OT: War in the Pacific

[Rising-Sun]

Well I glad I brought this up, least we all can understand what it is like and there probably more than you know. Least share your experiences and knowledge with us.

[Feltan]

My Father fought in the ETO; however, many of my friends' fathers and neighbors were veterans of the PTO when I was growing up.

The PTO veterans, every one I ever personally met or talked with, had a simmering visceral hatred toward the Japanese. While the ETO veterans were likely to chalk things up to "mostly the Germans were boys doing the same thing we had to do," the PTO veterans would grant a modicum of respect to the bravery and commitment of Japanese soldiers/sailors, but that was quickly followed by a stream of invectives and personal stories of why, as one veteran told me, killing Japanese was usually "fun and easy."

As a boy, I clearly recall the label "made in Japan" was synonymous with "junk." This would change, and change dramatically when the first Japanese manufactured cars became popular during the gas crisis of the '70's. A neighbor's son came home from college with a second hand Honda Civic (?) that he had purchased -- and was not allowed to park it in the driveway. He was relegated to street parking with his dad, a former Marine, standing on the front lawn and doing his best to imitate a drill instructor giving a lesson to an errant recruit who simply didn't understand the facts of life.

All anecdotal .... just experiences I had growing up in the heartland.

Regards,
Feltan

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

In agreement?! Fetch me my angry trousers... I'm madder than I've ever been [:@]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMoaq76zzfM
[:)]



And within mainland Europe. Italy being the prime example - Hoare / Laval and all that [&:]

Feel free to tell me. I would be very interested as to what part you do not agree with! I take it most of you are more knowledgeable than I am and as such I would love to hear what you have to say. New perspectives can only be a good thing. Note that this is not a question of personal pride for me and I will not be offended.

warspite1

Okay – as you asked.

Not just the Japanese. It goes for all sides.

True

There are many instances where Americans didn't take prisoners either

I suspect there were. The British too. My uncle, fighting as an infantryman in France, and up against SS troops, was involved in the taking of Hill 112 and was told “there will be no prisoners taken today lads”.

and we all know of the atrocities committed by allied units.

‘We all know’. Yes any of us who know anything about the war – pretty much any war – will know of incidents we would prefer, in our comfy 21st century world, didn’t happen.

Not to mention the decision to target civilian cities with strategic bombing

It can be argued that in total war, there is not much of a distinction between civilians and combatants. If you weren’t fighting you were perhaps, feeding the war machine – an armaments worker, a farmer, a future soldier, and yes sometimes just a housewife, a pensioner or a child. Do I wish bombing of civilians had not happened? Yes I do. BUT do I lose sleep over it? Does it concern me? No – not at all. A visit to the Holocaust museum or reading about Nanking kind of removes any 'issues' about that. The Allies never asked for the war – despite the nonsense fed by imbeciles like David Irving. The war was not some isolated, localised, small scale war BUT total war fought against regimes that were repugnant and for which the losers would lose everything. Hitting back at the enemy was done in the most effective way possible to end the war as quickly as possible, with as few casualties as possible. That meant aerial bombing. I can live with that.

During Pearl Harbor for example the Japanese pilots were explicitly told not to cause any civilian casualties.

No idea if that is true but let’s say it is. So? As has been said, no one is all bad, no one is all good. We are not 7-years olds watching cowboy movies with the baddies easily identifiable by the fact that they have black hats….. Were there some good Germans or Italians or Japanese? Yes – were there some evil Americans or French or Commonwealth? Yes. Just happens to be that there were less of these types – and the governments of the latter were free, democratic and – as said – didn’t ask for the war.

However, from what I understand the Japanese appear to have been a bit more sadistic than most others.

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

How much of this is propaganda and not is hard to tell.

No, no it isn't.

I think its clear though that westerners were treated a lot better than Chinese prisoners.

Yes, I think that is great comfort to the poor bastards my mother treated in Australia at the end of the war. Grown men, beaten, mentally broken and tortured after years of barbaric treatment at the hands of the Japanese in prisoner of war camps. My mother was a young, innocent, 21-year old. She never forget the sites she saw. But hey – they were better treated than the Chinese so that’s great yeah?

Given how Japanese soldiers were starving all over

Yep – read up on Guadalcanal. A regime that can do that to their own people are really best wiped from the planet.

I don't think its strange that many prisoners didn't get fed properly.

Me neither. What about the beatings? The insanely cruel treatment for the smallest of infractions? Nothing to do with having no food – and everything to do with sub-human, sadistic, behaviour. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

It is easy to treat your prisoners well if you're winning and have the means to do so.

Shame that the Japanese didn’t treat their prisoners well then at the start of the war when they were winning isn’t it? Or perhaps the Death marches were made up?

I agree with most of the things you wrote but I also think some parts are too simplified and do not capture the suffering on ALL sides. I know of starvation island and I also know of the fire bombings of Tokyo and the "rape of nanking". They were all terrible in their own way.

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

I wont agree with what? That whole statement is in agreement with your point. The "a bit" part was too mild in hindsight but I was trying to make the point that everyone did horrible stuff.

I personally think the suffering of all involved in this terrible conflict was a tragedy. That goes for everyone. Both the Australian servicemen who fought the Japanese army/navy and the Japanese children who were killed by allied bombers (they likely outnumber the former by the way).

I am not trying to take away the suffering of anyone but it is a fact that you were MUCH more likely to survive capture by the Japanese if you were born in the west.

Did abuse happen? Yes. Was it widespread? Yes. Do I think that the Japanese have been portrayed excessively brutal and that sadistic individuals have been portrayed as the "ordinary Japanese soldier" for propaganda purposes? Yes. Are some of the POW deaths directly attributable to western strategy and action? Yes. I really don't think it black and white. It was a terrible war and both sides did horrible things. The starvation war and the sinking of POW transports massively attributed to the high death rate of western POW.

How can you possibly say that the strategic bombings is nothing to lose sleep over? How is the indiscriminate killings of civilians any different from genocide? If they were bombing the people responsible I could understand your position but the fact is that they were indiscriminately bombing civilians because they happened to be born in a certain country? Was it the best course of action ? It possibly was, but it still something we should regret having had to do.

Again to clarify a few other things. I am not a holocaust denier (actually I don't even know why you brought it up). Neither am I denying that the Japanese did terrible terrible things. I am just trying to say that while we remember the terrible things they did we often try to forget what we did in return.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: robinsa



Feel free to tell me. I would be very interested as to what part you do not agree with! I take it most of you are more knowledgeable than I am and as such I would love to hear what you have to say. New perspectives can only be a good thing. Note that this is not a question of personal pride for me and I will not be offended.

warspite1

Okay – as you asked.

Not just the Japanese. It goes for all sides.

True

There are many instances where Americans didn't take prisoners either

I suspect there were. The British too. My uncle, fighting as an infantryman in France, and up against SS troops, was involved in the taking of Hill 112 and was told “there will be no prisoners taken today lads”.

and we all know of the atrocities committed by allied units.

‘We all know’. Yes any of us who know anything about the war – pretty much any war – will know of incidents we would prefer, in our comfy 21st century world, didn’t happen.

Not to mention the decision to target civilian cities with strategic bombing

It can be argued that in total war, there is not much of a distinction between civilians and combatants. If you weren’t fighting you were perhaps, feeding the war machine – an armaments worker, a farmer, a future soldier, and yes sometimes just a housewife, a pensioner or a child. Do I wish bombing of civilians had not happened? Yes I do. BUT do I lose sleep over it? Does it concern me? No – not at all. A visit to the Holocaust museum or reading about Nanking kind of removes any 'issues' about that. The Allies never asked for the war – despite the nonsense fed by imbeciles like David Irving. The war was not some isolated, localised, small scale war BUT total war fought against regimes that were repugnant and for which the losers would lose everything. Hitting back at the enemy was done in the most effective way possible to end the war as quickly as possible, with as few casualties as possible. That meant aerial bombing. I can live with that.

During Pearl Harbor for example the Japanese pilots were explicitly told not to cause any civilian casualties.

No idea if that is true but let’s say it is. So? As has been said, no one is all bad, no one is all good. We are not 7-years olds watching cowboy movies with the baddies easily identifiable by the fact that they have black hats….. Were there some good Germans or Italians or Japanese? Yes – were there some evil Americans or French or Commonwealth? Yes. Just happens to be that there were less of these types – and the governments of the latter were free, democratic and – as said – didn’t ask for the war.

However, from what I understand the Japanese appear to have been a bit more sadistic than most others.

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

How much of this is propaganda and not is hard to tell.

No, no it isn't.

I think its clear though that westerners were treated a lot better than Chinese prisoners.

