Seienchin88 t1_iy1deds wrote
Reply to comment by thedivinemonkey298 in On April 2, 1941, a Japanese foreign minister asked Pope Pius XII to speak to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, so as to avert "a war of mutual destruction” by marketrent
You are missing a critical piece of information here - the US embargoed Japan‘s access to oil meaning the Japanese Empire was mere month away from collapsing (and while this might have been desirable the outcome would have been monstrous on everyone involved, mass starvation and likely mass looting across China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam (which the Japanese snatched from the French) or having to accept the American demands and withdrawing from Vietnam and China completely (which obviously would have been the right moral choice but no politician in Japan could order such a thing without serious risk of assassination). The US also stationed long range bombers in the Philippines further endangering the Japanese transports and colonies.
So, Japan saw no option but to strike at the European colonies which had oil but expected the US to then strike Japan (as the US guaranteed the colonial possessions of the Europeans). This is why they attacked Pearl Harbor- to strengthen their chances for this desperate plan.
And of course Japan should have never attacked China and start the war in Asia but they really didnt have much options. Roosevelt (who btw. never even engaged into any talks with Japan after the embargo) masterfully forced Japan to attack (although he likely anticipated Japan just attacking the European colonies) and bring the US into war where hus priority was Europe though (he always pushed for Europe over the pacific despite the Japanese attacking the US first).
Peaurxnanski t1_iy1oher wrote
Why did the US embargo them, and what were the terms to lift the embargo?
Japan was engaged in a brutal, genocidal campaign invading China and slaughtering millions.
The USA said "stop doing that or we'll cut off your oil supply"
All Japan had to do is stop invading and murdering China, and the US would sell them oil.
The US wasn't the bad guy, and they did nothing to deserve Pearl Harbor except try to stop a genocide using diplomatic means
[deleted] t1_iy1qrll wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy21ysf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy1uilk wrote
[deleted]
Peaurxnanski t1_iy1wntt wrote
The terms of lifting the embargo explicitly called for Japan to stop genociding China. That's what it said, and it's what I said.
Ascribing a motive to that is certainly your right, but I'd be interested to see how "stop genociding China" ties into US interest in the Philippines. Since you ascribed the motive, I'd be interested to see how you think it ties in.
Doberman7290 t1_iy21zwb wrote
That’s not true at all.
Seienchin88 t1_iy28trd wrote
Am I going insane…? That is exactly what I wrote in my post…
Retreating would have obviously been the morally right choice (or rather not even starting at all) but nobody in the Japanese high command dared to even entertain that idea after so many losses and also politicians getting murdered for opposing the military… Of course its their fault but that doesnt change the fact that telling an imperialist country to just stop a war and give back most colonial possessions obviously isnt gonna work… And the US didnt try to stop a "genocide" using diplomatic means - thats simply dishonest. The US didnt care a whole lot in the 4 years prior (wouldn’t the Nanjing massacre be a much better reason for an embargo?). They embargoed Japan when the started seizing European colonies and because Roosevelt wanted to get the US active in Europe and Asia to stop the fascist threat to the world - and yes that is a really good motive to go to war for but its different from simply trying to help Chinese civilians… (which the US didnt have as a focus at all during WW2)
[deleted] t1_iy1nzob wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy1qmg1 wrote
[removed]
Coloradostoneman t1_iy1t0v1 wrote
Roosevelt was not the bad guy, but he definitely forced Japan's hand.
Edit:
Roosevelt did not allow Japan to continue the genocide. That is the point. Stopping the war in China was not really an option for Japan. Technically, they could have, but everyone knew they would not. The actions of Roosevelt resulted in the Pearl harbor attack. That is exactly why it was done, and that is a good thing. Roosevelt wanted in to the war, but the US public was not interested. By forcing Japan to attack Roosevelt could make the US population interested.
The only way to get the US into the war with a motivated population was to make someone punch the US. The only one that would and could hit the US was Japan and their hand could be forced.
[deleted] t1_iy1umc1 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iy222qd wrote
[removed]
Coloradostoneman t1_iy2cufs wrote
Roosevelt did not allow Japan to continue the genocide. That is the point. Stopping the war in China was not really an option for Japan. Technically, they could have, but everyone knew they would not. The actions of Roosevelt resulted in the Pearl harbor attack. That is exactly why it was done, and that is a good thing. Roosevelt wanted in to the war, but the US public was not interested. By forcing Japan to attack Roosevelt could make the US population interested.
The only way to get the US into the war with a motivated population was to make someone punch the US. The only one that would and could hit the US was Japan and their hand could be forced.
Doberman7290 t1_iy221pq wrote
It was Truman that really forced their hand. Buck stops here
Coloradostoneman t1_iy2c67o wrote
As a senator?
notoneforusernames t1_iy2ldvk wrote
You have to wonder if these people are bots from someplace that would benefit from this flavor of revisionist history. They're all using the "forced their hand" verbiage
sharksnut t1_iy1j146 wrote
>the US embargoed Japan‘s access to oil meaning the Japanese Empire was mere month away from collapsing
They had the entire rest of the world from whom to purchase oil.
