China declared war onJapan on Dec 9, 1941?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I don't think it was the "Jewish-Bolshevik" conspiracy which was the reason why Hitler came to power. It was the fact that none of the other political parties in Germany in that time wanted to throw the Versailles treaty overboard.

Think about it. The twenties weren't "roaring" in Germany and Austria at all. Those years are still remembered as the years of extreme poverty and femine. There was no money for the agriculture, no money for spare parts, a huge unemployment and that was before the depression started. I've got a banknote somewhere which says 1 billion German Marks. At that time this banknote was worth about ten pence in the UK...

It is my believe, that if a strong fascist leader (instead of a Nazi leader) would have emerged in Germany (such as Mussolini and Franco) things would have been exactly the same, apart from the holocaust.

warspite1

I don't think it was the "Jewish-Bolshevik" conspiracy which was the reason why Hitler came to power.

Well we know from history – in the US, in Europe, in the past and in the present, just how much countries – how much people – have feared the great red menace so it’s dismissal as something right-wing extremists used is puzzling. But moreover, I am not sure – given all that ultimately happened - that I understand the dismissal of the importance of the Jewish question and the anti-semitism that was the Nazis creed. I am not even talking about the Final Solution – I am talking about the gradual, but systematic, removal of Jews from everyday life, and how the German people let that happen. Your average German is no different to Joe Frenchman or Joe Briton or Joe American. But it did happen. That is some propaganda machine in play….

Think about it. The twenties weren't "roaring" in Germany and Austria at all.

Well quite – and the German people were not happy about it – they wanted, needed, someone to blame. That need was dutifully delivered by A.Hitler, who very skilfully gave them something that they could turn their venom on, something to rally around. “The Germans were not defeated in World War I, they were stabbed in the back by Communists and Jews”. “Germany is being held back from her rightful place by international Jewry and their Communist friends”. Yes, the Treaty of Versailles played its part in that story – but only a part no more. If the German people were not indoctrinated with this abhorrent %^&* how did the German people allow what happened to happen?

It is my believe, that if a strong fascist leader (instead of a Nazi leader) would have emerged in Germany (such as Mussolini and Franco) things would have been exactly the same, apart from the holocaust.

Why? What is a fascist? What does he believe in? Was Ernst Roehm a fascist? A Communist more like – can you see him having the skills to lead the west a merry dance?

Exactly the same?

Why would any other fascist leader that may emerge, necessarily have to be fixated by Lebensraum?

Apart from the Holocaust?

Why? were no other high ranking fascists anti-semites – only Hitler?

And why would it only be fascists that came to power? Don’t forget the circumstances that saw Hitler actually come to power. It would be so easy to see other outcomes – just the odd difference in decision at one or two key times could have made all the difference. There were just too many variables and thus so many possibilities.

[Aranthus]

While an embargo is a hostile act, it isn't necessarily an act of war. An act of war is a hostile act involving the use, or threatened use of force. An embargo is just a refusal to sell to a country, unlike say, a blockade which is the physical interference with another country's shipping. Embargo doesn't involve force, so it's not an act of war. But you've brought up an interesting example of why most of international law is just for show. Did the fact that China only declared war on Japan on December 9, 1941, change anything? Did it affect the kinds of actions that the Chinese military took? Nope. Most likely, it was a show of solidarity with the US. Purely for show.

[Bo Rearguard]

Even before the restrictions on oil and scrap iron, there was a "moral embargo" as well due to hardening American public opinion against Japan. Walter Judd, an American medical missionary in China, denounced the "blood trade" in a nationwide radio broadcast---

"The airplanes bombed and machine-gunned us day after day, but it never made me feel any happier about it to know, all through that first year of the war, how many of the planes were from my country. One-third of all the stuff they drop down to kill, maim, and destroy comes from the scrap-iron yards and steel mills of my country. I have worked hours on end, night after night, removing these things from the bodies and brains of Chinese men and women and children. I never could say it was none of our business when we were supplying almost everything except the pilot."

Although a "moral embargo" of aluminum, magnesium, and molybdenum was imposed in December 1939, enabling legislation for a binding embargo did not pass into law until July 1940, following the defeat of France and Holland. The United States did not even increase tariffs, as required by a 1930 U.S. law regarding trade from countries with which the United States did not have a trade agreement, because the Roosevelt Administration was able to find a legal loophole. Even when the embargo legislation was finally passed, it was framed in terms of restricting exports of commodities and materiel required for the United States' own defense buildup. The embargo of sales of scrap iron and aviation gasoline to Japan, which began in response to the fall of France were also prompted by the fact that both were considered critical for the United States' own defense and were embargoed on that basis.

Initially, only gasoline with an octane rating of 87 or greater was embargoed, and only number 1 heavy melting scrap, which accounted for only 20 percent of exports to Japan. Since most Japanese aircraft engines could operate on 86-octane gasoline, the effects of the embargo were relatively mild, and the Japanese began ordering all the 86-octane gasoline they could find. Japanese gasoline purchases in the U.S. had totaled 1.2 million barrels in 1939; in the six months following the July 1940 embargo, gasoline imports from the U.S. rose to 3.4 million barrels.

Japan responded to continuing events in Europe by occupying northern French Indochina and joining the Tripartite Pact in September 1940. The combination of events was probably coincidental but appeared highly provocative. The United States responded by extending the embargo to include all scrap iron. The addition of Japan to the Axis is widely viewed as a critical development, but the United States had already come to view Japan as a co-conspirator with the "bandit" nations of Germany and Italy and there was little immediate change in U.S. policy.

I think the real kicker was when Congress passed the Two-Ocean Naval Expansion Act, which recognized the plain reality that the naval disarmament treaties of the 1920s and 30s had become completely moot and funded a massive expansion of the U.S. Navy. Japan could not possibly match this expansion, which ensured that by 1944 the Japanese Navy would be outclasssed in its own home waters. If Japan was to resort to war, it would have to come before then.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Well we know from history – in the US, in Europe, in the past and in the present, just how much countries – how much people – have feared the great red menace so it’s dismissal as something right-wing extremists used is puzzling. But moreover, I am not sure – given all that ultimately happened - that I understand the dismissal of the importance of the Jewish question and the anti-semitism that was the Nazis creed. I am not even talking about the Final Solution – I am talking about the gradual, but systematic, removal of Jews from everyday life, and how the German people let that happen. Your average German is no different to Joe Frenchman or Joe Briton or Joe American. But it did happen. That is some propaganda machine in play….

Average or not average individual, Germany was not the same as France, Britain, or the USA (see: Anti-Semitism (Scroll down to: Germany and anti-Semitism: the 19th century)).

The "gradual"and systematic removal of Jews is discussed at the following link. It was not so gradual.

Anti-Semitism (Scroll down to: Germany and anti-Semitism: the 19th century)

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Well quite – and the German people were not happy about it – they wanted, needed, someone to blame. That need was dutifully delivered by A.Hitler, who very skilfully gave them something that they could turn their venom on, something to rally around. “The Germans were not defeated in World War I, they were stabbed in the back by Communists and Jews”. “Germany is being held back from her rightful place by international Jewry and their Communist friends”. Yes, the Treaty of Versailles played its part in that story – but only a part no more. If the German people were not indoctrinated with this abhorrent %^&* how did the German people allow what happened to happen?

That need was dutifully delivered by the Nazi party. As well as Hitler the following were all virulent anti-Semites:
Paul Joseph Goebbels (Reich Minister of Propaganda),
Heinrich Luitpold Himmler (SS Reichsführer),
Ernst Roehm (SA (Sturmabteilung) Chief of Staff).

Hermann Wilhelm Goering claimed to have never been anti-Semitic himself, had not believed the atrocities, and several Jews had offered to testify on his behalf.

You would think Goering would know since he was:
Vice-Chancellor of Germany 02/10/1941 – 04/23/1945,
President of the Reichstag 08/30/1932 – 04/23/1945
Minister President of the Free State of Prussia 04/10/1933 – 04/23/1945
Acting Reichsstatthalter of Prussia 04/25/1933 – 04/23/1945
Reichsminister of Aviation 04/27/1933 – 04/23/1945
Reichsminister of Forestry 07/1934 – 04/23//1945

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Why? What is a fascist? What does he believe in? Was Ernst Roehm a fascist? A Communist more like – can you see him having the skills to lead the west a merry dance?

Ernst Roehm was a socialist.

Fascism

Nazism

Socialism

[warspite1]

Not gradual? Not sure what you mean. Germany did not go straight to the Final Solution did they? There was a steady whittling away of rights and freedoms - albeit it took a short period of time. it had to be short - the 1,000-year Reich only lasted 12 years.

I think you've taken "delivered by A. Hitler" somewhat literally! Also - "were no other high ranking fascists anti-semites – only Hitler?" - that was a rhetorical question[;)]

Re Fascism, Communism etc I was not looking for some attempt at a definition. The suggestion was that any strong fascist leader that emerged instead of Hitler would neccessarily want Lebensraum and would not be anti-semitic (at least not to the point of the Holocaust). The point is one cannot say a "fascist" leader and expect this to define exactly what that leader believes in. E.g. Mussolini was a fascist - he was not particularly anti - semitic though was he? I suspect Stalin's brand of Communism was somewhat different to Lenin's etc etc. The whole point about Roehm was that he and Hitler had very different ideas on where to take Germany. This is just one of the hundreds and thousands of variables that go to show why "Versailles must = WW2" - and that Versailles was a direct cause of WW2 - is just too simplistic a notion.

[brian brian]

It's too simple to blame everything on Hitler. The only internal arguments in Germany were not over re-arming and then putting the armaments to use, but rather how fast to do it. Hitler added the anti-Semitism, to be sure, but he was not alone in that thinking. The near-Civil War in Germany in 1919 certainly motivated plenty of people to be virulently anti-Communist as well. So the result was a look to the East as a place to expand at the expense of others, in part also I think out of a not-to-be-spoken-aloud be-grudging respect for the French, who didn't break in WWI. But a final motivational force for Hitler sometimes seems to be his inability to forgive the British for taking away his marmalade during the first war. I'm not totally kidding there - the blockade of Germany in that war was always remembered, and was part of that desire for more "space" for Germany - a space that wasn't under the thumb of the Royal Navy, and another sort of forced respect for military reality, even for the SuperMen.

[warspite1]

and was part of that desire for more "space" for Germany - a space that wasn't under the thumb of the Royal Navy, and another sort of forced respect for military reality, even for the SuperMen.

Yep, that is what Lebensraum was all about. So that Germany would be like the US - self sufficient and never subject to blockade again.

Hitler.....his inability to forgive the British

Not so. Hitler couldn't give a toss - or at least assumed he wouldn't have to give a toss. Unlike the Kaiser he would not make the mistake of alienating the British with a naval arms race that was bound to %^&* them off - hence the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. The British - unthreatened - would apparently then give Germany carte blanche to head east......

It's too simple to blame everything on Hitler.

Well that depends on what one is blaming him for exactly....

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not gradual? Not sure what you mean. Germany did not go straight to the Final Solution did they? There was a steady whittling away of rights and freedoms - albeit it took a short period of time. it had to be short - the 1,000-year Reich only lasted 12 years.

I think you've taken "delivered by A. Hitler" somewhat literally! Also - "were no other high ranking fascists anti-semites – only Hitler?" - that was a rhetorical question[;)]

Re Fascism, Communism etc I was not looking for some attempt at a definition. The suggestion was that any strong fascist leader that emerged instead of Hitler would neccessarily want Lebensraum and would not be anti-semitic (at least not to the point of the Holocaust). The point is one cannot say a "fascist" leader and expect this to define exactly what that leader believes in. E.g. Mussolini was a fascist - he was not particularly anti - semitic though was he? I suspect Stalin's brand of Communism was somewhat different to Lenin's etc etc. The whole point about Roehm was that he and Hitler had very different ideas on where to take Germany. This is just one of the hundreds and thousands of variables that go to show why "Versailles must = WW2" - and that Versailles was a direct cause of WW2 - is just too simplistic a notion.