Yes, I think that is great comfort to the poor bastards my mother treated in Australia at the end of the war. Grown men, beaten, mentally broken and tortured after years of barbaric treatment at the hands of the Japanese in prisoner of war camps. My mother was a young, innocent, 21-year old. She never forget the sites she saw. But hey – they were better treated than the Chinese so that’s great yeah?

Given how Japanese soldiers were starving all over

Yep – read up on Guadalcanal. A regime that can do that to their own people are really best wiped from the planet.

I don't think its strange that many prisoners didn't get fed properly.

Me neither. What about the beatings? The insanely cruel treatment for the smallest of infractions? Nothing to do with having no food – and everything to do with sub-human, sadistic, behaviour. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

It is easy to treat your prisoners well if you're winning and have the means to do so.

Shame that the Japanese didn’t treat their prisoners well then at the start of the war when they were winning isn’t it? Or perhaps the Death marches were made up?

I agree with most of the things you wrote but I also think some parts are too simplified and do not capture the suffering on ALL sides. I know of starvation island and I also know of the fire bombings of Tokyo and the "rape of nanking". They were all terrible in their own way.

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

I wont agree with what? That whole statement is in agreement with your point. The "a bit" part was too mild in hindsight but I was trying to make the point that everyone did horrible stuff.

I personally think the suffering of all involved in this terrible conflict was a tragedy. That goes for everyone. Both the Australian servicemen who fought the Japanese army/navy and the Japanese children who were killed by allied bombers (they likely outnumber the former by the way).

I am not trying to take away the suffering of anyone but it is a fact that you were MUCH more likely to survive capture by the Japanese if you were a western.

Did abuse happen? Yes. Was it widespread? Yes. Do I think that the Japanese have been portrayed excessively brutal and that sadistic individuals have been portrayed as the "ordinary Japanese soldier" for propaganda purposes? Yes. Are some of the POW deaths directly attributable to western strategy and action? Yes. I really don't think it black and white. It was a terrible war and both sides did horrible things. The starvation war and the sinking of POW transports massively attributed to the high death rate of western POW.

How can you possibly say that the strategic bombings is nothing to lose sleep over? How is the indiscriminate killings of civilians any different from genocide? If they were bombing the people responsible I could understand your position but the fact is that they were indiscriminately bombing civilians because they happened to be born in a certain country? Was it the best course of action ? It possibly was, but it still something we should regret having had to do.

Again to clarify a few other things. I am not a holocaust denier (actually I don't even know why you brought it up). Neither am I denying that the Japanese did terrible terrible things. I am just trying to say that while we remember the terrible things they did we often try to forget what we did in return.

warspite1

robinsa - just to clarify:

- I only brought up the holocaust because I see no difference in the German and Japanese regimes - certainly no thought that you are a holocaust denier and hope I did not give that impression - I don't see that I did.

- Re bombing - as I said, I would prefer that it wasn't necessary and that it hadn't happened because innocent civilians would have suffered in addition to combatants and the grey areas i.e. those who fed the war machine at a time of total war.

- The reason I do not lose any sleep over it is because, as also said, this was total war. When you look at the regimes being fought (and what we know they were capable of and what they did) the Allies, for the sake of civilisation, needed to win this war. I would prefer that the war was won using all the finest rules of engagement, and that no black marks could be pointed at the Allies. But that is not the case - and not reasonable in war to expect it to be so. The Allies, having no benefit of hindsight, fought the war, as best they could, to a successful conclusion. I for one am thankful they did.

[robinsa]

I understand your position. Thanks for sharing.

Oh and the reason I wanted to clarify the holocaust part was because of the mentioning of David Irving.

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in. That is however not what Irving is saying and I do not share his opinions in general.

Just wanted to make that clear!

Cheers.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

Did abuse happen? Yes. Was it widespread? Yes. Do I think that the Japanese have been portrayed excessively brutal and that sadistic individuals have been portrayed as the "ordinary Japanese soldier" for propaganda purposes? Yes. Are some of the POW deaths directly attributable to western strategy and action? Yes. I really don't think it black and white. It was a terrible war and both sides did horrible things. The starvation war and the sinking of POW transports massively attributed to the high death rate of western POW.

The problem was that the "ordinary Japanese soldier" was indoctrinated with abuse from basic training onwards. The officers beat the NCO's, the NCO's beat the privates, the privates beat the PoW's. Brutality was a core component of the IJA.

Was every Japanese soldier a brutal sadist? No. Did the institution of the Japanese Army and Navy encourage brutality and sadism? Yes. These two points are key.

How can you possibly say that the strategic bombings is nothing to lose sleep over? How is the indiscriminate killings of civilians any different from genocide? If they were bombing the people responsible I could understand your position but the fact is that they were indiscriminately bombing civilians because they happened to be born in a certain country? Was it the best course of action ? It possibly was, but it still something we should regret having had to do.

The strategic bombing campaign was terrible in that it led to extensive civilian casualties, but it was not genocide. It was not conducted with the express purpose to wipe out the Japanese as a people. It is a tragedy that the most effective way to systematically strike at dispersed Japanese industry was to use area bombing with incendiaries - a method which provided both the most effective results and the most civilian casualties.

[rustysi]

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in.

I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in.

I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

There is some ground for that argument. It's important to understand the circumstances around which these decisions were made.

The US economic embargo essentially placed the Japanese leaders in an impossible position.

Option A was to abandon the war in China.

Option B was to extend the war to get the resources to beat China.

While Option A would be the morally correct choice, it was a political impossibility. Japanese foriegn policy was simply too invested in the war with China for such a drastic change to be acceptable, and the losses already sustained by Japan in China contributed it extensively to it. Japan simply lost too many men to make the war with China something that it could walk away from.

Option B, then, was the best choice for Japan. The sunk cost fallacy in action.

[Terminus]

What is being attempted here is just another instance of the same denial of Japanese responsibility that's been going on since 1945. It's foul and disgusting. There's no "sharing" of the blame here. The Japanese military dictatorship decided to go to war. THEY. CHOSE. TO. GO. TO. WAR. They chose to subjugate the populations of other countries in Asia, starting with Korea, with the utmost brutality, all of it based on the perceived racial superiority of Japan. Nazi Germany's emissary to China was shocked at the savage barbarity of the Rape of Nanking.

There's a mountain of evidence, but that does nothing when people in Japan (and unfortunately elsewhere) keep putting their hands over their ears and screaming LALALALALALALALA!!! Again, there is no sharing of blame, no moral high ground, no grey area. Stop it.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in.

I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

There is some ground for that argument. It's important to understand the circumstances around which these decisions were made.

The US economic embargo essentially placed the Japanese leaders in an impossible position.

Option A was to abandon the war in China.

Option B was to extend the war to get the resources to beat China.

While Option A would be the morally correct choice, it was a political impossibility. Japanese foriegn policy was simply too invested in the war with China for such a drastic change to be acceptable, and the losses already sustained by Japan in China contributed it extensively to it. Japan simply lost too many men to make the war with China something that it could walk away from.

Option B, then, was the best choice for Japan. The sunk cost fallacy in action.

Now your gonna make me get books out again.[:D] Going by memory (always a bad thing these days) wasn't the oil embargo put in place after Japan 'occupied' Indo-China? At any rate Japan was the aggressor long before any embargo, and it didn't look as if she were going to stop. Embargoes have been used as an attempt to get aggressors to back off for a long time. Albeit not successfully AFAIK. Whether this forced Japan into a war with the United States to me is immaterial, we were headed there anyway. By this time the war in Europe had already started and I'm sure Washington knew we were in it one way or another sooner or later.

Besides an embargo was probably the only political option open for us at the time anyway, as the nation still wasn't interested in going to war. As Winston Churchill once said (again going from memory) "the United States will eventually make the right decision, after she's tried all the wrong ones". As far as I'm concerned Japans' leaders put her on the path to her ultimate destruction when she invaded Manchuria in 1931.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What is being attempted here is just another instance of the same denial of Japanese responsibility that's been going on since 1945. It's foul and disgusting. There's no "sharing" of the blame here. The Japanese military dictatorship decided to go to war. THEY. CHOSE. TO. GO. TO. WAR. They chose to subjugate the populations of other countries in Asia, starting with Korea, with the utmost brutality, all of it based on the perceived racial superiority of Japan. Nazi Germany's emissary to China was shocked at the savage barbarity of the Rape of Nanking.

There's a mountain of evidence, but that does nothing when people in Japan (and unfortunately elsewhere) keep putting their hands over their ears and screaming LALALALALALALALA!!! Again, there is no sharing of blame, no moral high ground, no grey area. Stop it.

Thanks, T.

[Capt Hornblower]

Hi, guys,

I'd just like to point out that if any of you inferred anything about Rising Sun's ethnicity from his comments, you're probably wrong. Judging from the info in his profile, his heritage seems to be European. (I'd hazard a guess that his paternal ancestry is at least part Dutch.) He just happens to be an extreme Japanophile. (I like the Japanese, too, but only those not responsible by action or inaction for the wartime government and military.)

