What if Germany allied with China in WWII

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well remember that it was the US who essentially provoked Japan into attacking when it did. By imposing full embargo on oil to Japan, a product both vital to its military, and which it cannot produce at all on its own, necessitated the siezure of oil-rich areas, i.e. the Dutch East Indies, and the Spratly Islands. As discussed earlier, that meant going through the Phillipines, which means taking the Phillipines. The Japanese war machine could function for perhaps a year, though maybe at little as six months, once the embargo began; in less time than that, the US could have been 100% sure that it would be at war with Japan. We asked for it.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Well remember that it was the US who essentially provoked Japan into attacking when it did. By imposing full embargo on oil to Japan, a product both vital to its military, and which it cannot produce at all on its own, necessitated the siezure of oil-rich areas, i.e. the Dutch East Indies, and the Spratly Islands. As discussed earlier, that meant going through the Phillipines, which means taking the Phillipines. The Japanese war machine could function for perhaps a year, though maybe at little as six months, once the embargo began; in less time than that, the US could have been 100% sure that it would be at war with Japan. We asked for it.

Japan asked for it by being militant, expansionist, butcherous thugs. Our embargo came after a long line of warnings, threats, and lesser economic actions that they did not heed. Was war inevitable at that point? Unless Japan suddenly decided to become a civilized nation, than yeah, of course it was. But it was one entirely of their own making.

There was a simple way to avoid it. Quit trying to conquer China, SE Asia, and the South Pacific. Quit slaughtering millions of Chinese and other asians. Quit looting their countries and raping their women. The Japanese are incredibly lucky that they were in a war that featured Hitler and Stalin or else they'd be filling the history books with their horrific atrocities.

Were I a less charitable sort, I'd suggest that American troops should have treated the Tokyo locals to the same treatment their troops forced upon the peoples in every land and island they conquered.

Along those same lines, the current white-washing in Japan of wartime atrocities is disgusting.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Come now, do you think that they would stop, or that US policymakers thought they would stop, just because we asked them to?

 

[neutrino]

Along those same lines, the current white-washing in Japan of wartime atrocities is disgusting.

I think pressing Japan with regards to its past atrocities is not as straightforward as it appears. (Though a cheap way to score political points by playing up anti-Japanese domestic sentiments well-entrenched in places like China, both Koreas, and a few others.) Would Chinese Communist Party step up and admit its own share of the butcher's bill? Not a chance. Therefore, why should Japan step up and admit its past wrongdoings? Meanwhile, far many more Koreans were killed by the Communists in N. Korea than by Japan. Yet they still keep up with anti-Japanese slogans. Meanwhile, far many more Russians and non-Russian Soviet subjects were wiped out by their own Communists than by the Nazis. Yet they still love their Lenin and Stalin too much and have a long way to go before overcoming the hangover of their old (Soviet) glory days.

Not that I have any love for Japan. (Japan's own version of WW2 would be something despicable to any one of us who had granddads fighting the Japanese or under Japanese occupation.) Too many . .. .. .. .ed-up regimes back then, and still are around today .... what a pity!

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Come now, do you think that they would stop, or that US policymakers thought they would stop, just because we asked them to?

No, but that's irrelevant. Japan's actions were cruel, excessive, and intolerable. We'd have been completely justified in attacking them if we chose to. And they certainly had no inherent right to our raw materials nor should we have traded with them given their conduct. All our actions did was make it more difficult for them to be brutal, militant jack*$$'s, which I consider to be more of a global public service rather than 'goading into war'.

But if you're gonna run with the logic that Japan had no choice, than can't you apply the same logic to us? Did we really have a choice in our response after their continued wars in China and SE Asia. The Rape of Nanking. Countless other well reported atrocities. Could we really continue to trade with them and help fuel their rampant aggression?

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

I think pressing Japan with regards to its past atrocities is not as straightforward as it appears. (Though a cheap way to score political points by playing up anti-Japanese domestic sentiments well-entrenched in places like China, both Koreas, and a few others.) Would Chinese Communist Party step up and admit its own share of the butcher's bill? Not a chance. Therefore, why should Japan step up and admit its past wrongdoings? Meanwhile, far many more Koreans were killed by the Communists in N. Korea than by Japan. Yet they still keep up with anti-Japanese slogans. Meanwhile, far many more Russians and non-Russian Soviet subjects were wiped out by their own Communists than by the Nazis. Yet they still love their Lenin and Stalin too much and have a long way to go before overcoming the hangover of their old (Soviet) glory days.

Not that I have any love for Japan. (Japan's own version of WW2 would be something despicable to any one of us who had granddads fighting the Japanese or under Japanese occupation.) Too many . .. .. .. .ed-up regimes back then, and still are around today .... what a pity!

By those standards Gitmo and Abu Gharib are fine because we didn't have any televised beheadings. BS. Crimes by the other side does not excuse your own atrocities. Nor does it give you a pass to avoid acknowledging them. The WW2 Japanese war record was appalling and demands atonement. No we don't demand China does the same because we know that China is country without conscience. We berate them constantly on their modern day atrocities and it falls on deaf ears. Japan by contrast is a modern, Democratic country that plays nice with the rest of the world...we expect better. If they would like to lose that status, than by all means keep this current crap up.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, but that's irrelevant. Japan's actions were cruel, excessive, and intolerable. We'd have been completely justified in attacking them if we chose to.

Define "justification."

And they certainly had no inherent right to our raw materials nor should we have traded with them given their conduct.

No they don't have a "right" to them, but there was little question what would happen once we denied them that aboslute essential supply of oil. If the US was trying to stay out of World War II, it was doing a really horrible job by imposing that embargo. If we are supposedly neutral, then we cannot "not trade" with someone because of the war they are in! We traded with Germany, too, you know, and Italy, after hostilities broke out. By imposing that embargo, we chose sides, and committed ourselves to war. That, sir, is NOT neutrality, and by the standards of the time, NOT American.

All our actions did was make it more difficult for them to be brutal, militant jack*$$'s, which I consider to be more of a global public service rather than 'goading into war'.

But if you're gonna run with the logic that Japan had no choice, than can't you apply the same logic to us?

Justified or not in imposing the embargo, the US nonetheless took a course of action it KNEW would cause war with Japan before the year was out. So yes, we got what was coming to us on December 7, a disaster that was months in the making.

Did we really have a choice in our response after their continued wars in China and SE Asia. The Rape of Nanking. Countless other well reported atrocities. Could we really continue to trade with them and help fuel their rampant aggression?

We did not impose the embargo because of their war-making atrocities, we imposed it because they were making significant progress into China, and we were worried that it would disrupt our much-prized trade with China, and that Japanese presence there would displace potential American influence, something we had sought since even before the Spanish-American War, when we picked up those Pacific islands in the first place. So don't make this out to be some sort of moral stance, this was all about money and influence.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Define "justification."

Saving a couple million more Chinese, SE asians and Islander's lives. Any attack on Japan would've been 110% justified as a humanitarian intervention alone. Didn't need another causus belli.

If we are supposedly neutral, then we cannot "not trade" with someone because of the war they are in! We traded with Germany, too, you know, and Italy, after hostilities broke out. By imposing that embargo, we chose sides, and committed ourselves to war. That, sir, is NOT neutrality, and by the standards of the time, NOT American.

Not trading with a brutal global belligerent is the prerogative of all civilized nations. We were the source of 80% of their fuel. By continuing to trade with them we may as well have been complicit in their rampant barbarity. It only brought war because Japan was intransigent in its desire for conquest. Were we taking a side? I guess you can say that. The side of civilized nations against uncivilized ones.

We did not impose the embargo because of their war-making atrocities, we imposed it because they were making significant progress into China, and we were worried that it would disrupt our much-prized trade with China, and that Japanese presence there would displace potential American influence, something we had sought since even before the Spanish-American War, when we picked up those Pacific islands in the first place. So don't make this out to be some sort of moral stance, this was all about money and influence.

I don't deny that power and influence were motivating factors. But their never-ending expansionism and thoroughly despicable behavior made it A HELL of alot easier to reach a consensus on such things. And do not doubt that many who supported the embargo did it for that reasons. Morality may not have dominated, but it was certainly at play. And even if power politics were the dominant factor, opposing Japan was the moral thing to do. So they did right no matter their individual motivations.

 

[plarq]

By those standards Gitmo and Abu Gharib are fine because we didn't have any televised beheadings. BS. Crimes by the other side does not excuse your own atrocities. Nor does it give you a pass to avoid acknowledging them. The WW2 Japanese war record was appalling and demands atonement. No we don't demand China does the same because we know that China is country without conscience. We berate them constantly on their modern day atrocities and it falls on deaf ears. Japan by contrast is a modern, Democratic country that plays nice with the rest of the world...we expect better. If they would like to lose that status, than by all means keep this current crap up.

Talking about consciousness, we should not demand people such as the Atomic bomber Enola Gay pilot feel remorseful of those dead civilian--such guiltiness could force them commit suicide.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

never-ending expansionism .

Damn them for expanding their territories!!! How dare they get they orient asses of their damned island and try to expand!

How dare the US expand and make War on Mexico, Britian, Spain and Native America's in the name of Manifest Destiny! Damn you civilized westerners for doing exactly the things you oppose and at the same time commiting attorcities all your own!

Hypocrite!

So long as Morality is paired again Oppurtunity it seems Oppurtunity is the choice everytime. Don't act like the US was so noble in its cause. Cheezy is right in that the US in part asked for its own fate in events. Morality defiantly played a role, especially in internment for Japanese in the US.

Now then comrade! I invite you to raise a glass with me in sweet celebration of morality! Drink well friend... It'll take alot to believe in this crap.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Another interesting thing to look at regarding this subject is The Great Pacific War by Hector Bywater, which describes a war between the US and Japan (albeit a one-on-one scenario) which begins with a) a sneak attack which devastates the American Pacific Fleet (they drive a destroyer with explosives into the Panama Canal!), the subsequent naval war, an island-hopping campaign to relieve SE Asia, and a final air assault on Japan, which ends in the carpet bombing of Tokyo. It's really a fantastic read, since it more or less describes the Pacific Theater in WWII in spite of American military plans which called for doing things far differently.

 

[Verbose]

About Japanese militarism and economics. They were in fact at loggerheads. Corporate Japan, the huge zaibatsu conglomerates of the day, were pretty much well aware of the fact that the Japanese dependancy on imports meant that what it needed above all was peace, trade and industrial development. They were in fact not overly thrilled by military adventutousness.

WWI had been the ideal war for them, with next to no military action, virtually no risk, and the opportunity to gobble up market shares like crazy. Why the army wanted to go more itself first in Russian Siberia in the 1920's and the in China in the 1930's didn't really make sense to them either.

However, by the 1930's it was the radicals within the military who for the most part decided Japanese foreign policy, with direct access to the emperor, and his blessing, to sideline parliamentary politics and corporate interests alike.

In a way, once the war was over, Japan again went in the direction corporate Japan had wanted it to head already before WWII.

That's to say, that it's almost as tricky to talk about Japan as a monolitihic enitity, with a unity of purpose, as it is to talk about the competing political "tribes" of Nazi Germany.