If you read the information found at the link on Anti-Semitism (Scroll down to: Germany and anti-Semitism: the 19th century). "Immediately after the elections to the Reichstag on 5 March 1933, which marked the real beginning to Hitler’s and the Nazi’s takeover of Germany, the SA and other Nazi organisations gave way to their hatred of the Jews. Jews were molested, some even killed, and Jewish businesses were harassed or destroyed. The first apparent anti-Semitic initiative was the boycott of Jewish stores in April 1933. After this followed a wave of laws and ordinances. More than 2,000 racist laws and ordinances were issued between 1933 and 1945. Although historians disagree on how important anti-Semitism was in the early phase of the Nazi regime, 1933 definitely constituted a marked line between the times of the Weimar Republic and the new regime. The Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February 1933, for instance, gave the Nazi state the possibility of imprisoning Jews (and other political enemies) without legal trial."

Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State ("Reichstag Fire Decree") (February 28, 1933)

Note: "Reichstag Fire Decree" was issued by President Hindenburg.

True 2,000 racist laws and ordinances were issued between 1933 and 1945 are a lot. But a law changing the constitution restricting the rights of people (especially due process) at one go doesn't sound gradual to me. This created the prison camp system for political enemy's, the mentally/physically challenged, the Gypsies, and the Jews. The whole piece on anti-semitism shows anti-semitism was wide spread in Germany even before Hitler.



"In 1938, the Italian Fascist regime under Benito Mussolini enacted a series of racial laws that placed multiple restrictions on the country’s Jewish population."

I leave it to you was Mussolini a anti-Semite?

The Holocaust in Italy

[warspite1]

If you read the information

I did - why did you think I hadn't?

doesn't sound gradual to me.

I have read nothing to alter my view that the process was gradual i.e. did not happen all at once. Hitler assumes power day 1 – The final solution day 2 (or thereabouts) – that is not gradual. But that did not happen. The following did (note for the purposes of this exercise this relates to pre-September 1939 only – but we all know where this ends up):

Pre - 1933

Before Hitler came to power clearly he was peddling his anti-semitic filth (as per my previous posts this vitriol and blame for Germany’s woes directed at the Jews suited his purposes perfectly).

1933

January 1st - Adolf Hitler appointed Chancellor
April 1st – Boycott of Jewish shops and businesses
April 7th – Laws for Reestablishment of the Civil Service barred Jews from holding civil service, university, and state positions
May 10th - Public burnings of books written by Jews, political dissidents, and others not approved by the state.
July 14th - Law excluding East European Jewish immigrants of German citizenship.

1935

May 31st - Jews barred from serving in the German armed forces
September 15th – The Nuremberg Laws. The first anti-Jewish racial laws enacted; Jews no longer considered German citizens; Jews could not marry Aryans; nor could they fly the German flag.
November 15th - Germany defines a "Jew": anyone with three Jewish grandparents; someone with two Jewish grandparents who identifies as a Jew.

1936

March 3rd - Jewish doctors barred from practicing medicine in German institutions.

1938

April 26th - Mandatory registration of all property held by Jews inside the Reich
August 1st - Adolf Eichmann establishes the Office of Jewish Emigration in Vienna to increase the pace of forced emigration.
October 5th - Following request by Swiss authorities, Germans mark all Jewish passports with a large letter "J" to restrict Jews from immigrating to Switzerland.
October 28th - 17,000 Polish Jews living in Germany expelled; Poles refused to admit them; 8,000 are stranded in the frontier village of Zbaszyn.
November 9th-10th - Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass): anti-Jewish pogrom in Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland; 200 synagogues destroyed; 7,500 Jewish shops looted; 30,000 male Jews sent to concentration camps (Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen).
November 12th - Decree forcing all Jews to transfer retail businesses to Aryan hands
November 15th - All Jewish pupils expelled from German schools
December 12th - One billion mark fine levied against German Jews for the destruction of property during Kristallnacht

1939

January 30th - Hitler in Reichstag speech: if war erupts it will mean the Vernichtung (extermination) of European Jews

The above is a gradual weakening of the Jewish position during the years 1933-1939.