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in.

I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

There is some ground for that argument. It's important to understand the circumstances around which these decisions were made.

The US economic embargo essentially placed the Japanese leaders in an impossible position.

Option A was to abandon the war in China.

Option B was to extend the war to get the resources to beat China.

While Option A would be the morally correct choice, it was a political impossibility. Japanese foriegn policy was simply too invested in the war with China for such a drastic change to be acceptable, and the losses already sustained by Japan in China contributed it extensively to it. Japan simply lost too many men to make the war with China something that it could walk away from.

Option B, then, was the best choice for Japan. The sunk cost fallacy in action.

warspite1

I have a question for mind_messing and anyone else who believes that it was the US that put Japan in an impossible position. And please, no hindsight, just a straight answer to the question.

26th July 1941
Western Europe was largely under the jackboot. France had been beaten and the UK, ejected from the continent. In the east, all considered military thinking was that the Soviets were beaten and her conquest was a matter of months if not weeks away. This would have given Germany rule over Europe – and, with the USSR defeated, the UK would have been next. Meanwhile in the US backyard, the Japanese, shortly to be free of threat from the USSR could turn the Kwantung army on China.

So, as can be seen, given the above it doesn’t take a huge leap of imagination to see that by sometime in 1942 the might of the Wehrmacht is to be thrust upon the UK and Egypt. French, Dutch and British possessions in the Far East are ripe for the taking and China is on the brink.

Question:

What exactly was President Roosevelt supposed to do?

[robinsa]

I think Roosvelt did what he could and had he actually led to negotiations himself it is likely that there wouldn't have been a war with Japan. Much can be attributed to poor communications but also to the unwillingness of secretary Hull to negotiate. The rising sun by Toland gives a good account of this for those interested.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

I think Roosvelt did what he could and had he actually led to negotiations himself it is likely that there wouldn't have been a war with Japan. Much can be attributed to poor communications but also to the unwillingness of secretary Hull to negotiate. The rising sun by Toland gives a good account of this for those interested.

warspite1

No, what I mean is. Japan will not back down. That is a given. Under those circumstances - and given the dire global position of the Western Powers - I ask again. What is President Roosevelt actually supposed to do?

OR are you saying that Japan will agree to exit from aggressive war in China?

[Rising-Sun]

Believe that when a good person or people trying to make a difference here, only take one or more to mess things up, another word you are in a room with the wrong people. So it can get ugly at some points and not making the right plans or ideas. When United States closing on Japan, range with heavy bombers, Japan should have stepped down, otherwise would have saved many lives and lucky the Emperor was unharm.

So gotta remember one thing, there are good and bad people everywhere. For those giving out orders at higher ranks that aren't wise or smart would ended up killing many. I know there are some out there back in WWII just love killing people on all sides. So the war going on and on.

[robinsa]

Yes. Konoes cabinet would have given concessions (and actually did) but they were caught in limbo between Hull and IJA which made it impossible to reach an agreement. The IJA an the other Japanese leaders carry the largest responsibility no doubt but the inflexibility and the inablility of the west to understand the position of Konoes cabinet contriuted to the failure of negotiations.
Even Tojo was willing to withdraw from China in some manner but by that time the Americans were fed up with Japanese "Incincerity" and the mixed message they were sendig. The mixed message was enhanced by poorly translated magic intercepts that effectively misled the US administration of the true Japanese intent. The slowness to negotiate and the supicion in turn made the Japanese think the US was buy for time to prepare their military and to make the effects of embargo more felt. The November first deadline passed without an agreement and the rest is history. Again, I really recommend Tolands book for a different perspective.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What is being attempted here is just another instance of the same denial of Japanese responsibility that's been going on since 1945. It's foul and disgusting. There's no "sharing" of the blame here. The Japanese military dictatorship decided to go to war. THEY. CHOSE. TO. GO. TO. WAR. They chose to subjugate the populations of other countries in Asia, starting with Korea, with the utmost brutality, all of it based on the perceived racial superiority of Japan. Nazi Germany's emissary to China was shocked at the savage barbarity of the Rape of Nanking.

There's a mountain of evidence, but that does nothing when people in Japan (and unfortunately elsewhere) keep putting their hands over their ears and screaming LALALALALALALALA!!! Again, there is no sharing of blame, no moral high ground, no grey area. Stop it.

I'm pointing out the context within which the Japanese leadership had to make these choices.

