Matrix Games Forums

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.

Bullwinkle58 made a good point. It would have made much more sense for Japan to have striven for economic domination of East Asia rather than physical conquest.

This is exactly China's current tactic today, but they don't want to limit their economic reach to just the Pacific.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.

[:D] Man, another Made My Day comment [;)]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.

" But given the militarists who dominated her government, reality is that she almost had to get her teeth kicked in before she would accept this."

You missed the English idiom Termi. The statement was that having their teeth kicked in was almost the only way the Japanese militarists were going to "see the light" of reality...

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


If you study US social and political history, and not just military, this is so far from possible as to be ridiculous.

Let me try to put in it a modern context. If Osama bin Laden had offered NYC and the federal treasury $50 billion and an apology on October 1, 2001, would he have been off the hook?

Thank you for the in-depth knowledge of both my educational background and approach to a what if question. Are you part of an accreditation committee that will be revoking my degrees now? [&o]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Japan had numerous options in, say, 1930. Just because the British and French and Dutch empires were empires doesn't mean they weren't interested in peaceful trade for raw materials. Do you have any evidence that, if China had remained un-invaded, Japan would have been denied strategic resources and at least some access to finished goods markets? Of course they had options.

Or, said another way, the history of Japan for the past 65 peaceful, incredibly productive years has been a mirage?

It isn't quite so simple.

Post Bretton Wood and GATT, the world has seen a great increase in world trade. Notwithstanding the failure of the Doha negotiations, the impediments to world trade today are nothing compared to the situation in the 1930s. The barriers to world trade which existed in the 1930s severely impacted upon the economies of countries whose domestic market was too small to absorb their gross output.

Another point to bear in mind is the structural composition of 1930s economies. Even the most advanced economies had only a small service sector, instead being heavily reliant on manufacturing, which output was predominantly directed to the domestic market.

We should not assume that the post 1945 conditions which have allowed the Japanese economy to grow were also available prior to the war.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.

" But given the militarists who dominated her government, reality is that she almost had to get her teeth kicked in before she would accept this."

You missed the English idiom Termi. The statement was that having their teeth kicked in was almost the only way the Japanese militarists were going to "see the light" of reality...

Well, her teeth were kicked in by months of aerial firebombing capped by two nuclear bombs, but lets leave it there...

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Japan had numerous options in, say, 1930. Just because the British and French and Dutch empires were empires doesn't mean they weren't interested in peaceful trade for raw materials. Do you have any evidence that, if China had remained un-invaded, Japan would have been denied strategic resources and at least some access to finished goods markets? Of course they had options.

Or, said another way, the history of Japan for the past 65 peaceful, incredibly productive years has been a mirage?

It isn't quite so simple.

Post Bretton Wood and GATT, the world has seen a great increase in world trade. Notwithstanding the failure of the Doha negotiations, the impediments to world trade today are nothing compared to the situation in the 1930s. The barriers to world trade which existed in the 1930s severely impacted upon the economies of countries whose domestic market was too small to absorb their gross output.

Another point to bear in mind is the structural composition of 1930s economies. Even the most advanced economies had only a small service sector, instead being heavily reliant on manufacturing, which output was predominantly directed to the domestic market.

We should not assume that the post 1945 conditions which have allowed the Japanese economy to grow were also available prior to the war.

Alfred

Agreed, Alfred. While these types of discussions are fascinating, they really are just speculation. It is very interesting to hear various forum members opinions and see so many of our cohorts are extremely well informed on a variety of matters. Once the Konoe cabinet dissolved, the die was cast. Yet Konoe was still vigorously pursueing options into September when he met secretely with Ambassador Grew to once again try to set up a face-to-face meeting with FDR.

While unlikely to have been successful, FDR and Hull perhaps did miss an opportunity here. They felt that an agreement should be negotiated before such a meeting should occur with only the final details being hammered out at the actual meeting. What they failed to grasp was that Konoe was a man with the firm grip of the IJA resting on his shoulder. Perhaps the ONLY way Kanoe could negotiate a treaty that would have averted war would be to conduct those negotiations outside Japan. While it is unlikely that the IJA would have accepted any agreement with substantive concesssions by Japan, it is an interesting premise to consider what would have happened if Kanoe would have emerged with an agreement from an October 1941 meeting with Hull/FDR in Hawaii or Alaska.

Most, including Konoe himself, expected the Prime Minister would have been assasinated on his return. The wild card would be Hirohito who viewed himself as a world statesman and at least superficially was trying to avoid war. What if Hirohito ordered the Army to accept the agreement? As I said above, fascinating stuff

How about this, the Army does indeed kill Kanoe on his return. FDR takes this not only as a personal afront that a man he negotiated with in good faith was assasinated, but also as an unequivacable sign that war with Japan was coming and coming soon. All US forces in the Pacific are put on war footing. The Japanese realize that hitting PH by surprise is unlikely. The war starts in December with the invasions of the PI and Malaya. There, now I got us a mod out of this

edit: cleaned up the prose a bit

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.

[:D] Man, another Made My Day comment [;)]

man we ne really need this smiley here

For what it's worth, Hirohito stressed the need/hope for peace all the way up until the end of November. However the hawks urged on like Tojo (his favourite response to peace overtures fromt he Imperial Palace was It's too late for that the IJA-lead war cabinet was determined to push things and go to war with practically everyone in order to secure it's short-term objectives, although yes it is a fascinating 'what if' if the IJ forces had ignored PH and instead pushed SE into the DEI, Malaysia and possible the PI as well - certianly the US public would not have been so outraged if the IJ forces had confined themselves to a sneak attack on the SEAsia forces in the PI (no matter what MacArthur said)

So do you guys think that the incredible industrial growth from the US during WW2 would be smaller if there was no attack in Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?

I think that eventually the US would be at war anyway, but as the war in Europe was already unpopular, another in the Pacific to defend the UK and the Netherlands might be even more. The US would most probably win anyway, as the actual industrial difference was much bigger than the pre-1940 statistics indicated, but perhaps there would be less money to wage the war, less aircrafts, less ships, less support in the Congress, and with the 1944 election looming, Roosevelt could be attacked as a warmonger. All that might mean a not-so-complete destruction of Japan?

Hmm... this might be an alternative scenario, uh? Do something to prevent the capture of the Philippines and the US islands, get the US in the war in 1942 and give it 1/3th of the resources it had?

The United States was not going to stand by and let Britain be defeated or heavily pressed in the Pacific while fighting for its life in Europe. The U.S. was already pretty hot over the situation in China.  If Japan had attacked Dutch and British interests in the Pacific and Asia the U.S. either would have immediately declared war or so ramped up preparations in the Philippines and other Pacific Islands that war would have been inevitable and would have taken place in the short or medium term.  Can you imagine the U.S. sitting back while Japan attacks Hong Kong and Singapore and the Royal Navy is heavily engaged?  No way America commits only 1/4th the resources.

  

ORIGINAL: vettim89


While unlikely to have been successful, FDR and Hull perhaps did miss an opportunity here. They felt that an agreement should be negotiated before such a meaning should occur with only the final details being hammered out at the actual meeting. What they failed to grasp was that Konoe was a man with the firm grip of the IJA resting on his shoulder. Perhaps the ONLY way Kanoe could negotiate a treaty that would have averted war would be to conduct those negotiations outside Japan. While it is unlikely that the IJA would have accepted any agreement with substantive concesssions by Japan, it is an interesting premise to consider what would have happened if Kanoe would have emerged with an agreement from an October 1941 meeting with Hull/FDR in Hawaii or Alaska.

