Did the US ever considered peace with the Japanese?

[Ironmachine]

Japan's last "peace offer" called for the US to provide Japan with all the materials they needed and for the US to stop supporting Japan.

I'm quite sure that the last part of that sentence (underlined) is an erratum.

[OpanaPointer]

Japan's last "peace offer" called for the US to provide Japan with all the materials they needed and for the US to stop supporting Japan.

I'm quite sure that the last part of that sentence (underlined) is an erratum.

Yep, I'm not paying much attention at that point. I'll have to dig out Japan's "final offer" later. VA comes first today.

[OpanaPointer]

Footnote 11 of Chapter 10 cites a Naval History and Heritage Command page (link to follow). The paragraph is:

"An additional 20 Japanese airecraft that managed to regain their carriers were damaged beyond repair, some pushed overboard immediately. In total, 111 recovered aircraft were damaged,(11) and 55 aviators were killed or mortally wounded."

The BDA chapter is worth a look.

[OpanaPointer]

Link to the page Zimm cites: http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_W ... Harbor.php

[OpanaPointer]

A Chronological Collection of Documents Relating to the U.S. Entry Into WWII. The documents I mentioned above are there, or can be found through http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/

[Takao]

That is simply incorrect. You might want to read Toland's treatment of the Japanese peace offers. You might also want to read Herbert Hoover's treatment of them in Freedom Betrayed.

Sounds like OP is referring to the Japanese peace offers prior to the start of the war...Such as this one on May 12, 1941:
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/W ... /draft.htm

Still, Toland is a well-known Japanophile and apologist, so I would take his words with a large grain of salt.

As to Hoover, he and FDR never got along well in the best of times, and were downright antagonistic to each other at the worst of times. Hoover, never forgave FDR for sidelining him during WW2. Hardly surprising that Hoover is critical of FDR.

Here's a switch, try sourcing some un-biased material.

The Japanese had entirely valid military and economic interests in Manchuria and in the rest of northern China, as well as in French Indochina. Manchuria, for example, was a warlords-divided mess before Japan took control, and one could make a decent case that most of the people in Manchuria were better off once Japan took over.

Japan had valid economic interests in Manchuria, but not military ones(other than protecting what she had acquired in the Russo-Japanese War). Her taking all of Manchuria and grabbing what she could of China, then invading French Indochina was just Japan getting greedy.

I'm curious as to why you think exchanging one set of warlords for another set of warlords is somehow better for Manchurian citizens?
It certainly does not sound that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_Manchukuo

Most certainly not for the citizens of Pingdingshan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingdingshan_massacre

Still, if one can make a case that the Manchurians were better of with there Japanese "warlords." One can make an equal or better case that the Japanese people were better of with the United States taking control of Japan and getting rid of the Japanese "warlords."

As for another poster's list of cases of Japanese aggression, one might want to study how we acquired the Mexican Cession and how we came to control the Philippines, not to mention how the British, the French, and the Dutch came to control their holdings in the Pacific and in Asia. Why was it okay for Western nations to use force and threats to acquire holdings but not okay for Japan to do so?

Hmmm, we paid Spain some $12 million for the Mexico Cessation and $20 million for the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam...I don't remember Japan paying any such indemnity to China for taking Manchuria and a large swath of China.

The French came to control their holdings in Asia and the Pacific primarily with missionaries of all things.

The British had long established their holdings back when that was how things were done.

The Dutch were somewhat convoluted...The Dutch gained most of their colonies in the 1600s. They lost Formosa to the Chinese in 1661, never to reclaim it. The rest of their colonies would be captured, returned, and recaptured by England as Dutch fortunes rose, fell, rose, and fell. Before being mostly returned to Dutch control in 1814.

Why was it not OK for Japan? Because, Japan was simply "late to the party." While it had been "business as usual" through the 1800's, by the mid-20th Century, it was not the way things were done

[OpanaPointer]

I think I mentioned the Nine Power Treaty above. If not, it's gist is here. Japan wasn't late to the party, they were part of the party.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr. Opanapointer stated :

I think I mentioned the Nine Power Treaty above. If not, it's gist is here. Japan wasn't late to the party, they were part of the party.

Actually, they were ' part of the party ' until they trashed the place and tried to steal the silverware.......



And Mr. Takao stated

Still, if one can make a case that the Manchurians were better off with their Japanese "warlords." One can make an equal or better case that the Japanese people were better of with the United States taking control of Japan and getting rid of the Japanese "warlords."

I wonder if anyone has ever compared the quality of life of the average citizen of Japan prior to the end of WW2 ( and by this, I mean during peacetime, not during the viscisitudes of war ) with their average quality of life after the United States had repaired their country and provided them with the framework for democratic institutions and civil liberties ?



Finally, Mr. MikeGriffith1 wrote:

The Japanese had entirely valid military and economic interests in Manchuria and in the rest of northern China, as well as in French Indochina.

I imagine that many Koreans feel that both North and South Korea have ' valid military and economic interests ' in Japan. Perhaps Japan should be required to provide each nation with 100,000 teenaged girls to serve as ' Comfort Women ' for their respective armies......

Or perhaps each of the two Koreas should be allowed to jointly invade Japan, and each occupy and exploit their half of Japan for the same amount of time that Japan occupied Korea.....

And, as China is making great efforts to become involved in the burgeoning field of Biotechnology, I am sure that Japan would be more than willing, and in fact probably very happy, to provide a few thousand Japanese citizens to be used in bacteriological research, in the same way that Japan used Chinese men, women, and children for their Bio-Warfare experimentation. After all, China has an entirely valid military and economic interest in Japan....


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Carl Schwamberger]

... And Mr. Takao stated

Still, if one can make a case that the Manchurians were better off with their Japanese "warlords." One can make an equal or better case that the Japanese people were better of with the United States taking control of Japan and getting rid of the Japanese "warlords."

I wonder if anyone has ever compared the quality of life of the average citizen of Japan prior to the end of WW2 ( and by this, I mean during peacetime, not during the viscisitudes of war ) with their average quality of life after the United States had repaired their country and provided them with the framework for democratic institutions and civil liberties ? ...

By chance I ran across a couple observations that suggest Japans leaders built up their military and progressed the military operations in Manchuria & China at the cost of impoverishing the Japanese. Taxes, currency manipulation, wage stagnation, sunk capitol in military development, and interest for foreign credit in US and London banks is claimed to have drained away the efforts of the industrial and agricultural labor and mid level management. This would be a useful line of inquiry for someone with the time.