Nickrobl t1_iy1mr33 wrote
The list of possible exporters for Japan in 1940 is much smaller than you might expect, especially when the US/UK/Dutch cut you off and pressure their allies and companies to do likewise.
sharksnut t1_iy1son9 wrote
>UK/Dutch cut you off
Again, which have nothing to do with the US embargo
If you've alienated multiple trading partners with your genocidal ways, that's on you
[deleted] t1_iy283b0 wrote
[removed]
SuperSocrates t1_iy1lq0l wrote
It’s kinda hard to just replace 80% of your oil supply
TakeBeerBenchinHilux t1_iy1mrfv wrote
Plenty of oil in Manchukuo and Indonesia. But somehow the Kaigun decided it was a good idea to open another front on Hawaii where there's no oil.
Coloradostoneman t1_iy1rvr6 wrote
The attack on Hawaii makes perfect sense if you think a war with the US in the Pacific is inevitable. They did because of 3 factors: US declared that European Colonies in the area were off limits and those were the places that had oil. The US was essentially the sole supplier of oil to Japan before the war and had just declared an embargo. The US territory of the Philippines was between Japan and all of the critical resources in south east Asia and Australia.
Basically, the US put Japan in a corner with a short time line by cutting off the oil supply. Japan had to find more oil and to do so they had to invade the colonies which the US had said would mean war and shipping that oil would be impossibly vulnerable without attacking the Philippines which would mean war with the US.
If you are going to fight a war with the US you have to hit Hawaii first and with a huge and successfull strike. Projecting power across the Pacific without Hawaii is essentially impossible.
Doberman7290 t1_iy226m1 wrote
But a war was avoidable - the Reich was furious. They knew it was bad news
Coloradostoneman t1_iy2doj9 wrote
How could Japan avoid a war with the US. Their supply of oil was cut off and they had no way to get more without a war with the US. They couldn't just stop the war in China. They were committed and the political and cultural situation made stopping impossible. The Oil embargo was a masterpiece. There were no bad outcomes from Roosevelt's perspective. It allows the US to get into the war with a motivated population. In November 1941 the US population did not want to be a part of the war. Without the US, Britian falls. Without Britian, the are no distractions for a Germany invading russia (North Africa) without those distractions and US lend lease to the USSR and Germany probably wins there.
Every leader knew the US people had to be convinced to join. That meant a brutal but impotent attack on US soil. Thus pearl harbor with all the carriers elsewhere.
Doberman7290 t1_iy2j2d6 wrote
Man you got it all wrong. I’ll come back tomorrow
Coloradostoneman t1_iy5ou8u wrote
I notice you have down voted but not replied. Which of my statements were wrong and why?
Coloradostoneman t1_iy2o640 wrote
Which bits are wrong? Please be explicit and provide your explanations
TakeBeerBenchinHilux t1_iy5304i wrote
Perfect sense didn't end well over the next 4 years...
Coloradostoneman t1_iy5ojmt wrote
no, It did not end well and they pretty much knew they were screwed when the carriers were not there. It was a long shot, but they did not feel that they had a choice.
TakeBeerBenchinHilux t1_iy6u5lm wrote
Yes, no choice. No choice but to rape through China, Southeast Asia, blitz Pearl Harbor and occupy the Aluetians. Manchuria, Taiwan and Korea wasn't enough resources. Hail Mary through the Philippines, Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, Malysia, northern Australia, Micronesia, Polynesia and even Papua New Guinea for some reason, right?
Coloradostoneman t1_iy76y79 wrote
Notice I said "they did not FEEL that they had a choice" not that they didn't.
All I said they had no real choice on was attacking pearl harbor. And given that the other option was packing it all in because they had no oil, which was culturally and politically untenable, no, they did not really have a choice in their mind.
Were there technically other options? Yes, there usually are. Was there any chance they would be taken? No. In the Japan of the time ending the war was literally death for the commanders.
Coloradostoneman t1_iy5pa95 wrote
Some group seems to really not like your completely correct analysis here.
Seienchin88 t1_iy5tll9 wrote
Dont know some people just are incapable when it comes to nuance when it comes to the pacific war… no idea why?
Nickrobl t1_iy1ldj6 wrote
I agree. It wasn't about picking a good choice, Japan just picked what they thought was the "least bad" out of a number of even worse/unacceptable options.
huntimir151 t1_iy1r1yq wrote
Yeah, and their arithmetic included butchering civilians throughout southeast Asia as part of their delusions regarding their own superiority. Like nothing justified those choices it was Nazi level insanity, not pure realpolitik.
Nickrobl t1_iy3nxcq wrote
I'm not saying it is a moral or correct choice, just that leaving China was a non-starter for their government. As a result, the leadership felt they only had bad choices left and picked the least bad one from their point of view.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments