The later, not the former. And I'm arguing that this viewpoint, while wrong and unlikely to succeed due to reality, was 'logical'. It had a valid chain of reasoning from start to finish and the premise wasn't flawed.Simon_Jester wrote:I'm confused. Is PainRack saying that the "conquer to become strong!" mindset was right? Or saying that it's understandable how the Japanese thought that way?
I could see how a nation about one generation removed from the Middle Ages, and surrounded by examples of foreigners using their advanced weapons to control and subjugate other nations, would think strength comes about that way. Japan didn't exactly have a background that makes it easy to say 'economic power > military conquest.' They were worried about being on the receiving end of other people's conquests.
Except that they didn't??? And that they actually did UNTIL they overreached into North China/Manchuria?Zinegata wrote:PainRack, again, what part of it's intentionally a "gross generalization" do you not comprehend that triggered the above attempt to find exceptions and excuses? Yeah, there's the Anglo-Japanese treaty. Yeah, there are a whole bunch of politicians who earnestly tried to get peace. No, it doesn't change my main point one bit.
The main point remains that again, the Japanese doubled down on their "CONQUER TO BE STRONG" when each time they "conquered" or attempted to "conquer". Despite the fact they became less secure and even less able to achieve their objectives every time they did so?
As Skimmer pointed out, the best that you can say about the Japanese leadership is that they didn't have an actual policy and they let underlings railroad them into doubling down; but the fact that their underlings were indoctrinated with stupid "Conquer to get strong!" bullshit and allowed to get away with it demonstrates the utter lack of sentient thought in their decision-making.
Look. A 'gross generalisation' only works when the Japanese were actively ADVOCATING to get into the war in Korea so as to expand their Empire and become stronger. The whole Korea will make us stronger as a reason happened AFTER the war itself, and thus was clearly NOT a justification for the war. Unless you can find speeches or policy advocating this from BEFORE the war, as a reason for the conflict, its clearly ahistorical.
As for becoming secure, they WERE. They stopped the Russians from posing an invasion of Japan and Manchuria did provide key resources and even industry for her Imperial Empire. However, they were never going to be secure from the Russians, primarily because the Russians had an entire freaking continent to draw their power from against the tiny island of Japan.
Which brings us back again to the Japanese logic. If we go from their chain of logic that the weak perish, an entirely valid premise since they have the glaring example of China up north and the ongoing historical exploitation, in the 18th and 19th century of East Asia in general by foreign powers, the stunning premise of Commodore Perry swatting aside their own isolationist policies...... then it stands to reason that the Japanese must do anything to secure themselves from becoming so weak, that they would become vulnerable to exploitation. Their actions from the First Sino Japanese war onwards demonstrates this reasoning and drove their foreign policy.