Posted on 12/07/2020 4:51:32 AM PST by EyesOfTX
The origins of the Pearl Harbor attack can be traced back to 1853 when the United States essentially forced a feudal Japan to open trade via Commodore Matthew Perry’s squadron of armed ships. Japan, at that time was very much like much of Europe was centuries before with warlords using the obsolete sword as the primary weapon of war duking it out among their various tribes with little central control. This forced Japan out of some 250 years of self-imposed isolation from the rest of the world and they opened one port for international trade. Other nations, including Russia soon followed trading with Japan.
Japan’s leadership saw how far they were behind in weaponry and understood they were vulnerable to becoming a dominated colony. Unlike China and the Philippines and even America’s Native Americans they decided it was far better off to unite and be able to defend their homeland rather than be subjugated under another nation’s rule.
Of the seven major powers in World War II, only England was a mature nation with centuries of consistent governance. It took until the middle 1800s for America (1865 and many years after to recover from the Civil War), Japan (1868), and Italy and Germany to become unified nations. The ruling dynasties of Russia and China had collapsed by 1917 and the 1920s, respectively. Japan, once unified, took great pains to ‘catch up’ with western technology and essentially armed itself to the teeth to make it very costly for any power to colonize them. That coupled with their islands having virtually no exploitable resources ensured their independence on the world stage.
Throughout this period England had the most powerful navy and it only made sense that Japan would emulate it and in fact formed an alliance and a trading partnership with England. Originally warships and other weapons were imported, studied and copied and once their industrial base became developed, they built their own. England and other European Powers were happy to have another customer for its military accoutrements and with the purchaser on the other side of Asia they did not feel threatened. This was also the time when wooden sailing ships were being replaced by steel and coal power and other modern technologies from which Japan benefitted greatly.
Within twenty-seven years Japan embarked on being a colonial power and fought their first war with China where they gained Formosa (Taiwan) at little cost. Ten years later (1904-5), seeing the building of the Russian Trans-Siberian Railroad as a threat, they launched a sneak attack on Russia and opened their second conflict without a formal declaration of war against a neighbor. They were unbelievably successful and defeated what was considered a first-class western power and navy; the world took notice.
Troubles with America began brewing at about this time and would fester for the next four decades until that fateful “Day of Infamy”. The highlights are:
Late 1800s, America acquired the Philippines which was viewed as a threat
Theodore Roosevelt intervened in the Russo-Japanese War and was and forced the Treaty of Portsmouth on Japan which halted the war, but was seen as another unwelcome intervention. The peace deal greatly benefitted Japan at the time because they were still very weak economically and even winning was bankrupting them. As an ally of England Japan defeated Germany in 1918 and gained many German colonies in the central Pacific at little cost by being on the right side. In 1921-2, the United States forced a naval arms limitation treaty on the Japanese which ultimately saved Japan from going broke and America from embarking on an expensive arms race. Japan and America were the only two countries not severely impacted by World War I and the other naval powers had no ability to engage in such a race. Japan wanted naval parity but was forced to accept second rate naval status; they greatly resented being limited to building 60% of what the United States and Great Brittan could. America, through its diplomacy, forced a fracturing of the Anglo-Japan trade and arms alliance further exacerbating the deteriorating relations. However, England still sent military equipment and a training – most notably in naval aviation – commission to Japan. America’s purpose was to prevent Japan and England ganging up on the US Navy from the Atlantic and Pacific in a continued alliance – we still were not all that friendly with England post World War I. America passed very restrictive immigration laws in the 1920s severely limiting Japanese immigration, and later during the Depression enacted trade tariffs which destroyed Japanese exports to the United States. While Japan was embracing capitalism and modern ways, their centuries old traditions were always in the forefront especially regarding the tradition of the emperor and racial purity. When the worldwide Depression hit, Japan was among the hardest hit. The militant wing of the military gradually took over and much of the nominal civilian control of their government was run by assignation throughout the thirties. The cause of much of this upheaval was the near total autonomy granted to the army and navy and the perceived failing of western capitalism as an economic system. In short, during the 1930s Tokyo could not control the Army and the Army could not control its mid-level officers when they were stationed next to Mongolia, China and the USSR.
