Timeline for answer to Why was the US so pro-China and so anti-Japan before WW2? by Schwern
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1, 2023 at 19:35 | comment | added | Spencer | @Readin This is a question about US policy. Did the US exist outside of "recent years"? | |
| S Nov 1, 2023 at 15:21 | history | suggested | Borealis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added "in recent years" to "whereas China had rarely ventured outside its borders". Without the addition, that claim is not true; China was very expansionist in its earlier history, both in terms of direct annexation and tributaries (Readin's comment mentions as much).
|
| Nov 1, 2023 at 14:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 1, 2023 at 15:21 | |||||
| Aug 3, 2023 at 6:01 | vote | accept | Italian Philosopher | ||
| S Apr 3, 2023 at 21:57 | history | suggested | DLosc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed typos in quote
|
| Apr 3, 2023 at 21:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 3, 2023 at 21:57 | |||||
| Aug 30, 2021 at 3:43 | comment | added | Schwern | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I think it would be best to ask another more focused question. | |
| Aug 29, 2021 at 3:14 | comment | added | Readin | "whereas China had rarely ventured outside its borders." in recent years. China was the largest empire in Asia because it had a long history of expanding its borders. | |
| Aug 28, 2021 at 17:09 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | FDR calls for 'quarantine' of aggressor nations, Oct. 5, 1937 concludes with "Roosevelt’s remarks backfired at the time, intensifying America's isolationist mood and triggering protests by noninterventionists." That's lifted from EricTowers's comment, much closer in nature to what I am interested in. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some propaganda going on, "prepping" public opinion, from there to later US actions. Again, no sympathy for the Japanese there, things like Unit 731 were bad. | |
| Aug 28, 2021 at 17:04 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | I'm sorry, but, even though this is the most upvoted answer, it is not really emphasizing the aspects I was asking about. World opinion turns against Japan is the closest it gets to it, but that particular bit goes into about as much depth as the answers by Ted and Jos (I've upvoted all 3). There is also no surprise American Friends of the Chinese People is pro-China. Question is: why is everyone else going along, early on? By 39-40, confrontation has been ramping up, Japan is the bad guys. But how did we get there? How did a cold reception to 1937s FDR speech go positive? | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 16:39 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
"the West" -> "Europe" to clarify from "the Western Allies" of WW2.
|
| Aug 27, 2021 at 16:35 | comment | added | Schwern | @gerrit Yes. "European power" might be more accurate. They wouldn't be considered part of the "Western Allies" in the WW2 sense. | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 8:25 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | @EricTowers if you could tidy up the politico article with a blurb on how "FDRs 1937's bad Japan was not appreciated by public opinion" ended up with Schwerns "well, everyone kinda agreed on 1940 embargos because Japan was a threat" Eat your heart out. | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 7:08 | comment | added | gerrit | Is Russia western? | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 0:56 | comment | added | Schwern | @njuffa Agreed. I've moved the start of war to the end. | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 0:55 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 14 characters in body
|
| Aug 26, 2021 at 23:41 | comment | added | njuffa | @Schwern The timeline seems muddled as to when (1) "the Dutch cut off their oil trade with Japan" and (2) "Japanese were free to invade the Dutch East Indies 10 days later and begin seizing oil production." In text order (2) occurs before (1), but presumably in historical reality it happened the other way around. Maybe affix actual dates to these two steps to clarify? | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 22:48 | comment | added | Schwern | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I'd say the relationship towards China was "paternalistic". I added a quote from a US House hearing that I feel sums up the whole US viewpoint. A mix of self-defense, paternalism, and a sense of moral outrage. | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 22:48 | comment | added | Schwern | @Joe From the Allies point of view. And yes, from the initial attack. The Allies continued to underestimate Japan. | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 22:46 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Expand the answer to include Japanese attrocities and conflicts and more detail about embargos.
|
| Aug 26, 2021 at 22:46 | comment | added | Joe |
and that the Allies could defend their territories - do you mean "could not" (from the Japanese point of view) or do you mean this from the Allies point of view? Otherwise I don't totally understand the "right about the first part" (I guess we could defend our territories eventually, and if you meant defend from the initial attack, that occurred prior to that sentence?)
|
|
| Aug 26, 2021 at 22:25 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Expand the answer to include Japanese attrocities and conflicts and more detail about embargos.
|
| Aug 26, 2021 at 22:06 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | Txs. I'd be interested to know if the general public sentiment demanded FDR push back, early on, say 37-38. Or, opposite, if FDR was getting some resistance in the form of "let's not get dragged into other folks' wars". Racism, by itself, doesn't explain all that much - yes for anti-Japan, but why pro-China then? I mean, it was the right thing to do, but it just seems out of character at the time. | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 22:03 | comment | added | Schwern | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica You're right there is more to it than just "Japan threatened the Philippines". I can flesh it out some more. The US supplied the Japan. The Japanese showed no sign of stopping their expansion. Japanese war crimes in China and attacks on Westerners turned public opinion in the US against them. The US did not want to supply Axis aggression, so they stopped. They, rightly as it eventually turned out, realized Japan could not sustain their military without Western trade. | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 21:49 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | This does not tell me why the US went out of its way to confront it early on. Among other things, if the US had still be trading oil with Japan the whole situation wrt Java would have changed: Japan may not have felt the need to attack Java and it would have had less reason to attack the US if it did (something that was, I believe an active point of debate in the Japanese high command). So I see this answer as a bit circular: "once the US confronted Japan, Japan was a threat to the US". OK but why didn't the US wait things out? US sentiment was quite isolationist at the time after all. | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 19:08 | history | answered | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |