Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

[el cid again]

The problem here is that the USS Panay had been bombed and strafed by Japan a few years earlier and the USS Reuben James had just been sunk by a U-boat. Neither event produced a general outcry for war by the citizenry.

Well, that is not quite true. There is a ballad about the Ruben James - it did produce some calls for war. And the Panay incident nearly DID cause a war. The Japanese conducted some good damage control - and further (this isn't popular to say) the evidence indicates it was not intentional. [That is, the pilots who did it did not believe it was a US ship! The feelings of those on the ship - and a tanker in company - notwithstanding - it was not clear in the air who they were.] It probably would have been wrong to go to war over a mistake - and we were given a full and formal apology, reparations, and access to the people and evidence - so it was the sort of behavior that should have defused the situation. But it is clear that officers on both sides expected a war.

[el cid again]

While I agree that FDR most certainly wanted war with Germany, what makes you think that 3 small yachts (of which only one would likely have been engaged) would form a better genesis for war?

First, this was not my plan. It is not a plan I would have recommended. It might even be a plan I would have questioned. But - it was plausable enough - I would have honored the orders.

The theory was that IF IJN could be said to have "fired on a US warship" we could go to war. The idea that these tiny vessels would be US warships is a bit far fetched IMHO. There were expendable - I give you that. But one three inch gun (under canvas), one radio, one officer, that is a very very small and technical warship! Oh yes - they also were issued one AND ONLY one US flag! [Don't waste more on expendable ships I guess. ANyway, it would not wear out - it was only to be run up once - AFTER the enemy had fired!] I suppose in the charged atmosphere of the time, the headline might have worked. Remember the war in 1898 - "You supply the pictures. I will supply the war." ?? [William Randolph Hearst to an artist. He also commissioned Rudyard Kipling - then in Connecticut with his new wife - to write The White Man's Burdon - which he effectively used to justify an American Empire.]

[Feinder]

Try to remember the subject under discussion. You said Japan sent 100% (that is every last soldier, vehicle, artillery piece, you name it) to CHINA. So I am listing places it had soldiers, vehicles, artillery pieces, etc. The Kwangtung army was always stronger than the Army in China.
The IJA in Japan always had more units, equipement and manpower (it is called the Home Army) than the Army in China. It is not that Japan was attacked - it is that you NEVER leave your country without a defense - to discourage attack. And it is nice to have some of your army learning new skills - and practicing not in a combat zone. My point is that you were completely wrong to say - and surely you cannot believe - Japan sent all its military assets to fight in China. IJA was divided about the whole subject of war with China. It was divided BEFORE it ever went there - there were coups (plural) and lots of other career ending things - even Yamashita was involved in one of these (forever causing him to be less than totally trusted). The Japanese government was divided about the whole subject of war with China. It was a concept pushed by activists, for allegedly patriotic (but more often selfish) reasons. Not a concept - more than one concept - there were SEPARATE armies in China run by SEPARATE commands - always limited in size and logistic and air support. This is the diametric opposite of a 100% effort. It is two 15% efforts - something like that. IF Japan had adopted a unified strategy, and put a great captain in charge, and supported it with most of its air forces, it would have been a completely different situation. You said otherwise - and that is because you thought it already had done that. It didn't.

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?!

-THIS- is what I said, nothing more:

During that period Japan fought :

no less than two wars with the USSR = Check the scoreboard on these. Not exactly a steller performance on behalf of Japan.

Occupied Indochina = You mean during a period of about 6 months in 1940, Japan "forcefully negotiated" away IndoChina from Vichy. No shooting required.

Continued to defend Japan proper = Against whom? Last I checked, there were no invasion fleets heading to Japan at any time between 1936 and 1941.

Otherwise, I have not idea what you're attributing to me.

(* shrug *)

Frankly, I could care less about Chinese Partisans in CHS. That was my first posting in this -very- long winded thread that has already been re-hashed a dozen dozen times over. There isn't "discussion" in this thread (and others), it's simply an excersise in burying disagreement with 6 posts for every one.

Whatever.

Time for coffee.

-F-

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Ok, let's go down this road.

It was Matthew Perry not Dewey.

Correct. Dewey is the commander in 1898 at Manila Bay - Perry is the one who threatened to bombard Japan in the 1860s.

If he threatened to bombard Japan, it would have occured in the 1850s.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Kagoshima was bombarded 10 years after Perry had left by the RN in response to a murder of one of their officials or merchants. They were attacking a particular daimyo, not the whole country. It wasn't even for the murder per se, it was for his failure to pay compensation. It didn't have anything to do with being forced into the modern world.

While I do not doubt you have an incident in mind, there are a whole series of such incidents, involving not just British but also French and Dutch warships, spread over many years of time. Wether they can be justified (in this age) is not the point (people should be judged by the standards of their age, not ours) - the point is the Japanese knew from direct experience what bombardment by modern artillery meant. I might have been mixed up about which bombardment - but I don't think so - I suspect you are picking on a later one than I am. The point remains - Japan was dragged out of isolation by pressure from foreign powers - and the leader of the pack was the USA. We WANTED a Japan that was going to trade - to the point we required it. You cannot escape the consequences for the policy you used to have - even if you don't like it today. Cutting trade to Japan in 1941 is not the same as cutting trade to almost any other nation in almost any year. It is a much more severe threat - and many historians in Japan regard it as a proper causus belli. The ONLY mitigator here is that Roosevelt did not intend to make it total - and that is a minor one - command responsibility is still his.

I have no doubt about the incident in mind. You listed Kagoshima, it didn't occur in the circumstances you stated nor at the time you stated. As far as I can find, Japan had not been bombarded prior to their being "dragged out of isolation". As stated before I find it unlikely that four warships were the only reason for 30m people to suddenly say: "trade is wonderful, trade is good". The government chose its course when it signed the treaty. Reading a summary of the treaty again, I fail to see how it forced Japan out of its isolation. The Japanese had always traded w/ China and the Dutch. Limited as it was, it was still trade. Agreed that a country can't escape the consequences of its policy, I listed numerous attacks made by Japan that may never have occured and stated that, in retrospect, maybe we shouldn't have gone there. However, Japan's self-imposed isolation would have ended eventually.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Who is the "we" in "No problem, we said - we will always trade with you"?

I suggest you read the history of the first US diplomat in Japan.

I'll pass, what an ambassador says is irrelevant. What is signed is all that matters. Nowhere in the treaty is there a guarantee that trade will never be suspended or restrictions placed upon it.

In the course of her history Japan had previous experiences with restrictions or embargos and it did affect her actions. China had embargoed silk due to the actions of Japanese pirates (probably more complex than that however). Japan squashed her pirates as a result. During the period of Portugese influence in acting as intermediaries between China and Japan, I wouldn't doubt that Portugal tried to exert pressure in the same way. This vulnerability to outside forces, as well as, the introduction of Christianity and new technology, was the reason for her decision to isolate herself in the first place. Technically, I guess it was decision of the shogun at the time (1620s or so).

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Countries try to dictate to each other all the time, it's called diplomacy. For a country to expect a second country to continue to supply it with oil and other raw and manufactured materials needed to conquer a third country (especially when that third country was not an aggressor, when that second country is bitterly opposed to anyone's expansionist policies in the Pacific other than its own, and when that second country was the specific object of a treaty designed to dictate to it its own policy) that's called fantasy.

You are confused. Economic sanctions are not in general effective, and they are never effective very fast. But the victims of economic sanctions are not purely, or even mainly, the leaders and wealthy profiteers whom you may have political disputes with. IF Japan was a democratic country, and IF Japanese voters had opted for the policy you dislike, penalizing everyone in the Empire might make some moral sense. But Japan was not close to a democratic country, nor even close to a unified country. Grew's term "government by assassination" has a grim bit of accuracy to it (in spite of being grossly oversimplified). The people with policies you might regard as reasonable were either dead or terrified into inaction (with rare exceptions). In the world of realpolitik, what matters are the realistic possibilities, whenever you consider a policy. And realistically, it was clear that the decision for war with China was not reversable in 1941.
It probably was reversable five years before. WE were too timid to try, and having made that policy choice, if the ONLY subject were China, we should have lived with it. Because the ALTERNATIVE was WAR - no other option was on the table for this policy. What may justify the choice to do the embargo - and the choice to make it 100% - is that it may have been in OUR GLOBAL interests to go to war. But if THAT is the reason for the policy, don't hide behind the smoke screen of saying "it was Japan's fault." They were not angels. Neither were we. It may have been POLITIC to get Japan to act - given the power of the Neutrality Party in Congress - but that is not the same thing as pretending we didn't do this on purpose. We did. Our expert on Japan told us so - and accepted our choice. So do I. But I do not pretend we went to war to "save China" - and in the event we failed to do that. We didn't even deal with the war criminals who launched the biggest BW campaign of all time in China in that war. Friends of China? Not very.

I'm not confused. Nowhere do I mention the effectiveness of economic sanctions, nor do I care about their effectiveness. Speaking of realpolitik, do you find it reasonable that Japan expected America to provide it w/ the oil and scrap iron (as well as other resources) needed to conquer China and help it become a stronger rival to the US? I'll stand by my previous statement and call that fantasy. Did Japan really believe that that was in the US's best interest?

Again, countries tell each other what to do all the time. Japan signed the Tripartite Pact w/ the specific intention of telling the US how to conduct its foreign policy, i.e. to butt out of her affairs(China, Indochina, DEI, etc.) or else. Why isn't the US permitted the same leeway?

I didn't state a reason for our embargo nor say "it was Japan's fault". It's irrelevant as to who were the angels, I thought we were talking realpolitik.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Japan saw the US as its rival in the Pacific and, I'm pretty sure, they thought the US thought likewise. Honestly, on what planet does a country actually think it is the duty of another country to supply it with the resources and materials necessary to make it a stronger, more powerful rival to that country?

OK - I see you never went to US Navy boot camp. The US Navy teaches all its boots it is OUR duty to insure Japan gets oil!!! There is an agreement - if there is a big oil problem - the USA will ship US oil to Japan EVEN IF WE GET NO OTHER OIL - no matter the cost to US citizens.
The US has learned its lesson. You cannot cut off Japan from oil and not have horrible consequences. This is not a policy of a political party - it is national policy - in all administrations. But few outside the Navy and diplomatic service every hear it explicitly. Japan is a special case - no other country might actually die if it had to feed itself - and so it will do whatever it must in extreamus. We have found that such a guarantee is in our interests - it gives us Japan as an ally instead of as an enemy.

No, I never went to navy boot camp. No lesson was learned, only a change in circumstances. How you deal w/ a pre-war rival and post-war ally are usually two differenct things. Our post-war choice to ensure that an ally's, Japan's, oil supply wasn't a moral or legal obligation, it's strictly because they could have fallen under the USSR's or China's influence or control. Neither event was perceived at the time to be in the US's best interest. Japan hasn't invaded or attacked too many countries post-war, which I think was the point of our pre-war choice to dick around with a rival's oil supply.

There are several countries who would die if they had to feed themselves. Japan is only the most technologically advanced of them.

[el cid again]

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?!

-THIS- is what I said, nothing more:

quote:

During that period Japan fought :

no less than two wars with the USSR = Check the scoreboard on these. Not exactly a steller performance on behalf of Japan.

Occupied Indochina = You mean during a period of about 6 months in 1940, Japan "forcefully negotiated" away IndoChina from Vichy. No shooting required.

Continued to defend Japan proper = Against whom? Last I checked, there were no invasion fleets heading to Japan at any time between 1936 and 1941.

I am talking about what you said FIRST - to which I was replying. You seem to have lost the thread. Or possibly it was some other person who said "Japan failed to conquer China after five years of 100% effort, so from that we know it could not have succeeded"?? I was disputing the concept Japan had a 100% effort in China by showing it had major elements not in China. I was not just talking about where IJA was for no reason - what did you think?

[el cid again]

Correct. Dewey is the commander in 1898 at Manila Bay - Perry is the one who threatened to bombard Japan in the 1860s.


If he threatened to bombard Japan, it would have occured in the 1850s.

Sounds right to me.

[el cid again]

Speaking of realpolitik, do you find it reasonable that Japan expected America to provide it w/ the oil and scrap iron (as well as other resources) needed to conquer China and help it become a stronger rival to the US? I'll stand by my previous statement and call that fantasy.

You are using loaded language - prejudicial language - and betraying thereby (being kind) confusion about the situation (unless you are deliberatly trying to mislead - the other reason for loaded language).
I assume you are just well read and using the formulations we would have at the time - which is reasonable and innocent. But it is nevertheless quite misleading about the actual situation.

In a nutshell, you cannot separate "iron and oil" (actuall iron, rubber and oil) for war with China from "iron and oil" for the civil economy. A TOTAL embargo of all three MUST NEEDS go way beyond the elements needed for that war and MUST NEEDS threaten nothing short of starvation writ large for a nation in the unique situation of Japan (it has less than 2% tillable land and, after being "encouraged" to become a trading power and abolish its severe policy on restricted population, it must manufacture and trade to get food itself - not "it would be nice" - MUST). We actually understood this perfectly well - and we also understood that Japan - under even the most liberal admistration - would never permit a foreign power to dictate its foreign policy. We would hardly have done after five years in any of the major wars we ever fought - except I can't think of any major ones that lasted that long. When the ostensible political object of a policy is not possible, the real object must be something else. We were not really trying to come to terms with Japan - and we were never that great of a champion of China - although I believe we were less colonialists in China than the other colonial powers were - thinking of the "open door" - remember the point was WE wanted a SHARE in the spoils too - and we enforced our policy with gunboats INSIDE a different "country" WITHOUT permission - a very odd policy for a democratic nation.

[el cid again]

No, I never went to navy boot camp. No lesson was learned, only a change in circumstances. How you deal w/ a pre-war rival and post-war ally are usually two differenct things. Our post-war choice to ensure that an ally's, Japan's, oil supply wasn't a moral or legal obligation, it's strictly because they could have fallen under the USSR's or China's influence or control. Neither event was perceived at the time to be in the US's best interest. Japan hasn't invaded or attacked too many countries post-war, which I think was the point of our pre-war choice to dick around with a rival's oil supply.

Forrest and trees. Interesting how you miss the point: the policy is why Japan is an ally. The cut off policy meant it was an enemy. It always would have worked that way. Note - if you doubt this - that IJA ALWAYS wanted to "strike North" - only reluctantly went for "strike South" - and only because of the embargo. IJA as an institution developed vehicles and planes for the cold of the north, for the ranges (short) of a land war instead of (long) a sea war, and otherwise regarded the main enemy as the USSR - not the USA. Many of its problems in a longer terms sense arise because it was ill equipped (mentally and physically) to deal with a naval war against a naval power - having focused on a land war with a land power. IJA intel on the US was dismal - even IJA intel on the British Empire was ad hoc (if fairly impressive for the short time it was developed in) - and partly a gift of the Gods (the Andromeda Affair - putting a critical report in Japanese hands because of a German naval officer). Unlike the Navy - modeled on RN - long focused on the USA as a rival - or even the Foreign Ministry - with plans vs Hawaii dating to 1910 - the IJA - which RULED - was not really interested in war with the USA.
We changed its mind. The only question is this: were we stupid or clever - did we do it on purpose - or not?

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

No, I never went to navy boot camp. No lesson was learned, only a change in circumstances. How you deal w/ a pre-war rival and post-war ally are usually two differenct things. Our post-war choice to ensure that an ally's, Japan's, oil supply wasn't a moral or legal obligation, it's strictly because they could have fallen under the USSR's or China's influence or control. Neither event was perceived at the time to be in the US's best interest. Japan hasn't invaded or attacked too many countries post-war, which I think was the point of our pre-war choice to dick around with a rival's oil supply.

Forrest and trees. Interesting how you miss the point: the policy is why Japan is an ally. The cut off policy meant it was an enemy. It always would have worked that way. Note - if you doubt this - that IJA ALWAYS wanted to "strike North" - only reluctantly went for "strike South" - and only because of the embargo. IJA as an institution developed vehicles and planes for the cold of the north, for the ranges (short) of a land war instead of (long) a sea war, and otherwise regarded the main enemy as the USSR - not the USA. Many of its problems in a longer terms sense arise because it was ill equipped (mentally and physically) to deal with a naval war against a naval power - having focused on a land war with a land power. IJA intel on the US was dismal - even IJA intel on the British Empire was ad hoc (if fairly impressive for the short time it was developed in) - and partly a gift of the Gods (the Andromeda Affair - putting a critical report in Japanese hands because of a German naval officer). Unlike the Navy - modeled on RN - long focused on the USA as a rival - or even the Foreign Ministry - with plans vs Hawaii dating to 1910 - the IJA - which RULED - was not really interested in war with the USA.
We changed its mind. The only question is this: were we stupid or clever - did we do it on purpose - or not?

You may have meant chicken or the egg. Japan wasn't an ally when we supplied it with oil prior to WW2, they were allies of Germany and Italy, who provided them w/ no oil. It didn't become one after WW2 because we could either. Crushing Japan in WW2, physically occupying it, and being the major voice in the creation of its post-war government are the reasons why Japan became an ally not oil. It was in our best interest that Japan become an ally, I'm not sure we gave them a choice. If it ever had a choice Japan was going to have to ally with the US, USSR or eventually upon its reemergence in the 50s, China. For a variety of reasons, including our access to resources, the US was probably the least objectionable option.

Having its ass kicked at Nomohan in 1939 did more to cool the IJA's north first strategy than the embargos in 1940. The IJA may have thought that, not being able to defeat China, it was imprudent to think that they should add the USSR to the list of enemies, even w/ Germany as an active military ally. Of course, they also thought they could defeat the US, UK and the Netherlands w/ just the IJN and 12 divisions, so what do I know.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Speaking of realpolitik, do you find it reasonable that Japan expected America to provide it w/ the oil and scrap iron (as well as other resources) needed to conquer China and help it become a stronger rival to the US? I'll stand by my previous statement and call that fantasy.

You are using loaded language - prejudicial language - and betraying thereby (being kind) confusion about the situation (unless you are deliberatly trying to mislead - the other reason for loaded language).
I assume you are just well read and using the formulations we would have at the time - which is reasonable and innocent. But it is nevertheless quite misleading about the actual situation.

In a nutshell, you cannot separate "iron and oil" (actuall iron, rubber and oil) for war with China from "iron and oil" for the civil economy. A TOTAL embargo of all three MUST NEEDS go way beyond the elements needed for that war and MUST NEEDS threaten nothing short of starvation writ large for a nation in the unique situation of Japan (it has less than 2% tillable land and, after being "encouraged" to become a trading power and abolish its severe policy on restricted population, it must manufacture and trade to get food itself - not "it would be nice" - MUST). We actually understood this perfectly well - and we also understood that Japan - under even the most liberal admistration - would never permit a foreign power to dictate its foreign policy. We would hardly have done after five years in any of the major wars we ever fought - except I can't think of any major ones that lasted that long. When the ostensible political object of a policy is not possible, the real object must be something else. We were not really trying to come to terms with Japan - and we were never that great of a champion of China - although I believe we were less colonialists in China than the other colonial powers were - thinking of the "open door" - remember the point was WE wanted a SHARE in the spoils too - and we enforced our policy with gunboats INSIDE a different "country" WITHOUT permission - a very odd policy for a democratic nation.

What you call loaded or predjudicial I consider an accurate and objective assessment of the situation prior to the embargos.

You can separate the oil, rubber and iron used by the civ population and the military. Japanese agriculture was not mechanized in any significant way. Cutting off oil, rubber and iron would not affect their production of food. Coal provided the vast majority of their electrical power, transportation and industrial needs. Their own oil production was sufficient for their agricultural uses. I can't seem to find the havoc wrought upon the civilian economy that occured from the scrap metal embargo in 1940 or the one on aviation gasoline in the same year. Rubber wasn't a factor, Japan could import all it needed after occupying French Indochina. They didn't seem to mind dictating foreign policy to France there, did they?

There was never much chance for starvation. Korea, Taiwan and China made Japan relatively self-sufficient in food stuffs (although it probably made Korea, Taiwan and China no longer self-sufficient). Japan only started to starve in WW2 after it sealanes were cut.

You say that the US was never really trying to come to terms with Japan. I'm saying that there wasn't a point in trying. Hypocrisy in diplomacy is nothing new, but saying that a country won't tolerate having its foregn policy dictated to while doing the same to other countries, doesn't provide a rational basis for any sort of negotiation. Neither is expecting a country to provide you with the raw materials for you to expand territorily and militarily.

Real or ostensible, the US policy was not in favor of providing the means to creating a rival to its interests and position in the Pacific. Japan's policy was to become self-sufficient by any means necessary. The two policies were incompatible.

Japan's arable land is about 11-12%.

Feel free to reply, but there isn't a point in arguing this further. Our positions are unlikely to change. Let me know if I'm confused about this as well.

[el cid again]

Crushing Japan in WW2, physically occupying it, and being the major voice in the creation of its post-war government are the reasons why Japan became an ally not oil.

Ironically, that is not what happened. It IS what we SAID would happen, so I forgive you for thinking so. We SAID we would break up alll major elements of the government, and all eight zaibatsu. All eight zaibatsu survive in tact (not even reorganized or broken up). The two biggest institutions of government also survive - the Munitions Ministry is now MIDI (renamed twice) and the Finance Ministry kept its name. We never did reform the oath of office for cabinet officers, even - they swear to the Emperor still! Technically, the government is NOT responsible to the Diet - in theory - we never did institute a real democracy in fact. We SAID we would abolish the military too - but we kept the Navy in fact - it was too useful sweeping mines until we changed our mind about needing it for other reasons. What changed our policy was not Japan's subservience, but our reaction ot the Soviet Union and the Cold War. It may be that Japan has some common interests as well. But Japan was always anti-Russian - and could have been an ally to that end pre war - probably.

[el cid again]

Having its ass kicked at Nomohan in 1939 did more to cool the IJA's north first strategy than the embargos in 1940.

You are entirely logical to think so - but it is utterly false! Read Nomanhan for example - a fine scholarly work. The commander of Kwangtung Army tried to make major reforms and was sacked as a "defeatist." IJA did anything but become cool about Russia as a result! No lie (there is a les polite word but I won't use it).

[el cid again]

You can separate the oil, rubber and iron used by the civ population and the military. Japanese agriculture was not mechanized in any significant way.

You really do not get it: Japan has virtually NO agriculture. Less than 2% of its land is tillable. Japan is the only major country of that era that fed so small a portion of its people. Structurally, kill trade you kill people. Fact of life - therefore of policy.

[el cid again]

You can separate the oil, rubber and iron used by the civ population and the military. Japanese agriculture was not mechanized in any significant way. Cutting off oil, rubber and iron would not affect their production of food. Coal provided the vast majority of their electrical power, transportation and industrial needs. Their own oil production was sufficient for their agricultural uses. I can't seem to find the havoc wrought upon the civilian economy that occured from the scrap metal embargo in 1940 or the one on aviation gasoline in the same year. Rubber wasn't a factor, Japan could import all it needed after occupying French Indochina. They didn't seem to mind dictating foreign policy to France there, did they?

We are not debating Japanese policy - which I will not defend. We are debating US policy - US is responsible for it and its consequences - in the context of other nations situations - policy and otherwise. If you stop steelmaking, you stop Japan's ability to sell manufactured goods for sale. Japans civil vehicle fleet (unlike ours at any time) was, by law, 100% INDEPENDENT of fuel requirements - all vehicles were SELF FUELING! Military vehicles could be so at need - and many were - so fuel does not stop the movement of vehicles. What it stops is airplane flights and movement of ships - the latter is utterly indespensible for an island naiton's trade. Not to mention import of food. Kill ship fuel = kill Japan.

[el cid again]

You say that the US was never really trying to come to terms with Japan. I'm saying that there wasn't a point in trying. Hypocrisy in diplomacy is nothing new, but saying that a country won't tolerate having its foregn policy dictated to while doing the same to other countries, doesn't provide a rational basis for any sort of negotiation. Neither is expecting a country to provide you with the raw materials for you to expand territorily and militarily.

It is generally illegal to break contracts and agreements. If this results in general misery and starvation, it also is usually immoral. To do both over a political issue we had already adopted a different policy on for half a decade is a bit wierd, you must admit. I am surprised to say this - it is not what I was taught - but I think the war with Japan was not necessary. IF we wanted war with Germany we had plenty of cause (in the Atlantic). We should have been able to honest broker a cease fire in China and, possibly, done some thing about Indochina. The matters at issue were not that big compared to what we have been able to do since.

Do not interpret this as support for IJA or the policy of Imperial Japan which it dominated. Nor do I support the policy of Vichy France - or of the British Empire for that matter. [Thailand reoccupied provinces wrongly forced from it by UK and France - and was not allowed to keep them. On the other hand it also occupied provinces in Burma to which it has utterly no right - and should not have kept them. Thailand, in fact, was a real Axis power, with a dictator, racist policy - anti-Chinese - and a leader who actually returned to power post war! The most successful Fascist state that did not ride out the war as a neutral.] I am no great fan of Stalin, Mao, Chiang either. Policy debate is not a simplistic thing with guys in white hats and guys in black hats.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

OK - I see you never went to US Navy boot camp. The US Navy teaches all its boots it is OUR duty to insure Japan gets oil!!! There is an agreement - if there is a big oil problem - the USA will ship US oil to Japan EVEN IF WE GET NO OTHER OIL - no matter the cost to US citizens.

It does???? I must have missed that lecture during boot camp!
Why in the hell would the US Navy be teaching international politics and economics in boot camp? We barely teach our own naval history any more.
Chez

Gotta go with CHEZ here..., that statement makes no sense at all. And even less as part of "Recruit Orientation" at Naval Boot Camp.