Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Japan had numerous options in, say, 1930. Just because the British and French and Dutch empires were empires doesn't mean they weren't interested in peaceful trade for raw materials. Do you have any evidence that, if China had remained un-invaded, Japan would have been denied strategic resources and at least some access to finished goods markets? Of course they had options.
Or, said another way, the history of Japan for the past 65 peaceful, incredibly productive years has been a mirage?
It isn't quite so simple.
Post Bretton Wood and GATT, the world has seen a great increase in world trade. Notwithstanding the failure of the Doha negotiations, the impediments to world trade today are nothing compared to the situation in the 1930s. The barriers to world trade which existed in the 1930s severely impacted upon the economies of countries whose domestic market was too small to absorb their gross output.
Another point to bear in mind is the structural composition of 1930s economies. Even the most advanced economies had only a small service sector, instead being heavily reliant on manufacturing, which output was predominantly directed to the domestic market.
We should not assume that the post 1945 conditions which have allowed the Japanese economy to grow were also available prior to the war.
Alfred
I take your points, of course. Capital flows now; in a high-tarriff, non-digital, hard-money world it was harder. The mercantile system had, for centuries, made colonies attractive as consumers of finished goods from the home nation. Consumer consumption was far more limited, primarily foodstuffs, clothing, and domestic, mostly durable, basics like stoves and wash tubs (not video games.)
And yet, there WAS in-theater trade between local, non-colonial geographies. Even colonies were not prohibited from importing items that the home country either could not value-add economically, or chose not to (Holland was not an industrial superpower for example. GB was, at least in some sectors, such as textiles.) Would it have been easy for Japan to structure an export economy based on low-value-added commodities like raw steel? No. But it was possible to try. Parts of Belgian Africa were a possibility, maybe South Africa, French Indo-China was on a loose leash as colonies went at the time, my impression of Oz is they would have listened to sales pitches, some low volume opportunities existed in Micronesia, etc. China was poor, but the coastal areas had a bit of money to spend on construction supplies, light water-craft, etc. Japanese shipbuilding was good on a world quality scale, and they were non-unionized yards. I've never studied the numbers, but I think Japan could have competed there.
I don't imagine that a 1930s Japan could have performed as a 1960s Japan did--the colonial system being a prime roadblock. My point was that they had other options to try before engaging in seizure and slave labor practices in Korea, China, and Indo-China. But, we'll never know.
< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 7/28/2010 7:23:23 PM >
_____________________________
The Moose
|
Printable Version
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread