are originally a gentle people.

U.S. officer
We want to meet with Tokyo Rose by all means as we were comforted a lot by her. Where is she?

Nagai
I do not know Tokyo Rose who.

U.S. officer
Japanese are cruel to the prisoners of war. Death March by General Yamashita is famous. Japan owes resentments to the United States and Britain.
It is telling how Japanese abused them that a man of as heavy as 200 pounds has lost his weight to 100 pounds.

Nagai
It is unbelievable for me that Japanese abused prisoners. Was there anyone who hit even a pebble against them during march?
Generally, Japan is in lack of food, especially meat. Even milk was not available. Prisoners could have received ration as much as we civilians did.
It is no wonder that they who had good nutrition till then lost weight when even most of Japanese were losing 50 to 100 pounds.

U.S. officer
That may be so.

U.S. officer
We are unable to request you the comfort recreational facilities for us. That is because our ladies in back home are squeamish.
Black soldiers are realists. If you are willing to provide us with these facilities, our MPs are ready to cooperate, if necessary, to prevent troubles there.
Occupation period by our army will be 3 years at longest if no accidents but may be 10 or 15 years if accidents should happen.


**************************************************************************************************

Original data source writen in Japanese: Foreign Affairs Confidential Extra edition relating to the speech and behavior of interpreters to Allied Forces
[Hierarchy]National Archives of Japan＞Public Records Restituted from the United States＞Public Records Restituted from the United States (Records of the former Ministry of the Interior)＞Public Records Restituted from the United States No.2＞Foreign Affairs Confidential Extra edition relating to the speech and behavior of interpreters to Allied Forces
[Reference Code]A07040002300[Total of Image]5 

Japan Center for Asian Historical Records

English translation by Shinpachi.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 5, 2014)

That was very interesting, thanks Shinpachi!

I have to agree the occupation from what I have read was peaceful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 5, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Now that your occupation resulted in success with few troubles, please be aware that disorder would be inevitable absolutely if you should destroy what we hold in reverence. Our religion is different from yours but your occupation this time succeeded due to this religion. If you should annihilate it, communists will try to control this country and you are to see more extreme communits here than in Russia. Is not it the United States that holds the most wealth in the world and may suffer the maximum damage from our disorder?


This is revealing even today in societies that lose their religion. I'm not making a value judgment. I'm just saying, it's pretty much a fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 5, 2014)

Thank you very much for your nice reading, David and VBF-13.
My three days for translation is now rewarded

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 6, 2014)

I've been going through this thread really trying at bottom to determine whether I think this war in the Pacific could have been prevented. I'm seeing deeply-rooted Japanese imperatives and the aggression culminating on December 7, 1941 as really just an inevitable consequence of those deeply-rooted imperatives. I'm seeing more, now, however. For example, would the U.S. have really placed Japan on an equal footing with its Western European allies in that region for the treasures and wealth in that region? I don't know that we would have. Could Japan have known that? Yes, I think it very well could have. That throws some of the blame for the aggression on December 7, 1941 off on our policy towards Japan. If we were treating Japan as a second-class nation in that region, that would explain that aggression, I'd think. What do you all think of that?


----------



## parsifal (Mar 6, 2014)

put simply, how many sides do you need to make war. at least two.

another way of putting it is to quote biblical..."let he who is without blame cast the first stone" Truth is, the pacific was unlike the European war. There was a element of shared blame stretching back nearly 100 years. I firmly believe that the immediate causes of the war were all from the japanese...by the mid 30's they had bad intent toward their neighbours and progressed that to its inevitable conclusion. but in the longer view, they were dealing with an unequal playing field by people (us) that intended no good toward them.


So who caused it? we all did I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 7, 2014)

parsifal said:


> put simply, how many sides do you need to make war. at least two.
> 
> another way of putting it is to quote biblical..."let he who is without blame cast the first stone" Truth is, the pacific was unlike the European war. There was a element of shared blame stretching back nearly 100 years. I firmly believe that the immediate causes of the war were all from the japanese...by the mid 30's they had bad intent toward their neighbours and progressed that to its inevitable conclusion. but in the longer view, they were dealing with an unequal playing field by people (us) that intended no good toward them.
> 
> ...


I guess that's what I'm seeing, now, Parsifal. This was a productive thread for that, too, at least, from my point of view. Basically, when you dig a little, this confrontation was inevitable. I started out trying to see the provocations on the Japanese side a little clearer. Perhaps by 1941 the conflicts in the policies towards each nation were too entrenched to unravel. Simply put, I think Japan saw itself as a second-class nation in that region being crowded out by the U.S. and the Western European powers, and, probably, rightfully so, there was probably a lot of truth in that. They struck first, because, well, why not? They were going nowhere with that bunch quick.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 7, 2014)

That's true guys, that and they had a history of being more successful from the ambush and surprise attack methods - to be fair they knew it as much as the US did.
In my opinion, to swing public opinion into allowing War, the American politico's and military hawks repressed some known info from the public to allow the 'back-lash' that unlock that manpower, the isolationist minds and the capitol purse strings - though any paperwork, if there was any, relating to that alleged incident would have been lost/destroyed to protect the 'patriotic' from morale collapse and wanting a new revolution.

Those who end up believing their own propaganda are inevitably doomed to fail when the illusion shatters, or at leasts a massive face palm to foot insert as$ in mouth event.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 10, 2014)

The Royal Navy certainly felt uncomfortable about abandoning their allies the Imperial Japanese Navy in the later 1920's but Japan was not making friends at the time. Even the Germans were arming the Chinese well into the 1930's.

Whatever the moral issues, I strongly suspect that Japan would still control Korea and Manchuria had they drawn in their horns when meeting criticism for extending their adventures deeper into China and not gone on to begin a Pacific war. No further Chinese adventures probably means a Nationalist victory in China over the Communists and China using Japan as an ally to deter the Russians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Mar 10, 2014)

Thanks for that translation Shinpachi. 
I was intrigued by the story. How much are these views from mr. Nagai still valid today? Have the sentiments changed much since then?


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 10, 2014)

No one believes His Majesty is God any more but pays respects as a descendant of nation founders.
Japanese people's perspective for His Majesty today is defined in the Constitution of Japan issued on November 3, 1946 as follows and that is not different from public awareness.


Chapter I. The Emperor
=================
Article 1. The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.

Article 2. The Imperial Throne shall be dynastic and succeeded to in accordance with the Imperial House Law passed by the Diet.

Article 3. The advice and approval of the Cabinet shall be required for all acts of the Emperor in matters of state, and the Cabinet shall be responsible therefor.

Article 4. The Emperor shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government.
(2) The Emperor may delegate the performance of his acts in matters of state as may be provided by law.

Article 5. When, in accordance with the Imperial House Law, a Regency is established, the Regent shall perform his acts in matters of state in the Emperor's name. In this case, paragraph one of the preceding article will be applicable.

Article 6. The Emperor shall appoint the Prime Minister as designated by the Diet.
(2) The Emperor shall appoint the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court as designated by the Cabinet.

Article 7. The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state on behalf of the people: 
1.Promulgation of amendments of the constitution, laws, cabinet orders and treaties.
2.Convocation of the Diet.
3.Dissolution of the House of Representatives.
4.Proclamation of general election of members of the Diet.
5.Attestation of the appointment and dismissal of Ministers of State and other officials as provided for by law, and of full powers and credentials of Ambassadors and Ministers.
6.Attestation of general and special amnesty, commutation of punishment, reprieve, and restoration of rights.
7.Awarding of honors.
8.Attestation of instruments of ratification and other diplomatic documents as provided for by law.
9.Receiving foreign ambassadors and ministers.
10.Performance of ceremonial functions.

Article 8. No property can be given to, or received by, the Imperial House, nor can any gifts be made therefrom, without the authorization of the Diet.

********************************************************************************
Data source


----------



## parsifal (Mar 10, 2014)

yulzari said:


> Whatever the moral issues, I strongly suspect that Japan would still control Korea and Manchuria had they drawn in their horns when meeting criticism for extending their adventures deeper into China and not gone on to begin a Pacific war. No further Chinese adventures probably means a Nationalist victory in China over the Communists and China using Japan as an ally to deter the Russians.



Japan is generally credited with awakening asian nationalism, that has led to independance throughout the far east. without that latent japanese "liberation" such movements would have had a far harder time achieving independance. it was an inevitable movement (asian nationalism) but it would have been slower, more painful, without the Japanese. Not that they really had that intent....but because they stood up for a short while, they gave a lead to other people to also seek their freedom.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 11, 2014)

Thanks parsifal for taking the other side of the war favorably.

Sorry for my off-topic but what I can not understand well is the communists who took power in China behaves as if the winner of ww2.
Were they supported by the Allied too? I don't think so, though.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 11, 2014)

There was some sort of American mission in late '44, but I dont know much beyond that


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 11, 2014)

Thanks.


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 12, 2014)

The PRC acts like that in my mind, to hide its own guilt to its exterminating so many of its own followers along with those deemed traitors, intellectuals and agitators etc - blaming others more than facts would allow, because it cannot judge itself to risk a peoples backlash - they have a severe aggressive paranoia against any hint of a revolution toppling them, like how they got to power.


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 12, 2014)

In historical view, the winner of ww2 in China was Nationalists and their country ROC still exists in Taiwan regardless international society admits or not.

Communists occupied mainland China in 1949 after the war ended but failed to inherit Chinese history and culture properly because most of ROC official documents during the war and half of national treasure of Chinese successive dynasties were kept and brought to Taiwan by Chiang Kai-shek.

Politically, PRC is China but, on history and culture, I doubt.

Sorry for my off-topic again.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 12, 2014)

A really good book to read that touches upon the topic is _Way of a Fighter: The Memoirs of Claire Lee Chennault _. He talks about the communist roll in the war and they for the most part avoided direct battles with the Japanese and probably spent more time fighting the Nationalist than they did them. They really did very little towards any fighting, their biggest contribution being they stopped fighting the Nationalist for a while.

The Allies rarely helped them at all.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 12, 2014)

The CCP avoided direct battles for most of the war, but their cadres were very active in the partisan warfare that really dogged the Japanese in China. Moreover, at the very beginning, in 1937, the KMT refused to cease its operations against the CCP which allowed the Japanese to overrun large part of the country. it was the CCP that suggested a united front against the Japanese, and this won them a lot of support amongst the general chinese population. finally, in areas controlled by the CCP, they at least set up basic infrastructure to assist the local population, whereas in the KMT controlled areas it was often at the mercy of ruthless and greedy warlords operating with no regard to the needs of the local populace. This was part of the battle of the hearts and minds that Mao so strongly emphasised. of course, the flip side of the carrot, was the stick, and the Communists were quite prepred to use the latter when it was needed to achieve their aims 

At the very end, in 1945, the CCP contributed siginificantly to the Soviet advances, providing good support to the final drives to capture Peking

There were good reasons for the Communst victories in 1949. And the Communists would have faded fairly rapidly if the KMT had anything good to offer the Chinese people. Facts are the KMT was an extemely corrupt and anarchic regime that was not a good thing for its people. The Communists offered something the KMT didnt, a bit of hope for a better future. The hope was faslely placed, but it was better than what the nationalists were offering


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 12, 2014)

Thank you very much for your kind comments deserve a listen for sure, David and parsifal.
I have understood CCP could say it defeated Japan because it defeated KMT which defeated Japan.
What a clever logic!


----------



## parsifal (Mar 12, 2014)

On 12 December 1936 a deeply disgruntled Zhang Xueliang (a KMT warlord who had been responsible for the loss of Manchuria, and subsequently sent on a "suicide mission" to destroy the new CCCP bases in Yenan, with more than 25% of available trained manpower in the KMT) was very disgruntled about the suicideal nature of his mission. Rather than complete his mission as ordered, he decided to kidnap Chiang Kai-shek in Xi'an, hoping to force an end to the conflict between KMT and CCP. To secure the release of Chiang, the Kuomintang agreed to a temporary end to the Chinese Civil War and, on 24 December, the creation of a United Front between the CCP and KMT against Japan was put into effect. The alliance having salutary effects for the beleaguered CCP, they agreed to form the New Fourth Army and the 8th Route Army and place them under the nominal control of the National Revolutionary Army. The CCP's Red Army fought with KMT forces during the Battle of Taiyuan, and the high point of their cooperation came in 1938 during the Battle of Wuhan.

Despite Japan's steady territorial gains in northern China, the coastal regions, and the rich Yangtze River Valley in central China, the distrust between the KMT and CCCP was scarcely veiled. The uneasy alliance began to break down by late 1938, partially due to the Communists' aggressive efforts to expand their military strength by absorbing Chinese guerrilla forces behind Japanese lines. Chinese militia who refused to switch their allegiance were often labelled "collaborators" and attacked by CCP forces. For example, the Red Army led by He Long attacked and wiped out a brigade of Chinese militia led by Zhang Yin-wu in Hebei in June, 1939 all the while with the Japanese threat still very much alive and well. Starting in 1940, open conflict between Nationalists and Communists became more frequent in the occupied areas outside of Japanese control, culminating in the New Fourth Army Incident in January 1941.

