Jump to content


Photo

The Little Known Ww2 Battle Of Russia Vs Japan, Manchuria


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 Calvinb1nav

Calvinb1nav

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lexington, SC
  • Interests:military and aviation history, wargaming, shooting, travel, geography

Posted 03 July 2018 - 2053 PM

The move south was the desperate act of the Imperial Council in the aftermath of US embargos that threatened the ability of Japan to continue the war against China, not just the result of a 'black eye' given them at Khalkin Gol or Lake Khasan, for those losses made little impression on the high command.

 

Japan was already out of funds for continuing the war and the required expansion of forces to deal with the US, Dutch and UK/CW in the Pacific. The move to seize the SEA resource region was the result of their fear that the Germans would defeat the USSR by the end of 1941 and a general peace that ensued would leave the UK, French and Dutch free to defend their colonies and possessions in the Far East.

 

The risking all in face of US intransigence formed the basis for what was taught Japanese school children postwar, that Japan 'had to go to war against the USA, which had directly threatened Japan's existence' or words to that effect. Thus, WWII was forced upon the Japanese Empire by the nefarious Americans.

 

I am not making this up.

I attended the Korean Air Force Staff College with a Japanese Air Self-Defense officer, who despite being rabidly pro-American (he later attended U.S. Air Force Air War College), believed exactly what you say here. 


  • 0

#22 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 03 July 2018 - 2142 PM

JasonJ:

Yes, China was indeed the issue and what's wrong with that? It was clearly a Japanese war od aggression carried out with criminal brutality. The US was not about to lift sanctions if Japan continued. Japan could end the war, or double down on it and hope the West would give in. That last option didn't work out so well for them.
  • 0

#23 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 03 July 2018 - 2232 PM

JasonJ:
Yes, China was indeed the issue and what's wrong with that? It was clearly a Japanese war od aggression carried out with criminal brutality. The US was not about to lift sanctions if Japan continued. Japan could end the war, or double down on it and hope the West would give in. That last option didn't work out so well for them.


The US continued business as usual with Japan at the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, the heaviest of the fighting in 1938, and then onward through 1939, 1940, and mid 1941. Reasons for US involvement based on brutility is a joke, blutent said. The US was not even in the league of nations. And suddenly now they csre about brutality, years after the worsed has happened? Brutality happens in war. Was Chiang Kai-chek a champion against brutality? Were the Chicoms that too? How about the Soviets? It was a four way battle throughout the region. The nationalists Chinese, the Chicoms, the Japanese, and the Soviets, all competing for power. Did the Japanese really start it? No not so much, partially yes, but it was in 1936 thst the Chicoms successfully kidnapped Chiang Kai-chek himself and persuaded him to stop his slaughter hunt against Chicoms and form a united front vs Japan. So the Chicoms successfully diverted the nationalists Chinese attention to the Japanese and they prepared for conflict. And the Chicoms didn't follow up with the so called united front.

Mind you the Japanese weren't conducting a sort of Asia holocaust in Japanese controlled areas, otherwise we would know of it. The worsed was the Nanking massacre, but afterwards, they learned to behave, tough rule sure, but not continued senseless slaughter, and they earned lots of the so called "collaborators". Yeah, some Chinese preferred even the Japanese over Chiang Kai-chek or the Chicoms.

Edited by JasonJ, 03 July 2018 - 2236 PM.

  • 0

#24 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 03 July 2018 - 2304 PM

You mean like the US should have let the Nazis carry on withour increasing pressure on them? I like the way you want to claim that the Japanese were hardly committing war crimes at all after Nanking. Its bullshit, but you do have nerve.
  • 0

#25 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 03 July 2018 - 2348 PM

You mean like the US should have let the Nazis carry on withour increasing pressure on them? I like the way you want to claim that the Japanese were hardly committing war crimes at all after Nanking. Its bullshit, but you do have nerve.


The Japanese were willing to redefine their relationship with Germany to get the oil flowing again. Was it possible for the US to find a way into WW2 without demanding the Japanese to exit China is your question.

Give me a break, I have pointed out many times of Japanese brutalities. But I do say that they were not uniquely worse. If they were any worse, then there's no way Wang Jingwei and others would have become collaborators.
  • 0

#26 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0220 AM

The Japanese in WWII (1931/37 - 1945) set new standards for barbaric behavior against civilians and military alike, such as officers' wagering contests for numbers of heads cut off in a certain time frame or comparing numbers of Chinese aligned and shot with the same rifle bullet for sport. USN pilots captured in the initial exchange of attacks at the battle of Midway were tortured mercilessly to obtain information on the US task forces, their remains dumped overboard. 

