Why Japs attacked USA instead of helping Hitler and attack Soviet Union?

Why Japs attacked USA instead of helping Hitler and attack Soviet Union?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_border_conflicts
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because

A) They had their own goals which didn't perfeclty coincide with Hitler's

B) They got their shit kicked in the last time they fought the Soviets

C) Siberia didn't have resources they actually needed to the extent they needed them (mostly oil and rubber)

D) It's a fuckhuge frozen wasteland they didn't have the manpower to exploit.

are you suggesting it would have taken more jap manpower to conquor and exploit Siberia than to go to war with the third most populated and highly industrialized western wardemocracy that is the USA?

Quite frankly, yes. Japan never planned on full bore industrial warfare and matching the U.S. They thought they'd have a short, 3-6 month war followed Nya peace settlement in which both sides kept what they had, and for the Japanese, that meant the NEI, with a local population to exploit.

That's a lot less than marching millions of people into the tundra to dig up bauxite and whatever else is in what they grab in a hypothetical successful Japanese push north.

The Japanese thought they could knock out a lot of the US' military power by hitting Pearl harbor.

they were wrong.

hindsight is 20/20.

I fucking hate this meme. The U.S. blockading a country and trading with another country are both acts of war. Japan didnt statt anything.

> The U.S. blockading a country

I think you might want to look up what a "blockade" is. Because the U.S. didn't blockade Japan until very late in the war itself, not before it.

> and trading with another country are both acts of war.

Are you retarded? You sound retarded.

I smell a dirty lying nip...

oh please. japan visciously occupied, tortured, and exploited millions of people in dozens of countries. the shit that went down in korea, china, burma, all of southeast asia, the southeast pacific is more horrific than hitler and stalin combined. millions of people dead, starved, tortured. ho-lee-fuk in the history of earth no country or people have deserved to be decimated more than the japs between 1930 and 1945.

>trading with Britain and seizing gold are not acts of war
2/10 I replied. Nice epic trolling.

>deserved
morality is a spook, leave their property alone.

They also armed them too.

ah yes, allow to me rephrase...

ho-lee-fuk in the history of earth no country or people have made other people and nations want to decimate them more than the japs did between 1930 and 1945.

>Trading with britain.

Is not an act of war, espeially since Japan wasn't at war with Britain until they were at war with the U.S.

>seizing gold

Freezing of assets are not traditionally considered acts of war, no. Acts of sanction, yes, but war? No.

this claim sounds absurd at first but when I begin to think of the numbers of people and nations directly involved and where their anger would be directed towards, yeah Japan is a contender for the most hated at a single point in time in history. They were messing up everyone's shit in rude ways in the most populated area in the planet.

Japan did not have a very realistic strategic planning apparatus.

This is what happens when you have extreme nationalism take over.

They got their asses kicked out of Siberia, and decided that it would be a good idea to go attack America and Britain instead.

Funny how those are the same people who complain about shitskins in other threads.

I most certainly do not and I don't appreciate your self-serving ad hominem assumption

I'm the other guy you quoted and that's not something I do, doesn't interest me. My feelings are hurt by your post.

The word you're thinking of is "embargo."

>Embargo=blockade=war
Yeah sure thing bud.

>Japan violates its international agreement to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China, a valued US ally & trading partner, even after stern condemnation by the international community the last time they did this
>Roosevelt exercises a measured economic response in response to a unprovoked act of aggression on a friendly nation
>Without necessary war material Japan is left with a choice of whether or not to abandon its imperial designs on its neighbors
>chooses to launch a desperate sneak attack on US soil in the hope of realizing its military ambitions


There's also the whole aspect of the horrible atrocities by the Japanese army, the racist dogma of the Japanese imperial government & their nominal friendship & sympathy with a Nazi regime who had just thrust Europe back into war.

Just a minor correction, the oil embargo was most directly over the Japanese seizure of French Indo-China, not their ongoing war in China itself.

>I learned what a blockade was from Phantom Menace and think they always lead to war

yeah just blockading those japs with the pacific fleet in hawaii

...

they DID attack SU
they got BTFO

>B) They got their shit kicked in the last time they fought the Soviets

No. It was the other way around.

You're thinking of the Russo-Japanese war not the Soviet-Japanese border battles.

I'm fucking tired of ABCD bullshit on these threads.

70% of Japanese military were invading/occupying China. They had nothing to attack the Soviets with.

When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union June 1941, Japan withdrew their forces from the border, and sent them into SE Asia.

They were terrified of Soviets.

They were running out of oil. The US basically forced a "now or never" situation on the Japs.

It's funny cause the US played a major role on japanese war crime denialism.

>70% of Japanese military were invading/occupying China.
Which the soviets came in and wiped out, sometime between the two bombs.

700,000 Japanese soldiers dead a few weeks... Literally several magnitudes more than the soldiers killed by both bombs combined, and more than the Americans had otherwise killed in two years.

The samurai fears the Soviets - for good reason.

Guess who in no time flat had created a mechanized army larger than America's that didn't need to cross an entire ocean to get to them - and had moved most of the factories building that mechanization towards Siberia while they lead Germany into a prolonged death trap.

If anything, Japan shoulda offered to aid the allies in exchange for an end to the embargo and some other Asian clay concessions. At the very least, they shouldn't have attacked the USA and put themselves in a vice between two of the most powerful armies on the planet.

