Japan in World War II

Using these four passages and your give knowledge, asses the view that lacquer was driven into war with the western powers in 1941 by the Statesn policies. Both renderings B and D prove that America was the only driving force that caused a war in the Pacific. The inunct trade embargo that America enforced in 1940 was an incentive for japan, a country very reliant on imports of which most primarily came from America feeding its daily enjoyment of 12,000 tons of oil,to decl atomic number 18 war on the country that was slowing its progress to conquer China.Interpretation B evokes that moderates and militants alike saw American pressure as incitive thus creating a tension in the Pacific, with the American foreign policy at the forefront of the Nipponese incursion, this would leave Japan with no choice further to declare war. Japans reluctance to enter a war with America is also shown in this edition where numerous times they extended a deadline to lift the oil embargo by 15t hOctober. The date was later extended to 25thNovember and then to 30thNovember.Japan would have to fight America if the life strangling embargo was not lifted as it was their only choice out of a possible two the different was pulling out of China and no Nipponese leader counselled the latter. This proves that without Americas strict oil embargo than a war in the Pacific may never have occurred. However America would never have left China to the aggressive advances of Japan. On the different hand interpretation B disagrees and displays Japan as irrational and links with interpretation A in seeing Japan as naive and unthinking.This is presented by the comment do by the Japanese general in interpretation B which reads sometimes a man has to jump with his eyes closed from the veranda of aKiyomizu temple. The remark confirms the argument that Japans leaders were unthinking and made decisions without knowing the consequences for example the attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. Overall this interpretation sees US pressure as a profound cause for aggression Japan was being starved of its essential oil that it used to fuel its conquests.However American byplay for the safety of Asia would ultimately lead to a war in the Pacific and Japanese hostility was solely to blame. Interpretation D also shows Japans aggression being sparked by American decisions. For example America, most of all, stood in the way stood in the way of this through their control of resources in South East Asia. Americas grip on all vital resources in the Pacific would have driven Japan to war as it was the only alternative to stop America whilst still tutelage control over China.The leading philosophies of the time, assumed that acquiring an empire provided the basis of prosperity and future national security. This on the other hand contradicts the interpretation as it presents Japan as an empire with clear instructions on how to achieve wealth through imperialism. This is shown thro ughout the passage where by the time the war in China began in 1937 politicians favouring enlargementism were in high offices of state. America is no longer the only reason that war began as the views of the leaders in 1937 were evidently expansionist.Japan does not want any relations with America as in the eyes of Japans leaders that would have entailed a colossal loss of prestige with incalculable internal consequences. Japan and the US both operated with an imperialist mindset, but Japan government had mishandled the position they found themselves in Overall this proves that Japan had their own aims and expansionist policies and America stood in the way of Japan and war would have been inevitable between to very imperialist countries that both sort out an empire.To tally this interpretation although it shows that America holds back Japan through its strict rationing of resources in the South East Asia, Japans leaders had their particular policies which obscure expansion and so American decisions would not have changed the inevitable outcome of war. However the reliability of the interpretation is undependable as the argument against the leaders black choices were the decisions of mentalists and no such evidence and or facts were used to justify the historians view and Japans actions as to why they made the decision to advance southbound in 1940.Interpretations A and C both make arguments that it wasnt Americas foreign policys causing war. Interpretation A makes the contend that nothing could have prevented a Japanese-American war after Japans takeover of French Indochina in July 1941, America had a reason to be dysphoric about the future of the Pacific as before July 1941 lay the shadow of Japanese aggression in China again the Japanese aggression and expansionist policies linked with interpretation D is evidence that it was Japans policies not Americas that were driving them closer that would eventually lead to war.Japan had no existing plan as t o how they would fight off the Menace. Again this speculates that Japanese aggression was not thought through and they were blinded by easy victories. This meant that Japanese violence had no end in what the thought they could accomplish leading them to start a war they could not win. However the interpretation perceives that America knew that Japanese aggression could only be strangled by stopping the flow of essential war materials, and with this knowledge this American Policy they could stop Japan.This would lead Japan to a war as America was holding back there essential resources that the required to survive the war with China. However the interpretation does not state whether they imposed the embargo. The U. S. government froze all Japanese assets in America and launched an oil embargo after July 1941, to protest Japans aggression in China and Indochina. Trade was ended with Japans attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941.Interpretation C is also against as it evidently sho ws that Russian policy was a cause of war. Japan was having difficulty keeping Russia out of Manchuria and there were several disputes along the Soviet Manchukuo border. The major conflicts included the Tauran misfortune in March 1936 the Kanchatzu incident June-July 1937, the Amurincident June-July 1937, the Changkufeng incident July-August 1938 and the Nomoham incident May-September 1939. Japan was rightfully worried about the Russian borders and so therefore not America.In contribute the Imperial Japanese Army recorded a total of 152 minor incidents on the border of Manchuria between 1932 and 1934. That number then increased to over 150 per year for the next two years and the scale of the incidents became larger. The Japanese would later sign the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality pact on April 13th 1941. The amount of defeats that Japan endured along the Soviet Manchukuo border would have Japans highest concern and not America over the Pacific.This is also shown when Japan released a new foreign policy concerning the progressive development of Manchukuo. The document stated that thwarting the USSRs aggressive intentions, therefore had become the most crucial element in our diplomacy thus proving America Policies were not the only, and Japan was concerned about aggression from the eastern powers. Japans wariness about Russia also lead it the Japanese-German pact the building block for the Anti-Comintern pact this and not America would lead to war.Western anguish about the Tripartite Pact, which was signed by the three leading Axis in 1941, is also shown in this interpretation as an argument against the American thing as this displays a growing concern from Britain, the Soviet union and America. Conclusion The overwhelming volume of the interpretations are against the interpretation that Americas policies where the cause of War 1941 the mention of other European powers that took the attention of Japan away from America. The Manchukuo border was Japans top pr iority as it guarded there empire whereas the Pacific was between them and America.It wasnt just other countries power and aggression that sparked the war Japan too had plans for a large empire in China to ensure there prosperity. Interpretations A, B and D are linked and show Japan as a key factor in the beginning of a war as there aggressive expansion led to their inevitable involvement in World War II. It was the naive and unthinking choices made by the leaders of Japan in the 1940s to attempt the incursion of America. Almost all interpretations argue against the statement that it was American policy driving Japan to war.However interpretation B proves that Americas oil embargo was threatening Japans vital oil supply and in interpretation A the American Public and Press establishes that to continue supplying such materials to an aggressor was an abet to aggression. To conclude the argument that the majority of interpretations are against however the fact that Japans attention wa s drawn to the Manchukuo border cannot be forgotten as that used around 80,000 men of which they lost about 29,000 of them and shows that the policies of the consort were pressuring Japan.