After 1940, the Second United Front completely broke down and Chinese Communists leader Mao Zedong outlined the preliminary plan for the CCP's eventual seizure of power from Chiang Kai-shek. Mao began his final push for consolidation of CCP power under his authority, and his teachings became the central tenets of the CCP doctrine that came to be formalized as "Mao Zedong Thought". The communists also began to focus most of their energy on building up their sphere of influence wherever opportunities were presented, mainly through rural mass organizations, administrative, land and tax reform measures favoring poor peasants; while the Nationalists attempted to neutralize the spread of Communist influence by military blockade of areas controlled by CCP and fighting the Japanese at the same time. Both sides continued only sporadically to prosecute the war aftger the entry of the west to the war. The communnists were again obligated to recommencde a much wider scale of operations after the Soviets ordered them to do so as part of the Soviet offensive in 1945.

For a pretty good 1 page summary on the Chinese military capabilities and limits, I found this:

http://ww2-weapons.com/Orders-of-battle/China/Forces-1939.htm

and this

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/018_china/41_cha-00-000.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 18, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> This might be rather interesting, if not, somewhat challenging. We’re accustomed to conceiving of the start of the Pacific War as the Japanese aggression in the Pacific, most notoriously, on December 7, 1941. What was the U.S. doing at that time to the Japanese to precipitate that aggression? Let me try and direct the replies, somewhat. Natural resources and the U.S. embargoes were at the heart, at least, per my historical accounts. Maybe we can go into those more specifically. Maybe there are other precipitating causes, as well, we can identify and go over.
> 
> In short, let’s hear it from the Japanese perspective. Again, per my understanding, the Japanese were being crowded out. This was their neck of the woods. Just look at who was there trying to control everything from the oil, rubber, lumber, ore, to the spices. Economically, Japan buckled under, their political autonomy was the next to go. That entire group of islands could have easily been starved out. This much, I think, I can say. I’d have been a little pissed off, too.
> 
> So, without further adieu; let’s get at it.



Where does one begin? How far back does one go?

> 1894–95: First Sino-Japanese War. China, then under the Qing Dynasty, was defeated by Japan and was forced to cede Formosa, and to recognize the nominal independence (in fact, Japanese control) of Korea in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
> 1912: Republic of China founded. The warlord Zhang Zuolin of Manchuria openly cooperated with the Japanese for military and economic assistance.
> 1915: Japan issued the Twenty-One Demands to extort further political and commercial privilege from China.
> Following World War I, Japan acquired the German Empire's sphere of influence in Shandong (Shantung), leading to nationwide anti-Japanese protests and mass demonstrations in China.
> 1928: Jinan Incident. The Kuomintang's National Revolutionary Army (NRA) swept through China until it was checked in Shandong, where Beiyang warlord Zhang Zongchang, backed by the Japanese, attempted to stop the NRA's advance. This battle culminated in the Jinan Incident of 1928 in which the National Revolutionary Army and the Imperial Japanese Army were engaged in a short conflict that resulted in Kuomintang's withdrawal from Jinan.
> 1928: Zhang Zuolin was assassinated when he became less willing to cooperate with Japan.
> 1931: The Mukden Incident, also known as the Manchurian Incident, was a staged event engineered by rogue Japanese military personnel as a pretext for the Japanese invasion of the northeastern part of China, known as Manchuria.
> 1931: Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
> December 1931: The Lytton Report by a League of Nations Commission
> Japan withdraws from the League of Nations.
> 1932: Chinese and Japanese troops fought a battle known as the January 28 Incident.
> 1933: Japanese attacked the Great Wall region.
> 1935: Under Japanese pressure, China signed the He–Umezu Agreement, which forbade the KMT from conducting party operations in Hebei.
> 1935: Chin–Doihara Agreement was signed expelling the KMT from Chahar.
> May 12, 1936: Mongol Military Government was formed.
> July 7, 1937: Full scale invasion of China.
> Six-week period starting December 13, 1937: Nanking Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking.

It is in this backdrop that the US began implementing measures to assist China and curtail Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 18, 2014)

Good educational research, gjs238. Thanks for your nice follow-up.

I have learned at least that if Chiang Kai-shek should have been such a trustful man as the allied supported, he would not have been defeated by Mao Tse-tung.
Pacific War might not have come.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 16, 2014)

If you look at Asia in the early 20th century, much of it was occupied by European powers. Heck , Hawaii was "annexed" by the US within about 40 years of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and this annexation was a hostile takeover with a threat of war with the US used to annex the islands.