That an anti-semitic undercurrent preceded Hitler is not in doubt. Sadly the Jews have often found themselves persecuted in Europe through the ages. This is not unique to Germany.

I leave it to you was Mussolini a anti-Semite?

Re Mussolini. I have read some more on this following your post. This is an interesting one. In regards to anti-semitism Mussolini and Italy have had a relatively easy ride with historians, and it appears that Italy have been able to “slip under the radar” to an extent because it appears, seen purely in the context of German anti-Jewish laws and the Final Solution, they were relatively benign.

The fact is Mussolini did pass anti-Jewish laws pre-WWII – and that quite obviously qualifies him as an anti-semite. So why did I think he wasn’t? Well as I see it the only reason for that impression is the books I have read on or about Italy in WWII. Annoyingly I still have a Mussolini biography unread… I must get around to that.

For example in the last few months I read Vichy France – Old Guard and New Order. One of the many things that stood out in this book was the reference to Jews living in the part of France occupied by the Italians – these were the only Jews in France (Vichy or occupied) where Jews were safe. Many years ago I read the excellent War in Italy 1943-45 A Brutal Story. This book made clear the efforts made by the Italians to assist the Jews. A stat often quoted is that 8 out of every 10 Italian Jews survived WWII (the third highest proportion in Europe – behind Denmark and Bulgaria) and that those that died only did so following Mussolini’s overthrow and his re-emergence within the Salo Republic, where he enacted additional anti-Jewish measures no doubt to try and save his own skin. Italy is therefore something of a contradiction.

Apparently Mussolini regretted his anti-semitism toward the end… $%^&%$ to that – too late son. He was the ruler of Italy when those anti-semitic laws were passed. The fact that they did not envisage concentration camps and the Final Solution hardly makes Mussolini a candidate for Humanitarian of the year does it? So I will review my view of Mussolini – and will attempt to get around to that autobiography asap…. so many books, so little time….

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Just for fun I want to go ever more back in time.

Earlier Japan was very closed country. In 1853 US forced Japan to open its borders trade "or deal with consequences". After that Modernization started in Japan and they needed raw materials. Would they have stayed in their own islands without US forcing them to open borders?

warspite1

Hi Mayhemizer - here is a thread that explains a little more about Japan being a closed country. Certainly changed my accepted understanding!

tm.asp?m=3864120&mpage=1&key=inward%2Clooking�

warspite1

Not of interest then?

[Mayhemizer_slith]

Hi warspite

Interesting discussion indeed, I learned something so the day was not wasted. Maybe it was not US who made Japan go to conquest other countries...

But if I'm in a debate related to this with less educated people I will use that argument again [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I leave it to you was Mussolini a anti-Semite?

Re Mussolini. I have read some more on this following your post. This is an interesting one. In regards to anti-semitism Mussolini and Italy have had a relatively easy ride with historians, and it appears that Italy have been able to “slip under the radar” to an extent because it appears, seen purely in the context of German anti-Jewish laws and the Final Solution, they were relatively benign.

The fact is Mussolini did pass anti-Jewish laws pre-WWII – and that quite obviously qualifies him as an anti-semite. So why did I think he wasn’t? Well as I see it the only reason for that impression is the books I have read on or about Italy in WWII. Annoyingly I still have a Mussolini biography unread… I must get around to that.

For example in the last few months I read Vichy France – Old Guard and New Order. One of the many things that stood out in this book was the reference to Jews living in the part of France occupied by the Italians – these were the only Jews in France (Vichy or occupied) where Jews were safe. Many years ago I read the excellent War in Italy 1943-45 A Brutal Story. This book made clear the efforts made by the Italians to assist the Jews. A stat often quoted is that 8 out of every 10 Italian Jews survived WWII (the third highest proportion in Europe – behind Denmark and Bulgaria) and that those that died only did so following Mussolini’s overthrow and his re-emergence within the Salo Republic, where he enacted additional anti-Jewish measures no doubt to try and save his own skin. Italy is therefore something of a contradiction.

