 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / War History / World War II / July 2008Japan in Manchuria
I am reading Beasley on Japanese imperialism (thanks to whoever pointed me to the book) and I'm scratching my head a bit. Japan is negotiating intensely with China about its rights in Manchuria, and China gives Japan much but not all of what it wants. Why is anything subject to negotiation? Since Japan has boots on the ground (as we would now say), why doesn't it just take what it wants? And if China can hold out on certain points, why can't it tell Japan to buzz off altogether? Because if it takes too hard-nosed an attitude toward Japan, Britain or America will replace Japan and ask for even more? Similarly, is Japan being (comparatively) reasonable so as not to offend Britain and America? Blue skies! -- Dan Ford Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942 new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com >Why is anything subject to negotiation? Since Japan has boots on the >ground (as we would now say), why doesn't it just take what it wants? There is always the factor of how this looks to third parties, such as foreign countries, the Chinese people. Chinese regional rulers, even the Japanese people. Too blatant use of force could damage other nations' cooperation with Japan, or drive Chino into more explicit alliance with say the USSR, or alienate Chinese factions that were cooperating with Japan. While this might not seem reasonable - ask why Eichmann negotiated with Wallenberg in 1945 Budapest - why the Germans were deterred by the placement of a Swedish flag on a building or the presentation of a Swedish passport. Very rarely does a regime feel it has has complete freedom to use force. >And if China can hold out on certain points, why can't it >tell Japan to buzz off altogether? The factors above influence Japan, but only so much. If China is "unreasonable", Japan may just go ahead and _take_ - and take everything. | People say "There's a Stradivarius for sale for a | | million," and you say "Oh, really? What's wrong | | with it?" - Yitzhak Perlman | > I am reading Beasley on Japanese imperialism (thanks to whoever > pointed me to the book) and I'm scratching my head a bit. Japan is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Similarly, is Japan being (comparatively) reasonable so as not to > offend Britain and America? What was the time frame during which the Sino-Japanese negotiations were taking place? >What was the time frame during which the Sino-Japanese negotiations were >taking place? World War I into the 1920s. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942 new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com > I am reading Beasley on Japanese imperialism (thanks to whoever > pointed me to the book) and I'm scratching my head a bit. Japan is You're welcome :-) I'll assume the below is prior to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. > negotiating intensely with China about its rights in Manchuria, and > China gives Japan much but not all of what it wants. Why is anything > subject to negotiation? Since Japan has boots on the ground (as we > would now say), why doesn't it just take what it wants? And if China > can hold out on certain points, why can't it tell Japan to buzz off > altogether? Chinese are not unified at that point; there's still fighting going on between the Communists and the Nationalists, and some local warlords still have considerable power. They also have no international support, at least in a position to help them out; the US and UK have largely withdrawn from the region, and have some economic issues to contend with. The USSR is still consolidating. > Similarly, is Japan being (comparatively) reasonable so as not to > offend Britain and America? You need to remember there's a serious disconnect between the actions of the government (in Tokyo,) and those of the military in place (especially later). The government realizes that having a formal agreement in place with China will keep anti-Japanese actions in the region somewhat contained, and allow them to develop the resources in Manchuria that they will need to boost their economy. Only later will the military decide to openly defy Tokyo on these agreements, though they will certainly undermine government efforts for years. Mike On Jul 6, 3:45 pm, Cubdriver <usenet.AT.danford.DOT....@giganews.com> wrote: > I am reading Beasley on Japanese imperialism (thanks to whoever > pointed me to the book) and I'm scratching my head a bit. Japan is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942 > new from HarperCollinswww.FlyingTigersBook.com The Japanese always had to worry that other foreign countries would use the precedent of special Japanese rights to demand the same or equivalent rights. The "Allies" didn't give up rights like extraterritoriality until 1943 or so. Joe |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.