Japan invasion into Southeast Asia is successful geopolitical provocation of the USA

Many stages of Japan’s aggression in China and Southeast Asia were originally encouraged and then, by means of sanctions and embargo, were provoked by the USA. Therefore the role of Japan in unleashing of World War I. I. and its action during the world military conflict can’t be considered in isolation from the influence of the USA on this state. The political scientist, the president of the Centre of System Analysis and Forecasting Rostislav Ishchenko answers the questions of «The world and we».
— How do you think is the attention in mass media, scientific literature paid enough to a role of Japan in unleashing of World War I. I. or for some reason the information on actions of this state during that period is not enough?
The role of Japan in World War I. I. is not so far unambiguous as the role of Germany. Japan created the Great East Asian sphere of mutual prosperity in Asia and its claims extended on the water area of the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, expansion of Japan to the south, in the direction of Indonesia was substantially provoked by the USA.
Of course, Japan had contradictions with China, it tried to occupy and probably to annex considerable part of the Chinese territories, generally the seaside. But Japan had no plans for advance to Southeast Asia till 1941. They appeared when the USA under the pretext of aggression of Japan against China entered embargo on oil supply. But thus this aggression by that moment proceeded more than 10 years, and at the first stage even was encouraged with the USA. Thus, Japan as a result of this embargo was presented with a choice — war or economic accident.
And for this reason Japan was at war with the USA and Great Britain in the Pacific Ocean. But it didn’t attack the USSR. The nonaggression pact continued to exist until the USSR didn’t denounce it in 1945.
— But it is impossible to deny also that degree of cruelty in relation to civilians and prisoners of war by which aggression of Japan in Asia was followed. Is it possible to compare these war crimes, for example, the tragedy in Nanjing, with actions of fascist Germany for destruction of millions of people?
Certainly, Japanese occupational regime was extremely cruel. At the same time it is necessary to consider that unlike Hitler’s regime, it was military, but not political regime. Crimes in the territories occupied by Hitlerites were committed by generally political bodies. The Wehrmacht, armed forces periodically were attracted to them but where adequate officers gave orders who refused to participate in repressive actions against the population, so SS groups and auxiliary police were engaged in it and management of these retaliatory actions was performed at the political level.
In case of Japan practically all excesses on destruction of civilians in occupied territories are on conscience of the armed forces. There is an explanation in Japanese military tradition. In Japan taking the prisoner wasn’t perceived as possible thing. It was not the disgrace, but something worse. And therefore potential prisoners or those who was seized after all, were simply killed.
In Japanese military tradition there was no such concept as the humane relation to civilians and prisoners. Their tradition assumed that in this situation the death penalty is the highest humanity. The loser lost the face and the loss of the person is worse than death. Therefore from their point of view to kill the person in this case if not to render him blessing, at least, to make nothing bad.
Therefore it is necessary to understand that substantially this Japanese tradition caused their relation to war crimes. Generally they didn’t consider it as an atrocity and considered quite admissible method of the problems' solution.
At the same time the Hitlerites perfectly understood they commit the crimes. Germany was the participant of the Geneva Convention, they lived within the western civilization and at absolutely other attitude towards concept of the war prisoner. And they had a differentiated attitude towards prisoners of war.
For example, the British prisoners felt much better than French and the French much better than Russians. And the western prisoners of war were lost in the German camps 10 times less.
After the war Japan long apologized for the committed crimes, but it apologized already in a new paradigm. It occurred after the USA imposed the new constitution and started introducing violently the concept of the western civilization. After that Japanese started estimating the actions of the army in occupied territories in a different way.
For all these reasons as it was the usual practice for Japanese army which isn’t beyond possible and moral, the Japanese war crimes hit the scales. The same Nanking slaughter where Germans destroyed some separate groups of the population or acted proceeding from military and technical or political expediency, so the Japanese if didn’t cut someone, so only owing to fatigue.
—Are some parallels in history between policy of the USA in relation to Japan before war and modern policy of the USA in relation to some countries in aspect of their provoking on military aggression against other states? Perhaps, similar events occur now in the Middle East under the guise of the project of the Islamic State?
I would compare the policy of the USA in relation to Japan not with events round the Islamic State during 30−40-years, but to policy of the USA in relation to Russia. Because the USA involved Japan in the Chinese wars and then declared it as an aggressor and started inflicting sanctions, trying to strangle it economically and actually made inevitable attack of Japan on itself. In the same way the USA tried and tries to involve Russia in wars in Eastern Europe to declare it as an aggressor and to begin suffocation with sanctions.
In this regard the policy didn’t change at all, absolutely the same mechanisms operate. And I think that if it didn’t appear that Japan wouldn’t be our opponent in wars of 1905 and 1941−1945 and the war of 1914−1918 was more memorable to people, likely, we would turn attention on those mechanisms which were used to involve Japan in the conflict in interests of the USA. And with all evidence would find the same mechanisms which are now used in relation to Russia.