Apparently Mussolini regretted his anti-semitism toward the end… $%^&%$ to that – too late son. He was the ruler of Italy when those anti-semitic laws were passed. The fact that they did not envisage concentration camps and the Final Solution hardly makes Mussolini a candidate for Humanitarian of the year does it? So I will review my view of Mussolini – and will attempt to get around to that autobiography asap…. so many books, so little time….

warspite1

Interesting quotes in one of the Mussolini books I have to hand. These tend to support the notion that Mussolini was not inherently anti-semitic (but got caught up in trying to impress Hitler). I will post some of these in due course.

[warspite1]

Finally got around to reading Mussolini (Hibbert). I won't bother with quotes, but it is clear that Mussolini was not really an anti-semite. He was responsible of course for the anti-semitic laws that were passed. However, whilst this does not excuse him, it is clear he passed these laws only once he fell in love with Adolf Hitler. The Italians were not exactly strict at enforcing such laws either (to the annoyance of the Germans) and as said previously, it says a lot that the only safe place for a Jew in France (including the non-occupied zone) after 1940, was the Italian administered area.

I must look out for more reading matter on this strange man, the country he ruled over and the regime he ruled with. One thing appears clear from the book - Mussolini was one strange individual....

[Extraneous]

Alessandra Mussolini (granddaughter of Benito Mussolini)

Has been a Member of the European Parliament for Forza Italia since 2014. Her aunt is Sophia Loren.

[brian brian]

Ahoy, a Warspite sighting! I'm sure the seas are safe and secure now, though commerce is darn slow lately, like we need a war or something.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Aranthus

While an embargo is a hostile act, it isn't necessarily an act of war. An act of war is a hostile act involving the use, or threatened use of force. An embargo is just a refusal to sell to a country, unlike say, a blockade which is the physical interference with another country's shipping. Embargo doesn't involve force, so it's not an act of war. But you've brought up an interesting example of why most of international law is just for show. Did the fact that China only declared war on Japan on December 9, 1941, change anything? Did it affect the kinds of actions that the Chinese military took? Nope. Most likely, it was a show of solidarity with the US. Purely for show.

Yes, like in "I have all the food, water, heating and shelter, and I hold it, but you are the bad guy because you punched my nose before dying of hunger and cold?" [:D]

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio
Yes, like in "I have all the food, water, heating and shelter, and I hold it, but you are the bad guy because you punched my nose before dying of hunger and cold?" [:D]

Let's remember a significant point. The USA embargo against Japan was against a country that had been waging a undeclared war of aggression against Manchuria since September 18, 1931. This undeclared war soon spread in the 1930's to China (remember the rape of Nanking in December 1937). And, I don't really think Japan was "dying of hunger and cold" when they bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. They woke "a sleeping giant" and paid the price.

[juntoalmar]

Thanks for your interesting discussion.

Let's say that nowadays someone could disagree with US politics in the last two decades. Let's say that Saudi Arabia start an oil embargo to the US. What would be the (most foreseeable) consequences of it? This would be accepted almost as a declaration of war and people agree on the US right to protect their interests, right?

The embargo on Japan cut their expansionist plans in Asia, and left it with the alternative of either going to war, or accepting its secondary role versus western powers and its colonies in Asia. It's hard to believe than in a increasingly militarized Japan, second option would be followed.

Anyway, Japan plans, were against western colonies in Asia (Dutch indies, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines) and a China that had been on its knees for long. Japan army behaved specially cruel in their occupation, but I think that their expansion was basically similar on its interests as those of France, England, Dutch or the US in 19th century.

Most of what I think has been (better) explained by brian brian.

"That was in self interest, that's real life". Everybody's interests in WWII were "real life", Axis' too. You could explain as "real life" Hitler's interest of securing resources for 3rd Reich too.

