Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Problem with this arguement is that it would have required a decision in 1936 to forgo an expanded and prestigeous surface navy in favor of total concentration on U-Boats..., and Hitler wanted the prestige for political ends. With both the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht in expansion modes, there was no "extra" to be diverted to U-Boats..., something would have to be sacrificed.
Same reasoning also led the British, French, Italians, and even the Russians to building Battleships in the late 1930's.

It's a nice piece of hindsight, but not a realistic one. And the same reasoning could lead to the British building a hundred long ranged escorts instead of the KGV's. You can always come up with reasons why something else would have been a better choice..., but nations have to fight wars with what they have.

I think so too. Lets not forget that the UK invested so much energy to hunt down the Bismark because a surface raider of this size
would have posed an extreme threat to the atlantic convoys.
That it turned out the other way was another thing.

You can compare the benefits of building the Bismark versus investing everything in the U-Boats with the knowledge of hindsight.
When you remove that knowledge it comes down to how much stood against how much.

And the longer a war takes, the more reliable you can compare simple numbers and see where it ends.
Germany would have needed a couple of 100 more, very chancy, if´s to avoid being squashed by numbers only in the end.
And what applies to Germany aplies even more for Japan.

[bristolduke]

I hadn't really commented upon the Russian campaign, but one option here was not to alienate the western Russia provinces. The Ukrane in particular would have run to help the Germans defeat the communists. Hitler was just too blind to see the advantage here, which was odd given his acknowledgement that he needed the Finns and Rumanians. So I am probably of the opinion that a settled peace was possible if Moscow is taken. Particularly if one believes that Stalin could have been overthrown (not sure of that because of the absolute control he exerted even at the province level). But liberated provinces could have been used.

With respect to Britan, the appointment of Churchill really hurt peace initiatives because of his bulldog mentality. Hitler wanted the British to help fight the communists. Many in Britan were supportive. There was never a great love with the French and England knew the Versalles Treaty was too harsh on Germany (also the British and German royal families were relatives). Hitler paused at Dunkirk to allow the British troops to escape (it was the last time Hitler tried to court the British - the problem was the British officials advising Hitler didn't have enough power on their own.). Also, there were German officials send peace feelers to England to avoid a repeat of the French imposed conditions prior to the Polish invasion.

Churchill was not a popular political candidate and there could have been pressure from the party to replace him in a blockade scenario. It was a coalition Government after all, but any negotiated peace between Britian and Germany would have to occur after the repacement of Churchill.

[Q-Ball]

RE: Japan, attacking JUST the Phillipines, which would have and did kill thousands of Americans, would produce the same result as Pearl Harbor. The same isolationists on Dec 6th were "all-in" a day later, when 3000 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor. Not much difference IMO. Would we really NOT declare war, and just allow several thousand Americans to be killed and captured?

Could Japan have skipped the Phillipines? Not likely. First, that would have meant large US airbases in their REAR, astride communication lines to DEI. Avoiding the US would have allowed us to quickly reinforce the Phillipines. This presumes we didn't go to war, and also presumes that the Japanese wouldn't sink one of our ships by accident eventually, which surely would have happened, and created sensational headlines. There would have immediately been a signficant pro-war faction in the US, including the military and Roosevelt, we would get there eventually. The Japanese knew this, which was why the attacked us preemptively.

Any way you slice it, Japan had two alternatives: War, and national suicide, or humiliating withdrawl from China, and the accompanying loss of face and national prestige.

[Grit]

ORIGINAL: bristolduke

I hadn't really commented upon the Russian campaign, but one option here was not to alienate the western Russia provinces. The Ukrane in particular would have run to help the Germans defeat the communists. Hitler was just too blind to see the advantage here, which was odd given his acknowledgement that he needed the Finns and Rumanians. So I am probably of the opinion that a settled peace was possible if Moscow is taken. Particularly if one believes that Stalin could have been overthrown (not sure of that because of the absolute control he exerted even at the province level). But liberated provinces could have been used.

With respect to Britan, the appointment of Churchill really hurt peace initiatives because of his bulldog mentality. Hitler wanted the British to help fight the communists. Many in Britan were supportive. There was never a great love with the French and England knew the Versalles Treaty was too harsh on Germany (also the British and German royal families were relatives). Hitler paused at Dunkirk to allow the British troops to escape (it was the last time Hitler tried to court the British - the problem was the British officials advising Hitler didn't have enough power on their own.). Also, there were German officials send peace feelers to England to avoid a repeat of the French imposed conditions prior to the Polish invasion.

Churchill was not a popular political candidate and there could have been pressure from the party to replace him in a blockade scenario. It was a coalition Government after all, but any negotiated peace between Britian and Germany would have to occur after the repacement of Churchill.

Interesting viewpoint.

Churchill was the warmonger and Hitler was just looking for peace. Based on history I'm sure Hitler could have been trusted with any agreement/treaty he signed with Britain.

[bristolduke]

The same isolationists on Dec 6th were "all-in" a day later, when 3000 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor

That was only because of the surprise attck. America had lost 1000 lives in the Atlantic up to that point and not declared yet war yet. Yes, we would have been at war because Japan was going to declare war. But it is a different sentiment.

Yes, Japan had to take the Phillipines, No they didn't have to attack Pearl Harbor although it was consistent with their overall miltary approach. But had there been a declaration of war first, then it is a different scenario. Their pre-emptive was not suppose to be a suprise. The Geneva Convention was to be followed. In looking at possible political alternatives, then it is difficult to envision a lot of passion over the Phillipines, if other factors aren't present. The exuberance of war was gone after 1918. No one wanted it again. In 2010, US presitge (or arrogance depending upon your political taste), means we defend anywhere. We had neither the mentality nor the capability to do that in 1941. Without major victories in 1942, would the country really be electing war supporters to congress after nearly 2 years fighting?? Or would the isolationists really have picked up a lot of steam?

Interesting viewpoint.

Churchill was the warmonger and Hitler was just looking for peace. Based on history I'm sure Hitler could have been trusted with any agreement/treaty he signed with Britain.

A slight mis-representation of what I have been saying.

Three very good reads on the subject are

Burying Caesar by Stewart (it is about Churchill, Chamberlain and the Tory party despite it's apparent misleading title)
Making Friends with Hitler by Gresham
Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War by Buchanan

[wpurdom]

Manila option -
If there is to be no attack on Pearl Harbor, it's questionable whether an attack on the Philippines makes sense with a political attempt to avoid stirring up US opinion. Maybe one just attacks the Bristish and Dutch Empires.
     Might have beens are hard to figure in the political realm (I've never understood how FDR sold Lend-lease given the opposition to lending the Allied powers money - won't lend it, but giving it away is OK?) But in any event, I don't think the American public took the Japs that seriously, so my best guess is that we wind up at war with sufficient support - e.g., the sort of support with which WWI was fought. It likely becomes an uglier war on the home front, since FDR would have been in Wilson's shoes, needing to delegitimize opposition to the war and shut up the Midwestern isolationists. But he would have the cooperation of the elites of both parties and the media, since all were coastal-interventionist dominated.
 
Germany
    Hitler lost the war when he decided to treat all the peoples of the Soviet empire as his future slaves. Again, it's hard to figure the effect of political choices, but the evidence I have seen is that a campaign to obstensibly "liberate" all the peoples of the Soviet Empire would have had the support of at least half the population, if not more. Indeed, the Germans recruited a lot of fighters in the East treating the peoples as Untermensch. Had he taken the Russian war seriously, he would have waited until after the war to treat the people as animals. Of course, the racist ideology that led him to view them as animals probably prevented the possibility of appealing to them politically.
 
If Russia collapses politically in the late fall of 1941 or even 1942, the war has a whole different complexion and it becomes hard to see the Allies sticking through with a successful invasion and reconquest of Europe.

[xj900uk]

Problem with this arguement is that it would have required a decision in 1936 to forgo an expanded and prestigeous surface navy in favor of total concentration on U-Boats..., and Hitler wanted the prestige for political ends. With both the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht in expansion modes, there was no "extra" to be diverted to U-Boats..., something would have to be sacrificed

One of the biggest problems is that even at the end of '40 Nazi Germany and the occupied countries were not on a double-shift system in its factories - had the resources and manpower to work flat out, but simply wasn't doing so because Hitler and his pals thought the whole thing would be a bit of a breeze. As a result even during the BofB there was a marked shortage of Me109 planes and other vital war machines.
Contrast this with the UK that was working a double-shift and in some cases even a triple-shift system (ie round the clock) in many vital factories. Also they were trying every which way (like in the CRO) to keep planes flying for the BofB, repairing, combingin and cannibalising to ensure there were enough planes, tanks and boats etc when they were needed. Putting Beaverbrook in charge of war production was something of an early master-stroke by Churchill, and it is proof that during the BofB Britain's major problem was not planes but pilots.

I hadn't really commented upon the Russian campaign, but one option here was not to alienate the western Russia provinces. The Ukrane in particular would have run to help the Germans defeat the communists. Hitler was just too blind to see the advantage here, which was odd given his acknowledgement that he needed the Finns and Rumanians

Russia was Hitlers pet project for months, years in advance, and yes I agree given Stalin's popularity amongst many of the outer Soviet territories no real effort was made by Hitler or his political advisors to talk to revolutioniary and nationalist politicians in places like Belorussia and the Ukraine. As far as Hitler was concerned, all Russians regardless of origin were 'sub human' and beneath his notice.
However Russia still sucked up Hitlers armies and airforces and bled them dry over the years and no matter how advanced and detailed his Operation Barabrossa was, three things combined to defeat Hitlers armies prior to mid-43 :
(1). Its immensity and the appalling state of its roads. The majority of the 3rd Reich's supply transport was also horse-drawn until well into '44 and the Russian roads were amongst the worse in Europe
(2). January
(3). February

[SqzMyLemon]

Great discussion.

What I often wonder is, would Japan have attacked the United States at all, had there been no raw material and oil embargo imposed against her because of Japan's aggression in China, and would the United States ever go to war if Japan had limited her aggression to just China? The United States certainly cared about China enough to bring tough political and economic pressure to bear on Japan, almost guaranteeing war would be a result. From what I've read the Americans were completely unwilling to compromise on the China issue, which was for complete Japanese withdrawal, something Japan was at first unwilling to do, (they had to save face, a concept the West was completely oblivious to) but later considered and proposed prior to the breakdown of communications between the two countries to avoid war. By then though, Hull and company flatly refused to even consider it. Faced with economic strangulation by the United States, was it any wonder Japan decided to roll the dice and risk everything on war, better to die with their boots on than a slow economic death. Japan's leaders felt there was no better time to strike, while every delay made them weaker to the point of not being able to fight eventually at all in the years to come. It's a parallel with modern times, if the United State's energy needs were threatened or actually cut off, would she not possibly go to war to guarantee access?

Another thing I find facinating, is how Germany and Japan were viewed during the war, yet the Western Democracies allied themselves with arguably just as nasty a nation in the Soviet Union. And after the war, the Soviet Union was in fact almost as repressive to many "liberated" countries as the enemy had ever been. Stalin killed as many, if not more of his own people, than what the Germans had done. I am in no way condoning what Germany did, just stating they weren't the only bad apple in the barrel. As they say, the victors write the history books.

Just some thoughts.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

What I often wonder is, would Japan have attacked the United States at all, had there been no raw material and oil embargo imposed against her because of Japan's aggression in China, and would the United States ever go to war if Japan had limited her aggression to just China? The United States certainly cared about China enough to bring tough political and economic pressure to bear on Japan, almost guaranteeing war would be a result. From what I've read the Americans were completely unwilling to compromise on the China issue, which was for complete Japanese withdrawal, something Japan was at first unwilling to do, (they had to save face, a concept the West was completely oblivious to) but later considered and proposed prior to the breakdown of communications between the two countries to avoid war. By then though, Hull and company flatly refused to even consider it. Faced with economic strangulation by the United States, was it any wonder Japan decided to roll the dice and risk everything on war, better to die with their boots on than a slow economic death. Japan's leaders felt there was no better time to strike, while every delay made them weaker to the point of not being able to fight eventually at all in the years to come.

Actually, the US did very little to Japan in support of China..., in spite of such well-publicized atrocities as the Panay Incident and the Rape of Nanking.
The Oil Embargo didn't come about until the Japanese seized French Indo-China.
Even then, refusal to sell your products to an aggressor is hardly an act of war..., only an expression of disapproval by voluntarily relinquishing a market. Even the "Flying Tigers" came about only on the very eve of the war.

Might have been far better had the West embargoed ALL exports to Japan immediately following the Marco Polo Bridge attacks in 1937. That would have brought Japan to heel before millions of deaths occurred. But the West still suffered from the Depression, and China was far away. So they expressed their displeasure quite ineffectively until it was too late.

[Grit]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Great discussion.

What I often wonder is, would Japan have attacked the United States at all, had there been no raw material and oil embargo imposed against her because of Japan's aggression in China, and would the United States ever go to war if Japan had limited her aggression to just China? The United States certainly cared about China enough to bring tough political and economic pressure to bear on Japan, almost guaranteeing war would be a result. From what I've read the Americans were completely unwilling to compromise on the China issue, which was for complete Japanese withdrawal, something Japan was at first unwilling to do, (they had to save face, a concept the West was completely oblivious to) but later considered and proposed prior to the breakdown of communications between the two countries to avoid war. By then though, Hull and company flatly refused to even consider it. Faced with economic strangulation by the United States, was it any wonder Japan decided to roll the dice and risk everything on war, better to die with their boots on than a slow economic death. Japan's leaders felt there was no better time to strike, while every delay made them weaker to the point of not being able to fight eventually at all in the years to come. It's a parallel with modern times, if the United State's energy needs were threatened or actually cut off, would she not possibly go to war to guarantee access?

Another thing I find facinating, is how Germany and Japan were viewed during the war, yet the Western Democracies allied themselves with arguably just as nasty a nation in the Soviet Union. And after the war, the Soviet Union was in fact almost as repressive to many "liberated" countries as the enemy had ever been. Stalin killed as many, if not more of his own people, than what the Germans had done. I am in no way condoning what Germany did, just stating they weren't the only bad apple in the barrel. As they say, the victors write the history books.

Just some thoughts.

Japan did have another option besides going to war. Become a peaceful nation and stop it's aggression in Asia. Did they really expect the rest of the world to look away while they pillaged whatever they wanted? The Japanese leadersip had choices and they consistently made the wrong choices.

Stalin didn't fool anyone. Mr. Churchill and FDR knew exactly what they were dealing with in Russia. In hindsight should the Allies have kicked Russia back to their own border, probably. Many felt that way in 1945 without the benefit of hindsight. FDR/Truman/Marshall had a different plan, rebuild Europe. They also had another war to win.

It is fascinating to go back and say What If. I personally think the world was very lucky to have men like Mr. Churchill and FDR at that time in history, they saved the world.

[RUDOLF]

ORIGINAL: Grit


Japan did have another option besides going to war. Become a peaceful nation and stop it's aggression in Asia. Did they really expect the rest of the world to look away while they pillaged whatever they wanted? The Japanese leadersip had choices and they consistently made the wrong choices.

No, it was either expansion or financial and social bankruptcy, also the code of Bushido did not really allow them to cave in to US demands.

A trade embargo is an act of war, so one can nearly argue that Japan was provoked to attack the US, at least the attack was a justified and on the same time an act of National suicide.


I think the US would have joined WW2 regardless and if lacking a reason then they would have made one up, anything to get the Casus Belli required for war.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Grit

Japan did have another option besides going to war. Become a peaceful nation and stop it's aggression in Asia. Did they really expect the rest of the world to look away while they pillaged whatever they wanted? The Japanese leadersip had choices and they consistently made the wrong choices.

Agreed, they could have. Japan instead tried to colonize like every world power had before them at the expense of China. They just came too late to the table. It was ok to take terittory in China, but start infringing on what the great powers had accumulated and wait a minute here. Don't forget too that at that time, there was extreme racism towards the asiatic, and that factored into the stance of the western powers towards Japan as well. There was a sense of just who do you think you are. The Washington Naval Treaty in 1922 is a good example, Japan was not given naval parity to what were then considered her allies, to the Japanese quite an insult.

I agree, FDR was a brillant statesman and Churchill had his faults, but they were the right men on hand for troubling times. Don't get me wrong here, Japan was an aggressor, but if you peel away the layers you'll see they just tried to do what many nations had done before them, they just lost. [:D]

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Actually, the US did very little to Japan in support of China..., in spite of such well-publicized atrocities as the Panay Incident and the Rape of Nanking.
The Oil Embargo didn't come about until the Japanese seized French Indo-China.
Even then, refusal to sell your products to an aggressor is hardly an act of war..., only an expression of disapproval by voluntarily relinquishing a market. Even the "Flying Tigers" came about only on the very eve of the war.

I agree, the United States did little in terms of physical aide to China in the late 30's. But to argue the point, if they didn't care about China, why maintain that nothing could be negotiated until Japan withdrew from China. There are different acts of war, economic included, besides actual armed conflict. There is no way a country such as Japan, reliant on the importation of strategic raw materials and oil for it's national existence could expect to bow down under those circumstance. I'm sure they saw the embargo in terms of an act of war. The United States didn't fire the first shot, but they certainly knew Japan's lack of oil was their achilles heel and used that to try and cripple her. (Did you know that the united Nations tried to impose economic sanctions and an oil embargo on Italy, because of Ethiopia, and which the U.S. did not support, yet they used it against Japan, why?). That, and demanding they pull completely out of China gave the Japanese zero options besides war, considering the leadership and Japanese mindset of the times. They were a proud and ambitious nation that had never suffered defeat for thousands of years to a foreign power. As mentioned by Q-Ball and Rudolf, there were two choices, and only two, that Japan had to consider. A chance of victory, with failure resulting in the destruction of their country, or a slow death by economic strangulation imposed by the western powers, which would you take?. For Japan to back down was asking her to "bare the unbearable". You have to look at things from the Japanese perspective as well, at the time they thought and saw things quite differently then the western powers.

Lets not kid one another, both nations knew there would be an eventual showdown. There's overwhelming documentation that the oil embargo initiated by the United States was instrumental in Japan's decision to go to war...period.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I agree, the United States did little in terms of physical aide to China in the late 30's. But to argue the point, if they didn't care about China, why maintain that nothing could be negotiated until Japan withdrew from China?

Because there was nothing to "negotiate"? Japan's "negotiations" pretty much amounted to being given a free hand to do whatever she wanted. "I want China, and I want you to supply me with the means to attack her." pretty much sums up Japanese "negotiations". It was a position about 150 years out of date..., which pretty much matched the thinking of the Militarists controlling the Japanese Government.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Grit

Japan did have another option besides going to war. Become a peaceful nation and stop it's aggression in Asia. Did they really expect the rest of the world to look away while they pillaged whatever they wanted? The Japanese leadersip had choices and they consistently made the wrong choices.

Agreed, they could have. Japan instead tried to colonize like every world power had before them at the expense of China. They just came too late to the table. It was ok to take terittory in China, but start infringing on what the great powers had accumulated and wait a minute here. Don't forget too that at that time, there was extreme racism towards the asiatic, and that factored into the stance of the western powers towards Japan as well. There was a sense of just who do you think you are. The Washington Naval Treaty in 1922 is a good example, Japan was not given naval parity to what were then considered her allies, to the Japanese quite an insult.

I agree, FDR was a brillant statesman and Churchill had his faults, but they were the right men on hand for troubling times. Don't get me wrong here, Japan was an aggressor, but if you peel away the layers you'll see they just tried to do what many nations had done before them, they just lost. [:D]

Scattershooting:

Japan wasn't too late to the table in China. They took Tsingtao from Germany during WWI and later obtained several mandates for doing almost nothing during the war. Japan just wasn't satisfied with her 'share'. Other countries sought land concessions and trading privileges or monopolies, Japan sought control of the entire country either through internal means (via the 21 Demands, issuing them while most nations were busy fighting didn't help their case either, being predatory at best) or outright conquest (Mongolia, coastal areas). Different magnitude in goals. Also, if you act unilateraly in a region that affects several countries interests you shouldn't be surprised when they react.

Why would Japan be given naval parity during the Washington Naval Conference when her navy wasn't even up to the 7:10 that she negotiated? Japan wasn't an equal compared to the UK and USA in ship numbers or production capacity, it wasn't realistic to expect that she woud be treated as such. France and Italy had no issue with this, why did Japan?

It wasn't that Japan tried to do what other nations did and lost, it was that they were completely unrealistic about their expectations and capabilities. Japan: 1) had no right to control of China, 2) should not have expected other countries to be complicit by continuing to trade with them, 3) should not have been shocked when a country reacted either economically or militarily and 4) shouldn't have attempted, in effect, to solve the China incident by declaring war on the UK/USA/Dutch.

The idea that Japan declaring war prior to PH/Philipines attack would have made a difference in US reaction has always been a nonstarter with me. Whatever was delivered late was not a declaration of war nor would it have mattered had a declaration been delivered on time. Maybe there would have been more than one no vote to FDR's request for war but probably not. It would have been obvious to even congressman that KB was on its way while negotions were continuing.
That was considered bad form then.

As to the original thread.

1+2) No, for reasons previously expressed.
3) No, partially addressed above.

[SqzMyLemon]

I never said they were justified in anything they did. I thought the jist of what I was trying to say in my posts was that the Japanese saw things differently. We can look back and say they had no right to anything they desired, but my whole point is they thought they did. Right or wrong that drove them to the decision for war. You have to look at both sides of the coin here to come up with any kind of analysis of events. As I said, the victors write the epilogue and that's not always unbiased. How soon we forget the Monroe Doctrine. Japan felt Asia was within her sphere of influence and that the Europeans should leave Asia to the Asiatics. So frankly, I see parallels between the United States and Japan. The United States as we all know was able to realize her ambitions, Japan tried and failed. And when I mentioned Japan came late to the table, I meant in the era of European colonization, not events as recent as the end of WW1. By then the pecking order was firmly established and there were no more nations invited to the party. The events are what they are, it's history after all and most of the reasons why things happened are well documented by the personalities involved. So I'll sign out of this thread by saying Japan's leadership at the time felt they had a right to establish their Empire (Hakkô ichiu) for good or bad, they tried and lost. My post's can be picked apart, but you are missing the intent behind them I believe. I have to apologize for being the devil's advocate and trying to present the other side of the coin. Sometimes it goes a lot deeper than we good, they bad, which seems to suffice for some.

Regardless, a good discussion. [:)]

[LoBaron]

I´m kinda with you SqzMyLemon.

History is full if cause and effect systems. Thing is you often only can guess the effect in hindsight.

One could argue that the contract of Versailles was enabling a figure like Hitler to exist in the social "elite" in the first place.
You could argue that Austria, in purposesely provoking WWI with the sanctions against Serbi,a was the leading power through which somebody
as mentally sick as Hitler could come into existence. (Hitlers impressions from WWI were frequent setbacks in promotion because he was not deemed
fit for an officer post, even though he tried to prove himself on several occasions and he was was personally hurt by that fact and always searched
for guilties except himself, IIRC his direct superior was a Jew.)

You could argue that the all-present antisemitism in Europe, spead through Christianity over the centuries, always accusing the Jews of being the "murderers of Jesus"
and with this pressing the Jewish communities into bankiers jobs in the middle ages because "honest" work was forbidden to them,
made Hitlers task easier to find somebody "guilty" enough for his sick ideas.

You could argue that the root of Christianity is in the Roman Empire and was allowed to spread when the Empire changed its state religion to Christianity.

So does that mean that the Roman Empire is responsible for the holocaust? No.
But still, its an interesting road to follow when trying to find out how ancient decisions can have an impact on modern times. [;)]

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Because there was nothing to "negotiate"? Japan's "negotiations" pretty much amounted to being given a free hand to do whatever she wanted. "I want China, and I want you to supply me with the means to attack her." pretty much sums up Japanese "negotiations". It was a position about 150 years out of date..., which pretty much matched the thinking of the Militarists controlling the Japanese Government.

A good point Mike, and you said precisely what I was trying to say, that of Japan coming to the table too late. Many countries of the world had moved beyond that mentality some time ago.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Because there was nothing to "negotiate"? Japan's "negotiations" pretty much amounted to being given a free hand to do whatever she wanted. "I want China, and I want you to supply me with the means to attack her." pretty much sums up Japanese "negotiations". It was a position about 150 years out of date..., which pretty much matched the thinking of the Militarists controlling the Japanese Government.

A good point Mike, and you said precisely what I was trying to say, that of Japan coming to the table too late. Many countries of the world had moved beyond that mentality some time ago.

Unfortunately for Japan, the mindset of the militarists who controlled her Government hadn't moved beyond that mentality. It was the same mindset that led them to believe that "staunch samurai fighting spirit" and "willingness to die in the service of the Emperor" could overcome Western Industrial strength. It might have had some merit up through the age of muskets..., but in the age of machine guns it was out of date.

[LoBaron]

Well at the beginning of WWII this Samurai mindset led them to victory after victory. In the age of machine guns.
 
The problem is that such a mindset can be based on different abstract values. Many of the Allied elite units adopted a mindset
similar to the Samurai spirit. It had another name there, but in general it was nothing else than the acceptance to
take losses and accept potential death or injury but still carry on.
The change in mindset after the outbreak of a war is a very fast developement.
 
You don´t need a age old culture for developing something resembling a Samurai Spirit. Just enough deaths to make death a common occurance,
as cruel as this sounds.