This is at a point where the militarists can assassinate moderates and attempt coups without anything more than a slap on the wrist.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: rustysi



I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

There is some ground for that argument. It's important to understand the circumstances around which these decisions were made.

The US economic embargo essentially placed the Japanese leaders in an impossible position.

Option A was to abandon the war in China.

Option B was to extend the war to get the resources to beat China.

While Option A would be the morally correct choice, it was a political impossibility. Japanese foriegn policy was simply too invested in the war with China for such a drastic change to be acceptable, and the losses already sustained by Japan in China contributed it extensively to it. Japan simply lost too many men to make the war with China something that it could walk away from.

Option B, then, was the best choice for Japan. The sunk cost fallacy in action.

Now your gonna make me get books out again.[:D] Going by memory (always a bad thing these days) wasn't the oil embargo put in place after Japan 'occupied' Indo-China? At any rate Japan was the aggressor long before any embargo, and it didn't look as if she were going to stop. Embargoes have been used as an attempt to get aggressors to back off for a long time. Albeit not successfully AFAIK. Whether this forced Japan into a war with the United States to me is immaterial, we were headed there anyway. By this time the war in Europe had already started and I'm sure Washington knew we were in it one way or another sooner or later.

Besides an embargo was probably the only political option open for us at the time anyway, as the nation still wasn't interested in going to war. As Winston Churchill once said (again going from memory) "the United States will eventually make the right decision, after she's tried all the wrong ones". As far as I'm concerned Japans' leaders put her on the path to her ultimate destruction when she invaded Manchuria in 1931.

That Japan was the aggressor and deserved to be embargoed is absolutely true.

The real issue is that it raised the stakes significantly for Japan by threatening strategic resources. Japan and the US were set to clash over China regardless, but the blockade threw gallons of fuel over the fire.

You touch on the key point though, that it was really all the American leadership could do with the US set in an isolationist mindset.

Question:

What exactly was President Roosevelt supposed to do?

Roosevelt, in my view, did all that he could considering the situation of US politics at the time. A stronger American stance is a debatable issue, but

The only possibility that I'd say could have changed the outcome would have been if the American's weren't reading the Japanese codes, which would have completely changed the dynamic of negotiations.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

Yes. Konoes cabinet would have given concessions (and actually did) but they were caught in limbo between Hull and IJA which made it impossible to reach an agreement. The IJA an the other Japanese leaders carry the largest responsibility no doubt but the inflexibility and the inablility of the west to understand the position of Konoes cabinet contriuted to the failure of negotiations.
Even Tojo was willing to withdraw from China in some manner but by that time the Americans were fed up with Japanese "Incincerity" and the mixed message they were sendig. The mixed message was enhanced by poorly translated magic intercepts that effectively misled the US administration of the true Japanese intent. The slowness to negotiate and the supicion in turn made the Japanese think the US was buy for time to prepare their military and to make the effects of embargo more felt. The November first deadline passed without an agreement and the rest is history. Again, I really recommend Tolands book for a different perspective.

warspite1

Sorry I meant to respond previously - I have read Toland's book Rising Sun. Absolutely riveting read and I heartily endorse your comment. It is essential reading for those interested in the Pacific War.

The problem is - and you allude to this - it is difficult (well impossible in my view) to see any concession being offered to the US that would:

a) stop the war in China, whilst at the same time
b) allowing Konoye and co to keep their heads attached to their shoulders.

For that, I feel truly sorry for the Japanese moderates. However, western sympathy for their plight means nothing in the context of the US providing strategic materials to Japan in order that Japan can continue to wage war in China and then wage war against the British, the Dutch and yes, possibly the Americans too.

All this at a time when Hitler has (or is about to) conquer the remainder of Europe. No one - including the finest military brains - thought the Soviets could hold out. Imagine (and remember hindsight not allowed) if the Germans had beaten them?

If Roosevelt had not embargoed Japan? Arsenal of Democracy? Arsenal of militaristic Japan more like. Roosevelt would go down as the greatest arsehead in history. Thankfully, whatever else FDR was or wasn't, he properly understood the dangers of an Axis victory.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Question:

What exactly was President Roosevelt supposed to do?

Roosevelt, in my view, did all that he could considering the situation of US politics at the time. A stronger American stance is a debatable issue, but.....

warspite1

Hi m_m. Could you just expand on the words in italics please? I don't understand what US politics has to do with it as opposed to the world situation.

Re stronger - stronger than what?

Thanks