The situation was not helped by the mutual air of distrust that existed between the two parties coupled with lingual and even cultural barriers. Both sides made diplomatic errors during early-mid 1941, the period where the Japanese government sought a genuine compromise with the US (and FDR was at one point interested in what the Japanese were saying but Hull was the primary conduit and his was the biggest influence (and he himself was influenced by his asssistant who was a hardliner in negotiations with Japan) In addition to the economic factors, there were also problems with history and the changing winds in world politics. This problem was fueled by the fact that indeed, many Japanese in the civilian sector 'were' familiar with the history of West, and the United States in particular and were frustrated by what they viewed as hipocracy, based on their actions of the past. I found this quote from US Ambassador Grew reporting to the State Dept to be partcularily relevent in recent studies on the history of the Japanese empire:

We should not lose sight of the fact, deplorable but true, that no practical and effective code of international morality upon which the world can rely has yet been discovered, and that the standards of morality of one nation in given circumstances have little or no relation to the standards of the individuals of the nations in question. To shape our foreign policy on the unsound theory that other nations are guided and bound by our present standards of international ethics would be to court sure disaster.

ORIGINAL: fbs

So do you guys think that the incredible industrial growth from the US during WW2 would be smaller if there was no attack in Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?

No. WW1 had already proved that "war is good for business", even when not an active belligerent. No suprise or quasi-suprise attack would impact the tolerance level for a long war but not the industrial output.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: fbs

So do you guys think that the incredible industrial growth from the US during WW2 would be smaller if there was no attack in Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?

No. WW1 had already proved that "war is good for business", even when not an active belligerent. No suprise or quasi-suprise attack would impact the tolerance level for a long war but not the industrial output.

But who would pay for that? It's not like the US could just direct its industry the way that Speer did. If a significant fraction of the public did not support a war in the other side of the world, Roosevelt might be limited on what he could order, ergo the industrial production would suffer.

ORIGINAL: fbs

So do you guys think that the incredible industrial growth from the US during WW2 would be smaller if there was no attack in Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?

I think that eventually the US would be at war anyway, but as the war in Europe was already unpopular, another in the Pacific to defend the UK and the Netherlands might be even more. The US would most probably win anyway, as the actual industrial difference was much bigger than the pre-1940 statistics indicated, but perhaps there would be less money to wage the war, less aircrafts, less ships, less support in the Congress, and with the 1944 election looming, Roosevelt could be attacked as a warmonger. All that might mean a not-so-complete destruction of Japan?

Hmm... this might be an alternative scenario, uh? Do something to prevent the capture of the Philippines and the US islands, get the US in the war in 1942 and give it 1/3th of the resources it had?

The Allies would have had about 80% of the resources they actually got.

ORIGINAL: fbs

But who would pay for that? It's not like the US could just direct its industry the way that Speer did. If a significant fraction of the public did not support a war in the other side of the world, Roosevelt might be limited on what he could order, ergo the industrial production would suffer.

FDR came up with a number of ways by which nations at war who's "continued survival" was linked to US national security, could purchase/receive goods from US manufacturers. Lend-Lease of course is the best example. Britian traded territory for warships. Simple war loans weighted against a nation's gold reserves etc etc. It's not substantially different today in how war's are financed. The declaration of war didn't really change how the system worked...just kicked it into high gear. The manufacturers and their work force got paid....the supplies, guns and ammo were produced. US was already the "Arsenel of Democracy"

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

We should not lose sight of the fact, deplorable but true, that no practical and effective code of international morality upon which the world can rely has yet been discovered, and that the standards of morality of one nation in given circumstances have little or no relation to the standards of the individuals of the nations in question. To shape our foreign policy on the unsound theory that other nations are guided and bound by our present standards of international ethics would be to court sure disaster.

Wow, that is truly profound. Grew was indeed an insightful man. The point could be very well made that this premise is still very much in play in world problems today.

Hey, Vettim, which is more profound:  the observation by Grew or the statement by Halsey in your sig line. 

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hey, Vettim, which is more profound:  the observation by Grew or the statement by Halsey in your sig line. 

In terms of international affairs: Grew's

In terms of playing AE (or fighting the war in the PTO): Halsey's

In truth I have been considering changing that sig line for some time, just haven't found a quote that I like as of yet. Although I am fond of, "Never get into an argument with an idiot. He'll only drag you down to his level and then overwhelm you with his vast experience". Perhaps Grew's comment here is a candidate