US occupation of Japan failure

Because Toyohara was once known as Vladimirovka, and the Soviet's did help end the Pacific War, and Japan did...You know...Lose the Pacific War, and to the winners go the spoils. So, to Soviet Russia went the return of Sakhalin Island.

The Kuriles has always been a "geopolitical thorn".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute

Of course. Sakhalin has been very restricted until well after the fall of the Soviet Union, however those restrictions have since been lifted.

 

IMO the Washington naval treaty was a failure, as it fuelled Japanese resentment that eventually helped the "military faction" to take the upper hand. So while it did prevent what could have been a ruinous naval race, but recent events should teach us that nations that are bankrupt from an accounting perspective as still thriving, so we should be careful with the term "ruinous", it should be classed, along with Versailles as a "missed opportunity" to achieve lasting peace.
Technically it also produced the "non viable" 10.000t 8" cruiser and 35.000t 16" battleship concepts that resulted is some very unbalanced ship designs.
The British were the big losers, before WW1 they had broken their historical ties with Germany over a naval race and now they had to accept parity.
IMO any treaty that doesn't treat all nations alike is at best short lived, achieving short term peace is good, doing so at the expense of long term resentment is a time bomb that will need to be defused later on.

 

The British only accepted parity with the US and they simply didn't have the wealth after WWI to prevent that anyway. As for the resentment would an naval arms race between the Japanese, US, and British not have raised tensions in and of itself? Especially if Japan bankrupted itself in the process? The treaties gave everyone a chance to back of runaway naval spending and the resultant impact on their economies and ultimately their politics. What they did with the chance is another matter.

 

I would like to ask why Japan would like to be involved in the naval arms race ? Were the neighborhood of west side of the Pacific (Dutch East Indies, Taiwan and islands) and the coasts of the Sea of Japan (Korean peninsula, Inner and Outer Manchuria, Sakhalin and Kuril Islands) where Japan should have concentrated her military and political efforts on ? Only after the Spanish American War the US had became directly involved in there because of the Philippines. Outside of Singapore, Hong Kong, why would the GB be involved in the conflicts among the Netherlands, France, the US and Japan ?

Around ww1, Japan had already been reaping rewards from her victories against Imperial Russia and QIng Empire in getting Korea, Taiwan, southern Sakhalin; any informal cooperation with the GB would be on paper favorable to both nations. For US, in my opionion shall favor a balance of power between Japan and Russia in Northeast Asia: The whole Sakhlain island should have been Japanese after the Russo-Japanese war. Afterwards both Japanese navy and Russian/Soviet army were powerful enough to fend off each other in NE Asia but there both nations needed to maintain substantial wealth for standing military forces.

 

This might be a good place for you to start:
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/opening-to-japan
The Japanese were surprised and at least somewhat humiliated by Perry's visit and set about developing their country so as not to be forced into such things in the future. For Japan that meant that the clearly needed a strong navy and the presence of US and British forces in the area gave them a goal to shoot for. The US, at least as far as corporations and individuals went was also active in China well prior to the Spanish American war and the British certainly were.

 

I agree with LRusso216 in the sense that tremendous mistrust between the army and the navy existed, but could it be remedied ? Perry's visit had started the perceived slight by American and other western powers so military build up provided a quick maybe and dirty way that in order to compete with the West, Japan needed to buil the reputation of its army and navy.

Rengaku also contributed to Japan's rapid and speedy modernization after opening the country to foreign trade in 1854. However, Japan took military too seriously that after the victories against Qing Empire and Imperial Russia in 1900s, the nation ran in perpetual cycle of conflict, military combat, victories, treaties in order to exert nation's influence on neighboring territories. Couldn't Japan shift gears ? The Amur watershed, even with Manchuria under Nationalist China's influence, would have a territorial void for Japan to maintain permanent foothold at the turn of the century when both Qing Empire and Imperial Russia were weak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur_River#/media/File:Amurrivermap.png

The Nikolayevsk Incident during the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War was evident of Japanese immigration to the area. After the victories of Russo-Japanese war, should Japan keep asserting influence onto Russia Far East ? Japan relinquished northern part of Sakhalin in 1925 under international diplomatic pressure. IMO, Japan should have gone for using the part and the north bank of Amur watershed for white Russian evacuated from Russia under Japanese protection during the Allied Intervention and slowly absorbed them into Japan after 1920s. Say the Far Eastern Republic would be a Japanese protectorate. Instead Japan relied on brute military forces from Vladivostok to Chita. If Vladivostok was Japanese from 1930s, the Pacific route of Lend Lease would be going to India or Persia and thus significantly increase the transportation cost to the USSR.

 

The slights in most cases were not perceived but real. From the very first Japan saw western nations using military force or the threat thereof to enforce their will on other nations to force treaties, economic concessions and such. She learned from us. Western attitudes on their racial superiority over the native or asian peoples, were adopted by the Japanese in their dealings with these same people.

 

deleted-duplicate post

 

I agree but due to fortune of global events at the turn of last centuries, Japan reaped rewards from Imperial Russia and Qing Empire while almost bankrupted her government. Military might was a necessary to defend territories but at least by going to Maritime and Mainland Southeast Asia whose populations had cultivated independent identities for centuries, Japan was setting herself up for conflicts, not to mention her actions in East Asia. Because of the sparse population in Manchuria, Japan would have hold onto it and its army not pushed south since 1937. By the same idea, the Amur watershed, Kuril Islands, Sakhalin would have been Japanese too. In reality only some islands in West Pacific, Manchuria, Kuril Islands, southern part of Sakhalin were before 1937. In other words, IMO Japan would have attacked in the direction of northwest, going against Imperial Russia/Soviet Union in limited scale of conflict. IMO, let Japanese navy and IR/Soviet army and in the bigger picture two nations faced off in Northeast Asia; the entanglement would save the US from much intervention. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902 until 1923, renewed in 1905 and 1911, was evident that the GB took advantage of that entanglement. Theodore Roosevelt acted as one personal example that he was awarded a Nobel Price in settlement after the Russo-Japanese War. France and even Imperial Russia signed treaties with Japan denoting their respective spheres of influences in Asia after the War; should Japan concentrate her expansion efforts on IR, both GR and France would in the end not exert their influences too hard on Japan. The US was the exception in that she went beyond the negotiation efforts in the War to leading the international pressure to force Japan relinquish in 1925 the captured northern part of Sakhalin after the Allied Intervention of the Russian Civil War. Gradually escalations of American efforts on Japan just showed both nations were on a collision course, and indeed in ww2.

 

Forget to mention, I was just writing an assessment but please notice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Dragon_Society

In reality, this is a prominent ultra-nationalist right group

 

Can't say that I agree with that.

Japan clans used military force or the threat of military force to enforce their will on other Japanese clans to force treaties, economic concessions and such for centuries before Western nations tried to do the same to Japan. Japan also waged war against Korea and China, invading Korea in 1592, and after failed peace treaty negotiations, invade again in 1597.

 

For Japan herself, IMO she shall act like ww2 Spain from the onset of the 20th century after winning the Russo-Japanese War. Theodore Roosevelt and American participation in the talks after the war shall be evident to Japan of American awareness of rising Japan's power. With Imperial Russian animosity and a rising one from American, Japan needed a longer term goal to secure her position as at least Northeast Asian regional power.

Although this excerpt refered the Far East Region in 2015 and its development in late 19th and early 20th century had been difficultt, the region where Japan was going for after the war, was rich in mineral and agricultural resources for Japan's appetitie, not to mention the timber and fishery exploitation that had already gone underway. Japan was the largest participant in numbers of soldiers sent during the Allied Intervention of the Russian Civil War and her capture of the northern part of Sakhalin was evident of that direction of aggression. I do not know but wonder that the slights by western powers and the perception of going onto Mainland China for prosperity by Japanese military mindset may have affect the mindset of Japanese military where the Far East Region was just next door.

 

everything was done in hirohito's name and he accepted the responsibility. but even without looking at hard evidence, the japanese emperor has not been a crucial factor in national developments since nobunaga. i honestly can't understand why some countries wanted hirohito tried (and possibly convicted.) could the nazis have found something to charge george VI with had they conquered britain?