[GandalfTheGrey]

I think Japan missed an opportunity during WWII.

They should have left America alone and instead focus on China and old European colonies:

- take Manchuria and key coastal regions of China
- end the colonial rule in Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonchina and the Indonesian islands

The Americans shouldn't care about colonies changing hands - the writing on the wall for the Europeans should have been clear for all. And Japan gets a reliable supply of oil in Borneo and other places.

But here's the real catch: by occupying Manchuria and other Chinese territory, they provide a bulwark against both Soviet threats and the Chinese communist insurgent movement. By doing this it serves US interests in the region nicely. So what of the Japanese threat to the US? They come to an understanding - US keeps the Phillipines and other Pacific interests while Japan is allowed to acquire key mainland territory - territory that is of no interest to the US. In fact the US not only tolerates Japanese hegemony in Asia, but they actively support it to counter both soviet threats as well as emerging local communist movements in China and Indochina. US and Japan - two flourishing capitalist superpowers, not to mention trading partners, stand as one against the socialist threat.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Japanese had come into conflict with the US precisely because of their focus on China (I would argue the Japanese didn't go further in China because of the attrition and logistics involved) and occupation of a former European colony (Vietnam). The Panay incident is also illustrative of how the two might have come to blows simply by being too close to each others spheres of influence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay_incident

FDR might have had to step in to 'save' British colonies as part of his drive to enter WWII in Europe at some stage too. It's not too far off the situation the US found itself in during the 1950s, supporting the French in Vietnam not because they supported colonialism but because they needed the French in Europe.

[Darth Corleone]

Only problem is that tyranny knows no restraint. The Imperial Japanese mind could never expect that Japanese hegemony over the rest of Asia would not be challenged by an emerging American world power at some point. And in terms of FDR wanting to step in to "save" British colonies; I think nothing could have been further from the truth. FDR saw a need for Britain to give up her empire long before we entered WW2.




.

[Rei Murasame]

None of this collaboration was going to be possible simply because the effects that were created by the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922. Before we even start thinking about FDR, we should think first of the souring of relations that occurred under Warren G. Harding's conference at the time.

The Japanese had come into conflict with the US precisely because of their focus on China

Also that, exactly.

[Siberian Fox]

I think Japan missed an opportunity during WWII.

They should have left America alone and instead focus on China and old European colonies:

- take Manchuria and key coastal regions of China
- end the colonial rule in Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonchina and the Indonesian islands

Japan attacked the USA largely to get access to the oil in Indonesia. To do that it needed American forces in the Philippines out of the way, and to do that it needed the American fleet out of the way (hence the attack on Pearl Harbour). America was deliberately restricting Japan's access to oil for it's navy to prevent it's expansionism, and would not have stood idly by while Japan just invaded Indonesia to make 'alternative supply arrangements'.

The rest of Japan's Asian expansion could not happen without oil. They cold not leave America alone and do what you suggest.

[pugsville]

Rei Murasame - why was the Washington Naval Treaty important in US-Japan relations?

I agree though China was seen as very important commerical interest, Japan actions were excluding/effecting US commerial interests it was going to be running sore on relations.