It appears that American businesses will be pulling out of China due to the pandemic and if you add the trade war that has been taking place, I immediately think to the trade issues that I'm only vaguely familiar with between the U.S. and Japan before WW2.

Does anyone see any similarities? What were the worst actions taken against Japan that possibly precipitated war with Japan, if that is even a correct assumption?

There were two major events that triggered Japan's decision to initiate war with the United States. These actions were taken by the U.S. in response to Japan's occupation of French Indochina.

26 Jul 1941: U.S. freezes all Japanese assets in the U.S.
01 aug 1941: U.S. places an embargo on all oil exports to Japan.

Of these, the oil embargo was the most important. The U.S. was Japan's major supplier of oil, and with that cut off, Japan needed to obtain a new source of supply, or face having their fleet immobilized within a year or two.

That source was the Dutch East Indies. But the U.S. would oppose any move to capture those.

Thus, Pearl Harbor.

In the current geo-political situation, I'm not quite sure what might be equivalent to the oil embargo, although a full U.S. embargo on products from China would probably do the trick by gutting the PRC economy and showing that the CCP, and especially Xi, had lost the 'mandate of heaven.'

The oil and scrap metal embargo were the two that I was familiar with. Thanks for the response.

Japen was also pissed because they didn't get any of the spoils (German colonies in the pacific)after WWI like the other wining countries. That fueled nationalism to take what they wanted. Also they didn't like the naval armaments reductions that was imposed on them

China also sells their sh*t to the rest of he world like no tomorrow. We would have to blockade their ports to elicit the same type of response as Japans.

That's not right is it? I thought they got the Caroline, Marshall and Marianas Islands.

YZ250 said:

---

That's not right is it? I thought they got the Caroline, Marshall and Marianas Islands.

---

they didn't get any colonies that actually produced needed resources or food.

Rabid Cougar said:

---

China also sells their sh*t to the rest of he world like no tomorrow. We would have to blockade their ports to elicit the same type of response as Japans.

---

We wouldn't have to blockade their ports, just the Strait of Malacca.

This is why they are doing the B&R program to avoid the Malacca bottleneck.

I've wondered about this before but never sought out an answer.

You hear about the importance of the Straight but if someone was blocking it, would they also have to block the southern end of Sumatra? Or is there something there that makes it impassable? The journey is a bit longer but nothing crazy. It's not like someone seizing the Panama Canal and forcing shipping all the way south around an entire continent.

I'm not very maritime savvy so all of the above may be dumb questions.

You're referring to the Sunda Strait. While not impassable, here's what Wiki has to say:

Quote:

---

It is very deep at its western end, but as it narrows to the east it becomes much shallower, with a depth of only 20 m (65 feet) in parts of the eastern end. It is notoriously difficult to navigate because of this shallowness, very strong tidal currents, sandbanks, and man-made obstructions such as oil platforms off the Java coast. It had been an important shipping route for centuries, especially during the period when the Dutch East India Company used it as the gateway to the Spice Islands of Indonesia (1602-1799). However, the strait's narrowness, shallowness, and lack of accurate charting make it unsuitable for many modern, large ships, most of which use the Strait of Malacca instead.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunda_Strait#cite_note-Freeman-2][2][/url]

---

And it wouldn't require a whole lot more effort to blockade that, as well.

Perfect. Thanks!

Pretty sure the Japanese sunk the Houston in the battle of the Sunda Strait.

The most obvious differences are that Japan is an island with extremely limited domestic resources and, at the time of WWII, not a particularly strong economic power, whereas China is a continental power and is today the second strongest economy on the planet, with huge cash reserves.

China today can withstand far more economic pressure without resorting to war than Japan ever could.

Just to make sure everyone is clear on a couple of terms before this goes any further:

- an embargo is where country A stops buying products from country B, and/or stops selling products to country B. It can be wide ranging, or specific to certain products, as in the U.S. embargoing the sale of scrap metal and oil to Japan in 1941. This is definitely not a friendly action, but it is not an act of war.

a blockade is when country A intercepts and shuts down country B's trade with other countries (countries C-Z, or whatever.. By international law, a blockade is an act of war.

So if you start talking about intercepting oil shipments to China, wherever you do it, you're talking about committing an act of war, and the ChiComs would be fully justified if they started shooting.

Spore Ag said:

---

This is why they are doing the B&R program to avoid the Malacca bottleneck.

---

I'm glad you brought up the Belt & Road Initiative. For those who don't know, it's a major infrastructure project that will connect China to the rest of Asia and the western world through dozens of sea ports, hundreds of sea routes, thousands of miles of railroad (both freight & transport), and a highway system that will dwarf the US Interstate System & German Autobahn systems.

Many Asian & western nations may benefit from it, but China's gain in power will be overwhelming. Many fear that China will corner the market in literally everything. It will make China less vulnerable to embargoes, blockades, and even to trade deals that may weaken their position.

If you read up on it, you'll see how it affects every single interaction we currently have with China politically and economically.

China could never be backed into a corner like pre-WWII Japan because China has natural resources and Japan didn't. But with the Belt & Road Initiative in place, China might be calling all the shots.

Listen to "Supernova in the East" the Dan Carlin podcast. He covers a ton of the lead up and how things were changing between China, Japan, and USA.

Another thing, not necessarily related to the OP, that the Japs were ticked about was the restrictions placed on their ability to field what the world would have considered a major world power Navy. They were limited on capital ships as compared to the US or GB on a 5:5:3 ratio, or something like that. They wanted a seat at the big boy table, and wanted to prove they belonged among the Naval elite of the world.

Other than lingering feelings of being slighted, the interwar naval treaties (Washington and London) weren't relevant by 1941. Japan was not a party to the Second London treaty of 1937, and had withdrawn from the others I think in 1939 or so.

At any rate, the 5:5:3 ratio actually gave the Japanese a slight edge over the U.S., and a bigger one over England, because Japan only had one ocean to fight in, while the U.S. had two, and England 3 or 4, depending on how you did the counting (Atlantic, Med, and Indian-Pacific).

At the start of the war, Japan had parity with the USN in fast carriers, 6 to 6, and actually probably overall superiority in total flight decks due to the 3 light carriers in service by December 1941. But half of the USN's fast carriers (Yorktown, Hornet, Wasp) plus the Ranger were in the Atlantic in December 1941.

Bump, to say that Supernova in the East Part IV was released this week.