 

Such things happened a mere generation after the Japanese earned high praise from the International Red Cross for their humane treatment of POWs during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. I have yet to read a satisfactory explanation for the change in collective behavior. There is of course the obvious observation that the Russians were considered fellow humans and the Chinese not, viz. the record books of Special Unit 731, reporting the expenditure of x number of 'logs' in an experiment, such being the Chinese used for various tests. In combat, quarter was neither given nor expected, but there is far more to it than that, certainly.


Edited by Ken Estes, 04 July 2018 - 0221 AM.

  • 0

#27 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0239 AM

The Japanese in WWII (1931/37 - 1945) set new standards for barbaric behavior against civilians and military alike, such as officers' wagering contests for numbers of heads cut off in a certain time frame or comparing numbers of Chinese aligned and shot with the same rifle bullet for sport. USN pilots captured in the initial exchange of attacks at the battle of Midway were tortured mercilessly to obtain information on the US task forces, their remains dumped overboard. 

 

Such things happened a mere generation after the Japanese earned high praise from the International Red Cross for their humane treatment of POWs during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. I have yet to read a satisfactory explanation for the change in collective behavior. There is of course the obvious observation that the Russians were considered fellow humans and the Chinese not, viz. the record books of Special Unit 731, reporting the expenditure of x number of 'logs' in an experiment, such being the Chinese used for various tests. In combat, quarter was neither given nor expected, but there is far more to it than that, certainly.

Unwelcome occupying and especially colonising forces tend to become quite brutal.


  • 0

#28 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0352 AM

Nothing to like about those episodes. But for some reason, it didn't really seem to rally the commonfolk Chinese in mass to fight. Probably due to relatively small scale of those brutal actions. The nationalists had major issues in recruiting. No wonder Americans in Burma found the Chinese of little help.

This was a deadly affair in which men were kidnapped for the army, rounded up indiscriminately by press-gangs or army units among those on the roads or in the towns and villages, or otherwise gathered together. Many men, some the very young and old, were killed resisting or trying to escape. Once collected, they would be roped or chained together and marched, with little food or water, long distances to camp. They often died or were killed along the way, sometimes less than 50 percent reaching camp alive. Then recruit camp was no better, with hospitals resembling Nazi concentration camps like Buchenwald.3 Probably 3,081,000 died during the Sino-Japanese War; likely another 1,131,000 during the Civil War--4,212,000 dead in total.

https://en.m.wikiped...my#Conscription
  • 0

#29 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0553 AM

One of the reasons Japan decided to act on their long-held desire to control the mainland and its occupants was the sensing that China was politically disunited, almost an amorphus mass. thus, a relatively small force could co-opt or overcome variously the war lords, petty oligarchs and regional governments and set them against each other, winning over collaborators and thus placing the coastal regions and certain inland provinces of value under Japanese suzerainty, if not actual rule.

 

Such had worked out well with Manchukuo in 1931 and the occupation of North China as a protectorate seemingly worked up to the Marco Polo Bridge incident. The resulting expansion of the war to total war completely exceeded what the Japanese had in mind, for the expanse of China's territory exceeded any resources of the Japanese Empire.


  • 0

#30 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,009 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lodz, Poland

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0558 AM

As for the 'withdrawal from China' part in Hull's Ultimatum - did that also mean withdrawal from Manchukuo? Logically it would be the case, as the US didn't recognize Manchukuo.


  • 0

#31 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0921 AM

 

You mean like the US should have let the Nazis carry on withour increasing pressure on them? I like the way you want to claim that the Japanese were hardly committing war crimes at all after Nanking. Its bullshit, but you do have nerve.


The Japanese were willing to redefine their relationship with Germany to get the oil flowing again. Was it possible for the US to find a way into WW2 without demanding the Japanese to exit China is your question.

Give me a break, I have pointed out many times of Japanese brutalities. But I do say that they were not uniquely worse. If they were any worse, then there's no way Wang Jingwei and others would have become collaborators.

 

 

The Nazis murdered millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Belorus, and others.  They had no lack of collaborators too - even Jewish ones.


  • 0

#32 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0923 AM

As for the 'withdrawal from China' part in Hull's Ultimatum - did that also mean withdrawal from Manchukuo? Logically it would be the case, as the US didn't recognize Manchukuo.

 

No.  This apparently wasn't clear to the Japanese, or so they claimed after the war, but instead of making a counteroffer or seeking clarification, they declared war.


  • 0

#33 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0926 AM

One of the reasons Japan decided to act on their long-held desire to control the mainland and its occupants was the sensing that China was politically disunited, almost an amorphus mass. thus, a relatively small force could co-opt or overcome variously the war lords, petty oligarchs and regional governments and set them against each other, winning over collaborators and thus placing the coastal regions and certain inland provinces of value under Japanese suzerainty, if not actual rule.

 

Such had worked out well with Manchukuo in 1931 and the occupation of North China as a protectorate seemingly worked up to the Marco Polo Bridge incident. The resulting expansion of the war to total war completely exceeded what the Japanese had in mind, for the expanse of China's territory exceeded any resources of the Japanese Empire.

 

One might think that after four years of quagmire, they might be interested in a way out that didn't involve admitting defeat by the Chinese.  Once their allies in Europe won the war, they could always grab up the Asian remnants of the defeated powers' empires.


  • 0

#34 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 July 2018 - 0929 AM

The Japanese in WWII (1931/37 - 1945) set new standards for barbaric behavior against civilians and military alike, such as officers' wagering contests for numbers of heads cut off in a certain time frame or comparing numbers of Chinese aligned and shot with the same rifle bullet for sport. USN pilots captured in the initial exchange of attacks at the battle of Midway were tortured mercilessly to obtain information on the US task forces, their remains dumped overboard. 

 

Such things happened a mere generation after the Japanese earned high praise from the International Red Cross for their humane treatment of POWs during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. I have yet to read a satisfactory explanation for the change in collective behavior. There is of course the obvious observation that the Russians were considered fellow humans and the Chinese not, viz. the record books of Special Unit 731, reporting the expenditure of x number of 'logs' in an experiment, such being the Chinese used for various tests. In combat, quarter was neither given nor expected, but there is far more to it than that, certainly.

 

Note that Unit 731 was in full operation before 1937.


  • 0

#35 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,102 posts

Posted 04 July 2018 - 1122 AM

As for the 'withdrawal from China' part in Hull's Ultimatum - did that also mean withdrawal from Manchukuo? Logically it would be the case, as the US didn't recognize Manchukuo.

 

Manchukuo was an artificial construct, a puppet regime for Tokyo, while the Hull memo said that all of China must be under the Nationalist government.  Since Manchuria is indisputably part of China and no government in power in China would recognise a Japanese fiefdom in Manchuria, it seems pretty clear that the answer to your question is yes.


  • 0

#36 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,591 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 July 2018 - 1720 PM

This thread is starting to get interesting. There was no honor in the conduct of a very independently led Kwangtung Army/IJA in China, admittedly. This fills me with anger in various ways from a racial accountability standpoint.

 

The seeds of this conduct are partly cultural and rooted in deep and almost-never-admitted-to insecurities held by Japan and Japanese toward China and Chinese throughout history and all the way to the present day.

 

More particularly, Japan and Japanese of the war generation were taught to dehumanize China and Chinese as their cultural and racial inferiors. This is one of the reasons why Abe's recent involvement in a school with a curriculum purportedly doing the same was and is so polarizing.


Edited by Nobu, 04 July 2018 - 1720 PM.

  • 0

#37 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,591 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 July 2018 - 1731 PM

Since Manchuria is indisputably part of China and no government in power in China would recognise a Japanese fiefdom in Manchuria

 

The Chinese Communists plus a coalition of Chinese warlords of questionable loyalty to Chiang certainly might have, if supported and approached in the right way, and at the right moment, by Japan. A level of meddling/regime change to legitimize the annexation of Manchuria was always on the table. Total war with China was both a mistake and a tragic underestimation.


Edited by Nobu, 04 July 2018 - 1731 PM.

  • 0

#38 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 12 July 2018 - 0131 AM

Can you expand on 'out of funds' ? Was the Manchurian occupation and war with China very expensive ?


Japan had expected to be involved in China with just 3 infantry divisions. Total cost would be no more than 100 million ¥, but by 1939 there were 28 infantry divisions, 15 infantry brigades and other units equivalent to more than a million men. There were also 1.000 tanks, 1.000 tanks and thousands of guns. By then the cost had risen to 2,500 million ¥

The following link contains an excellent article on the economic cost of the war in China. It is in Spanish but graphs are in English. Use google translate.

http://www.forosegun...1698a65#p401178


  • 0

#39 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 0610 AM

 

Can you expand on 'out of funds' ? Was the Manchurian occupation and war with China very expensive ?


Japan had expected to be involved in China with just 3 infantry divisions. Total cost would be no more than 100 million ¥, but by 1939 there were 28 infantry divisions, 15 infantry brigades and other units equivalent to more than a million men. There were also 1.000 tanks, 1.000 tanks and thousands of guns. By then the cost had risen to 2,500 million ¥

The following link contains an excellent article on the economic cost of the war in China. It is in Spanish but graphs are in English. Use google translate.

http://www.forosegun...1698a65#p401178

 

Thank you.


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users