Cont. in next post
This is a wild theory so bear with me. Since the beginning of the 20th Century -- since the end of the war of 1904 (Japan vs. Russia) --, the US had been hatching some kind of longterm plan to virtually control the Pacific Ocean. Japan always knew one day, they'd have to face the US; likewise, the US always knew that their main rival in the Pacific was Imperial Japan. Indeed, Japan was the only major military and naval power in East Asia. Even then, the US greatly underestimated the capacity of the Empire of Japan to wage war at sea, even weeks after Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, they knew they'd have to fight one day.
The naval treaty of 1921, which limitated the naval forces of each signing countries, the second treaty of 1930, then the third in 1936, were quite annoying for Japan, which needed to keep a strong naval force, being an island nation. The oil embargo especially, lead by the Americans, was a huge blow for Japan. Just after the 1904 war, in the ensuing negociations, US took the side of Russia, which denied some of Japan's hard-earned spoils of war, namely more territories.
Some could argue the US did all that to push Japan to war. Indeed, the US were sure to win in a naval war against Japan (or in any case, they were sure it would be an easy war). East Asia is an essential part of the world for the US: a number of precious resources can be found there, and most importantly, keeping East Asia under US control would mean the total safety of the US West coast. So it was only natural for the US to be willing to keep East Asia under their control.
Since the US victory in 1945, Japan is nothing more than a US colony really. It may sound provocative but with no standing army and running on a constitution written and handed to them by the US after the war, Japan is, still today, totally under US, let's not say control, but at least very strong political influence. In that way, one could say the US have reached their longterm goal of "securing" East Asia, and by extension, the whole Pacific Ocean. The US were allied with China for a long time, and now, with China as a strong economic rival, it's even more important for the US to keep Japan under their influence.
Now I know it's just a wild statement but what do you think?
I wouldn't call it "plot", just good politics from the US part (I'm not from the US myself).
A good deal of your post(s) reminds me of a scene from a Tom Clancy novel. The head of the KGB complains that the Party and government want to know what foreign leaders are thinking, despite the fact that these leaders often don't know themselves. He asks himself why the agency doesn't use gypsy fortune tellers. Governments often don't do advanced plans well, as the government (in the US, at least) changes every 4 or 8 years.
>>681354
>>681364
Ehh, it has a few holes in it.
For instance.
>The naval treaty of 1921, which limitated the naval forces of each signing countries, the second treaty of 1930, then the third in 1936, were quite annoying for Japan, which needed to keep a strong naval force, being an island nation.
The naval treaties established a 5:5:3 ratio in tonnage between the U.S., UK, and Japan. (And some other nations were involved, but let's skip them for now.) This hurt the U.S. and UK more than it did Japan, since their industrial output vis a vis Japan was greater than those ratios, and both of them had to scatter their fleets more: The Americans between the Atlantic and Pacific, and the British all over the world. Even at 3:5 inferiority, with the U.S. fleet more or less split up half to each ocean, means that the Japanese have the short term advantage in the Pacific, not a disadvantage.
>The oil embargo especially, lead by the Americans, was a huge blow for Japan.
This was done after great deliberation and long term trading, where Japan got over 80% of its oil from the U.S. Turns out attacking their allies for years pisses some people off.
> a number of precious resources can be found there, and most importantly, keeping East Asia under US control would mean the total safety of the US West coast. So it was only natural for the US to be willing to keep East Asia under their control.
U.S. wanting to control the Pacific is based on notions of trade and ability to navigate. The U.S. was not importing resources from the Far East in the early 20th century, they were mostly exporting. And the notion that someone would invade the U.S. west coast is laughable. Japan hadn't the logistical capability to meaningfully try, and if they did, they'd be overwhelmed by America's greater population and industry.
>>681414
I didn't know that about the naval treaties.
>This was done after great deliberation and long term trading, where Japan got over 80% of its oil from the U.S.
But what other choise had Japan but attack other countries in their region, since they are no oil resources in the JP mainland itself?
>And the notion that someone would invade the U.S. west coast is laughable.
That's right but if Japan had taken the US carriers out somehow they could have shelled the West coast with their naval guns
>>681457
>But what other choise had Japan but attack other countries in their region, since they are no oil resources in the JP mainland itself?
Why does Japan have to attack other countries in the region at all?
>That's right but if Japan had taken the US carriers out somehow they could have shelled the West coast with their naval guns
And then been sunk by the literally thousands of U.S. land based planes?
>>681466
>Why does Japan have to attack other countries in the region at all?
To get their resources? I mean weren't they economically to weak to keep buying US oil without also stealing stuff from neighboring countries?
>And then been sunk by the literally thousands of U.S. land based planes?
At least the US's presence would have been removed from the Pacific, leaving Japan alone to do their war and occupying East Asian countries.
Well I guess with "if" you can do everything.
>>681354
You're buying into the very victim complex Japan created to justify the war in the Pacific.
As the other anon stated, the Washington Naval Treaty was really the absolute best thing Japan could hope for if they wanted regional hegemony. But instead of recognizing that, they did everything they could to undermine it and eventually withdrew entirely.
And remember - the embargoes on Japan only came after, over the course of the '30s, they
>invaded Manchuria
>invaded China
>tried to provoke war with the Soviets, only to get their shit slapped
>occupied French Indochina
And only after they occupied all of Indochina did the full embargoes actually come. While the embargoes were certainly a leading cause for the war, the US was by no means forcing Japan into a war - they just didn't want to lose face by backing down.
While the West did have imperialist ambitions in China that were part of the reason for the outrage over the Japanese invasion, you're ignoring the fact that the Japanese had even worse plans in store. They declared themselves liberators while committing worse atrocities than the Westerners ever had, so the American reaction to Japan's operations in Asia were more than just acting purely in their strategic interest - they was a humanitarian side to it as well.
It's dishonest to suggest that the US was planning from the start to "colonize" Japan - while it was definitely an added bonus, the American intervention was aimed at preserving the relatively peaceful status quo that Japan was usurping.
>>681457
>But what other choise had Japan but attack other countries in their region, since they are no oil resources in the JP mainland itself?
They could stop invading everyone and raping their way across Asia. Remember - the only reason they ever got involved in Manchuria and China was that the government has such little control over local forces that forces along frontiers were pretty regularly provoking and escalating incidents before the government could stop it. Exercising just minimal control over the IJA would have prevented the war in China and greater war in the Pacific altogether.
>That's right but if Japan had taken the US carriers out somehow they could have shelled the West coast with their naval guns
The IJN lacked the logistical capacity to get much further than Hawaii.
>>681834
If you want a good understanding of how Japan was leading up to WW2, check out Japan 1941 by Eri Hotta.
Pretty much, Japan had a victim complex building ever since we forced open their ports in the mid-1800s. At first it was somewhat justified - they felt that despite their rapid modernization they weren't being treated seriously out of racism, and things like the Western reaction to the 1st Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War, as well as their treatment in post-WW1 negotiations made it seem (to them) as though the West was trying to keep them down. Once they got this mindset, everything that happened afterwards seemed to reinforce it, regardless of the reality of the situation. The Washington Naval Treaty, for example, superficially looked like the West was trying to keep Japan weak, and the international outrage over the occupation of Manchuria was perceived by the Japanese as the same intervention that had come after the first war with China.
What made all this worse was the fact that Japan felt that luck would always be on their side. They beat Russia and China seemingly against all odds at the turn of the century, and thanks to their perversion of the Bushido concept, they ingrained into their culture that sheer willpower could triumph over a superior enemy.
The end result was a tremendously ambitious nation that felt everyone was out to get them and was incredibly overconfident about their abilities.
