Seienchin88

Seienchin88 t1_ja59b7l wrote

Its absolutely laughable since it also treats the US as a closed media market when in reality media is also impacted by global news from good sources anyhow. Yeah they make their own spin but no they dont control all news and what reaches you…

8

Seienchin88 t1_j288t6d wrote

Yeah same for Romania.

But while it’s debatable if it wad a good choice for Italy, it was a terrible choice for Romania. What in earth were they thinking?

Romanias army was quite large but not really modern and poorly led. And worst - almost all their borders were with the central powers and they relied on Russia to somehow help them. And while they joined after the Brussilov offensive decimated the Austrian army, it also Meant the Russian army was tired and had heavy casualties as well and the Central powers had just defeated Serbia meaning the balkan was quite secure in their hands Imo the biggest blunder of WW1.

8

Seienchin88 t1_iyc4upq wrote

And then the US spared the Emperor and even kept him...

Prince Konoe (who was briefly a major part in the discussions between the government and the occupational force) said he was shocked when he heard from MacArthur that he intended to keep the Tenno... The Japanese had the plan to offer the abdication of the Tenno but pleading for his life, instead they were casually told - yeah he can stay.

1

Seienchin88 t1_iy28trd wrote

Am I going insane…? That is exactly what I wrote in my post…

Retreating would have obviously been the morally right choice (or rather not even starting at all) but nobody in the Japanese high command dared to even entertain that idea after so many losses and also politicians getting murdered for opposing the military… Of course its their fault but that doesnt change the fact that telling an imperialist country to just stop a war and give back most colonial possessions obviously isnt gonna work… And the US didnt try to stop a "genocide" using diplomatic means - thats simply dishonest. The US didnt care a whole lot in the 4 years prior (wouldn’t the Nanjing massacre be a much better reason for an embargo?). They embargoed Japan when the started seizing European colonies and because Roosevelt wanted to get the US active in Europe and Asia to stop the fascist threat to the world - and yes that is a really good motive to go to war for but its different from simply trying to help Chinese civilians… (which the US didnt have as a focus at all during WW2)

−3

Seienchin88 t1_iy1deds wrote

You are missing a critical piece of information here - the US embargoed Japan‘s access to oil meaning the Japanese Empire was mere month away from collapsing (and while this might have been desirable the outcome would have been monstrous on everyone involved, mass starvation and likely mass looting across China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam (which the Japanese snatched from the French) or having to accept the American demands and withdrawing from Vietnam and China completely (which obviously would have been the right moral choice but no politician in Japan could order such a thing without serious risk of assassination). The US also stationed long range bombers in the Philippines further endangering the Japanese transports and colonies.

So, Japan saw no option but to strike at the European colonies which had oil but expected the US to then strike Japan (as the US guaranteed the colonial possessions of the Europeans). This is why they attacked Pearl Harbor- to strengthen their chances for this desperate plan.

And of course Japan should have never attacked China and start the war in Asia but they really didnt have much options. Roosevelt (who btw. never even engaged into any talks with Japan after the embargo) masterfully forced Japan to attack (although he likely anticipated Japan just attacking the European colonies) and bring the US into war where hus priority was Europe though (he always pushed for Europe over the pacific despite the Japanese attacking the US first).

−22