Manchuria was under Russian control as late as 1925, the Dutch had their East Indian Possessions at the start of World War Two.

It is actually not that easy to find a Far Eastern country that was independent at this time, other than Japan and China. And China had lost it's "war of independence" (The boxer rebellion) against the predominantly western powers in 1900.

I think one has to realize that the opinions and perspective of leaders in Japan, and even much of the general population was not based on the world as of 1941 - it was based on what had happened over the last 20-40 years prior. A 60 year old Japanese man was 20 when the Boxers were defeated, about that age when the US forcibly annexed Hawaii.

And yet Japan tries to conduct their own "annexation" of lands in it's front yard - and is met by opposition, either diplomatic, by embargoes, and even a threat of military muscle such as deploying Naval and Air units in range of it's own home waters. As far as Japan was concerned, it could have looked like another visit from Commodore Perry 90 or so years later.

I think it would be very hard for Japanese leaders not to take this "personally". They were in essence told "We western powers own most of southeast Asia, but Japan is not allowed to establish their own colonial empire here". In addition to taking it personally, it would be hard not to take it as racially motivated as well. And perhaps a good portion of it was.

In most SE Asian colonial possessions, Europeans lived in a segregated society, and profited off the work of the Asians. Look to the Hawaiian plantation period as one source. The Asian were treated as second class citizens. And Japan was not allowed to establish itself as a power (OK, it already was, but Japanese expansion was extremely frowned upon), I could see how this would be easily taken that they were viewed as second class themselves. In all reality, for the most part they were, as western powers could not believe that Japanese had anything approximating a true first line fighter aircraft.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 17, 2014)

It is absolutely impossible to separate European (including Americans in that group) racial attitudes from their countries' relationships with Asia and Africa. Basically, there was a strong belief that non-Europeans were incapable of self-government, which was used to justify seizure. Some countries were much better behaved than others -- Belgium seemed particularly horrible, especially when the Congo was King Leopold's little piece of Hell -- but they _all_ worked on the presumption that the non-Europeans were inferior.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Apr 17, 2014)

Yeah swampyankee, that's pretty much what my conclusion on it was.

I wonder, how much of that thought of non-europeans being incapable of governing themselves was based upon European potential financial gain.

I.E. how much was it truly believed that that was the case, and how much was it believed only for convenience and to justify exploitation of the people and resources. 

When you really look at it, Japan wanted to be pert of the "club" of colonial powers, and even believed in their superiority over other Asians as Europeans and Americans believed in their own superiority over Asians.

Unfortunately for Japan, The US and Europe did not want them to be part of the "club", even if we indeed accepted them as Allies in WW1.

A bit off topic, but are you familiar with "Bywater's War"?


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 17, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> It is absolutely impossible to separate European (including Americans in that group) racial attitudes from their countries' relationships with Asia and Africa. Basically, there was a strong belief that non-Europeans were incapable of self-government, which was used to justify seizure. Some countries were much better behaved than others -- Belgium seemed particularly horrible, especially when the Congo was King Leopold's little piece of Hell -- but they _all_ worked on the presumption that the non-Europeans were inferior.



And Japan had similar attitudes about all foreigners being inferior - that knife cuts both ways. 

Sadly, such attitudes are still prevalent in many countries across the world.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> And Japan had similar attitudes about all foreigners being inferior


And the Japanese and Chinese had been at serious odds over the centuries. When they rolled into Manchuria/China, it showed.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 18, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> And the Japanese and Chinese had been at serious odds over the centuries. When they rolled into Manchuria/China, it showed.



Yes, but the Japanese couldn't do anything about it until after the Europeans had started to have their way in Asia, even China. As an aside, what kind of morality is implied when a war is started because a nation's government wants to prevent the importation of opium?

If I remember and interpret what I've read correctly, the Japanese people (or at least the Japanese elites) had a somewhat odd relationship with China, respecting Chinese culture but detesting the Chinese people. Probably the closest thing in the West would be the 19th Century opinion of Greece vs Greeks.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 18, 2014)

> As an aside, what kind of morality is implied when a war is started because a nation's government wants to prevent the importation of opium?



Well, the important morality issue for the Western powers was that stopping the opium trade prevented profits.

