Who was correcting you? I was agreeing. Stop being so defensive.
I wasn't being defensive, just pointing out that I hadn't mentioned them for a reason. I thought you were correcting me.
At the time China was in the process of being unified under Chiang Kai-Shek. The Japanese leaders would've felt their interests in China (and Manchuria, which at the time was something like 80% Han) was threatened. The 1937 War was partly to stop this potential challenge in the region. Also, the War in China was for the Japanese military what the Spanish Civil War was for the German Air Force - a chance to test modern equipments and tactics. Why China, well look on the map - China was the only target Japan could strike without provoking war with a Great Power.
Chiang Kai Shek was a negligible threat to Japan. He could be taken care of through assassination, proxy wars, etc. No need for a full-scale assault. China was a terrible target for testing new equipment and tactics on, due to its weakness. Look what happened to Japan when it went toe-to-toe with Russia in 1939. And a war with China would damn well provoke a war with a Great Power, because the US, USSR, Britain and France would all intervene to prevent a Japanese conquest of China. It would make them the dominant force in East Asia and the Pacific, and none of those states could accept such a change in the status quo.
But the main reason though was pretty much as BananaLee said. The Japanese militarists, like Mussolini and Hitler, wanted an empire. China offered Japan cheap labour (the Japanese assuming the Chinese were inferior people who would be easily conquered), vast markets for Japanese goods, untapped resources, and Lebensraum. Most importantly though was prestige. In the 1930s the idea of Empire still appeals to Japan and the other Axis powers. It was still a source of pride. And Japan wanted to be accepted into the league of Great Powers.
Land I've already mentioned, it was of great importance to Japan, which had a population crisis. Manchuria took care of that problem nicely. The assumption that the Chinese oculd easily be used for cheap labour due to their inferiority was incorrect, and the Japanese should have known it. No-one willingly accepts slavery, and China was not an easy conquest. Far more resources would be expended on pacification than would be acquired through conquest and slavery. And China, with the exception of a few major cities, would not be good markets for Japanese goods.
You are correct about Japan wanting prestige. But such a benefit is massively outweighed by the problems inherent in a conquest of China. Hence my comment about them having nothing to gain and plenty to lose.
Shanghai cotton
Jiangnan silk
Chengdu tobacco
Coal from the Northwest
Cheap labour
A pride in the fact that there is an Empire (Empire for Empire's sake). You don't seem to put much value of pride, but in the context of world politics, one-upmanship is quite important (in case you haven't noticed, world politics is like a playground).
The Northeast only had two main resources at that point in time, timber and ginseng.
The resources I named are just the few which I mentioned in my own essay about Chinese economy during the Ming and Qing dynasties - so yes, I have sources and I have done my research.
Japan had its own silk, which it considered - correctly or otherwise, I don't know - superior to China's. The expenditure required to get their hands on that coal would be worth far more than the coal itself. I've already mentioned the cheap labour, it doesn't offset pacification. Tobacco and cotton could be acquired from other sources through legitimate trade, at far less cost. Timber I knew about, ginseng I did not. But by Northeast, I assume you mean Manchuria, so they should already have had that. Timber would be especially important to Japan.
As for pride, I am well-aware of the importance of one-upsmanship on the world scene. But Japan already possessed an overseas empire, albeit a small one, and she faced threats on several sides, especially the USSR. Prestige =/= willing allies and an army not bogged down invading a territory as vast as China. Japan needed protection from outside threats, not to throw away millions of lives in a meaningless conquest which would only win them more enemies.
Any intelligent group? Of course, any intelligent group would have figured out that MAD was a stupid policy, as was balance of power, as was the South Sea bubble. Hindsight is always 20/20.
What? MAD and the balance of power are great policies. MAD ensures that no-one fires off nukes, and the balance of power ensures that no one group becomes dominant, though the theory is being superceded by balance of threat, in my opinion are more accurate, though still incomplete doctrine. The South Sea bubble I don't know enough about to comment, aside from knowing it was a massive failure.
Oh, did I mention grain as well? After all, people DO need to eat. 11% of Japan is arable, whereas almost all off China proper (i.e. the plains around the two rivers) was ridiculously, overly, intensively farmed and produced ludicrous yields. 3000:1 seed yield from my lecturer's figures
I assume you mean rice. Rice could far more easily be acquired for the Japanese through legitimate trade, primarily with the Phillipines. The fact that Japan still needed rice in 1941, after conquering a pretty sizeable part of China, shows that it's not the grain itself that is important, but its cultivation and transportation, which suffered under Japanese rule. Such legitimate trade would also have strengthened Japan's economy while not angering and frightening its neighbours.
I think land's a pretty important thing. It's like asking the question, "Why take an oxygen tank when climbing up Everest? It has absolutely nothing a climber needs, besides oxygen"
Japan had already acquired all the land it needed for colonisation in Manchuria, Korea, Formosa and its Pacific Island territories. It had no need for more. Especially not when the land was absolutely teeming with Chinese.
China had people, land and resources. It would also give Japan a place on the world stage, or so the Japanese believed. Those are their reasons for invading. The same as why the Europeans went out conquering places.
The Europeans didn't do it at the expense of their own security (most of the time). Japan did. That's why the few benefits were massively outeweighed by the extensive problems - especially security, I cannot stress this enough, only an idiot would send the bulk of his forces into a place like 1930s China while engaged in a territorial dispute with Russia - such an attempted conquest would place on them.
The fact is that Japan could never have conquered China without the acquiescence of the Great Powers, and the Great Powers would never acquiesce. Japan should have accepted its place as a major power and worked on improving its economy and perhaps extending its empire slowly, primarily by winning concessions in China as the Europeans had done in the past. The invasion of China was a huge strategic mistake on Japan's part, hence they shouldn't have bloody invaded it, and had no real reason to do so. "Because it makes me feel like a big man" may work for Jimbo Jones, but national leaders should know better, especially the goddamn military.
