| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why Didn't Japan Attack Just British Territory?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Why Didn't Japan Attack Just British Territory?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Henry Fleischmann View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Location: Not given
Status: Offline
Points: 29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Henry Fleischmann Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why Didn't Japan Attack Just British Territory?
    Posted: 11 Jan 2013 at 10:26
Could the Japanese have simply attacked the British (and Dutch) Territories that had oil or had the US already made clear that we would declare war on them if they did? (And how, really, could Roosevelt guarantee that? since he was unable to get Congress to declare war against Germany though Britain was nearly begging him to do so at the time)

Edited by Henry Fleischmann - 11 Jan 2013 at 10:27
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2013 at 11:00
The older members will be better at answering this question

My opinion:

No it would not have been workable, there were plenty of natural resources but at time of the attack there was a growing war sentiment against Japan even while the public did not want to get involved in the "European War"  Japanese Aggression and war crimes had certainly not avoided the American Public eye war against the other westerners in East Asia would have been an threat and challenge to the United States. The declaration would not have been as quickly done or unanimous but I think it would have been done by the end of January. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2013 at 12:35
I know exactly why. Japan wanted ALL of the world to be theirs for the taking (according to the films I was shown in Okinawa's little regiment), and although Britain had A LOT of land, it was mostly circulated in the Americas (i.e Canada, and the Carribean islands that were not under Spanish and/or French Rule), Europe ( Scotland, Wales, Ireland, North Ireland, and England), and Africa (1/3 of Africa was under British Rule until the 1950s or 1960s). The British territories, with the exception of India, were few and far between, that include these territories: Xianggang (Hong Kong), a few minor cities up and down China's Coast, Ceylon, Singapore, India, and the Australian Continental Plate (Australia, New Zealand, and surrounding islands).Although they were in clusters, they were not nearly as beneficial as taking ALL of Asia. It could've been used as a gateway to the Euopean countries and the rest of the world.

Edited by Lao Tse - 11 Jan 2013 at 15:51
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2013 at 14:26
Henry, Germany had two things going for it. The first was a feeling among German-Americans that Germany had been shabbily treated in World War One. That the propaganda mill portrayal of Germans as beasts bayoneting Belgian children and raping French nuns had been proven false, and Secondf, that the Treaty of Versailles had been grossly unfair to Germany, thereby laying the bases of WWII. This is ignoring the activities of the German-American Bund, which could be considered a third factor.

Japan, on the other hand, had been seen as a potential threat since at least the 1920s, when the Naval War College started war-gaming a Pacific War based upon Country "Orange's" predations, Japan had, in effect, become the "Yellow Peril" of Sax Rohmer's novels.

The Americana people may have been isolationist in regards to European wars, but it does not follow that they were, ipso facto, isolationist as regarded Asian wars. Contrary to popular belief, many Christian Americans were quite aware of Japan's conduct in China and Korea. Add to this the racist factor, i.e., we can stomp the little Nips into oblivion, and you have a paradigm for a totally different reaction to events in Asia.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Woofer View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Woofer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2013 at 15:23
Until the early 1920s Japan was an Ally of the UK (having fought WW! as an ally) And it was ONLY at the insistance of the USA that the alliance was broken. It was the USA that insisted that Japan was denied access to raw materials and it was inevitable that sooner or later the USA and Japan were going to come to blows just as it was inevitable that the USA would win such an engagement.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2015 at 14:21
IMO, if you have two enemies you handle the tough one first, and worry about the lesser one(s) later.  Britain was already tied down, and not able to pay attention to the Pacific, although It did loose two battleships before Pearl Harbor to Japanese planes.  Pearl Harbor was the problem for Japan.  If they had gotten the carriers and/or if they bombed the fuel oil dump, things may have been tougher for the US.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1223
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2015 at 22:12
Quote I know exactly why. Japan wanted ALL of the world to be theirs for the taking

That's not entirely true. Japan had an industrial society short of raw materials and wanted to be a world leader, not a world dominator. By conquering foreign territories it secured material supplies and achieved its cultural ambition, but it still had to share the world with the Americas and the Nazi empire (Remember that Japan and Germany were allies - they had agreed on spheres of influence). Japan attacked America not to conquer it, but to smack it down and prevent the USA from stopping Japanese ambition, a gamble that failed dramatically.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2015 at 16:59
I am wondering what the Japanese invasion of the Aleutians means.  What was the strategic significance?  It kind of was a deadend, especially after Midway.

One should remember that the third major strategic US possession was the Canal, which was never attacked.  Although the Japanese made 2 supersubs, with airplanes, to do so, but did it too late to get them into the game.

Three targets, Pearl Harbor, Aleutians and Canal zone.  But I am not sure why the Aleutians.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.