07 December 2012

An alternative view of the attack on Pearl Harbor

There are lots of memorial posts on the internet today on the topic of Pearl Harbor.  At the risk of offending some readers, I'll post excerpts from this counterpoint, posted six years ago at The Independent Institute.
Ask a typical American how the United States got into World War II, and he will almost certainly tell you that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans fought back. Ask him why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and he will probably need some time to gather his thoughts. He might say that the Japanese were aggressive militarists who wanted to take over the world, or at least the Asia-Pacific part of it. Ask him what the United States did to provoke the Japanese, and he will probably say that the Americans did nothing: we were just minding our own business when the crazy Japanese, completely without justification, mounted a sneak attack on us, catching us totally by surprise in Hawaii on December 7, 1941...

In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of the burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941...

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese... Roosevelt also disliked the Germans (and of course Adolf Hitler), and he tended to favor the British in his personal relations and in world affairs...

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.” The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia...

Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”

25 comments:

  1. I'll stipulate that the Japanese were treated unfairly on the world stage. Can that be an excuse for the Nanking Massacre, among others?

    Japan was a brutal military dictatorship. However much it may have considered itself to have been wronged, those wrongs aren't even on the map compared to atrocities like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By 1938-39, it was more than a dictatorship. It was an imperialistic empire expanding its reach into China, Formosa (Taiwan), and southern Asia. Though I should add - they were merely mimicking what other European empires were doing. (the Dutch, English, and French in Africa and Asia)

      Delete
  2. This version of history completely fails to recognize the militaristic buildup and regional expansion that Japan was already participating in.

    In 1931 the Japanese invaded China and began their effort to control their region. It seems to me that FDR (of whom I am no great fan) responded properly with the diplomatic means at his disposal.

    In 1933 the Japanese walked out of the League of Nations because the general consensus was the invasion of China was wrong.

    In 1937 the Rape of Nanking occured. Regardless of if FDR had a 'romantic affection for the Chinese' it was a human rights horror and it was a good thing that FDR did what he could to respond with extension of economic sanctions.

    This version of history where the Japanese were the victims of WWII is a problem. It is what is taught in Japan where schoolchildren have no idea about the horrors of Japanese POW camps, or the rape of Nanking, or even that Japan was the aggressor nation at all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And by Sep. 27, 1940, Japan was part of the military union of the Axis powers (the Tripartite Pact). Japan and Germany signed the Anti-Comintern agreement earlier in 1936.

    So as an ally of Germany, Japan was fair game for sanctions. Not to mention atrocities like the 1937 Rape of Nanking, already referenced.

    Lurker111

    ReplyDelete
  4. From the intro I was expecting more of a provokation than a trade embargo. Still seems a big jump from that to a bombing of US soil.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In other somewhat related WWII trivia: According to the new Winston Churchill bio, Churchill knew that Germany could never succeed in a British invasion (mainly due to the power of the Royal Navy). His famous "We will fight them on the beaches" speech was mainly given to rouse morale and gain sympathy from the US.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You forgot to mention the US bases blooming all over the Pacific. Pan Am would put in a seaplane base on some Pacific island, and the US Navy would then install a base to defend it. But despite that, you should always say the Japs attacked the US because they were the bad guys. Don't forget they were part of the Axis, and to even admit they were human beings is to prove to the world that you are an anti Semite. Let the academics think about the real history and every one else stick to the national mythology. Truth is too complicated for the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, no. Prior to the war, the Japanese and Americans (other nations, including Britain were also involved) had a treaty that prevented both parties from developing their bases in the Pacific (excluding, for Japan, Japan proper, and for the US, mainland US). Japan as usual paid lip service to the treaty, but didn't really feel compelled to comply with it. The United States on the other hand avoided even the appearance of violating the treaty. So much so, that when an American Base needed repairs to routine equipment (such as water purification equipment) it was either delayed or cancelled altogether because it would look like the United States was violating the treaty. It was only with the advent of World War Two in Europe that the United States began strengthening its Pacific Bases, and even then it didn't do very much. American base building didn't really blossom until during the war, and the signing of the treaty stopped American base expansion altogether until after the beginning of the war.

      Delete
  7. The day the japanese attacked pearl harbor, the US Navy and USMC had bases on " Hawaii, Midway, Wake, and Guam, the Philippines, Shanghai, two in the Aleutians, American Samoa, and Johnston Island (Harkavy, Great Power Competition for Overseas Bases: The Geopolitics of Access Diplomacy, 1982)
    As far as wartime base building activity- "by the end of WW II, the United States had built or acquired an astounding 30,000 installations large and small in approximately 100 countries." (Blaker,James R, United States Overseas Basing: An Anatomy of the Dilemma 1990:28)
    I have explored the ruins of those pre-war bases, and the wartime ones. I have been to the pacific battlefields, and talked to the veterans on both sides, as well as the families of those who did not make it home. Not to be argumentative or anything.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also reference the rather controversial book "Imperial Cruise". Take away what you will, but the US had been stirring up trouble in the region for a long time before bobs fell over Pearl Harbor.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yea. Right. They were just minding their own business when evil FDR cut them off. Never mind that they had invaded and Japan, Korea, and pretty much the rest of eastern Asia. And they were pretty damn brutal too.

    Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so they could buy time to secure the western Pacific ocean from the US Navy. That was a tactical move as as part of a strategy to sue the US for peace. The idea was that the US would allow them to hold Asia rather fight them back to Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Link doesn't work any longer.

    "500 - Internal server error.
    There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed."

    I wonder why.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh that evil FDR checking a political and economic competitor that had allied with Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is 2 sides to a coin. And in all wars, there are no 'who was right', only winners, coz the winner writes the history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. Viz. the firebombing of Dresden. Or the calculated delays by the Russians before moving in to 'liberate' cities, giving the other combatants as much time as possible to kill as many adult males as they could before they moved in and occupied the area themselves. Or the Katyn Massacre or even the Holodomor. Or, for that matter, dropping another atomic bomb on Nagasaki before even checking to see if the Japanese gov't was maybe thinking of surrender after the logic-defying devastation of Hiroshima. 2 sides to a coin indeed.

      Delete
    2. Yeah the picnic in nan-king, the manilla soccer scrum, 2.7 million Chinese who patriotically stared themselves to death for the Japanese emperor. Yes indeed, two sides to every coin...

      Delete
    3. There are always at least two sides to every story, usually more than two, in the continuing analysis. Japan's preemptive strike at Pearl Harbor was a calculated risk, which ultimately underestimated America. --A.

      Delete
  13. "According to the new Winston Churchill bio, Churchill knew that Germany could never succeed in a British invasion"

    I'm not familiar with the bio, but it does seem problematic to state things in absolutes from our vantage as observers with the benefit of historical hindsight. Things often don't go as expected in war. Leader's overconfidence also brings such things as the Maginot Line or the German invasion of Russia...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Things often don't go as expected in war".

      - Nominee for Understatement of the Year Award 2012

      Delete
  14. Or it was a cunning plot by the Russians....

    http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the Russo-Japanese war is also useful background for understanding the attack in Pearl Harbor:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

    Short version: in 1904, Russia, having spent some time munching its way eastward across central Asia, conquering various Asian nations as it went, is poised to invade Korea, which would give it a warm-water port on the Pacific. The Japanese have their own imperialist designs on Korea, and are (justifiably?) worried about being somewhere on Russia's list of Countries It Would Eventually Be Fun To Conquer.

    So the Japanese launch a surprise attack on a Russian naval base, beginning the Russo-Japanese war.

    The attack cripples the Russian fleet in the area, and (possibly partly because the Trans-Siberian Railway isn't finished yet, and Russia therefore can't bring new troops to the area quickly) Japan goes on to win the war, which ends a little over a year later.

    Fast-foward to 1941: America has been spreading its influence across various islands in the Pacific, conquering Hawaii and the Philippines and putting bases on other islands...and for some of the Japanese, surely, it's 1904 all over again.

    None of this is meant to excuse Japanese brutality in war--but as the original post pointed out, the current impression a lot of Americans have of the attack on Pearl Harbor is that it happened because the Japanese were crazy and evil. They did what they did for reasons that made sense to them at the time, and I think it's worth trying to understand the reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  16. From my study of war, I have concluded that there has NEVER been one side that is wholly right, and one side wholly wrong. Both sides have done something to provoke the other...and both sides have at least some justification for what they have done. We fall victim to simplification and propaganda when we act like America is always the white knight. Yes, we are a good nation, I believe. In fact, as an American, I believe we are the best in the world. But let's have none of this nonsense that we are of sterling character, always on the right side. I think the unmarked graves of thousands of American Indians and African American slaves more than gives the lie to the notion that ANY NATION can be fully righteous.

    Of course, it is almost political suicide in the USA to hold that we would ever act in any way that is not in line with the highest virtues. Walk the Trail of Tears and see if you still feel the same way.

    We are improving, I think. I THINK. But it takes time. The way forward is to acknowledge our shortcomings, to learn from them, to never repeat them.

    As for Pearl Harbor, my issue is not that we somehow forced the matter. Rather, I wonder why we would ever think that in war we have the "right" to be adequately forewarned of our enemy's intentions. If I was fighting another country, I am certainly not going to want to say, "Be prepared, for in the near future we will attack a military base."

    Moreover, Pearl Harbor was a MILITARY attack. It struck a legitimate target--a military installation. It did not specifically target civilians. Of course, for Americans, ANY ATTACK ON US, no matter how well within the rules of war, angers us, stirring us to take our revenge.

    We were on the right side of World War II, that cannot be doubted. But to act as if we did everything right...that is a falsehood. General LeMay, speaking of the bombing of civilian populations in Japan, said that if Japan had won, he would have been tried for war crimes. Being the winner has a LOT to do with the narrative that follows the war. The winner gets to wear the white hats, no matter how stained their hands are with innocent blood.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Plans for battle get tossed out the window the moment the battle starts. Striking back against your attacker is an act of self-defense, not revenge. (But, I personally don't think revenge is all that bad. When it is channeled and moderated, it drives the achievement of justice.) I've noticed that being the loser has a lot to do with the narrative, too. Each country in charge of teaching its own history will, of course, depict itself in the most flattering light possible. To what degree actual facts and truth are included depends on the depth of corruption and denial. --A.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What is the principle I consider wise enough to guide my words when talking about the history of the world? My patriotism. How to I regard the patriotism of other people? As stupidity.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...