These hotheads provoked border clashes with all three nations. In 1930, another naval arms treaty was forced upon Japan which was even more unpopular with its hawks in the navy. In 1931 army officers precipitated the Manchuria ‘incident’. The result was a large territorial gain with some resources but international condemnation. Ultimately this led to Japan walking out on the worthless League of Nations when they were condemned by the body in 1934. At around this time Japan also quit the naval treaty restrictions as of 1936. Japan was rapidly becoming a rogue nation and was seen as a regional bully. With the depression deepening, the hotheads in the military never being sanctioned by their superiors and gaining ever more power, Japan saw its destiny as being the leader of the Orient, they had their own version of lebensraum (living space), which was dubbed “The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” with the ultimate goal of driving out the European colonial powers.
In 1937 another boarder ‘incident’ was provoked, this time with China which was embroiled in its own civil war and was always seen as being weak since the collapse of its running dynasty decades earlier. This conflict resulted in an eight-year quagmire with no victory, great losses, and a near premature war with the United States. Only a massive diplomatic apology for sinking a US Navy gunboat, the Panay, averted open conflict.
Soon thereafter, there was another boarder clash – this time with the USSR – and the Japanese Army got its nose bloodied and quickly sued for peace and later signed a long-term non-aggression pact with Stalin. This ‘incident’, as Japan liked to call their undeclared wars was a disaster for her because it forced the permanent deployment of over half its army to defend against a feared USSR attack and paralyzed their military doctrine which effectively reduced their ability to fight America in the Pacific.
Japan soon thereafter allied with Germany and Italy, by formally joining the Axis. Further incursions into China caused the United States to begin trade embargoes on vital resources. When Japan’s Army bullied its way into French Indochina (Vietnam) in July of 1941 to gain a key staging point, Roosevelt got the world to cut off all oil supply to Japan. This was intolerable and Japan was going to have to either accede to America’s demands which included leaving ALL of China in order to get the oil and other resource trade resumed or fight. Even without the embargo Japan was going to default on foreign trade by 1942. The only way to stave off economic disaster was territorial expansion and take the resources it needed to achieve hegemony and self-sufficiency. Being in a similar circumstance as Germany in 1938, they followed Hitler’s route to war and national destruction.
Japan’s initial targets were England’s Malaysia, Singapore and Burma and the Netherlands’ (Dutch) East Indies in order for it to survive as an independent nation and not a colony under the Allies’ thumb. As events transpired, France had fallen which allowed for the bloodless grab of their Indochina colony which gave them a vital operation base for future expansion. The Netherlands likewise fell to Hitler and their oil producing islands were ripe for conquest. England was known to be extremely weak in Asia and was fighting for its very existence, so her prized colonies were also vulnerable. Furthermore, in late 1941 the USSR was on the brink of collapse and not a threat at that time. All these ambitions could have been successfully realized at this time except for one major problem.
That problem was the United States and its Philippine possession which laid astride the main line of advance to the southern resource areas that Japan needed. Earlier in 1941 the US Navy was permanently stationed at Pearl Harbor from the US west coast which represented a major threat that could not be ignored. Japan’s plans of conquest would likely succeed only if America remained neutral. However, since America was already seen for decades as a probable future belligerent, it had to be incorporated into the grand scheme. And finally, one other event occurred which forced the Pearl Harbor attack decision: After the fall of France, America embarked upon a massive naval building program that would be realized in 1943-44.
In 1941 Japan’s Navy was equal to or held numerical superiority over the US Pacific Fleet, however it would be dwarfed by the US Navy in three years AND be out of oil. The window of opportunity and time to strike was at the end of 1941 when American strength and the other allies were at their nadir. The strategic situation was never going to be better and the economic and military dynamic was only going to deteriorate. By mid-1941, Japan had found itself truly between a rock and a hard place, but it was a rock and a hard place largely of its own making.
The three thousand plus mile sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was extremely contrary to Japan’s Naval doctrine which was basically defensive in nature and designed to be fought within a thousand or so miles of their home Islands. The main reason Pearl Harbor was attacked was to disable the US Pacific Fleet (like they did with Russia in 1904) to gain a six month breathing space whereby Japan could conquer the southern islands, get their resources flowing and capture the Philippines without interference form the (on paper) powerful US Pacific Fleet. In that regard she succeeded brilliantly with their tactical raid which should have been strategic attack. In the end it was a strategic blunder because it galvanized a lethargic America like nothing else could have and spelled Japan’s doom.
