It was 'foregone' only in the context of what Imperial JPN chose to have for choices. I showed you -- beyond
ALL reasonable doubts -- that the US was reluctant to war and was willing to work with JPN. The option that JPN rejected was to work with the US. The first offer from the US was far less severe than sanctions. JPN would have lost no physical possessions on mainland China, trades and associated routes would have been preserved, and that JPN would not lose any international standing.
JPN chose war.
Yes, you are. Your arguments consists of how noble was JPN's intention on removing Western imperialism, but conveniently said nothing about having JPN as replacement. In many ways, what JPN did to the 'inferior' Asians were actually more atrocious than what the Europeans did.
When Imperial JPN made a deal with Nazi Germany and Vichy France to take over Indochina,
EVERYTHING that happened during those yrs are solely JPN's responsibilities and blame. Your feeble attempt at deflection from what JPN did is the real insult.
Here is something that I doubt that you -- and new masters the Chinese members here -- did not know...
General Order No. 1
At the end of any armed conflict, whether it is a civil war or a war between states, the first and most important item is security. Not law, but security.
When WW II ended, all JPNese garrisons were ordered by the Allies to maintain order and were allowed to keep their arms. They were ordered to either have their police force keep arms and maintain order, or to create a police force to keep arms and maintain order. They were supposed to do so until an Allied representative arrive to relieve the JPNese garrison and take official control. General Order No. 1 was applicable from the JPNese home islands to any territory under JPNese control.
If any JPNese troops chose to stay in Viet Nam, it was because of no measure of nobility of the JPNese troops that you lamely tried to present here. If they assisted the Viet Minh, it was because what else can they do ?
Neither you nor I know what really happened in JPN those days. You may believe this fiction but I doubt even your Chinese friends would swallow it.
So to sum it up: The End Justifies The Means.
Good to know you are now an admitted Marxist.
For a claimed Ph.D, your naivete is child like.
I am going to tell you, Mr. Ph.D and your Chinese friends, something that is going to shock you guys to the core...
The US is not and never have been a 'hegemon'.
People, from ordinary folks to TV talking heads, toss the word 'hegemon' around too casually, especially when it comes to criticizing US. It make them look 'sophisticated' when convenient.
So in this lifetime, has there been a true hegemon ? Yes: The Soviet Union. And never was the US.
What is a 'great power' ? A great power is a country whose economic and military might cannot be challenged. Not un-challenged because it implies there is a potential challenger waiting for the right time and circumstances. But cannot be challenged no matter how much some other country may wish to do so. Last is the political influence, aka 'soft power', factor. A great power is a country whose political influence is dominant over others.
A true hegemon is always a great power, but a great power is not always a hegemon. A great power may appear and even act, under specific situations, like a hegemon, but still is
NOT a true hegemon.
Who is the hegemon in the family ? The parents, of course. Not only is the father the executor of physical repercussions of any violation of family rules, the idea of the father is enough to deter the children from making many violations of the family rules. In this case, the family is a closed political system.
The international order is anarchic in scope, meaning there is no overriding authority, like a father in a family, to keep members of the system in line. The Warsaw Pact is a closed and
ORDERED system. Inside this system, it is not enough that the Kremlin can issue the violent removal of a member in the system's leaderships, and every member knew it could be done, but that the idea alone was enough to keep members in obedience.
The US as a great power in the Western alliance never managed to instilled that level of fear among the members it led. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was an excellent example of why the US was not a hegemon -- because it happened in the Western Hemisphere, supposedly an area that the US 'controls'. Cuba never cared for what the US might think of having nuclear missiles less than 100 miles of CONUS. The Cuban military could never challenge the US military, but that was not enough of an intellectual deterrence to Fidel Castro when he allowed Nikita Khrushchev to ship nuclear missiles to Cuba.
Throughout the entire Cold War, the US was mostly
REACTIVE to Soviet clandestine incursions into the Americas. Yes, sometimes the US supported odious Central and South American dictators, but that support always included personal bribes, economic enticements for the country, and so on. Any of these dictators usually hold the threat of an invitation to the Soviets over the American Presidents' heads.
Another example is the Argentine-UK war over the Falkland Islands. If the US is such a hegemon in the Western Hemisphere, there would have been no war between the two countries. A word from the US and Argentine would have acquiesced to Great Britain.
So under the true context of what is a hegemon, the US never was and is not, especially in Asia since the region is under this discussion. If the US is such a hegemon in Asia, the JPNese era of the 1980s, as in the book 'The Japan That Can Say No', would have never happened.
You want to see a true hegemon wannabe and is willing to act like the Soviet Union to achieve that status ? Look westward across the Sea of Japan and over the Korean peninsula.