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.
Obama followed FDR'S economic game plan, and as with FDR, it failed, again.
Obama did not follow FDR's war winning strategy, and so unlike FDR's victory in WWII, Obama lost his "war on terror", especially against ISIS.
And there's a huge difference between Obama's very marginal wins and the overwhelming majorities who elected FDR FOUR times!
Uhhh…..that was YOUR statement. I never said that.
Get the facts, which you seem to confuse a lot, straight.
The Soviets never admitted, certainly not to their own people, how much their war effort depended on Western aid.
All told there were many billions of dollars worth (back when a billion was real money) sent to Stalin.
Without that aid Stalin's forces would not have been so effective, resulting in more Nazi troops fighting against Americans in Western Europe.
Both Hitler and Stalin are known to have considered making a separate peace with each other after June 1941.
It never happened because with massive Western aid, Stalin figured he could defeat Hitler's forces, even if at huge cost in lives to Soviet people.
And the rate of exchange was far from one to one -- for every Soviet soldier kept in the fight by FDR's aid to Stalin, more than one American life was saved.
I say that because the typical German soldier, especially in the beginning, was better armed, better trained, more motivated and more effective than US troops.
So every German soldier kept on the Eastern Front was more than one American life saved.
eagleone: "But the Russians had won the crucial early battles before the impact of Lend Lease was felt in the USSR. "
Both Stalin and Hitler considered making separate peace with each other.
Had they done so, the world would look very different today.
But Stalin was kept in the fight at least in part by FDR's "naive" diplomacy.
He knew the New Deal had failed and saw an opportunity to boost the economy via the War.
I see again you've moved the narrative from you saying the "economy was doing just fine in 1940" to now the American people believed it was doing "just fine".
You had the wrong numbers on unemployment recall.
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.
Suggest you read this insightful article.
It's titled the 90 Division Gamble.
https://history.army.mil/books/70-7_15.htm
Additionally: During World War II, 49 million men were registered, 36 million classified, and 10 million inducted.[30] 18 and 19 year olds were made liable for induction on November 13, 1942. By late 1942, the Selective Service System moved away from a national lottery to administrative selection by its more than 6,000 local boards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_II
We had more than enough draftable men for WWII.
I'm really beginning to question your knowledge of the topic.
No, FRiend, my goalposts are exactly where they've always been.
But you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension and frequently mistake my clear meanings for something else entirely.
So you appear to be a slow learner, but I am a patient instructor, and will continue working with you so long as I have time and it seems worthwhile, FRiend.
Stalin's criteria for "peace" was for Germany to withdraw completely from Soviet territory. Wasn't going to happen.
Seriously....have you read anything of substance on this topic??
Dude...you've made so many factual errors it's becoming comical.
You've wrongly attributed your comments as mine.
You think 10% and 5% are roughly the same.
I could go on.
I'm really questioning your knowledge of the topic at hand.
Go back and read my words again, they say: "eagleone quoting BJK".
BJK is abbreviation for BroJoeK.
Now does it make sense to you?
The first line was my words (eagleone quoting BJK:), the second your response and the words following were my response to you.
Clear?
I agree with your comment.
I would only follow up with a question of “Why not?”
If your plan is to “push” the US back to the West Coast how else would you do it? Where else would you attack?
Pearl Harbor checked off all of the boxes: Fleet HQ, Berthing of ALL of the fleet. Supplies and logistics.
If you are looking to hamstring the US NAVY, wouldn’t you go after their ONLY large base between the Philippines and the West Coast?
You would think that at least one or two Intelligence folks would be assigned to defending against that option—crazy as it seems.
That question ALWAYS bugged me.
Is there a difference?
If so, which is more important in elections, the true reality, or what people perceive it to be?
You seem to have a big, big problem with my statement that in 1940 (as opposed to say, 1937), the US economy was doing "just fine".
The fact is that economy got FDR reelected for a THIRD term, so however you wish to define "just fine" it was in fact GOOD ENOUGH for most US VOTERS.
Please explain why that is so hard for you to "get".
eagleone: "You had the wrong numbers on unemployment recall."
Nonsense, because ANY unemployment numbers for that era are correct, at some point.
The question is, exactly when did one number become incorrect and a different number correct?
The answer is different sources give us slightly different time periods, and then there is the question of public perceptions -- how did VOTERS feel about the numbers they were hearing?
So you have desperately tried to "prove" I misstated numbers, when in fact it's just your comprehension that's all balled up, FRiend.
eagleone: " We had more than enough draftable men for WWII. "
The unemployment numbers you yourself posted show that there were barely enough Americans to meet ALL the wartime requirements for both troops and production.
This matters because had Stalin made a separate peace with Hitler, requiring, let's say, another 100 US Army divisions to defeat Hitler, we didn't have them.
And that helps explain why FDR made such nicely-nicely with Stalin.
What exactly is your problem with this?
Early in the war there were inquiries from Sovites to Nazis about peace terms, all of which Hitler brushed aside, after all he was winning.
Later, when the tide of battle changed there were inquiries from Nazis to Soviets about peace terms, all of which Stalin brushed aside, after all he was winning.
Had any of those inquiries born fruit, the world would be a very different place today.
That is what FDR's "naive" diplomacy helped prevent.
Ah... "Dude", you are simply fantasizing your own lack of reading comprehension as my "factual errors".
Worse, you then harp on these alleged "factual errors" as if they can somehow win your points for you.
They don't.
eagleone: " You think 10% and 5% are roughly the same. "
They are a lot closer to each other than to the 20% or 25% then "normal" for the Great Depression.
In 1940 American voters were so happy with those numbers they reelected FDR for a THIRD term.
You really need to read the 90 division article.
Because it wasn't doing "just fine"...unless you're a democrat.
Now you've had to bring in the election to attempt to justify your position.
Hence one of the reasons I keep saying you continue to move the goalposts.
And those inquiries involved Germany withdrawing from Soviet territory. As I noted, that wasn't going to happen.
The recent movie "Midway" answered that question by having Navy Intelligence chief Layton confess to Nimitz (played by Woody Harrelson!) that he (Layton) had not been forceful enough in warning Kimmel of what might be coming.
Layton then promised to do better the next time and Nimitz accepted it.
The movie left unanswered the question of what, exactly, U.S. naval intelligence knew before December 7, 1941?
There's no evidence I know of demonstrating our guys knew either the time, the place or the nature of the coming attack.
Washington apparently only thought "something" was coming and so warned ALL commanders to be ready.
And, you might even say Pearl Harbor was ready for something, just not for the actual time, place and nature of the attack.
Not one American should have died in World War II. And those idiots who say we would be speaking German today are totally ignorant. The Soviets and their philosophy have always been the greater threat. They have finally achieved victory. You will see the results in the next few years.
eagleone post #133: "You really need to read the 90 division article."
This morning I had time to read about half of it.
It says just what I've posted -- that a collapse of the Soviet forces would increase the requirements for US armies from around 100 divisions to over 200.
It says a Soviet collapse was still considered possible as late as the end of 1942, but was discounted from 1943 onwards, as the Soviets had more & more success.
In 1943 manpower restrictions again reduced the projected maximum Army strength from 100 to 90 divisions, which planners then considered just barely enough, and possibly not enough should some major disaster happen.
All told, about 16 million Americans served in WWII -- Army, Navy, Coast Guard, etc. -- about 11% of the population, equivalent % to Britain, but far less than the 35 million Soviets who served = 18% of their population.
Which part of this do you not yet understand?
But I've moved no goalposts because "just fine" was the opinion of the majority of 1940 VOTERS who reelected President Roosevelt for a THIRD term.
Almost none of those 1940 voters wanted to go to war against Nazi Germany just to further reduce their unemployment numbers, and FDR promised them, saying "I hate war!"
Seriously, what exactly is your problem with this?
Maybe...
If you google "Soviet Nazi separate peace proposals" there are many articles discussing them -- different inquiries at different times -- not clear if all are historically verified.
In each case the inquiry was brushed aside by the opposing leader.
Here is a typical discussion:
The contacts between the Soviets and NAZIs resulted in a range of high level calculations and not just in Berlin and Moscow.
Churchill's and Roosevelt's war policy have to be seen with this threat in mind.
It appears to have been a major motive for Roosevelt's Unconditional Surrender dictum issued at Casablanca (January 1943)... "
Loss of the Soviet war effort was calculated to increase the required US Army from 100 divisions to over 200, a size not thought sustainable given huge war-production requirements.
You disagree?
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.