In closing, America also bears some of the blame in its clumsy handling of Japan in the forty years prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, and because it began rebuilding its military and navy far too late to thwart Japan’s imperialist ambitions. Had the mobilization and new construction begun when Japan quit the limitation treaties, invaded China, attacked the USSR, when Germany attacked Poland, or when Japan joined the Axis, it would most likely have persuaded its leaders that a war with the United States was a no-win proposition under any circumstances. Reagan’s doctrine of “Peace Through Strength” was a true then as it was in the 1980s and is true today. A powerful unassailable United States would probably have kept Japan at bay and it likely would have forced them to play nice on the international stage.
A perceived weak United States always emboldens mischief from nations controlled by tyrants.
Well... first, both numbers are huge improvements over the 20% unemployment (according to your chart) in 1938.
1938 represents the New Deal's failure.
1941 represents the ramp-up to WWII.
AND, 1942's 5% unemployment is STILL more ramp-up than it is the war itself, which did not hit high-gear until 1943.
So my point still stands: FDR did not need a declaration of war to achieve the benefits of war-time production.
eagleone: "If you're off this much in your statement on unemployment, why should I take your word on anything else. "
Second, if you go back to my post #63, the unemployment graph there can easily be interpreted as saying what I posted -- that by the end of 1941, the U.S. was rapidly approaching 5%.
Your problem is, that doesn't fit your anti-FDR narrative, so naturally, you must argue against the facts.
eagleone: " You also said the US economy was doing just fine at 14% unemployment. "
No, FRiend, YOU posted that, I said no such thing.
Right, you're arguing that FDR was motivated strictly by economics, by his need to restore prosperity after the Great Depression and that's what drove him to provoke the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, right?
I'm saying that like Hitler, Stalin, Churchill & many other leaders then, Roosevelt was a "child" of the First World War and saw the Second as an opportunity to set right what had gone terribly wrong then.
Among the most important was the 1917 surrender of Tsarist Russia to the Kaiser's forces.
That FDR was determined to prevent a repeat of in the Second World War, and in that he succeeded, at a frightful cost to Eastern Europe.
I only put unemployment numbers to your statement that in 1940 the US was doing just fine economically into context.
So I'm thinking about Leyte Gulf, Sprauge's Taffy Three, destroyers like the Johnston, and I'm wondering whether any of Hart's command served at that level protecting MacArthur's forces in 1941?
Right...
Which is it....doing well by 1940 or 1941??
You're all over the place.
So my point still stands: FDR did not need a declaration of war to achieve the benefits of war-time production.
Yes he did.
You're not going to get the full scale ramp up and conversion of the US economy to a wartime economy just to provide aid to the UK and USSR.
1941 represents the ramp-up to WWII.
You do realize we were already beginning to ramp up defense spending in 1939 and 1940...right? Carl-Vinson act of 1940 ring a bell?
AND, 1942's 5% unemployment is STILL more ramp-up than it is the war itself, which did not hit high-gear until 1943.
1942 is due to the war and the draft. And of course it took some time for us to fully ramp up production of which we began to scale back in 44 to a degree.
Second, if you go back to my post #63, the unemployment graph there can easily be interpreted as saying what I posted -- that by the end of 1941, the U.S. was rapidly approaching 5%.
Except you said unemployment was 5% in 1940....
I'm still trying to figure out why you're supporting one of easily the worst presidents in US history who:
threatened to pack the courts
massively expanded government.
Sure, "just fine" compared to the worst of the Great Depression, and, for the million American "boys" killed or wounded in WWII, "just fine" compared to the wartime alternative -- assuming we agree that unemployment is a better condition than death in war...
The fact is that the U.S. production ramp-up to WWII began in earnest in 1939, and by 1940 all the economic numbers were moving in the right direction.
That helped get FDR reelected for a THIRD term in 1940.
He did not need actual war to stay in office.
Both.
1940 numbers were good enough to get FDR reelected for a THIRD term.
1941 numbers were even better.
eagleone:"You're not going to get the full scale ramp up and conversion of the US economy to a wartime economy just to provide aid to the UK and USSR."
FDR didn't need any of that to get reelected for a THIRD term in 1940.
eagleone: " Except you said unemployment was 5% in 1940.... "
No, you posted that, I said nothing of the sort.
eagleone: "I'm still trying to figure out why you're supporting one of easily the worst presidents in US history who: threatened to pack the courts massively expanded government."
First, how did a "worst" president get reelected THREE times?
Obviously many Americans then disagreed with you.
But I don't defend ANY of the New Deal or FDR's unconstitutional redesign of Federal government.
Republican Presidents Harding & Coolidge showed how to turn a depression into prosperity and that is the model Hoover & Roosevelt should have followed.
But FDR's wartime leadership was thought at the time and since then to be commendable -- it's why he kept getting reelected.
So I would not invent motives just to mock FDR, claiming he provoked war just to "cure" the Great Depression, where no evidence for such a motive exists.
To be clear...you were the one who said the US economy was doing "just fine". Emphasis mine so you will see YOUR comment.
****
To: ealgeone "You're making the assertion US wartime production would have been what it was even without US involvement in the War."
No, I'm only saying that by 1940, as the graph shows, US employment was already the highest in history to date, the Great Depression was behind us and FDR did not need more "stimulus" from yet more increased war-time production. By 1940 the US was doing just fine economically.
So the "real reasons" for the US going to war go back to what was said at the time -- FDR wanted to help out our British, French, Dutch, Norwegian & other allies, and he especially wanted to defeat "unconditionally" the Nazi Germans.
61 posted on 12/8/2020, 3:50:55 PM by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
*****
The fact is that the U.S. production ramp-up to WWII began in earnest in 1939, and by 1940 all the economic numbers were moving in the right direction.
Well, again we have different definitions of what is right.
In 1939 unemployment was 17%, 1940 it was 15%.
Lend Lease began in March 1941.
That helped get FDR reelected for a THIRD term in 1940.
Which has what to do with this discussion??
You sure seem to be a big fan of FDR....a president who wanted to pack the courts and expanded government massively....beginning to really wonder if you're a conservative.
He did not need actual war to stay in office.
No, but he sure did use it to his advantage.
And in doing so he broke a tradition of two terms for a president set by Washington and followed by every president until your buddy...FDR. Well, he'd already broken that in 1940.
His ego was so big he told Stalin in 1943 he would have to stand for a fourth term to win the war.
"There would be a presidential election in 1944, he explained (to Stalin), and although he had no desire to run again, the winning of the War might require him to stand for a fourth term."
The Soviet Juggernaut, p71
He allowed his buddy Stalin to practically dictate policy in Eastern Europe and much of post war policy in Europe.
Ask the Poles how much help he was to them.
No, you posted that, I said nothing of the sort.
Your exact quote...
.by the end of 1941, as the graphs clearly show, US unemployment was down around 5% and US employment was the highest ever, to date. "
10% is not "around" 5%....unless you're using blm math.
This is the second time you've said something you said you didn't say. Kinda hard to debate with one who keeps moving their position like you do.
But FDR's wartime leadership was thought at the time and since then to be commendable -- it's why he kept getting reelected.
We were only at war for ONE of his elections...1944.
I'd question his "commendable" handling of the War.
He let Stalin have his way in Europe.
If he hadn't died no telling what the Pacific would have looked like. How much of Japan would he have given the Russians?
Obama probably would have won a third term....are you going to say he was a good president??
I honestly believe Obama stole his second election.
And they tried to use the same method to get Hillary elected, Trump just overwhelmed them.
So this election they took no chances, and committed as much voter fraud as they thought they could and Trump STILL almost Overwhelmed them...
They had to suddenly manufacture hundreds of thousands of votes in the middle of the night to try to win.
That is where they made their biggest mistakes. The fraud became too obvious.
That and Mittens ran a pretty pathetic campaign.
Details on Admiral Hart as cic of Asiatic and combined fleets under his command. He did engage the enemy and did not lose one ship.
https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3686&context=etd
He was relieved because he disagreed with Roosevelt on war policy and tactics. After FDR talked him when he came back he realized Hart had been right and listened to him.
The other poster seems bereft of knowledge of the topic.
Many Roosevelt defenders blame his policies on naiveté. Please. A man elected four times to the U.S. presidency is not naive. “I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he’s not . . . and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.”
His love for the Soviet Union dated at least to 1933 when he recognized them in spite of the Ukrainian famine. He knew Duranty was a fraud. Giving them half of Korea led to the death of 50,000 Americans.
Whether it was naiveté or necessity, the choice for FDR was the same -- whatever aid & support he denied to Stalin FDR would have to double or more that amount in more US troops, equipment, injuries & deaths.
Remember, we measure US deaths in the hundreds of thousands.
Soviets measured their deaths in the tens of millions.
They also killed several German troops for every one the Western Allies killed.
Overall, the Soviets carried the vast burden of the war, and for every reduction in Soviet capabilities, FDR would have to increase US capabilities & casualties much more.
So, in effect, FDR played the fool to Stalin, and Stalin, in return, carried most of the European war's burden in death & destruction.
How many more Americans do you think should have died in WWII in order to reduce Stalin's armies' effectiveness?
Nobody who actually experienced it believed even a single more American than absolutely necessary should have died.
They were happy to let FDR play the fool to Stalin.
You're not?
eagleone: "Which has what to do with this discussion?? "
Everything! It's the whole point of this discussion, FRiend.
You wish to mock & belittle FDR by claiming his "real motives" for war were strictly economic -- he hoped through war to increase employment, reduce unemployment and get himself reelected, right?
I merely point out, correctly, that FDR had already been reelected, for a THIRD term in 1940 because most Americans believed the U.S. economy was doing "just fine", certainly by comparison to numbers from, say, 1937.
I'm saying that reducing unemployment was not FDR's ONLY motive for war in 1941.
Indeed, the true economic issue for US war planners was not too much unemployment, but rather whether the U.S. still had enough SLACK capacity to meet all the manpower requirements of a total war?
Turns out we did, but just barely.
eagleone: "You sure seem to be a big fan of FDR....a president who wanted to pack the courts and expanded government massively....beginning to really wonder if you're a conservative."
Nonsense, I've posted already that I'm no fan of any of FDR's New Deal.
He should rather have followed the example set by Republican Presidents Harding & Coolidge, who showed the right way to bring prosperity from economic depression.
But WWII is a very different subject, and there most people & students of the time agree FDR did the best he could have with what he had.
None of the potential alternatives would have produced better results for either the USA or the Western Allies.
So I take it you disagree?
eagleone: " He allowed his buddy Stalin to practically dictate policy in Eastern Europe and much of post war policy in Europe.
Ask the Poles how much help he was to them."
Sure, as I posted before, FDR sacrificed Eastern Europe to the Soviets, for the sake of winning back Western Europe, including West Germany, from the Nazis -- "half a loaf" at the cost of "only" a few hundred thousand US war-deaths.
Any alternatives you might propose would have cost more US dead, or left the Nazis still in power.
Which alternative do you propose?
Captain Peter Blood objects to my statement that NONE of the U.S. Pacific commanders responded effectively to the War Warnings sent by Washington in November 1941.
My evidence for this is the fact that ALL of the Japanese attacks & invasions in late 1941, early 1942, proved successful -- from Hawaii to the Philippines, to Dutch East Indies to Hong Kong & Singapore.
Now out FRiend Captain Peter Blood objects!
He says US Admiral Hart was indeed ready for war and so escaped destruction of his Asiatic Fleet.
Now I'm no expert on Hart, but I notice he was based in the Philippines and yet had, it seems, no ability to stop or even slow the Japanese assault on MacArthur's forces there.
So Hart earns credit for avoiding the date of Kimmel's fleet in Hawaii, but what, exactly did he do to defend MacArthur?
Wow...do you ever move the goalposts in these discussions.
But the Russians had won the crucial early battles before the impact of Lend Lease was felt in the USSR.
Our trucks and food enabled them to move faster so in essence our aid to them helped foster their ability to move into Eastern Europe more effectively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.