@warspite "So what do we conclude from this? What is it that you are both saying? That the US should simply have let Japan carry on their war in China and wherever else they may wish to take it? "

Well, you can return that question. What do you conclude from this? That Japan should have simply let Western countries colonize and get economical benefit from the national resources of Indochina, Malay, India, Dutch Indies, Burma, Philippines...? Sorry, but Japan wasn't just fighting against free asian countries, but mostly against western colonized territories.

[warspite1]

"That was in self interest, that's real life". Everybody's interests in WWII were "real life", Axis' too. You could explain as "real life" Hitler's interest of securing resources for 3rd Reich too.

Can you confirm what you mean by that please? Firstly, I do not think anyone has said the Axis did not have their own interests – quite the reverse. Secondly, are you saying Hitler was right to want to invade the Soviet Union (taking out Poland in the process)? Are you agreeing with the position that the Western Allies declaration of war on Germany was wrong and that they – effectively – started what became WWII?

Returning to Japan and the USA

The embargo on Japan cut their expansionist plans in Asia, and left it with the alternative of either going to war, or accepting its secondary role versus western powers and its colonies in Asia. It's hard to believe than in a increasingly militarized Japan, second option would be followed.

Firstly, re the last sentence, so what? Why should the US have their own actions dictated by the likely actions of that hideous regime. That is not a valid reason (moral or otherwise) for the US giving in to Japan.

Secondly, here is the situation facing the US (and I repeat post 31 here):

Look at the situation that Roosevelt faced in the summer of 1941 when the US embargoed Japan. So what exactly was the position?

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. Where does that leave the US exactly?

Roosevelt could see what was likely to happen. But what does Roosevelt say to congress? Oooohh I’d really like to do something about this potentially disastrous situation but I won’t because I don’t want people saying in years to come I was acting in a hypocritical manner……

The idea that the US started the Pacific War (and that the British and French started the war in Europe (David Irving’s wet dream) is simply ridiculous.

….so really, what was Roosevelt supposed to do? This is the question I would most like answered - and without any hindsight about what ultimately happened in the USSR - Roosevelt did not have access to hindsight.

Finally there is:

That Japan should have simply let Western countries colonize and get economical benefit from the national resources of Indochina, Malay, India, Dutch Indies, Burma, Philippines...? Sorry, but Japan wasn't just fighting against free asian countries, but mostly against western colonized territories.

Three things spring from this theme:

Anyway, Japan plans, were against western colonies in Asia (Dutch indies, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines) and a China that had been on its knees for long.

1. So are you saying that makes Japan’s action right? Are you suggesting Japan was only interested in freeing the poor people of Asia (China and her 25million war dead excepted) from colonial oppression? An unprovoked war of aggression was justified?

2. Are you saying that the US should have not cared about what was happening in the Western Pacific and mainland Asia? Why would they do that given the regime in Japan and given what was happening elsewhere in the world at the time – see above.

3. Are you saying that because (in less enlightened times) other powers grabbed colonial empires – Japan should be allowed to do the same? Wasn’t WWI supposed to be a turning point (albeit the League of Nations proved a damp squib – largely because of US indifference and the weak Western powers (notably the UK and France) trying to accommodate Italy and Japan – and look where that got them)? Are you saying that two wrongs make a right? The days of empire were (fortunately) coming to an end (albeit hastened by WWII) but would have come to an end anyway in time, but you are saying the Japanese had every right to attack (for example) the Dutch East Indies and grab the resources for herself and enslave the population – thus extending ‘colonial’ rule?



Regardless of what US politicians did or didn't believe in the 30's, the fact was, by 1940/41, it was clear to everyone on the planet what appeasement of the Axis powers achieved. Why on earth would the US continue down that path with Japan?

In continuing to supply oil and strategic materials to Japan in those years, Roosevelt would have effectively been saying "there you go boys, fill your boots. Please continue to butcher as many Chinese as you feel you need to - and then perhaps you can make a start on raping and pillaging the NEI, Malaya etc - let me see you get that body count up! Perhaps, given that we have allowed you to do this you would be so kind as to leave our possessions out of it - oh and when you and your Axis buddies have seen off those awful Western Europeans and Soviets, we can all live together in perfect world peace?".

[Orm]

Well said, Warspite1.