Hello Ivan

Ignoring the fact that the only thing the Japs needed all that oil for was to continue an aggressive expansion in Asia, just so they could say, "Wewuzempire"

They did attack the Soviet Union, they lost. I think if they had focused on attacking the Soviet Union (The Army / Navy / Airforce weren't always on the same page and sometimes didn't coordinate with each other at all) they could have made progress.

The question though, is why? The Japs wanted oil. The oil fields in Russia were quite a ways away.

Also, Japan was more of a 'light ally' of Germany than anything else.

the original plan was to attack the Soviet Union and secure resources from Siberia, but the war with China took up more and more of the Army's manpower that trying to get enough troops and armor for an attack on the Soviets became unrealistic.

they did clash at the battle of Khalkin Gol, where about 100,000 soldiers on each side fought it out in Mongolia with Japan being soundly defeated.

after the battle, Japan scrapped any invasion plans of the USSR and doubled down their focus on China first, as attacking 2 Titans in Asia wasn't in their best interest.

and with the Army tied up fighting China, they instead instructed their relatively healthy Navy to secure the war material they need from Dutch East Indies and other Pacific Colonies, which kicked off the Pacific War.

>US and Britain spend years expanding their empires in Asia
>Japan establishing an empire in its geographic sphere of influence is for some reason much worse than British and American imperialism

It actually was.

America's official policy towards China was making sure every power agreed to honor its territorial integrity so as to avoid a costly race between powers of dismembering the country for their own parochial gain.

Japan's policy towards China was dismembering the country for their own gain.

>If anything, Japan shoulda offered to aid the allies in exchange for an end to the embargo and some other Asian clay concessions.

I'm sorry if my question seems stupid, but would it even be possible to do this? Would it have been possible for Japan not to join the Axis and instead somehow join the allies? Why did Japan join the Axis apart from their butthurt towards the USSR and the US (embargo)? I know that hindsight is 20/20, but surely even a blind man could see that the Allied industrial output and such is exponentially superior to a little resourceless island.

Yes.

It would be a land war and Japanese lacked equipment and training for full scale land war as evidenced by border incidents in 1938 and 1939.

>sanctions and NORMAL FUCKING TRADE is act of war now

Well, given that, even before the war, the Americans kinda looked at the Japan as somewhat less than human, and they knew it, and there was already bad blood, probably not.

Though they could have just told Hitler, "No thanks" rather than allying with him, and that might have made the Soviets less likely to mess up their backyard.

The intention wasn't to start a war with the US anyways, but to discourage one. They had hoped the US wouldn't be concerned enough about its ally's pacific land holdings to start a full scale war, and that removing a chunk of its naval fleet would buy them more time in that regards. Alas, sleeping tiger and all that jazz.

Still feel that the US, for once in its history, had the moral high ground at the start of that war, as a result of the sneak attack, even if they had antagonized an expansionist power.

>I'm sorry if my question seems stupid, but would it even be possible to do this?
If they'd revert back to early 1930's.

Japanese technically fought in "irrelevant" theatre from allies' PoV so as long as they wouldn't attack China in 1937, then alliance with Britain would probably be possible(as in, the government that would do it wouldn't be blasted into oblivion by public opinion), after the attack, the rape of Nankin etc. it was way too late though. The problem is that from Japanese PoV the relative irrelevancy of the theatre for all Great Powers but the US was very convenient as it meant that no matter what happens they can do whatever they want as long as they don't attack one of them directly. Especially as the US took the heavily-isolationist route in 20's and 30's.

>sanctions and NORMAL FUCKING TRADE is act of war now
Well, sanctions are. Sufficient sanctions can have a far more devastating effect on a country than actual war, in the long term. Though, in Japan's case, all it was really doing was putting a stranglehold on rather brutal expansion plans.

Also, it's not as if Japan had said, "Do this and we'll go to war." - Japan just snuck up one day and stuck a knife in Hawaii's back. Not honurobo senpai desu.

>They got their shit kicked in the last time they fought the Soviets

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_border_conflicts

The Japanese army fucking sucked, who knew?

american education system, ladies and gentlemen

>
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_border_conflicts
>The Japanese army fucking sucked, who knew?

Your source states that the Soviets suffered significantly greater casualties, and yet you say that the japs got their shit pushed in, why?

>why?

Because they failed to meet their strategic objectives. They started this little conflict and got nothing out of it. War isn't Call of Duty, a good k/d isn't the end goal.

I'm not so much talking about the kill ratio as I am referring to the phrase of 'japs getting their shit pushed in" in comparison to their actions. When I first read that phrase before looking at the source it gave the effect that the japs got BTFOd, when in reality it turns out to be a simple failed offensive

>he doesn't know about Khalkin-Gol

Well I guess it was a bit of an exaggeration but honestly the Japanese plan for war against the Soviets called for a lot of little battles like Khalkhin Gol all along the Manchurian border. This one battle was a test run. And the results of this test showed that not only would they fail to push forward though Siberia but they may lose Manchuria. An offensive failing, then getting immediately counter attacked and losing your offensive position is as bad as it gets stragetically speaking. Usually on Veeky Forums when someone get BTFO is because they lost a bunch of dudes. But this is a different kind of BTFO. Basically "even if we fight smarter then our enemy we will lose"

Well they didn't fight smartly enough it seems

It's more a case of "the only winning move is not to play". Japanese equipment sucked especially their tanks. On top of that they didn't have enough tanks. You really need tanks for effective offensives. I don't even think the Soviets had t-34's yet. If your army sucks you can't win. Look at great generals though time, they all had great armies with good equipment.

>unjustified murder is not wrong because my accuser has at one time unjustly murdered