Jarvik7 Wrote:It's also pretty pathetic how Japan is painted as an evil empire by history. They were playing the same imperialistic game that all of the "good guys" were, in the same way. They adapted their government, military, foreign policy, everything from the democratic western powers after all. The only problem was that they were after the same colonies that the "good guys" were. The Pacific theatre was in no way a fight for freedom or to protect the American homeland. Hell, Hawaii itself was an American colony. US had about as much right to be there (or any of their other dozens of colonies) as Japan had a right to be in Korea or China. It's all incredibly hypocritical.

It's stupid to blame Japan for starting the war with the US. History shows that the US was gunning for it too (to protect their imperialistic interests), but just needed to get the populace behind it. Pearl Harbor provided that support. It doesn't matter who shot first, the shots were going to get fired sooner or later anyways.

Somebody has to reach for the gun, point it, and shoot it. Until that happens, you don't have war. What part of that don't you get?

The gun implies, ipso facto, that you are going to rearrange the standing order by violent means.

You obviously missed the part where I said that it doesn't matter who shot first. Therefore neither you nor masaman have a point in that regard. If Japan never went and bombed Pearl Harbour, the US would have no doubt started invading Japanese colonies once the public could sufficiently be worked up to a froth. The war was inevitable as long as both Japan and the US wished to remain imperialistic powers. The Pacific wasn't big enough for both of them.

There is absolutely no difference between Japan holding Korea and the US holding Hawaii.

Jarvik7 Wrote:You obviously missed the part where I said that it doesn't matter who shot first. Therefore neither you nor masaman have a point in that regard. If Japan never went and bombed Pearl Harbour, the US would have no doubt started invading Japanese colonies once the public could be sufficiently be worked up to a froth. The war was inevitable as long as both Japan and the US wished to remain imperialistic powers. The Pacific wasn't big enough for both of them.

Pure conjecture. Impossible to prove, and thus not worthy of serious consideration. Try again.

And, while you are at your futile endeavor, keep in mind that the US was fiercely isolationist. The vast bulk of the American electorate wanted *nothing* to do with the rest of the "stupid" world.

In other words, this was a *TREMENDOUS* inertia that had to be overcome, and there was little likelihood of it ever becoming overcome unless someone was stupid enough to attack the global economic power that had geographical defenses beyond belief. (I mean, you had to be ONE STUPID IDIOT to imagine you were going to overwhelm the US in the 1940s. You had to have a brain tumor.)

Are you disputing that the US was an imperialist power? Why did they have all of those pacific colonies then?

Jarvik7 Wrote:Are you disputing that the US was an imperialist power. Why did they have all of those pacific colonies then?

Of course the US was an imperialist power of some degree. What did that have to do with Japan deciding to (stupidly) attack the US?

None, as in ZERO, of those colonies came at the expense of Japan, unless you want to argue that Japan, isolationist and late to development as it was, wanted to claim sour grapes.

Jarvik7 Wrote:You obviously missed the part where I said that it doesn't matter who shot first. Therefore neither you nor masaman have a point in that regard. If Japan never went and bombed Pearl Harbour, the US would have no doubt started invading Japanese colonies once the public could sufficiently be worked up to a froth. The war was inevitable as long as both Japan and the US wished to remain imperialistic powers. The Pacific wasn't big enough for both of them.

There is absolutely no difference between Japan holding Korea and the US holding Hawaii.

I suspect that Hawaii's applying for statehood versus Korea *NEVER, EVER, IN THEIR LIVES, contemplating such an action (becoming Korea-ken in Japan), illustrates the difference.

Sure, the US supporters swamped the native Hawaiians population-wise. How does that differ from the Japanese on Okinawa? You have ZERO ANSWER there, do ya?

As far as I know, NO REAL OKINAWANS, ever, applied to become part of Japan. It was a decision that took place in Japan, not in Okinawa. And it was a decision that took place REGARDLESS of what the Okinawans thought about it.

Wally Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:Are you disputing that the US was an imperialist power. Why did they have all of those pacific colonies then?

Of course the US was an imperialist power of some degree? What did that have to do with Japan deciding to (stupidly) attack the US?

I agree that it was stupid, as did many in Japan at the time. However, the expectation was that they could reach a peace treaty and not have a fight to the end, which obviously never worked out.

At the same time they never had a choice. They were running out of oil due to the embargo and so they fought to end it after negotiations failed. The only alternative was to abandon their colonies and return to their homeland, which wasn't much of a choice at all. Do you think that Japan had actual interest in taking over mainland USA or even thought it possible?

And the US was not "to some degree imperialistic". They were fiercely imperialistic, to the same degree as the British Empire or France or Japan. The whole reason for the embargo was that Japan was encroaching on US interests in Asia.

How exactly was Japanese foreign policy different from US/Britain/France?

Wally Wrote:I suspect that Hawaii's applying for statehood versus Korea *NEVER, EVER, IN THEIR LIVES, contemplating such an action (becoming Korea-ken in Japan), illustrates the difference.
Sure, the US supporters swamped the native Hawaiians population-wise. How does that differ from the Japanese on Okinawa? You have ZERO ANSWER there, do ya?

Nice tone...

I never defended the act of taking colonies. Imperialism is bad no matter what country is doing it. That means Japan/Britain/France/AND THE USA.

Hawaii had a referendum to become a state over 60 years after it was overthrown. The vote also never included an option to become independent again. It was either "remain a colony with none of the rights citizens enjoy" or "gain more rights and some state-level governance".

The extreme anti-Japanese sentiment in former colonies is in general not shared by those who actually lived under Japanese colonization. The story I normally hear from them in interviews is that their lives improved under Japanese rule, compared to the hellhole stagnant dictatorships they had previously. Had there been a similar referendum after a similar amount of time (to allow for more Japanification of existing populace and immigration of Japanese citizens, same as Hawaii & Okinawa) there likely would have been a similar result.

Jarvik7 Wrote:

Wally Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:Are you disputing that the US was an imperialist power. Why did they have all of those pacific colonies then?

Of course the US was an imperialist power of some degree? What did that have to do with Japan deciding to (stupidly) attack the US?

I agree that it was stupid, as did many in Japan at the time. However, the expectation was that they could reach a peace treaty and not have a fight to the end, which obviously never worked out.

At the same time they never had a choice. They were running out of oil due to the embargo and so they fought to end it after negotiations failed. The only alternative was to abandon their colonies and return to their homeland, which wasn't much of a choice at all. Do you think that Japan had actual interest in taking over mainland USA or even thought it possible?

And the US was not "to some degree imperialistic". They were fiercely imperialistic, to the same degree as the British Empire or France or Japan. The whole reason for the embargo was that Japan was encroaching on US interests in Asia.

How exactly was Japanese foreign policy different from US/Britain/France?

If the US was "fiercely" imperialistic, Canada would not be independent. Nor Mexico, likely, maybe not any of South America. "Fiercely" is a slippery concept, however, and impossible to prove. The US obtained most of its Pacific colonies via its war with Spain, which had little to do with the Pacific other than to demonstrate that Spain was no longer a global player.

And no, the reason for the embargo, believe it or not, was that the US public, a usually fair-minded lot, came to the conclusion that Japan had zero business trying to subject China. Japan's affinity for the Nazi regime didn't do it any favors among US public opinion, either. But Japan has always loved authoritarians.

Japan was hardly running out of oil. They had enough and then some for domestic consumption. Japan didn't have enough to spend it on conquering East Asia. Tough noogies.

Jarvik7 Wrote:

Wally Wrote:I suspect that Hawaii's applying for statehood versus Korea *NEVER, EVER, IN THEIR LIVES, contemplating such an action (becoming Korea-ken in Japan), illustrates the difference.
Sure, the US supporters swamped the native Hawaiians population-wise. How does that differ from the Japanese on Okinawa? You have ZERO ANSWER there, do ya?

Nice tone...

I never defended the act of taking colonies. Imperialism is bad no matter what country is doing it. That means Japan/Britain/France/AND THE USA.

Hawaii had a referendum to become a state over 60 years after it was overthrown. The vote also never included an option to become independent again. It was either "remain a colony with none of the rights citizens enjoy" or "gain more rights and some state-level governance".

The extreme anti-Japanese sentiment in former colonies is in general not shared by those who actually lived under Japanese colonization. The story I normally hear from them in interviews is that their lives improved under Japanese rule, compared to the hellhole stagnant dictatorships they had previously. Had there been a similar referendum after a similar amount of time (to allow for more Japanification of existing populace and immigration of Japanese citizens, same as Hawaii & Okinawa) there likely would have been a similar result.

Yeah, a colony is a colony is a colony, right? Your argument above is the same one the US used to invade Iraq (it was a stinking hellhole run by an abysmal dictator). Is that any justification? Period?

What do you suppose America would do if it was embargoed and had to cease all overseas operations? War with whoever was stopping that oil.

I am by no means saying Japan was doing nice things before and during WW2, but they were not an evil empire any more than the US is one then & now. They were simply doing the exact same things every other major power in the world was doing.

Quote:Yeah, a colony is a colony is a colony, right? Your argument above is the same one the US used to invade Iraq (it was a stinking hellhole run by an abysmal dictator). Is that any justification? Period?

Jesus christ you are bad at debating. I have said repeatedly that colonization is not a good thing. I was making a parallel between Hawaii and Korea/Okinawa. There wasn't the hugely negative sentiment there is now so it's not inconceivable that they would have voted to become a prefecture after 60 years of colonization and immigration, especially if it gave them the rights of citizenship. I IN NO WAY said that the invasion of Korea was for the Koreans' own good.

Wally Wrote:Of course the US was an imperialist power of some degree.

You just said the United States was "fiercily isolationist" so which is it?

That and the Flying Tigers, or the actions that preceded them actually, blows away most of your argument.

In 1940 Roosevelt approved covert operations to finance China with military hardware and United States Airforce fighter pilots who had to technically "resign" from the airforce so they could side step war treaties. This secret fighter group was active in China BEFORE Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, though they did not achieve their first combat kills against Japan until about 12 days after Pearl Harbor.

However, that last fact is irrelevent because as you clearly stated it is "who picks up the gun first" that is to "blame". I'd say sending United States P-40's and secret US military air crews to China specifically for the purpose of FIGHTING JAPAN BEFORE THEY ATTACKED US is the very definition of "picking up the gun".

If those pilots would have been discovered before Pearl Harbor there would be NO question as to who would be blamed for starting the war.

activeaero Wrote:

Wally Wrote:Of course the US was an imperialist power of some degree.

You just said the United States was "fiercily isolationist" so which is it?

That and the Flying Tigers, or the actions that preceded them actually, blows away most of your argument.

In 1940 Roosevelt approved covert operations to finance China with military hardware and United States Airforce fighter pilots who had to technically "resign" from the airforce so they could side step war treaties. This secret fighter group was active in China BEFORE Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, though they did not achieve their first combat kills against Japan until about 12 days after Pearl Harbor.

However, that last fact is irrelevent because as you clearly stated it is "who picks up the gun first" that is to "blame". I'd say sending United States P-40's and secret US military air crews to China specifically for the purpose of FIGHTING JAPAN BEFORE THEY ATTACKED US is the very definition of "picking up the gun".

If those pilots would have been discovered before Pearl Harbor there would be NO question as to who would be blamed for starting the war.

The flying tigers was, as you know, a voluntary organization. Americans, as you might know, are big on idealism. It may be misdirected from time to time, but there it is.

Japan attacked. It sent an armada to destroy US facilities on Hawaii. Try and squirm as you will, that fact is inescapable. Japan picked up the gun, with the intent to kill.

Japan had no business in China. None.

Wally Wrote:Japan had no business in China. None.

America has no business in Hawaii. None.
America has no business in Guam. None
America had no business in Puerto Rico. None
America has no business in American Samoa. None
America has no business in any of the territory they took from Mexico. None
America has no business in America. None (they stole it from the indians afterall)
etc etc.

How is that different?

activeaero Wrote:

Wally Wrote:Of course the US was an imperialist power of some degree.

You just said the United States was "fiercily isolationist" so which is it?

That and the Flying Tigers, or the actions that preceded them actually, blows away most of your argument.

In 1940 Roosevelt approved covert operations to finance China with military hardware and United States Airforce fighter pilots who had to technically "resign" from the airforce so they could side step war treaties. This secret fighter group was active in China BEFORE Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, though they did not achieve their first combat kills against Japan until about 12 days after Pearl Harbor.

However, that last fact is irrelevent because as you clearly stated it is "who picks up the gun first" that is to "blame". I'd say sending United States P-40's and secret US military air crews to China specifically for the purpose of FIGHTING JAPAN BEFORE THEY ATTACKED US is the very definition of "picking up the gun".

If those pilots would have been discovered before Pearl Harbor there would be NO question as to who would be blamed for starting the war.

The two statements are not mutually exclusive. The US was a status quo power, of course. It was content with things the way they were. So what?

Jarvik7 Wrote:It's also pretty pathetic how Japan is painted as an evil empire by history. They were playing the same imperialistic game that all of the "good guys" were, in the same way. They adapted their government, military, foreign policy, everything from the democratic western powers after all. The only problem was that they were after the same colonies that the "good guys" were. The Pacific theatre was in no way a fight for freedom or to protect the American homeland. Hell, Hawaii itself was an American colony. US had about as much right to be there (or any of their other dozens of colonies) as Japan had a right to be in Korea or China. It's all incredibly hypocritical.

It's stupid to blame Japan for starting the war with the US. History shows that the US was gunning for it too (to protect their imperialistic interests), but just needed to get the populace behind it. Pearl Harbor provided that support. It doesn't matter who shot first, the shots were going to get fired sooner or later anyways.

Some sympathy with this line of reasoning, but...

Pick up the gun, and you are guilty. Period.

masaman Wrote:But do these people who consider 9/11 as Pearl Harbor "know" that Roosevelt imposed an oil embargo? that there were intense diplomatic efforts from Japanese side to lift it? that Roosevelt knew exactly what Japanese diplomats would say and how much they would compromise through espionage? that he quit the negotiation by sending Japan what is....

.....Now, I'm not trying to change your, or anyone's, opinion, but I wanted to provide some food for thought. I hope I did an OK job.

What you're saying is that there were actual human beings on Japanese side in the war. This is obvious. In every war there are those who oppose or object, and those who do not. Wally's analogy of picking up the gun is a very good one, though.

It's simple cause and effect.

There nothing that can be said to change what happen'did.

Jarvik7 Wrote:

Wally Wrote:Japan had no business in China. None.

America has no business in Hawaii. None.
America has no business in Guam. None
America had no business in Puerto Rico. None
America has no business in American Samoa. None
America has no business in any of the territory they took from Mexico. None
America has no business in America. None (they stole it from the indians afterall)
etc etc.

How is that different?

Headed for dark waters with this one.

Would you attack a 400lbs gorilla?

Jarvik7 Wrote:

Wally Wrote:Japan had no business in China. None.

America has no business in Hawaii. None.
America has no business in Guam. None
America had no business in Puerto Rico. None
America has no business in American Samoa. None
America has no business in any of the territory they took from Mexico. None
America has no business in America. None (they stole it from the indians afterall)
etc etc.

How is that different?

Zzzzzzzz. (In other words, is that the best you've got?)

kazelee Wrote:Would you attack a 400lbs gorilla?

I said in one of my previous posts that Japan expected the attack on Pearl Harbor to result in re-opening of negotiations with the US and not an all-out war. That horribly backfired.

Wally Wrote:Zzzzzzzz. (In other words, is that the best you've got?)

I'd say it's pretty good. You keep talking about how Japan had no right to be in China and how the public were outraged about the poor Chinese (while they wanted Chinese laborers out out out). Meanwhile at the same time the US held several colonies of their own. The US annexing of Hawaii happened at the same time Japan was taking Korea, Taiwan, and making attempts at China. You still haven't answered how this is different. How the acts of the US are moral while Japan is eeeeevil. It was the same act committed by two different countries.

Jarvik7 Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:Would you attack a 400lbs gorilla?

I said in one of my previous posts that Japan expected the attack on Pearl Harbor to result in re-opening of negotiations with the US and not an all-out war. That horribly backfired.

Horribly backfired? That was so naive that I cannot imagine sentient beings even contemplated such. This was an attack on "ROME", and at that time Rome damn knew who Rome was. This was an attack on the absolute premiere, bar none, economic power on the Earth. This was an attack on the COLOSSUS. And unless you had a plan to subdue the colossus, an attack upon it was sheer stupidity.

Imagine, if you can possibly do it, Japanese planes bombing Washington DC. No, really. Try! That's how far out of their league they were playing. It was like the US attacking starship Enterprise.

This was merely an extension of the "Japan is special" mentality. By that I mean that Japan could endure atrocities that would inflame public opinion, but other countries when confronted with the same would simply capitulate (or negotiate). This is merely an extension of Japan's complete incomprehension of the world.

Wally Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:Would you attack a 400lbs gorilla?

I said in one of my previous posts that Japan expected the attack on Pearl Harbor to result in re-opening of negotiations with the US and not an all-out war. That horribly backfired.

Horribly backfired? That was so naive that I cannot imagine sentient beings even contemplated such.

This was merely an extension of the "Japan is special" mentality. By that I mean that Japan could endure atrocities that would inflame public opinion, but other countries when confronted with the same would simply capitulate (or negotiate). This is merely an extension of Japan's complete incomprehension of the world.

I have no idea what you are going for with this post. How am I naive for saying that Japan horribly underestimated the US? It is recorded fact. The Japanese government of the time was naive sure, but how does that extend to me?

Government makes plan that will end in a positive result if successful. (negotiations for oil)
The plan instead gets them a fullscale war against America and ultimately defeat.

That sounds like a plan backfiring to me.

Jarvik7 Wrote:

Wally Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:I said in one of my previous posts that Japan expected the attack on Pearl Harbor to result in re-opening of negotiations with the US and not an all-out war. That horribly backfired.

Horribly backfired? That was so naive that I cannot imagine sentient beings even contemplated such.

This was merely an extension of the "Japan is special" mentality. By that I mean that Japan could endure atrocities that would inflame public opinion, but other countries when confronted with the same would simply capitulate (or negotiate). This is merely an extension of Japan's complete incomprehension of the world.

I have no idea what you are going for with this post. How am I naive for saying that Japan horribly underestimated the US? It is recorded fact. The Japanese government of the time was naive sure, but how does that extend to me?

Government makes plan that will end in a positive result if successful. (negotiations for oil)
The plan instead gets them a fullscale war against America and ultimately defeat.

That sounds like a plan backfiring to me.

Clearly, I am not saying that you are naive.

Japan was new to the international scene. Bolstered by its victory over a Potemkin Russia in 1905, it thought it was a serious global player. It was only a regional power at best. It was naive beyond the pale. Its leadership should have been strung up on telephone poles. Not by Western powers, but by Japanese. Japanese leadership totally misunderstood a world that they had only recently decided to interact with. They made rotten decisions, and their people should deal with them as a result of those decisions. Ignorant is the word that immediately comes to mind. Supremely ignorant.

Not quite so clearly. The way you wrote it means I am naive for saying it backfired. You might want to reword it. (Use "it was" instead of "that" and quote the relevant part that you are replying to.)

Anyways, I agree with your last post. They imitated all of the western powers down to the last detail, even uniform. Unfortunately for them they didn't have the natural resources, population, or experience to pull it off. They did the same thing as Britain/France/USA, they just did it poorly.

That makes them naive/ignorant/overconfident yes, evil (relative to the era) no.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Not quite so clearly. The way you wrote it means I am naive for saying it backfired. You might want to reword it. (Use "it was" instead of "that" and quote the relevant part that you are replying to.)

Anyways, I agree with your last post. They imitated all of the western powers down to the last detail, even uniform. Unfortunately for them they didn't have the natural resources, population, or experience to pull it off.

That makes them naive/ignorant/overconfident yes, evil (relative to the era) no.

Okay, we agree on that much. (And actually, I like and respect a lot of your posts, so this is hardly personal.)

Japan was out of its league. And Japanese leaders are responsible for that. In the best of all possible worlds, Japanese people would punish them for that.

Agreed?

And I never said they were "evil". Not even once. "Evil" is in the capacity of all human beings, sadly.

Agreed. If you read back to my posts I never described Japan as a victim of the big meany USA or their war as a just cause. International politics is way more complicated than that. It's why the whole Bush-era "Axis of Evil" concept was so ridiculous (I hope we're not still using that term under Obama).

Quote:And I never said they were "evil". Not even once. "Evil" is in the capacity of all human beings, sadly.

I said that's how history paints them, which I think is masaman's beef. The only difference between Japan and the allies in WW2 is that Japan lost (due to logistics, spreading themselves too thin (just like Rome), incompetence, and any other number of reasons).