Article

2005-08-15 China-Japan-Koreas

Japanese spy told Stalin of Tokyo's U.S. war policy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Ebbolutch Thavick3284 2005-08-15 00:18|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The money quote: Whether Japan would start a war against the United States or against the Soviet Union was a primary concern for Moscow, which wanted Japan to choose war against Washington as the Soviets needed to focus on battling Germany.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-15 07:51|| 2005-08-15 07:51|| Front Page Top

#2 We aren't really surprised, are we?

Posted by trailing wife 2005-08-15 09:16|| 2005-08-15 09:16|| Front Page Top

#3 The policy of going after the US first made a lot of sense - the US was far away from Japanese targets and the weakest of all the major powers at the beginning of the war.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-15 10:00|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-15 10:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Did the Soviets cut off the Japanese access to oil and steel? Those seem like pretty belligerent actions to me.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 10:09|| 2005-08-15 10:09|| Front Page Top

#5 MD: Did the Soviets cut off the Japanese access to oil and steel? Those seem like pretty belligerent actions to me.

The Japanese should have been able to obtain oil and steel from other sources, albeit at higher prices. Japanese forces had pacified big chunks of China by this time - China's oil fields at Dalian in Manchuria (formerly Manchukuo, a Japanese province annexed from China) are still producing oil today. Until recently, when demand from export-related industries forced China to import iron ore from abroad, China was self-sufficient in steel.

Basically, the Japanese invasion of China was an excellent strategic move in an age where China was the only remaining territory not conquered by the major powers. The Japanese overreached when they attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, instead of just going after the overseas possessions of the British, French and Dutch empires in Asia. Without Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt would have had no pretext for going to war with Japan.

I kind of understand why they did it - they wanted to knock out the Pacific fleet in order to conquer the Philippines (then US territory). Why? Because the Philippines was one of the richest territories in the Far East at the time, not the sick man of the region that it is today.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-15 10:49|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-15 10:49|| Front Page Top

#6 The Japanese should have chosen neither route. If they had stuck to attacking European possessions in the Pacific theater and avoided fighting the USA, Australia, and Russia. In fact they should have made alliances with the three nations to ensure trade and supply routes.

Certainly they would have continued a long nasty fight in China, Vietnam, Indonesia and eventually overstretched into India...

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-08-15 11:22|| 2005-08-15 11:22|| Front Page Top

#7 rjschwarz: If they had stuck to attacking European possessions in the Pacific theater and avoided fighting the USA, Australia, and Russia.

I think Australia is the odd man out in that list. Before the American entry into the Pacific War, the Australians were beaten by the Japanese everywhere they fought them. It was the Battle of Coral Sea, fought by the US Navy, that decided whether or not Australia would fall under Japanese rule. If they had conquered Australia, they would have denied the US a base from which major operations in the Western Pacific could be mounted. Note that the Japanese conquest of Australia would not have given Roosevelt a pretext for war, since the US had no mutual defense treaty with Australia at the time.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-15 11:44|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-15 11:44|| Front Page Top

#8 I agree about Australia, the Japanese could have taken them, but tactically I think it would have been a mistake in the long run. Better to let the Aussies be neutral and get ore or whatever from trade than to risk dragging the US, and England and Dominions into the Pacific once the European theater was over.

I think the Japanese dropped the ball and they were really lucky that they were at the mercy of the US and not the Soviets when the dust settled.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-08-15 14:59|| 2005-08-15 14:59|| Front Page Top

#9 rjschwarz: I think the Japanese dropped the ball and they were really lucky that they were at the mercy of the US and not the Soviets when the dust settled.

Well, they weren't that lucky - Roosevelt insisted on detaching from Japan its provinces on the Asian mainland - Korea and Manchuria - as well as Taiwan. We paid for Roosevelt's decision during the Korean War. And we continue to pay for it today, via impasse over Taiwan and Korea today. A Japan with all three territories would be a solid counterbalance to China, and have a population of about 300 million. Unfortunately, retaining Japan's pre-war territorial integrity was the path not taken.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-15 15:29|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-15 15:29|| Front Page Top

#10 My understanding is that the oil in China was not sufficient for Japanese appetites and that what they wanted was the Dutch East Indies. The Phillipines had the misfortune to be on the way and Japan could not be confident, given the belligerence of the US, that they would not be used as a base to interdict oil transports to the Home Islands. What they did wrong was to ignore U. S. isolationism and how much of a blind eye we would have turned to further Japanese aggression as long as it wasn't directed at us.

Counterfactual history is fun.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 15:58|| 2005-08-15 15:58|| Front Page Top

#11 Little did the Nips suspect I had F**ked up every well played defense plan of the Phillipines! I decided to fight the suckers on the beaches, a brilliant but logistically unsupportable plan. I took care of my out numbered counterpart after the war. Had his ass hung.

Posted by Dugout Doug 2005-08-15 18:01|| 2005-08-15 18:01|| Front Page Top

#12 Yes, I do hate Marines, but hey? It's a living. The refridgerator? A myth, it was a freezer, the Ana, naw... a good friend of the family, the boy? Yeah he's queer has a 3 dollar bill, I fouled him up like my Mommmy did me.

Posted by Dugout Doug 2005-08-15 18:04|| 2005-08-15 18:04|| Front Page Top

#13 Yes the Phillipines were in an awkward position but invasion but the US was guardedly neutral. It would have been safer to hug the Asian coast and allow the Phillipines to be American than confront the USA when they didn't have to.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-08-15 19:13|| 2005-08-15 19:13|| Front Page Top

#14 WTF?

Posted by Secret Master 2005-08-15 19:17|| 2005-08-15 19:17|| Front Page Top

23:50 anonymous2u
23:42 Zhang Fei
23:34 Anonymoose
23:17 Zhang Fei
23:14 DMFD
23:12 Glenmore
23:10 Anonymoose
23:09 Jan
23:07 BH
22:56 Frank G
22:51 Thoque Unush3335
22:50 Constitutional Individualist
22:47 bigjim-ky
22:45 Sobiesky
22:44 Constitutional Individualist
22:44 Frank G
22:44 Zhang Fei
22:38 Zhang Fei
22:38 Uleregum Hupains2323
22:36 bigjim-ky
22:34 phil_b
22:30 bigjim-ky
22:29 Captain America
22:27 Frank G