http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 494108.stm
Cheers,
Gaius
"A date which will live in infamy"
-
G. Trifkovic
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 20:26
- Location: The South-East
"A date which will live in infamy"
I noted this reference by Rommel_gaj to the 2004 anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and felt that the occasion should not pass by without comment on the continuing efforts to mitigate Japan’s guilt for what is still widely viewed as an act of treachery
I recently came across the obituary of Toshikazu Kaze who died on May 21, 2004. He was one of the Foreign Ministry staffers who helped draft the infamous 14-Part Message that was supposed to be delivered by Japanese diplomats Nomura and Kurusu to Secretary of State Cordell Hull immediately before the attack on Pearl Harbor. As it turned out, the 14-Part Message was not delivered until one hour after the attack on Pearl Harbor had begun.
An annoying aspect of this Japanese obituary were the words "declared war" in the following sentence:
"He (Toshikazu Kaze) helped draft the document in which Tokyo broke off negotiations with Washington and declared war."
The final 14-Part Message from Tokyo was neither a declaration of war nor a breaking of diplomatic relations with the United States. All that this document did was break off the discussions then taking place in Washington between Secretary Hull and Ambassador Nomura . The formal declaration of war against the United States (by Japan's Emperor Hirohito) did not occur until after Pearl Harbor was blazing, and at a time when Admiral Nagumo's six carriers were on their way back to Japan.
The character of the 14-Part Message is worth further attention in view of the incorrect statement in the obituary and the fact that the film "Tora! Tora! Tora!" has probably helped to reinforce this major historical error in the minds of younger generations.
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" is a splendid film in many ways, but this American-Japanese co-production has almost certainly contributed to distortion of the historical significance of the 14-Part Message. The film suggests that the Japanese intended to declare war immediately before the attack on Pearl Harbor; that the 14-Part Message was the vehicle for conveying that declaration of war; and that this intention was frustrated by grossly inefficient typing in the Japanese embassy in Washington.
If the TTT account is believed, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not intended by the Japanese to be either a "sneak attack" or "a treacherous stab in the back". This part of an otherwise splendid film is actually nonsense. Perhaps this distortion of history was done at the behest of the Japanese producers who put their money into the film.
The historical truth is that the military-dominated Japanese Government (and its emperor) always intended the attack on Pearl Harbor to be a surprise attack, and not preceded by a formal declaration of war. The diplomatic discussions in Washington were deliberately extended by Tokyo to keep the United States preoccupied with hope of a peaceful solution to tensions that had arisen over Japan’s unprovoked and brutal invasion of China. The 14-Part Message was not regarded by Japan in December 1941 as being equivalent to a formal declaration of war, but the Foreign Ministry wanted it delivered immediately before the attack on Pearl Harbor to avoid an accusation afterwards that the attack had been a treacherous stab in the back undertaken while diplomatic negotiations were still taking place in Washington.
The Pearl Harbor attack and the events preceding it, are well covered in Gordon W. Prange’s “At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor” (1981). For the wording of the final paragraph of the 14-Part Message see page 485 of the Penguin edition.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the historical path to this act of treachery, are covered (with illustrations) at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/pearlindex.html
I recently came across the obituary of Toshikazu Kaze who died on May 21, 2004. He was one of the Foreign Ministry staffers who helped draft the infamous 14-Part Message that was supposed to be delivered by Japanese diplomats Nomura and Kurusu to Secretary of State Cordell Hull immediately before the attack on Pearl Harbor. As it turned out, the 14-Part Message was not delivered until one hour after the attack on Pearl Harbor had begun.
An annoying aspect of this Japanese obituary were the words "declared war" in the following sentence:
"He (Toshikazu Kaze) helped draft the document in which Tokyo broke off negotiations with Washington and declared war."
The final 14-Part Message from Tokyo was neither a declaration of war nor a breaking of diplomatic relations with the United States. All that this document did was break off the discussions then taking place in Washington between Secretary Hull and Ambassador Nomura . The formal declaration of war against the United States (by Japan's Emperor Hirohito) did not occur until after Pearl Harbor was blazing, and at a time when Admiral Nagumo's six carriers were on their way back to Japan.
The character of the 14-Part Message is worth further attention in view of the incorrect statement in the obituary and the fact that the film "Tora! Tora! Tora!" has probably helped to reinforce this major historical error in the minds of younger generations.
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" is a splendid film in many ways, but this American-Japanese co-production has almost certainly contributed to distortion of the historical significance of the 14-Part Message. The film suggests that the Japanese intended to declare war immediately before the attack on Pearl Harbor; that the 14-Part Message was the vehicle for conveying that declaration of war; and that this intention was frustrated by grossly inefficient typing in the Japanese embassy in Washington.
If the TTT account is believed, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not intended by the Japanese to be either a "sneak attack" or "a treacherous stab in the back". This part of an otherwise splendid film is actually nonsense. Perhaps this distortion of history was done at the behest of the Japanese producers who put their money into the film.
The historical truth is that the military-dominated Japanese Government (and its emperor) always intended the attack on Pearl Harbor to be a surprise attack, and not preceded by a formal declaration of war. The diplomatic discussions in Washington were deliberately extended by Tokyo to keep the United States preoccupied with hope of a peaceful solution to tensions that had arisen over Japan’s unprovoked and brutal invasion of China. The 14-Part Message was not regarded by Japan in December 1941 as being equivalent to a formal declaration of war, but the Foreign Ministry wanted it delivered immediately before the attack on Pearl Harbor to avoid an accusation afterwards that the attack had been a treacherous stab in the back undertaken while diplomatic negotiations were still taking place in Washington.
The Pearl Harbor attack and the events preceding it, are well covered in Gordon W. Prange’s “At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor” (1981). For the wording of the final paragraph of the 14-Part Message see page 485 of the Penguin edition.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the historical path to this act of treachery, are covered (with illustrations) at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/pearlindex.html
America was never "preocupied with hopes of a peacefull solution". The embargo placed on Japan and the refusal by the Americans to then engage with the Japanese on a compromise solution instead demanding a complete Japanese humiliation meant war was inevitable.
Whether the embassy decoded the message in time or not is irelivant as the Americans had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and Roosevelt knew what the message said before the embassy. The 13th paragraph said "The (American) proposal menaces the Empires existance itself and disparages its honour and prestige" etc. It seems the Americans expected war as soon as they had their own translation.
The American Pacific fleet was placed on alert on the 27th of November. The Americans had also read the Japanese message to their Washington embassy which set the date limit of Nov.29th for negotiations beyond which "events would disintegrate into chaos" as a compromise could not be found and "events would occur of their own accord".
There is ample evidence America was expecting war in the Pacific and because of Japanese arrogance were able to push the Japanese into starting it. The form in which the Japanese delivered it was a complete suprise. It seems the Americans had forgotten the Russian Japanese war of 1905.
Whether the embassy decoded the message in time or not is irelivant as the Americans had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and Roosevelt knew what the message said before the embassy. The 13th paragraph said "The (American) proposal menaces the Empires existance itself and disparages its honour and prestige" etc. It seems the Americans expected war as soon as they had their own translation.
The American Pacific fleet was placed on alert on the 27th of November. The Americans had also read the Japanese message to their Washington embassy which set the date limit of Nov.29th for negotiations beyond which "events would disintegrate into chaos" as a compromise could not be found and "events would occur of their own accord".
There is ample evidence America was expecting war in the Pacific and because of Japanese arrogance were able to push the Japanese into starting it. The form in which the Japanese delivered it was a complete suprise. It seems the Americans had forgotten the Russian Japanese war of 1905.
A date which will live in infamy
Steve's post raises some interesting issues, and I will try to answer them.
Steve said:
"America was never 'preocupied with hopes of a peaceful solution.' "
I actually said that it was the Japanese who hoped to keep the Americans preoccupied with a peaceful solution while they positioned their carriers for the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt actually took the unprecedented step of sending a personal cable to Emperor Hirohito on the afternoon of 6 December 1941. In that cable, Roosevelt urged the Japanese emperor to explore a peaceful resolution of the tensions that had arisen between Japan and the United States. It appears that the Japanese took unusual administrative steps to ensure that the cable did not physically reach Hirohito until after the attack on Pearl Harbor had taken place. The delaying of the cable reaching the emperor is not surprising because Hirohito had personally approved the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the receipt of a personal entreaty for peace from Roosevelt would have been deeply embarrasing for Hirohito at that point of time.
Steve said:
"The embargo placed on Japan and the refusal by the Americans to then engage with the Japanese on a compromise solution instead demanding a complete Japanese humiliation meant war was inevitable."
President Roosevelt did not want war with Japan in 1941. As a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt was very well aware that the Imperial Japanese Navy was much more powerful than the American Pacific Fleet which had been allowed to run down over two decades of isolationism.
Since 1937, the Japanese had been slaughtering, raping and looting in China. They murdered at least 200,00 Chinese civilians and POWs in Nanking (now Nanjing) after, and I emphasise 'after', the Chinese capital fell to Japanese troops in 1937.
The Japanese had already got away with invading and annexing China's very large Manchurian region and Jehol Province without incurring international sanctions. The Americans tried diplomacy for a couple of years after 1937, and the Japanese simply thumbed their noses. After the bombing and machine-gunning of the American gunboat Panay in the Yangtse River (the Panay was escorting merchant cargo boats up the river), American views hardened and first-stage sanctions were introduced in an attempt to persuade Japan to halt its brutal and unprovoked invasion of China. Once again, the Japanese thumbved their noses.
It was Japan's invasion of French Indo-China that caused America to invoke its own full-scale economic sanctions against Japan. So the American response to Japan's military aggression was a graduated and peaceful one. Unfortunately, it failed because the militarists dominating Japan's government in 1941 (such as General Hideki Tojo) actually wanted war with America.
Steve said:
"There is ample evidence America was expecting war in the Pacific and because of Japanese arrogance were able to push the Japanese into starting it."
I don't think "push" is appropriate in this context. For the reasons explained above, the Americans did not want war with Japan in 1941. At that time, their navy was still largely composed of elderly warships dating from the World War I era, and as the self-appointed "arsenal of democracy", American industry was very heavily committed to supplying weapons and equipment for use by the British and Australians against Germany and Italy in North Africa and the Middle East. The Americans were expecting war in the Pacific on 6 December 1941, but they do not appear to have anticipated an attack on Pearl Harbor. The US Navy war warning of 27 November 1941 stressed that "an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days". This alert warned commands that the most likely focus for an attack was Borneo, the Kra peninsula, or the Philippines. The warning did not mention Pearl Harbor. General MacArthur appears to have ignored the warning, and as a result, American air power in the Far East was largely destroyed on the ground when the Japanese attacked the Philippines.
[/i]
Steve said:
"America was never 'preocupied with hopes of a peaceful solution.' "
I actually said that it was the Japanese who hoped to keep the Americans preoccupied with a peaceful solution while they positioned their carriers for the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt actually took the unprecedented step of sending a personal cable to Emperor Hirohito on the afternoon of 6 December 1941. In that cable, Roosevelt urged the Japanese emperor to explore a peaceful resolution of the tensions that had arisen between Japan and the United States. It appears that the Japanese took unusual administrative steps to ensure that the cable did not physically reach Hirohito until after the attack on Pearl Harbor had taken place. The delaying of the cable reaching the emperor is not surprising because Hirohito had personally approved the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the receipt of a personal entreaty for peace from Roosevelt would have been deeply embarrasing for Hirohito at that point of time.
Steve said:
"The embargo placed on Japan and the refusal by the Americans to then engage with the Japanese on a compromise solution instead demanding a complete Japanese humiliation meant war was inevitable."
President Roosevelt did not want war with Japan in 1941. As a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt was very well aware that the Imperial Japanese Navy was much more powerful than the American Pacific Fleet which had been allowed to run down over two decades of isolationism.
Since 1937, the Japanese had been slaughtering, raping and looting in China. They murdered at least 200,00 Chinese civilians and POWs in Nanking (now Nanjing) after, and I emphasise 'after', the Chinese capital fell to Japanese troops in 1937.
The Japanese had already got away with invading and annexing China's very large Manchurian region and Jehol Province without incurring international sanctions. The Americans tried diplomacy for a couple of years after 1937, and the Japanese simply thumbed their noses. After the bombing and machine-gunning of the American gunboat Panay in the Yangtse River (the Panay was escorting merchant cargo boats up the river), American views hardened and first-stage sanctions were introduced in an attempt to persuade Japan to halt its brutal and unprovoked invasion of China. Once again, the Japanese thumbved their noses.
It was Japan's invasion of French Indo-China that caused America to invoke its own full-scale economic sanctions against Japan. So the American response to Japan's military aggression was a graduated and peaceful one. Unfortunately, it failed because the militarists dominating Japan's government in 1941 (such as General Hideki Tojo) actually wanted war with America.
Steve said:
"There is ample evidence America was expecting war in the Pacific and because of Japanese arrogance were able to push the Japanese into starting it."
I don't think "push" is appropriate in this context. For the reasons explained above, the Americans did not want war with Japan in 1941. At that time, their navy was still largely composed of elderly warships dating from the World War I era, and as the self-appointed "arsenal of democracy", American industry was very heavily committed to supplying weapons and equipment for use by the British and Australians against Germany and Italy in North Africa and the Middle East. The Americans were expecting war in the Pacific on 6 December 1941, but they do not appear to have anticipated an attack on Pearl Harbor. The US Navy war warning of 27 November 1941 stressed that "an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days". This alert warned commands that the most likely focus for an attack was Borneo, the Kra peninsula, or the Philippines. The warning did not mention Pearl Harbor. General MacArthur appears to have ignored the warning, and as a result, American air power in the Far East was largely destroyed on the ground when the Japanese attacked the Philippines.
[/i]
The reason war in the Pacific started was the embargo imposed on Japan and the conditions made for its lifting. These conditions meant a total humiliation for Japan and to have seriously believed the Japanese would accept these conditions shows either an extreme lack of knowledge of the Japanese or something else.
The American Ambassador in Japan Grew cabled Secretary of State Hull on Nov.3rd "make no mistake the Japanese are capable of launching a suicide war with the United States. Self interest should prevent them doing so; but Japanese national self interest cannot be assesed according to the cannons of our logic". Lack of knowledge among American diplomats of the Japanese mentality is unlikely given also the Japanese record over the preceding years.
It is interesting to look at how the Americans handled the Japanese take over of Indo China which brought about the embargo.
The Japanese made their demands to Vichy on June 14th within 24 hours the American Ambassador was informed of them. According to Vichy documents on July 16th the Ambassador "in the course of conversations with Marshall Petain informed him that there were no grounds for thinking that the American Government was disposed to reconsider the passive attitude adopted by the state department following the first Japanese intervention in 1940". The subsequent action of freezing Japanese assets in the United States on July 26th makes no sense given what they had told Vichy. It would have made sense if the Americans had warned the Japanese to lay of the French and of the consequences if not, unless of course they wanted the Japanese to go ahead.
On September 6th Roosevelt refused to meet the Japanese Prime Minister and sending a telegram to the Emperor shows at face value a strange misunderstanding of how the Japanese Government worked. It took two atomic bombs before he would intervene directly in 1945.
The Secretary of War Harry Stimson made the following entry in his diary on November 25th "how could the Japanese be got into a position where they would have to fire the first shot and without leaving ourselves to exposed? that was the question".
The American Ambassador in Japan Grew cabled Secretary of State Hull on Nov.3rd "make no mistake the Japanese are capable of launching a suicide war with the United States. Self interest should prevent them doing so; but Japanese national self interest cannot be assesed according to the cannons of our logic". Lack of knowledge among American diplomats of the Japanese mentality is unlikely given also the Japanese record over the preceding years.
It is interesting to look at how the Americans handled the Japanese take over of Indo China which brought about the embargo.
The Japanese made their demands to Vichy on June 14th within 24 hours the American Ambassador was informed of them. According to Vichy documents on July 16th the Ambassador "in the course of conversations with Marshall Petain informed him that there were no grounds for thinking that the American Government was disposed to reconsider the passive attitude adopted by the state department following the first Japanese intervention in 1940". The subsequent action of freezing Japanese assets in the United States on July 26th makes no sense given what they had told Vichy. It would have made sense if the Americans had warned the Japanese to lay of the French and of the consequences if not, unless of course they wanted the Japanese to go ahead.
On September 6th Roosevelt refused to meet the Japanese Prime Minister and sending a telegram to the Emperor shows at face value a strange misunderstanding of how the Japanese Government worked. It took two atomic bombs before he would intervene directly in 1945.
The Secretary of War Harry Stimson made the following entry in his diary on November 25th "how could the Japanese be got into a position where they would have to fire the first shot and without leaving ourselves to exposed? that was the question".
A date which will live in infamy.
Steve's post of 22 December calls for a couple of comments.
Steve said:
"On September 6th Roosevelt refused to meet the Japanese Prime Minister and sending a telegram to the Emperor shows at face value a strange misunderstanding of how the Japanese Government worked. It took two atomic bombs before he would intervene directly in 1945."
There were sound reasons of policy behind Roosevelt declining to meet Prince Konoye in Hawaii. There was no way in which Roosevelt could achieve positive results for America from such a meeting.
Roosevelt was well aware that Konoye only held the office of Prime Minister of Japan at the pleasure of the military dominated government. If Konoye made meaningful concessions to the United States, Roosevelt knew that the Japanese military would not accept them, and Konoye would face dismissal by the military and a very real possibility of assassination on his return to Tokyo. The Americans preferred to work with Konoye rather than someone the military would choose to replace him.
If Roosevelt failed to persuade the Japanese to halt their aggression in East Asia, he was concerned that the Hawaii meeting would look like a second Munich and that he would lose the confidence of the American people. Moreover, Roosevelt knew that such a meeting would have a crushing effect on the morale of the Chinese in their long struggle to survive Japanese aggression since 1937.
Ambassador Nomura actually thought the Roosevelt peace cable on 6 December 1941 was a brilliant stratagem on the part of the Americans. As Hirohito must have personally approved the attack on Pearl Harbor, receipt of that cable before the attack took place would have placed Hirohito in a very embarrassing position. For that reason, the cable was administratively delayed in Tokyo to spare the emperor embarrassment.
As to Hirohito's role in Japan prior to 1945, Professor Bix has shown in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Hirohito that the Japanese emperor played a far more influential role in his government than the Allies were led to believe after the surrender in 1945 and, as commander in chief of the military, Hirohito personally directed the conduct of the war from 1937 to 1945. To save the emperor from trial as a war criminal, he was falsely represented to have been only a figurehead. This lie was readily accepted by General MacArthur because it saved him from putting Hirohito on trial as a war criminal and enabled him to rule Japan through the emperor.
Steve said:
"The Secretary of War Harry Stimson made the following entry in his diary on November 25th 'how could the Japanese be got into a position where they would have to fire the first shot and without leaving ourselves to exposed? that was the question'.
Unless Prange has incorrectly recorded the meeting of Roosevelt's War Council on 25 November 1941 in "At Dawn We Slept", I think you have taken a part of Secretary of War Stimson's record out of its correct context and produced an incorrect impression that the Americans were spoiling for a fight with the Japanese but wanted to manipulate the Japanese into firing the first shot.
Prange says (at page 371):
"Japanese-American relations dominated a meeting of Roosevelt and his War Council held at noon on November 25. As Stimson described it, the President 'brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday, for the Japs are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves' ".
When quoted in full, it is clear that Roosevelt apprehended an early Japanese attack but wanted to ensure that the Japanese were clearly shown to be the aggressors by permitting them to fire the first shot unless the risk to the United States was too great to permit such a course. I see nothing in that particular War Council record to suggest that Roosevelt wanted to provoke the Japanese into attacking the United States.
Steve said:
"On September 6th Roosevelt refused to meet the Japanese Prime Minister and sending a telegram to the Emperor shows at face value a strange misunderstanding of how the Japanese Government worked. It took two atomic bombs before he would intervene directly in 1945."
There were sound reasons of policy behind Roosevelt declining to meet Prince Konoye in Hawaii. There was no way in which Roosevelt could achieve positive results for America from such a meeting.
Roosevelt was well aware that Konoye only held the office of Prime Minister of Japan at the pleasure of the military dominated government. If Konoye made meaningful concessions to the United States, Roosevelt knew that the Japanese military would not accept them, and Konoye would face dismissal by the military and a very real possibility of assassination on his return to Tokyo. The Americans preferred to work with Konoye rather than someone the military would choose to replace him.
If Roosevelt failed to persuade the Japanese to halt their aggression in East Asia, he was concerned that the Hawaii meeting would look like a second Munich and that he would lose the confidence of the American people. Moreover, Roosevelt knew that such a meeting would have a crushing effect on the morale of the Chinese in their long struggle to survive Japanese aggression since 1937.
Ambassador Nomura actually thought the Roosevelt peace cable on 6 December 1941 was a brilliant stratagem on the part of the Americans. As Hirohito must have personally approved the attack on Pearl Harbor, receipt of that cable before the attack took place would have placed Hirohito in a very embarrassing position. For that reason, the cable was administratively delayed in Tokyo to spare the emperor embarrassment.
As to Hirohito's role in Japan prior to 1945, Professor Bix has shown in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Hirohito that the Japanese emperor played a far more influential role in his government than the Allies were led to believe after the surrender in 1945 and, as commander in chief of the military, Hirohito personally directed the conduct of the war from 1937 to 1945. To save the emperor from trial as a war criminal, he was falsely represented to have been only a figurehead. This lie was readily accepted by General MacArthur because it saved him from putting Hirohito on trial as a war criminal and enabled him to rule Japan through the emperor.
Steve said:
"The Secretary of War Harry Stimson made the following entry in his diary on November 25th 'how could the Japanese be got into a position where they would have to fire the first shot and without leaving ourselves to exposed? that was the question'.
Unless Prange has incorrectly recorded the meeting of Roosevelt's War Council on 25 November 1941 in "At Dawn We Slept", I think you have taken a part of Secretary of War Stimson's record out of its correct context and produced an incorrect impression that the Americans were spoiling for a fight with the Japanese but wanted to manipulate the Japanese into firing the first shot.
Prange says (at page 371):
"Japanese-American relations dominated a meeting of Roosevelt and his War Council held at noon on November 25. As Stimson described it, the President 'brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday, for the Japs are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves' ".
When quoted in full, it is clear that Roosevelt apprehended an early Japanese attack but wanted to ensure that the Japanese were clearly shown to be the aggressors by permitting them to fire the first shot unless the risk to the United States was too great to permit such a course. I see nothing in that particular War Council record to suggest that Roosevelt wanted to provoke the Japanese into attacking the United States.
Are you saying that the United States, or any other nation for that matter, is required by some international law or agreement to maintain trade relations with another nation with whose foreign, or even internal policies, it strongly disagrees? Bet the old South African regime or the Rhodesia or Cuba or Iran or . . . pick one . . . would be glad to hear that. So all these trade embagoes or sanctions by one nation or group of nations to try to get another to stop doing whatever it is doing are null, void, and unenforceable?The reason war in the Pacific started was the embargo imposed on Japan and the conditions made for its lifting.
Are you saying if the failure to comply with this great mandatory trade requirement by establishing an embargo results in war then it is the fault of the embargoer and the embargoee is absolved of blame?
Interesting.
So if the US, and I'd point out Great Britain, its Commonwealth, and the Netherlands Gov't in exile as well, all decide to embargo trade with Japan over (1) its foreign policies, specifically the on-going war with China (2) a perception on their part that the Japanese intervention in Indochina was unlawful and regionally destabilizing, and (3) faced with demands by Japan that said countries WILL maintain trade or face the consequences, then they are at fault for exercising their sovereign rights to show their displeasure at 1, 2, and 3 above by enacting an embargo?
My, my, again, what an interesting concept. Poor, poor put upon Japanese, couldn't get their way so they went to war, all by themselves, and it's the fault of the countries that THEY attacked.
And "Face" be damned. The way out of their situation was staring them in the Face. If anyone was looking for an excuse to go to war it was the Japanese. They chose poorly.
You know, I'd like my bank to put a million in my account, but they won't do it. Do you suppose I could convince a court that my stealing said million from them is their fault because they were mean to me and wouldn't give me what I wanted?
Rich
While one can hardly claim that the Japanese goverment was blameless in the matter, the United staes did engage in a number of actions that were certain to increase the likehood of war. The embargo on strategic materials, policy statements that told the Japanese that investment by thier country in the nations of Central and South America would be considered violations of the Monroe doctrine and could be dealt with by force, niether are exactly dfesigned to ensure peace.