That would be like the US wanting to curtail crack cocaine importation, and the Drug cartels going to war with the US and enforcing crack importation. That is if the US was weak enough and the Drug cartels strong enough from a military standpoint for that to be the case.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 18, 2014)

Japan was becoming "Westernized" well before the War. Just look to the changes in the Emperor's attire to see that. I think the little guy looks rather funny in a monkey-suit and a top-hat, actually, lol.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 18, 2014)

> Japan was becoming "Westernized" well before the War. Just look to the changes in the Emperor's attire to see that.



I think this points out one of the biggest underlying reasons for the war. Japan was westernizing and wanted to be treated as an equal. Instead they were treated as somewhere between an equal and the way the west treated the other Asian nations. The Washington Naval Treaty was a clear example of this, limiting Japan's navy to 2/3 that of Great Britain and the US.

When the western powers (incuding westernized Japan) went to "war" with China during the Boxer rebellion - the only interference was that the western powers tried to make sure they all had their "cut" of China.

Russia invaded and conquered a portion of Manchuria. No one attempted to stop this either by economic or other methods. Then, Japan takes a portion of Manchuria that Russia occupied, and they are coerced to return this to Russia. All of this happened at the beginning of the 20th century.

Then Japan invades Manchuria again, and there are diplomatic and trade measures taken against them.

It's pretty clear Japan wanted a colonial empire like that of European nations and the US - but the West did not want them to have this colonial empire.

Maybe that stems from the West believing Asians were incapable of self-government.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Apr 20, 2014)

Though Japan may have wanted a colonial empire like the european powers it was bad timing. The wind back of empire had already begun in the British Empire as locals were beginning to be educated and appointed to official positions. Especially in India. Not in huge numbers but the process had begun and independence for India was already an official goal. The attitudes in the west of a previous generation had been content to turn a blind eye to the annexations of Korea and Formosa but the contemporary generation was seeing empires as a thing of the past. Japan could have got away with Manchuria but they pushed it that bit too far.

Putin might need to worry more about China than the Ukraine. Along the Sino Russian border it is China which is now the service and goods supplier to the Russians. If the Chinese and Japanese ever did a 19th century type deal to split asian Russia between them he would have to get used to the Urals being the eastern border of Russia.


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 20, 2014)

We all live in the Planet of Apes, don't we?
For Hirohito's honour, I think he was cute at least.

Yesterday, I had a news that Russia is going to reinforce its troops in our northern islands + other Kuril Islands by 2016.
Also today, I had a news that China has seized a Japanese large merchant ship in China as compensation for the Chinese 2 rental vessels lost in ww2. This is against the peace treaty signed in 1972. 

The last war was over but red apes are not changed at all.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 20, 2014)

"....The last war was over but red apes are not changed at all."

Leopards don't change their spots.

MM

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 23, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> We all live in the Planet of Apes, don't we?
> For Hirohito's honour, I think he was cute at least.
> 
> Yesterday, I had a news that Russia is going to reinforce its troops in our northern islands + other Kuril Islands by 2016.
> ...



How did that work?
Orangutans (red apes) were the politicians
Chimpanzees were the scientists intelligentsia
Guerellas were the military


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 23, 2014)

In my casting, MacArthur was a tall gorilla and Hirohito a short monkey.
Communists were other apes in red.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2014)

roughly when was that photo of the Emperor and Mac taken Shinpachi.....


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 24, 2014)

I believe that was the photo taken of their first meeting, at the U.S. embassy in Tokyo, 27 September 1945


----------



## Balto (May 2, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Yesterday, I had a news that Russia is going to reinforce its troops in our northern islands + other Kuril Islands by 2016.
> Also today, I had a news that China has seized a Japanese large merchant ship in China as compensation for the Chinese 2 rental vessels lost in ww2. This is against the peace treaty signed in 1972.



peace treaty was signed in 1978, 1972 was joint talkings.

In 1930 China was weak and Japan had power so Japan took what it wanted to take until it went too far (the killing of so much chineese people in Nankin).
From Japan perspective : japaneese where not smart enough to understand they crossed the line with such killings and plunder.

Today China has the power (both in terms of army and economic) and Japan is weak in (both terms).
So China takes what it wants now until someone say : now you stop.
This helps japaneese to understand what it is to be weak and be subjected to the law of the strongest (but much much lighter than they did to China, no japaneese en masse killings so far)

The thing is nobody want to tell China "stop" as all big modern nations (Europe/USA) need economic relations with China.

Same thing for Putin ( big army and big gas stocks needed by Europe) and Ukrain (small under trained army and few economic power).


----------



## Shinpachi (May 3, 2014)

I've heard a lot.
Thanks


----------

