Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Western powers were strangling Japans ability to wage their war in China with tightening economic sanctions, Japan went to war with the west in order to secure the needed resources to continue their war in China. But by then China was already lost and no amount of additional oil or ore from the DEI’s was going to give Japan even a semblance of a chance to win in China once the west was in the fight.

OK - you wnat to go down this road. So tell the truth. Japan was FORCED into the modern world by European and American naval forces. AFTER the British bombarded Kagoshima with battleships, Adm Dewey threatened more of the same if they did not allow trade. Japanese policy was harsh - drown girl babies in years of famine - so it would not outstrip its food supply. No problem, we said - we will ALWAYS trade with you - allow your population to grow. So they did. A century later, Japan does not have the option of going back - it has the least tillable land of any major nation. Killing the Japanese economy is murder - and we know it and approve - one cabinet official wanted to force Japan back to an agrarian society with the loss of - what ? 80% of its people - and we REALLY DID let Japanese starve in 1946-1948 (Saburo Sakai lost his wife to starvation in thiis period - under OUR administration). Japan would never agree to lose Taiwan and Korea - even in 1945 when it is ready to surrender - becuase it means starvation. [We made them do it - and then let them starve too]. Japan indeed went to war - and almost no Japanese politician or historian says it was wrong today - because it was something wholly unacceptable - and we knew it would be - to demand we dictate Japanese policy. We MIGHT have stood up to Japan in 1935 or 1937 with effect - but we did not. AFTER five years of war - and casualties - it was not an option to ask them to leave China - and we knew it. See Ambassador Grew on the subject. Roosevelt wanted Japan in the war as a device to get war with Germany - he didn't respect Japan as a potential opponent. Not sure how he thought that would work either? But he got lucky - Germany declared war on us - did he anticipate that? Why does a Japanese attack put us at war with Germany? I have no clue - normally.

Ok, let's go down this road.

It was Matthew Perry not Dewey. 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.

How was a squadron of four ships was going to force a nation of 30m people to open trade if it wasn't already moving in that direction or thought it in its best interest? A country has a duty to pursue its best interest. Did it serve Japan to remain closed to only a few Dutch or Chinese traders or was it better to open itself to more trade? I don't know. It was Japan's decision to open itself to trade. In retrospect, it may have been better not to. Maybe the attacks on China (1890s), Port Arthur (1904), Manchuria (1933), China (1937), Russia (1938-1939) and PH (1941), wouldn't have happened. In any event the treaty that was signed only provided for peace between the parties, Japan opening up a couple of ports to the US for trade, permission for ships to purhase provisions there and some admiralty and maritime protection for wrecked ships and passengers. Hardly being forced into the modern world.

Who is the "we" in "No problem, we said - we will always trade with you"? When did "we" undertake an obligation to feed Japan regardless of what its government did? What country would unilateraly throw its ability to embargo or limit its trade? That's simplistic at best. Killing the Japanese economy is murder? When did we kill it? Food was not embargoed. Oil and scrap iron doesn't feed shite considering that their agriculture wasn't mechanized to any great degree. Their integrated, self-sufficient economy never existed. It was based upon integrating the parts of Asia necessary to make Japan self-sufficient. How is what happened to Japan in 1946-1948 relevant to her pre-war decisions? She wasn't starving at the time.

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.

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? Why would it think the other country would not object? Is diplomacy really possible then or just pointless?

Some cabinet officials wanted Germany plowed over and eradicated. Did it become policy?

As far as Japan never agreeing to lose Taiwan and Korea, who cares what Japan wanted? They never asked the Taiwanese and Koreans what they thought. I'm pretty sure we didn't either. I'm just guessing here, but I doubt the Taiwanese and Koreans were overly concerned about Japan starving.

As for the revisionist history, I'm too far off topic already.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In geostrategic terms, yes

Yet what was the alternative? IF Japan caved to the embargo - and withdrew from China (not Manchuria - that was not demanded) - it more than lost face (a big deal in East Asia) - it THEN would expect to have US/UK/NEI dictate its policy FOREVER in ANY AREA.

Grew wrote at the time this was inconcevable - that the embargo must lead to war - and he was quite right. Japan could not allow its foreign policy to be dictated by us. Nor were we trying to avoid war - it is pretty clear we just hoped to put the onus on them for starting it.

