Was Japan actions WW2 'logical'?

[PainRack]

Er... I don't see it. By 1890 Japan was already industrializing to the point where they were a very unappealing target to imperialists. Imperialists don't want to fight a peer competitor as part of their predations. Japan was not in danger from that.

What made Japan vulnerable was pursuing a policy of imperialism into the 1930s, in an era when the rest of the world was starting to turn against such things*. And ignoring warnings to stop, which were issued for the sake of overall world peace. If they had been content to remain in their own territories, no one was planning any attack against them.

And the chain in the logic is what if Japan no longer proved capable of defending herself and become a second class state? A stark example for any Japanese minister, and indeed, one of the driving sentiments behind Yamagota statements was what happened to China when she no longer was capable of defending herself against foreign attacks.

In just 40 short years, the Qing Empire changed from being able to negotiate with Britain directly as a foreign power to one humilated and open to exploitation. This when in 1696 it had defended itself successfully against the Russians.

We discount Japan actions as illogical because in hindsight, if Japan had just remained in her territories and abandoned China/Manchuria, she would had a much greater territorial and political sphere of influence. But this is 20/20 thinking, in 1935,there was no reason to believe that anti-imperialism forces would succeed against European forces. Indeed, World War 2 was the major catalyst and the force that allowed US opposition to flourish into actual, effective policy.

For practical purposes, then, their conquests wouldn't do any Axis nation a damn bit of good. Because they'd need colonies to be profitable now, not some time next decade. Since their outside enemies wouldn't stop fighting as long as the colonies were in chains, the Axis would have to balance the cost of a decade long war against the profits from the colonies. It's just not worth it, even if you tally up the balance sheet in 1965 or 1975 instead of 1945.

Resistance against Japan was only... flourishing in China, mainly due to the fact that they still have effective leadership and supplies from the CCP and KMT.
In her conquered territories down south, this was dramatically different. It was Japanese reverses that help promote the rise of anti Japanese resistance in SEA.
Alternatively, Allied attempts to nurture a resistance movement only began to flourish after the Japanese had suffered military reverses.

Two, it can have a very long time to consolidate its gains, in the total absence of opposition. It took the Romans a long time to consolidate each burst of conquest- Italy, Greece, Hispania, Gaul. The Romans spent decades fighting war after war to subdue each of these territories. They might have become net positives to the Roman balance sheet eventually, but I suspect it didn't happen within the life expectancy of any of the generals who won the wars. If they did, it was only because back in Roman times, plunder (carting gold home to Rome) was the way to profit from conquest. Whereas today, that will not work.

Egypt would seem to disagree with you here.... Also, wasn't Britain also a net profit to the Roman Empire by the time Claudius died? Certainly, it had settled down by AD 84......

Certainly Manchuko by 1939 was a net positive to Imperial Japan in terms of industrial goods and resources, an investment that albeit took more than 30 years to flourish. However, it was a region of space that was relatively undeveloped and required much infrastructure development before it could prosper.

[Sidewinder]

Louisiana purchase still had dozens of Native tribes, some of which were fairly powerful and not all to friendly.

No, the goalpost were changed.

Louisiana was the territory of the FIRST EMPIRE, i.e., Napoleon's, whose French Army was NOT the joke it became during the World Wars. The fact it was bought, means Americans didn't have to worry about the French Navy shipping it halfway across the world to punish the US for its audacity.

As for the tribes, the fact the Cherokee chose to walk the Trail of Tears instead of fighting to the death, suggests they knew they were NOT powerful enough to resist the full might of the US Army.

The point of conquest for resources, is that the locals dont get to tell you "No" anymore. Sure it takes time, but its usually worth it

<snip>

Seriously. Bringing up Russia and America as an arguement to why conquest doesnt work is just flat out denial. Both nations became what they were thanks to conquest. If it takes time to develop, so what? As long as you got the time, youre good. Thats what Japan and Nazi Germany never had. Time. They were too busy bleeding their economies of millions and there treasuries in billions to ever make use of their conquest.

We could assume that for whatever reason, the USA stays out of both wars, and the USSR is in worse condition or just plain unlucky, then Japan and Nazi Germany get their land.

In case you forgot the Algerian War, even if the Nazis and the Japanese held onto their conquests for decades, there's still a good chance the new territories would become guerilla-infested money pits- something guaranteed by the Fascist governments' policies. Or do you think the Nazis and the Japanese could occupy and pacify nations whose area and population was greater several times greater than theirs? Don't mention the Native Americans, by the time the US was founded, the whites had too great a numerical advantage for them to overcome.

But thats what you are missing. Nations last. Unless destroyed by an outside force themselves.

They can also self-destruct due to internal reasons, such as economic collapse (Soviet Union), ethnic conflicts (Yugoslavia), civil wars (Somalia), etc.

It took 30+ years for the conquest of the Mexican war to be fully utilized, but they were damned worth it.

In Mexico's case, the nation didn't have a powerful ally to diplomatically pressure the invading Americans into retreat- or to militarily threaten the US, force it to split its forces in preparation for a two-front war, and greatly reduce the resources available to conquer and secure the desired territory.

[Dominarch's Hope]

France did not have the capability to ship its army over to the Americas. Especially not after the Haitian Slave Revolt.

It damn sure couldnt get past the Royal Navy anyways. Due to that tarding out of yours, Im not reading the rest of your post. If someone else says roughly the same thing minus the French idiocy, I might respond.

[Sidewinder]

Due to that tarding out of yours, Im not reading the rest of your post.

And what of your posts? Hypocrit.

[Dominarch's Hope]

You admit it? Imma newb. I has excuses. You dont.

[Dalton]

You admit it? Imma newb. I has excuses. You dont.

Think again.

[Zinegata]

Again, the idiot Dominarch does not understand that neither Russia nor America really "conquered" anything; and certainly not in any way comparable to the German and Japanese mass retardation.

Russia picked up a gigantic wasteland nobody wanted.

America by and large bought the land from people who didn't want it.

So, again, where is the conquest here? The scattered resistance of a few tribes who had no real ability to resist?

Simon pretty much explains how a real empire works. Not the stupid retarded fantasy version where "Conquer to get stronger".

[Zinegata]

And the chain in the logic is what if Japan no longer proved capable of defending herself and become a second class state?

The problem really is that the idea you become a second-class state because you don't have colonies is illusory. You can, in fact, grow obscenely rich and become a major world power even without regularly shooting up some people in a foreign country.

See how Japan became the world's second (now third) largest economy post-war without a single colonial possession.

There is nothing wrong with making alliances to ensure your security. Japan's problem is that it chose to pursue bloody conquests at the expense of the goodwill of nations that it was actually dependent on - most particularly the United States.

[ray245]

The problem really is that the idea you become a second-class state because you don't have colonies is illusory. You can, in fact, grow obscenely rich and become a major world power even without regularly shooting up some people in a foreign country.

Would you really become a world power if you do not have the military might to back you up? More importantly, Japan main desire isn't to grab a piece of land, but grabbing those lands that would make the empire of Japan largely self-sufficient like the United States.

If you want a self-sufficient empire, then war with any of the major colonial powers is an largely unavoidable fact.

See how Japan became the world's second (now third) largest economy post-war without a single colonial possession.

Modern day Japan is still largely more dependent on USA than USA is dependent on Japan.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Is Zinegata still ignoring the Mexican-American War?

And Japan wanted strategic freedom. It wanted the ability to simply not care if the other powers embargoed it in regards to raw materials. Remember that little tif about China slowing down the flow of precious rare metals to Japan? Thats what Japan was trying to avoid. A strategic situation where they were beholden to powers with the raw materials their economy and war machine required.

[Simon_Jester]

Louisiana purchase still had dozens of Native tribes, some of which were fairly powerful and not all to friendly.

No, the goalpost were changed.

From conquest to get stronger is a bad idea, to its a bad idea because people will wardec you and generally not like you.

Much of what you are not grasping is that conquest as a strategy sort of worked in pre-industrial times, IF you spent enough time consolidating your gains. But it does not work as a strategy in modern times, because it's fucking impossible to consolidate your gains, because someone went and invented guerilla warfare, which barely even existed as a concept.

Sure, theoretically you could dream up a geopolitical situation where someone manages to conquer a province against a serious, credible opponent, and secure it long enough to integrate it into their territory. But by the time they've done it, normal economic growth and advancing industrial technology will have done a hell of a lot more to increase national GDP than conquest did.

You seem to see this as a moving of the goalposts because you're missing the point."Conquest worked for the Romans, or for someone with machine guns who was fighting a bunch of wandering nomads that couldn't even make their own muskets" does not equate to "conquest could work for WWII Japan or Germany." Since they're the countries you were originally talking about, that is the focus of everyone's point.

The point of conquest for resources, is that the locals dont get to tell you "No" anymore. Sure it takes time, but its usually worth it.

Thus the US's huge oil revenues from Iraq? Or, for that matter, Iraq's huge oil revenues from Kuwait?

Although yeah, with a name like "Dominarch's Hope" it's pretty obvious you're fantasizing hard about conquest; you wouldn't have made up a word like that otherwise.

Resistance against Japan was only... flourishing in China, mainly due to the fact that they still have effective leadership and supplies from the CCP and KMT.
In her conquered territories down south, this was dramatically different. It was Japanese reverses that help promote the rise of anti Japanese resistance in SEA.
Alternatively, Allied attempts to nurture a resistance movement only began to flourish after the Japanese had suffered military reverses.

As I said, the effect of those outside forces fighting Japan matters a lot. It isn't realistic to say "conquest works!" without looking at basic geopolitical realities like "some large country is fighting a war over this place."

Egypt would seem to disagree with you here.... Also, wasn't Britain also a net profit to the Roman Empire by the time Claudius died? Certainly, it had settled down by AD 84......

A generation or two- 20-40 years- is enough to settle down a conquered province under favorable conditions, yes. As to Egypt, it had vast wealth in the form of portable gold and easily exported grain. That sort of riches could be carted off in a hurry to pay and feed Roman citizens, and it allowed Egypt to become a net profit for Rome much faster than other nations.

It helps that Egypt was cooperative with Rome at certain times, rather than being unrelentingly hostile and unruly.

And the chain in the logic is what if Japan no longer proved capable of defending herself and become a second class state?

The problem really is that the idea you become a second-class state because you don't have colonies is illusory. You can, in fact, grow obscenely rich and become a major world power even without regularly shooting up some people in a foreign country.

See how Japan became the world's second (now third) largest economy post-war without a single colonial possession.

There is nothing wrong with making alliances to ensure your security. Japan's problem is that it chose to pursue bloody conquests at the expense of the goodwill of nations that it was actually dependent on - most particularly the United States.

Japan's actions make sense inside one frame of reference but not another. In our frame, it's easy to point out the active delusions and absurdity in the Japanese ideas of racial superiority and strength through autarky. In their frame, they were outsiders looking at the colonial system and trying to get into the action themselves. Very few people had a truly keen economic analysis of how colonialism worked, how to make it work for you, and how to avoid it working against you. It's natural that Japan would develop a sort of exaggerated cartoon model of how to become an imperialism-proof country: by securing lots of natural resources and building up a ferocious, fanatical military.

We can agree that in fact they were safe, by virtue of being too developed to conquer easily. But this was not so obvious to someone alive in 1890.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Guerilla Warfare is fairly useless at anything but delaying the inevitable against an openly genocidal state with the capability to prosecute such on an industrial scale. Which is why you have to rely on a large conventional power to kick their ass for attempting it.

But that is another arguement entirely. Which sums up to "The People in power are no longer amused by such antics. Dont hold your breath on being allowed to get away with it"

The real arguement for this is the Spanish empire. Which opens up the issue of it being a house of cards that was incapable of holding down Central and South America if the locals in charge revolted and told the crown to screw off. Which is exactly what happened.

[Sidewinder]

Is Zinegata still ignoring the Mexican-American War?

Yes, because the Mexican-American War is largely irrelevant to this discussion, due to differing circumstances. To use China as a counterpoint:

1. Most of what the US took from Mexico, was desert wasteland. In fact, this was how the Texas War for Independence (which led directly to the Mexican-American War) started: the Mexican government wanted to develop the area into something OTHER THAN a desert wasteland, didn't have a population large enough to support those plans, and invited American settlers into their territory, to do so. In contrast, what Japan wanted to take was already developed- the Chinese KNEW these lands were worth fighting for, and did so.

2. When the Texas War for Independence and the Mexican-American War started, Mexico was practically diplomatically isolated. France, Britain and other foreign powers had few interests in the nation, and what they had were thought not worth fighting for. In contrast, the US, France, Britain, and the USSR had MANY interests in China, including Chinese territories ceded to these nations under unequal treaties!

3. The Mexican-American War was fought in what, compared to today, was a media vacuum- telegraphy was only recently developed, newspapers and word-of-mouth were often the only sources of info on events occuring hundreds of miles away, and travel across those distances would take a long time to accomplish. That meant if American soldiers were seen committing war crimes, no on would know about it for MONTHS, assuming they cared. In contrast, when Japanese soldiers were seen committing war crimes, the rest of the world knew about it WITHIN THE HOUR, making it easy for the Chinese to arouse sympathy (and foreign support) for their cause.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The real arguement for this is the Spanish empire. Which opens up the issue of it being a house of cards that was incapable of holding down Central and South America if the locals in charge revolted and told the crown to screw off. Which is exactly what happened.

The Spanish Empire had a notoriously corrupt, inefficient, and often incompetent bureaucracy. They essentially bankrupted themselves through terrible economic policies and expensive/wasteful wars. I'm not entirely sure what your argument in this thread is, your posts are all over the place, but the Spanish were anything but a model of a well-administered colonial power.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Im saying that Spain is about the only power that sufferred a net loss from territories it conquered. It delayed social developments and retarded is financial evolution, and it just wasnt worth it.


Quite frankly, Spain didnt have the population required to properly colonize the area. But it was a stupid huge area anyways.

[aieeegrunt]

Nazi Germany gained an immediate economic boost from it's conquests in Western Europe at least. A quarter of the tanks and trucks used to invade France were former Czech army equipment. The Skoda works supplied Germany with war material for the whole war, as well as a certain level of exports to Russia and the Balkan nations before june 22nd 1941. Similarily the confiscation of vehicles from France, Belgium and Holland was the only way the Germans managed to do the "panzer double" before Barbarossa (and it's why their truck park was basically Crazy Adolf's Used Car Lot). France was a gold mine, or as Alfried Krupp put it a "milch cow" of material, machine tools, equipment, food, and labour.

The Germans definetly made conquest pay, at least before they invaded Russia. Ironically the whole point of their Drang nach Osten was supposed to be so the German People could reap the economic benefits of colonizing Russia, but during the war it was pretty much a big loss.

[CaptHawkeye]

Actually the only thing the Germans reaped from their military harvest was lots of captured military equipment. Skoda works was only kept operational because it produced useful weapons from the outset. They could just as easily shut it down by diverting the workers to the front to serve as soldiers. Tank production was just one of those things that was too damn important to interrupt. Non-heavy industries were fucked, and the conquest of Europe did not make this easier. In some cases it made it harder.

During the German occupation coal production in France declined and then crashed. While Poland was occupied farming yields fell and industrial output declined not the least because able bodied Poles were either drafted into the Army or were barely able to work on meager rations. Europe's burgeoning food crisis was only exasperated by German conquest of Poland, France and the Balkans. All of which were already net-importers of grain and fertilizers. At least until Barbarossa Germany was able to offset this by relying on Ukrainian food imports but obviously that spigot stopped flowing once the invasion began. It's rather difficult to harvest wheat from regions you're fighting a damn war in.

German occupation caused the collapse of foreign industries which often turned the occupied nations into resource drains, not bonuses.

[spaceviking]

Germany did not really help themselves out though. Polish families were kicked out off their farms so the farms could be given to more German families. This would obviously hurt agricultural output. Early in the war French factories were stripped down and sent to Germany, to be manned by German workers (who were still working peacetime hours), rather then keeping them manned by French workers around the clock.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Nazi Germany gained an immediate economic boost from it's conquests in Western Europe at least. A quarter of the tanks and trucks used to invade France were former Czech army equipment. The Skoda works supplied Germany with war material for the whole war, as well as a certain level of exports to Russia and the Balkan nations before june 22nd 1941. Similarily the confiscation of vehicles from France, Belgium and Holland was the only way the Germans managed to do the "panzer double" before Barbarossa (and it's why their truck park was basically Crazy Adolf's Used Car Lot). France was a gold mine, or as Alfried Krupp put it a "milch cow" of material, machine tools, equipment, food, and labour.

The Germans definetly made conquest pay, at least before they invaded Russia. Ironically the whole point of their Drang nach Osten was supposed to be so the German People could reap the economic benefits of colonizing Russia, but during the war it was pretty much a big loss.

I didnt know you had an account here. Did you get tired of the SB faux discussion bs?

Or has Tigger revived the WWI thread?


EDIT:Sorry, forgot to discuss the thread.


You have to remember, that the factories the Nazis seized had hard limits on how fast they could be operated anyway, thanks to shortage from the blockade of key materials. And there is almost no ppint in building more tanks if you cant keep them fueled. Hell, Hitler may have been able to let his Generals wage the mobile war some of them wanted to in the later stages if he had focused exlcusively on the Panther I and built and shipped nothing else.


Wouldnt have mattered much though.

[CaptHawkeye]

Germany did not really help themselves out though. Polish families were kicked out off their farms so the farms could be given to more German families. This would obviously hurt agricultural output. Early in the war French factories were stripped down and sent to Germany, to be manned by German workers (who were still working peacetime hours), rather then keeping them manned by French workers around the clock.

Germany could have done more to squeeze productivity out of the occupied territories, but in many cases this did not fall in line with their grand plans of Lebensraum. In many cases Nazi leadership considered it desirable to simply starve the Polish and Slavs to death. That would make it much easier for Germans to inherit the lands taken over by the Nazi Murder Machine after all. The Germans actually had no plans to utilize captured Russian and Ukrainian industrial capacity as well. They wanted to dismantle the factories and their equipment so they could salvage the metal to build airplanes.

A significant amount of paper theory productivity that Germany had was also simply false. Their are stories of huge factories being constructed to mass produce airplane engines or cars. Yet these facilities never produced enough to pay for themselves let alone affect the war effort. The manner in which the Nazis organized industry was simply a nightmare and even guys like Speer weren't able to change much without using more and more slave labor.

[xt828]

Sure, theoretically you could dream up a geopolitical situation where someone manages to conquer a province against a serious, credible opponent, and secure it long enough to integrate it into their territory. But by the time they've done it, normal economic growth and advancing industrial technology will have done a hell of a lot more to increase national GDP than conquest did.

Sorry to cherrypick, but how would you place the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine at the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war in this context?

[Zinegata]

Folks have already debated to death Dominarch's silliness, so rather than dogpiling I'll address some other conflicts brought up. Because really, even before modern times conquests rarely pay off unless you're talking about multi-generational development; which is definitely NOT the case for Japan or Germany in the 1940s.

Spanish Conquest of the Americas

The Spanish conquest of the Aztecs and Incas actually represents one of the few instances wherein "conquest" did indeed reap an enormous return. The Spanish sent in a few hundred conquistadors, and they got back a mountain of silver that paid for their military for decades.

However, it also bears remembering that the Hapsburgs ended up in a virtual state of permanent war with the rest of Europe. Everyone was fighting the Hapsburgs precisely because they became so powerful thanks to American silver and they didn't want to become yet another Hapsburg vassal. Sure, there was corruption and inefficiency with the Spanish government, but that was a much lesser problem compared to how they were fighting 30 to 80 year long wars.

And really, a lot of conquests just end up becoming catalysts for further conflicts. Alsacae-Lorraine provided Germany with coal, sure, but that triggered the First World War which ended with the defeat of the German Empire. Even the Romans, who were able to hold and develop vast areas of land that they conquered, also found itself in a near-constant state of war; either from external barbarians who wanted Roman lands, or from her own generals squabbling over power.

