The Short Victorious War

"What this country needs is a short victorious war"
V.K. Plehve, Russian Minister of the Interior
to General A.N. Kuropatkin, Minister of War
200 Ante Disapora (1903 C.E.)
on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War

from title page of DW's book of that name

Wars only happen when two nations disagree about their ability to defeat each other. Typically at least one of them is wrong.

kzt wrote:Wars only happen when two nations disagree about their ability to defeat each other. Typically at least one of them is wrong.

One of them can honestly say -- at least to themselves -- they can't defeat the other, at least not without allies or in purely military actions. But it might not have a choice in the matter.

But said nation may be compelled to fight anyway, "for the honour of the flag" or to make the war expensive enough for the other side that they'll think twice before doing so to someone else. There's no reason they have to immediately surrender and accept any terms imposed on them.

Haven's annexations all the way up to 1904 and the formation of the Manticore Alliance were like that. San Martin had a good fighting force and did put up a fight, but in the end they knew how it was going to end, if Manticore didn't help.

kzt wrote:Wars only happen when two nations disagree about their ability to defeat each other. Typically at least one of them is wrong.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:One of them can honestly say -- at least to themselves -- they can't defeat the other, at least not without allies or in purely military actions. But it might not have a choice in the matter.

But said nation may be compelled to fight anyway, "for the honour of the flag" or to make the war expensive enough for the other side that they'll think twice before doing so to someone else. There's no reason they have to immediately surrender and accept any terms imposed on them.

Haven's annexations all the way up to 1904 and the formation of the Manticore Alliance were like that. San Martin had a good fighting force and did put up a fight, but in the end they knew how it was going to end, if Manticore didn't help.

It may be that the quote is only right half the time, if that. A small nation with greedy neighbors, is in a precarious position; consider the partition of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (I will not mention present days events).

War can also be the result of some country's irresponsible foreign policy. A foreign policy can leave a country with only the choice between war and starvation.

I misquoted this in another thread, but FDR's oil embargo forced the Japanese to attack. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Japanese warned the US not to back them into a corner.

Wiki wrote:The United States embargoed scrap-metal shipments to Japan and closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping.[11] This hit Japan's economy particularly hard because 74.1% of Japan's scrap iron came from the United States in 1938. Also, 93% of Japan's copper in 1939 came from the United States.[12] In early 1941 Japan moved into southern Indochina,[13] thereby threatening British Malaya, North Borneo and Brunei.

Japan and the U.S. engaged in negotiations during the course of 1941 in an effort to improve relations. During these negotiations, Japan considered withdrawal from most of China and Indochina after drawing up peace terms with the Chinese. Japan would also adopt an independent interpretation of the Tripartite Pact, and would not discriminate in trade, provided all other countries reciprocated. However General Tojo, then Japanese War Minister, rejected compromises in China.[14] Responding to Japanese occupation of key airfields in Indochina (July 24) following an agreement between Japan and Vichy France, the U.S. froze Japanese assets on July 26, 1941, and on August 1 established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan.[15][16][17] The oil embargo was an especially strong response because oil was Japan's most crucial import, and more than 80% of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States.[18]

cthia wrote:War can also be the result of some country's irresponsible foreign policy. A foreign policy can leave a country with only the choice between war and starvation.

I misquoted this in another thread, but FDR's oil embargo forced the Japanese to attack. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Japanese warned the US not to back them into a corner.

Now there is a slippery slope. Japan wanted a lot of things and was actively using warfare and attacking other countries to get them. It was already in a war of conquest in China, had taken Korea and other parts of costal Asia.
Depending on your point of view, the attack on Pearl Harbor- and the follow-up in the Philippines on Dec 8 (same planning stream) was two fold. They had to hit Pearl 1st as a preemptive strike to cripple the US Pacific Fleet and then remover the US control over the Philippines so those islands could be added to the resource basket of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Leaving US Naval and air forces in the Philippines would have let them strike at Japanese shipping.
Then they launch the attacks to destroy the military forces of Great Britain, France and Dutch in the rest of that area so they can take over and control everything fronting on (and well inland) the ocean along that long swath of ocean that curves around under Indonesia. Oil, rubber, food.
The British and Dutch are already engaged in Europe with Germany and Italy. The French are already more or less out of the game having "settled" with Germany but some forces are still free to work to protect Vichy French holdings in Asia. Be successful with that initial run of attacks and no effective European military force (because you sank all their ships) exists East of India and you can do what you already want to do......more or less convinced that the US isn't going to be willing or able to do anything significant in trying to fight a trans-Pacific war with no bases but what is left in Hawaii for support.

"Don't back us into a corner" .....yeah, -now look what you made me do----expand genocide and slaughter and you were punishing me economically for doing it.

Japan miscalculated.

cthia wrote:War can also be the result of some country's irresponsible foreign policy. A foreign policy can leave a country with only the choice between war and starvation.

I misquoted this in another thread, but FDR's oil embargo forced the Japanese to attack. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Japanese warned the US not to back them into a corner.

Brigade XO wrote:"Don't back us into a corner" .....yeah, -now look what you made me do----expand genocide and slaughter and you were punishing me economically for doing it.

Japan miscalculated.

Rather than repeating everything that Brigade XO wrote; let me just add that the US did NOT force Japan to go to war, that was impossible since the US was just reacting to Japan already having been at war since 1937 with a country friendly with the US. From Wikipedia:

The beginning of the war is conventionally dated to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident on 7 July 1937, when a dispute between Japanese and Chinese troops in Peking escalated into a full-scale invasion. This full-scale war between the Chinese and the Empire of Japan is often regarded as the beginning of World War II in Asia.

It’s lucky the IJN sunk the fleet at Pearl Harbor. Otherwise they would have overconfidently sailed out to show the inferior Japanese who is boss. And gotten mostly sunk thousands of miles from home.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:War can also be the result of some country's irresponsible foreign policy. A foreign policy can leave a country with only the choice between war and starvation.

I misquoted this in another thread, but FDR's oil embargo forced the Japanese to attack. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Japanese warned the US not to back them into a corner.

Brigade XO wrote:"Don't back us into a corner" .....yeah, -now look what you made me do----expand genocide and slaughter and you were punishing me economically for doing it.

Japan miscalculated.

Rather than repeating everything that Brigade XO wrote; let me just add that the US did NOT force Japan to go to war, that was impossible since the US was just reacting to Japan already having been at war since 1937 with a country friendly with the US. From Wikipedia:

The beginning of the war is conventionally dated to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident on 7 July 1937, when a dispute between Japanese and Chinese troops in Peking escalated into a full-scale invasion. This full-scale war between the Chinese and the Empire of Japan is often regarded as the beginning of World War II in Asia.

Is there any chance at all that you will actually start reading my posts?

I said that it forced Japan to attack. Attack the US. You are arguing with a documentary again. Japan was NOT at war with the US. Until Pearl Harbor.

cthia wrote:War can also be the result of some country's irresponsible foreign policy. A foreign policy can leave a country with only the choice between war and starvation.

I misquoted this in another thread, but FDR's oil embargo forced the Japanese to attack. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Japanese warned the US not to back them into a corner.

Brigade XO wrote:"Don't back us into a corner" .....yeah, -now look what you made me do----expand genocide and slaughter and you were punishing me economically for doing it.

Japan miscalculated.

tlb wrote:Rather than repeating everything that Brigade XO wrote; let me just add that the US did NOT force Japan to go to war, that was impossible since the US was just reacting to Japan already having been at war since 1937 with a country friendly with the US. From Wikipedia:

The beginning of the war is conventionally dated to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident on 7 July 1937, when a dispute between Japanese and Chinese troops in Peking escalated into a full-scale invasion. This full-scale war between the Chinese and the Empire of Japan is often regarded as the beginning of World War II in Asia.

cthia wrote:Is there any chance at all that you will actually start reading my posts?

I said that it forced Japan to attack. Attack the US. You are arguing with a documentary again. Japan was NOT at war with the US. Until Pearl Harbor.

Japan was at war with a country where the US had previously sworn to protect its territory. You said that Japan was only given the choice between war and starvation. That is simply not correct: it is because the Japanese refused to give up their war with the Chinese, that the US imposed the embargo. So there were three choices actually given the Japanese:

1) stop the war with the Chinese and then the embargoes would be lifted. As your text from Wikipedia stated "However General Tojo, then Japanese War Minister, rejected compromises in China".
2) continue the war with the Chinese and not have the things they needed from the US.
3) expand the war to include the US.

Obviously the Japanese chose number 3.

Given the promises we had made to China, our foreign policy was not irresponsible; You might as well say that British promises to Belgium before WW1 or to Poland before WW2 were irresponsible. In all three cases there was a militaristic nation with an expansionist policy that included conquest, it would have been irresponsible to allow them to have their way.