Grew was certainly right, but so were Roosevelt and his economists. If Japan went to war---they would lose. And what nation in it's right mind would start a war they KNEW they couldn't win? That was the crux of the position. Neither side really understood the other. The Japanese lived in a "Fantasyland" where their "superior fighting spirit" was going to allow them to ignore economic reallities..., and the US believed economic reality would have to bring the Japanese to their senses. So billions were wasted and millions killed proving the the US was right.

[el cid again]

Tolley took command of Lanikai Dec 4 and was still sitting in Manilla Bay on Dec 7/8. The British and Americans had plenty of intel during this time that there was going to be a Japanese attack, they just didn't know where. So your suggestion and Tolley's claims are actually irrelevant, everyone already knew there was going to be a war and it wasn't going to be the Lanikai that started it. Although to make that claim probably fitted Tolley and the publishers purposes when the book was released during the Pearl harbor revisionist furor...

Reflecting on this for 24 hours, I have a question: the story of the Lanokai is ALSO told in the story of USS Isabel. That ship had an ENTIRELY USN crew, and it actually made a patrol under orders before the war began (but didn't sight the enemy, one patrol plane excepted).
How many US naval officers and petty officers do you imagine are in this conspiracy to (what? - blacken the reputation of FDR?)? The Isabel story is NOT told by the same publisher either. In historical scholarship such a set of intersecting data is called "confirmation" - and it is not wise to assume EVERYONE is lieing - particularly not US combattants. I do not find the President's order outside the pruvue of his options as Commander in Chief, and I would have obeyed them had I been present. Would you not have?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[el cid again]

Grew was certainly right, but so were Roosevelt and his economists. If Japan went to war---they would lose. And what nation in it's right mind would start a war they KNEW they couldn't win? That was the crux of the position. Neither side really understood the other. The Japanese lived in a "Fantasyland" where their "superior fighting spirit" was going to allow them to ignore economic reallities...,

In the context of Japanese history - Japan had never lost a war in modern times - and Japan had defeated a power ten times its size in the 20th century - it didn't seem quite so much a fantasy. Also, the government was de facto an Army controlled entity, and the Army lacked much exposure to the world outside East Asia. It is doubtful even a militarist Navy government would have been quite so cavilier.

See International Conflict for Beginners by Roger Fisher. You almost never compel a nation to do anything. Japan had decided for war (in a strange way- it was NOT a government decision - it was a clique who ended up getting their way when they BROKE policy) with China. It had invested too much in the war to turn back. We knew it. Getting in the way of a nation at war for 6 years is a good way to get in that war yourself. We knew that too. But we WANTED that. So lets not pretend otherwise.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Tolley took command of Lanikai Dec 4 and was still sitting in Manilla Bay on Dec 7/8. The British and Americans had plenty of intel during this time that there was going to be a Japanese attack, they just didn't know where. So your suggestion and Tolley's claims are actually irrelevant, everyone already knew there was going to be a war and it wasn't going to be the Lanikai that started it. Although to make that claim probably fitted Tolley and the publishers purposes when the book was released during the Pearl harbor revisionist furor...

Reflecting on this for 24 hours, I have a question: the story of the Lanokai is ALSO told in the story of USS Isabel. That ship had an ENTIRELY USN crew, and it actually made a patrol under orders before the war began (but didn't sight the enemy, one patrol plane excepted).
How many US naval officers and petty officers do you imagine are in this conspiracy to (what? - blacken the reputation of FDR?)? The Isabel story is NOT told by the same publisher either. In historical scholarship such a set of intersecting data is called "confirmation" - and it is not wise to assume EVERYONE is lieing - particularly not US combattants. I do not find the President's order outside the pruvue of his options as Commander in Chief, and I would have obeyed them had I been present. Would you not have?

You claimed that the Lanikai and Isabel had orders to "START A WAR". I'm suggesting that is INACCURATE. Everyone knew there was going to be a war. At best Roosevelt was trying to insure that he had a cassus belli that would play at home politically and hoped that the Japanese would provide it. The orders did not say fire on the Japanese, the orders merely stated to gather intel and place the ships in the path of Japans invasion task forces. Roosevelt was hoping that the Japanese would fire on the Lanikai and/or Isabel, as the Japanese had NEARLY done in November to two gunboats enroute to Manilla from China. In fact, as you state, Isabel was spotted by a Japanese but what you fail to add is that the Isabel was then ordered to return to Manilla by Hart.