This is why I said partisans are a really minor issue. Nations do not exist in a vacuum. Unless you're taking stuff that's generally seen as worthless (i.e. Siberian wastes or the Western United States) you're going to end up triggering some kind of conflict.

Riches without Military

Nations without great military power but nonetheless exert great power have existed for a long, long time. Take for instance the example of Belgium - despite its tiny size and small military, it was one of the leading economic powers prior to the First World War. Or how about Switzerland? Or modern day Singapore?

The fact of the matter is, there is very little wrong with "dependence". It's okay for Japan to buy its steel from America. As long as you can turn that steel into goods that you can sell for a profit, you're fine. Nations are so interdependent nowadays that the old tools like embargo generally end up hurting both parties with calamitous results. And most nations have multiple trade partners anyway, so even if one country stops selling you steel you can buy it off someone else.

And that's really what was wrong with Japan's "strategy". They kept thinking that "conquest will make us stronger" when it is simply not the way their "rival" (in reality, their customers) empires worked.

[Zinegata]

Germany could have done more to squeeze productivity out of the occupied territories, but in many cases this did not fall in line with their grand plans of Lebensraum. In many cases Nazi leadership considered it desirable to simply starve the Polish and Slavs to death. That would make it much easier for Germans to inherit the lands taken over by the Nazi Murder Machine after all. The Germans actually had no plans to utilize captured Russian and Ukrainian industrial capacity as well. They wanted to dismantle the factories and their equipment so they could salvage the metal to build airplanes.

A significant amount of paper theory productivity that Germany had was also simply false. Their are stories of huge factories being constructed to mass produce airplane engines or cars. Yet these facilities never produced enough to pay for themselves let alone affect the war effort. The manner in which the Nazis organized industry was simply a nightmare and even guys like Speer weren't able to change much without using more and more slave labor.

Yeah. One of the funny things about "Germany could have won" proponents is how poorly the Germans actually exploited their conquered resources. You already covered their stupid ideologically-driven "planning", but that's just one aspect. The other is the simple fact that Germany had no ability to futher expand the resource-exploitation capabilities of their conquered areas.

For example, Germany had virtually no spare oil rigging equipment. Everything was being used to expand existing fields, and no more could be acquired because most drill rigging equipment was imported from America, which had essentially stopped selling them to Germany due to the blockade and the urestricted U-boat campaign.

So when the Germans captured Maikop (one of the Soviet Union's main oil-producing cities), the entire team to repair the facility consisted of just 100 engineers with no equipment. As a result virtually no production was restored and the facility produced a mere 10 barrels per day. Topping all this off, in a bit of dark comedy, the engineers all ended up getting killed by partisans before Maikop was retaken by the Soviets.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Germans had a shortage of coal and food throughout the war, and limited oil supply. The only place they could solve these problems was in southern Russia, but they never held the required territory long enough to exploit it. Transport was also an issue at times, but really coal + food is what held them back. That's why they couldn't just use even more slave labor to solve everything by brute force, even mining the damn coal, and faced a hard cap of steel production as a result which in turn limited production of all weapons, ammunition and industrial and military construction. This is why many occupied factories just ended up providing tools to repair air raid damaged German works, and why they could only surge tank and fighter production late war, while other weapons and ammo languished or were severely reduced. Terminated entirely in the case of bombers and a few other things.

This is what you get when you go to war, having formally been a major trading power, and get blockaded, and very few of the nations Germany occupied were not also dependent on imports. The same problems all applied in WW1, and caused social collapse in Germany. The Nazis had plenty of management problems sure, but they did far better in WW2 then WW1 maintaining a stable system. The German population never starved until the war ended, the most productive slaves didn't starve, at the expense of the least productive, and generally the factories were kept going until the transport and oil system was exploded by allied bombing in late 1944-early 1945.

[spaceviking]

Ironically had Germany been more successful and taken Leningrad their food problems would only have compounded. It would be interesting if their are any estimates on what food production could have been in they had taken a more hands off approach in Poland,Ukraine etc and granted them a level of autonomy with heavy tribute. IIRC the German actually kept the hated collective farms.