FDR's adminsitration took a hard line pose with Japan. There was nothing inherently worng with this, that's part of politics. That Japan responded is also part of poltics. They were clearly the aggresor in the war, but America was in no way an innocent peacful party who had done nothing to create the situation.
FDR's adminsitration took a hard line pose with Japan. There was nothing inherently worng with this, that's part of politics. That Japan responded is also part of poltics. They were clearly the aggresor in the war, but America was in no way an innocent peacful party who had done nothing to create the situation.
Did the US invade China?
Was the US engaging in a war that included the up close and personal wholesale murder and rape of civilian populations?
Did the US demand that the NEI oil production be reserved for them or face the consequences?
Was the Monroe Doctrine something never before articulated?
Corollary – Did the US have strategic interests in Central and South America that it would be consider to threatened by the activities an outside party? Can you say “Panama Canal”?
Were the British and the Dutch comfortable with depending on the already exhibited benevolence and willingness to compromise of the Japanese?
And what would you have them do? Wring their hands and send polite notes “please don’t do that”?
And how would you expect them, short of war itself, to get the attention of the Japanese?
Nothing the US did, dark reaches of conspiracies aside, was outside standard operating procedure for any nation state.
The Japanese led the trip down the road to their own destruction.
Was the US engaging in a war that included the up close and personal wholesale murder and rape of civilian populations?
Did the US demand that the NEI oil production be reserved for them or face the consequences?
Was the Monroe Doctrine something never before articulated?
Corollary – Did the US have strategic interests in Central and South America that it would be consider to threatened by the activities an outside party? Can you say “Panama Canal”?
Were the British and the Dutch comfortable with depending on the already exhibited benevolence and willingness to compromise of the Japanese?
And what would you have them do? Wring their hands and send polite notes “please don’t do that”?
And how would you expect them, short of war itself, to get the attention of the Japanese?
Nothing the US did, dark reaches of conspiracies aside, was outside standard operating procedure for any nation state.
The Japanese led the trip down the road to their own destruction.
I think the readers of this thread would appreciate this book that (miracle!) is freely avaible on internet: J. Marshall, To Have and Have Not: Southeast Asian Raw Materials and the Origins of the Pacific War, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1995.
did the US have strategic and national interests that needed protected in Central and South America, sure. Did it also have a strong desire to maintain an economic stranglehold over said areas? equaly true. did the US feel that it had a superior claim to acting in the area, and didn't want "foreign elements" conflicting with that? absolutly.
Did Japan have strategic and national interests in China and south east Asia? yes. Did it also have a strong desire to maintain an economic stranglehold over said areas? well that is true as well. did Japan feel that it had a superior claim to acting in the area, and didn't want "foreign elements" conflicting with that? absolutly.
Both countires in normal pursuit of their interests, made decsions that put them on a collision course. Add in a signifigant misunderstanding of the other country's view point (and a huge heaping dose of racism coloring the matters) and things were going to go bad.
Japan was not alone in creating the crisis, nor was it alone in escalating it. They did shoot first, that is undeniable, but they weren't just monsters acting in a void. This dance most assuredly had two partners.
while it might be comforting to cling to illusions of a saintly pure America, it isn't what really happned and is counter productive to a rational study of history.
Did Japan have strategic and national interests in China and south east Asia? yes. Did it also have a strong desire to maintain an economic stranglehold over said areas? well that is true as well. did Japan feel that it had a superior claim to acting in the area, and didn't want "foreign elements" conflicting with that? absolutly.
Both countires in normal pursuit of their interests, made decsions that put them on a collision course. Add in a signifigant misunderstanding of the other country's view point (and a huge heaping dose of racism coloring the matters) and things were going to go bad.
Japan was not alone in creating the crisis, nor was it alone in escalating it. They did shoot first, that is undeniable, but they weren't just monsters acting in a void. This dance most assuredly had two partners.
while it might be comforting to cling to illusions of a saintly pure America, it isn't what really happned and is counter productive to a rational study of history.
"A date which will live in infamy"
I find it difficult to believe that Beth Brown can equate the behaviour of Japan and the United States in 1941.
Beth Brown says:
"Both countires in normal pursuit of their interests, made decsions that put them on a collision course. Add in a signifigant misunderstanding of the other country's view point (and a huge heaping dose of racism coloring the matters) and things were going to go bad."
First of all, I concede that the United States had vital economic interests in the Far East to protect. The United States was also responsible for the defence of the Philippines until that country achieved its promised full independence in 1946. The Japanese Prime Minister Prince Konoye announced in November 1938 that China would be incorporated into Japan's Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. Almost immediately, the Japanese took steps to destroy all foreign businesses in Japanese-occupied China, including American. The Japanese blockaded the foreign concessions in China and forced Americans and other foreigners, including women, to submit to humiliating public stripping and searching. Shortly afterwards, the Philippines, and South East Asia were added to the Greater east Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese announced that any country refusing incorporation would be treated by them as an enemy.
Was it really unreasonable for the United States to respond to this outrageous behaviour by imposing its first economic sanction on Japan: giving notice that at the expiration of six months it would terminate its Treaty of Commerce with Japan?
I am glad that Beth Brown raises the issue of racism. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the indoctrination of Japanese military recruits after 1936 was the teaching that Chinese were "chancorro", or sub-human, and that the killing of Chinese was of no greater significance than the killing of vermin.
Beth Brown goes on to say:
"Japan was not alone in creating the crisis, nor was it alone in escalating it. They did shoot first, that is undeniable, but they weren't just monsters acting in a void. This dance most assuredly had two partners."
So Beth Brown again equates American and Japanese behaviour in 1941, and claims the Japanese did not behave like monsters when they stamped across the countries of East Asia and the western Pacific. Let's look at the historical truth!
Between 1937 and 1943, Japanese military aggression spread across East Asia and the Pacific region like a hideous stain. Slaughter, looting, rape, and other forms of appalling brutality, accompanied the conquerors as each country fell victim to the Japanese war machine.
Historians outside Japan estimate that at least five million captive foreign civilians and prisoners of war were brutally murdered by the Japanese military between 1937 and 1945. To that figure, can be added hundreds of thousands of victims who were slowly murdered by starvation, disease, and beatings in Japanese prisoner of war and internment camps, and hundreds of thousands of women who were brutally raped by Japanese soldiers. The appalling rape figure includes two hundred thousand women in Japanese-occupied countries who were forced into sexual slavery in Japanese Imperial Army brothels.
It is well documented that the Japanese killed and ate captured American and Australian prisoners of war in the Pacific islands.
Imperial Japanese troops did not hesitate to slaughter babies in any of the countries that they conquered. After raping foreign women, Japanese soldiers frequently mutilated and murdered them. On these last two points, see Iris Chang's "Rape of Nanking".
Before Beth Brown continues to equate the behaviour of Japanese and Americans between 1937 and 1945, I urge her to view the text and historical references at the following website:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/battlefora ... Intro.html
It will become apparent that the Imperial Japanese military behaved like wild beasts of prey, not only towards the Chinese whom they despised as vermin, but towards the people of every country that they conquered.
I am not American but I admire America, and I take strong exception to a false equation of the behaviour of Japan and the United States between 1937 and Pearl Harbor.
Beth Brown says:
"Both countires in normal pursuit of their interests, made decsions that put them on a collision course. Add in a signifigant misunderstanding of the other country's view point (and a huge heaping dose of racism coloring the matters) and things were going to go bad."
First of all, I concede that the United States had vital economic interests in the Far East to protect. The United States was also responsible for the defence of the Philippines until that country achieved its promised full independence in 1946. The Japanese Prime Minister Prince Konoye announced in November 1938 that China would be incorporated into Japan's Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. Almost immediately, the Japanese took steps to destroy all foreign businesses in Japanese-occupied China, including American. The Japanese blockaded the foreign concessions in China and forced Americans and other foreigners, including women, to submit to humiliating public stripping and searching. Shortly afterwards, the Philippines, and South East Asia were added to the Greater east Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese announced that any country refusing incorporation would be treated by them as an enemy.
Was it really unreasonable for the United States to respond to this outrageous behaviour by imposing its first economic sanction on Japan: giving notice that at the expiration of six months it would terminate its Treaty of Commerce with Japan?
I am glad that Beth Brown raises the issue of racism. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the indoctrination of Japanese military recruits after 1936 was the teaching that Chinese were "chancorro", or sub-human, and that the killing of Chinese was of no greater significance than the killing of vermin.
Beth Brown goes on to say:
"Japan was not alone in creating the crisis, nor was it alone in escalating it. They did shoot first, that is undeniable, but they weren't just monsters acting in a void. This dance most assuredly had two partners."
So Beth Brown again equates American and Japanese behaviour in 1941, and claims the Japanese did not behave like monsters when they stamped across the countries of East Asia and the western Pacific. Let's look at the historical truth!
Between 1937 and 1943, Japanese military aggression spread across East Asia and the Pacific region like a hideous stain. Slaughter, looting, rape, and other forms of appalling brutality, accompanied the conquerors as each country fell victim to the Japanese war machine.
Historians outside Japan estimate that at least five million captive foreign civilians and prisoners of war were brutally murdered by the Japanese military between 1937 and 1945. To that figure, can be added hundreds of thousands of victims who were slowly murdered by starvation, disease, and beatings in Japanese prisoner of war and internment camps, and hundreds of thousands of women who were brutally raped by Japanese soldiers. The appalling rape figure includes two hundred thousand women in Japanese-occupied countries who were forced into sexual slavery in Japanese Imperial Army brothels.
It is well documented that the Japanese killed and ate captured American and Australian prisoners of war in the Pacific islands.
Imperial Japanese troops did not hesitate to slaughter babies in any of the countries that they conquered. After raping foreign women, Japanese soldiers frequently mutilated and murdered them. On these last two points, see Iris Chang's "Rape of Nanking".
Before Beth Brown continues to equate the behaviour of Japanese and Americans between 1937 and 1945, I urge her to view the text and historical references at the following website:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/battlefora ... Intro.html
It will become apparent that the Imperial Japanese military behaved like wild beasts of prey, not only towards the Chinese whom they despised as vermin, but towards the people of every country that they conquered.
I am not American but I admire America, and I take strong exception to a false equation of the behaviour of Japan and the United States between 1937 and Pearl Harbor.
I agree completely with what you've said, JamesNo1.
I recall of an Operation by the 17th Airborne Division, if I'm not mistaken. I'm unsure of the Island, but prior to their mission one veteran recalled a meeting engagement, where one man was left behind, dead. He said that when they recovered the body, the Japanese had been cutting steaks out of him. I don't believe it to be a figure of speech.
The actual Operation was to rescue a group of American Civilians who had been interned in a POW camp. Apparently the Japanese Commandant took great pleasure in their suffering. One example was, that he would force men, emaciated by starvation to carry sacks of rice, greater than their own weight into the camp. He would then proceed to change his mind, and force those same men to carry the bags back. Unfortunately, when the Airborne units raided the camp, he and seven guards escaped. Later, one of the civilians noticed the Commandant working as part of a work detail on the same island. After informing the guards of his atrocities during that time, the Commandant was put on trial and executed.
When I hear stories like this, it becomes really difficult to interpret any sense of Japanese honor, that was consistant among the military. Now, perhaps they can justify virtually anything done against a surrendered enemy, since as I understand it, from a Japanese point, they have no honor. But, then men like the one listed above tried melt into the mass of defeated Japanese military, and to hide from the consquences of their actions. It all just seems highly dishonorable to me.
I recall of an Operation by the 17th Airborne Division, if I'm not mistaken. I'm unsure of the Island, but prior to their mission one veteran recalled a meeting engagement, where one man was left behind, dead. He said that when they recovered the body, the Japanese had been cutting steaks out of him. I don't believe it to be a figure of speech.
The actual Operation was to rescue a group of American Civilians who had been interned in a POW camp. Apparently the Japanese Commandant took great pleasure in their suffering. One example was, that he would force men, emaciated by starvation to carry sacks of rice, greater than their own weight into the camp. He would then proceed to change his mind, and force those same men to carry the bags back. Unfortunately, when the Airborne units raided the camp, he and seven guards escaped. Later, one of the civilians noticed the Commandant working as part of a work detail on the same island. After informing the guards of his atrocities during that time, the Commandant was put on trial and executed.
When I hear stories like this, it becomes really difficult to interpret any sense of Japanese honor, that was consistant among the military. Now, perhaps they can justify virtually anything done against a surrendered enemy, since as I understand it, from a Japanese point, they have no honor. But, then men like the one listed above tried melt into the mass of defeated Japanese military, and to hide from the consquences of their actions. It all just seems highly dishonorable to me.
Well, you see, James, it’s like this . . .
“Oh, Hell, Oh, Spite!” Fie, Fie, Fie, those greedy, money grubbing, evil, capitalist, hell spawned imperialist, Americans.
Imagine, forcing the innocent Japanese to travel all the way from Hokkaido to Hawaii just to raid Pearl Harbor without first even bothering to declare war. And imagine how tough that was with no prior planning, just a spur of the moment jaunt off to sea to save the poor Central and South Americans from the US despots.
Yes, it was those same awful Americans who were bombing the villages of all the nations of South and Central America, stealing anything not nailed down, burning their babies, raping their women, using their men for bayonet practice, and, when feeling particularly frisky, seeing how many heads they could lop off before tiring or wearing out a blade. Oh, did I mention the deliberate spread of plague amongst the population? And shoot, with all those folks dead or dying at the hands of the evil Americans there certainly was no need to let the natives' crops go to waste, now, was there. Yes, they were awful, weren’t they?
And, of course, it was the brave and innocent Japanese who attacked the Americans to distract them from their evil deeds and make they turn their attention from their hideously subjugated southern neighbors.
Ah, the benefits of the American education.
Regards,
Rich
“Oh, Hell, Oh, Spite!” Fie, Fie, Fie, those greedy, money grubbing, evil, capitalist, hell spawned imperialist, Americans.
Imagine, forcing the innocent Japanese to travel all the way from Hokkaido to Hawaii just to raid Pearl Harbor without first even bothering to declare war. And imagine how tough that was with no prior planning, just a spur of the moment jaunt off to sea to save the poor Central and South Americans from the US despots.
Yes, it was those same awful Americans who were bombing the villages of all the nations of South and Central America, stealing anything not nailed down, burning their babies, raping their women, using their men for bayonet practice, and, when feeling particularly frisky, seeing how many heads they could lop off before tiring or wearing out a blade. Oh, did I mention the deliberate spread of plague amongst the population? And shoot, with all those folks dead or dying at the hands of the evil Americans there certainly was no need to let the natives' crops go to waste, now, was there. Yes, they were awful, weren’t they?
And, of course, it was the brave and innocent Japanese who attacked the Americans to distract them from their evil deeds and make they turn their attention from their hideously subjugated southern neighbors.
Ah, the benefits of the American education.
Regards,
Rich