[Feinder]

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.

[;)]
-F-

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Grew was certainly right, but so were Roosevelt and his economists. If Japan went to war---they would lose. And what nation in it's right mind would start a war they KNEW they couldn't win? That was the crux of the position. Neither side really understood the other. The Japanese lived in a "Fantasyland" where their "superior fighting spirit" was going to allow them to ignore economic reallities...,

In the context of Japanese history - Japan had never lost a war in modern times - and Japan had defeated a power ten times its size in the 20th century - it didn't seem quite so much a fantasy. Also, the government was de facto an Army controlled entity, and the Army lacked much exposure to the world outside East Asia. It is doubtful even a militarist Navy government would have been quite so cavilier.

See International Conflict for Beginners by Roger Fisher. You almost never compel a nation to do anything. Japan had decided for war (in a strange way- it was NOT a government decision - it was a clique who ended up getting their way when they BROKE policy) with China. It had invested too much in the war to turn back. We knew it. Getting in the way of a nation at war for 6 years is a good way to get in that war yourself. We knew that too. But we WANTED that. So lets not pretend otherwise.

This is where we will have to dissagree. Roosevelt did want to get the US involved in the war..., against Germany!. Getting involved with Japan would detract from that effort. And while you point out correctly that the Japanese Militarists, with their quite insular point of view, might have felt that Japan had a chance in a War with the West, you give no credit to the other side of the coin. That US Industrialists and Capitolists and even the Military (which had the only School of War Mobilization and Production of any great power) simply could not believe that Japan with it's small and limited industrial base and glaring lack of resources would actually DARE to attack the US. From our "production based" point of view it would be an act of lunacy! Surely if we just "twisted the leash a little tighter" the Japanese Government could be brought to it's senses? That's what I meant by neither side understood the other.

[ChezDaJez]

You do not direct three ships to break the rules of the road, do so under no colors, then falsely claim to have been knowingly engaged by IJN if you don't WANT a war.

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.

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?

Chez

[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

[Nikademus]

Were you sleeping in class again Chez?

[;)]

[treespider]

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

My take is someone mentioned during boot camp that it was their duty to defend the free world. Now this leaves a lot of room for interpretation...one interpretation being ..."insure Japan gets oil"[;)][:D]

[ChezDaJez]

Were you sleeping in class again Chez?

SIR! NO, SIR! [:'(]

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

My take is someone mentioned during boot camp that it was their duty to defend the free world. Now this leaves a lot of room for interpretation...one interpretation being ..."insure Japan gets oil"

[:D][:D][:D]

Chez

[el cid again]

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.

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.

[el cid again]

This is where we will have to dissagree. Roosevelt did want to get the US involved in the war..., against Germany!. Getting involved with Japan would detract from that effort. And while you point out correctly that the Japanese Militarists, with their quite insular point of view, might have felt that Japan had a chance in a War with the West, you give no credit to the other side of the coin. That US Industrialists and Capitolists and even the Military (which had the only School of War Mobilization and Production of any great power) simply could not believe that Japan with it's small and limited industrial base and glaring lack of resources would actually DARE to attack the US. From our "production based" point of view it would be an act of lunacy! Surely if we just "twisted the leash a little tighter" the Japanese Government could be brought to it's senses? That's what I meant by neither side understood the other.

We will have to agree to disagree about Roosevelt. The historical record is too clear to doubt - he really believed (and possibly he was right - for it worked out as he wanted) that war with any Axis power put us at war with all of them. You cannot evade direct orders to a four star admiral well in advance of operations. These were not from the Navy high command - they were personal, Presidential orders - so it is personal - not just command responsibility involved.

But we CAN agree that neither side understood the other. This is cultural. Neither side understands the other to this day. It is not impossible to cross the bridge. But it takes more effort than most people make. [I have spent 35 years in Asia, and am part of an Asian family, and it is not easy to avoid misunderstanding even so.] So we completely agree on that - at least!