The Root Causes of Pearl Harbor Serve as Important Lessons for America Today

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:

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.

Vehmgericht: "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."

I don't remember seeing anybody on Free Republic before openly say they'd preferred a Nazi-German victory in WWII.
So, have you been an "out of the closet" pro-Nazi for long, or is this something new in your life?
Did you know, at the time, even blatant pro-Nazi "America Firsters" like Charles Lindbergh eventually came around to supporting the US war effort?
Even the Nazi Amerika-Deutscher Volksbund disbanded after Pearl Harbor.

Of course, there were about 10,000 Nazi war criminals who entered the United States after WWII... is that your heritage?

German American Bund, NYC, October 30,1939:

MY problem with this is you continue to move the goalposts in this debate.

We have different definitions of what an economy that is working "just fine".

You're very loose with your "facts"....or, at best, you're writing is very loose with what you may be trying to say.

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.

LOL....you're citing probably one of the sorriest WW2 movies ever made as a source??!!

Your credibility on this topic just went out the window.

>>eagleone: "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"."<<

Is there a difference? If so, which is more important in elections, the true reality, or what people perceive it to be?

In the context of the original discussion...yes.

The original assertion was YOUR opinion of how the economy was performing....not how the public perceived the economy.

When I pointed out your incorrect unemployment numbers you began the shift to how the population perceived the results and began to throw in the election of 1940.

Hence the moving of the goalposts.

>>eagleone: "You had the wrong numbers on unemployment recall."<<

Nonsense, because ANY unemployment numbers for that era are correct, at some point.

No. The numbers were posted and yours were wrong as demonstrated.

BroJoeK, If I disagree with you I must be a Nazi. Although I did not say I preferred a Nazi victory you assumed that. By your logic if you preferred a Communist victory you must be a communist. I guess we’re both out of the closet. In your small world is there any possibilities other than victory or defeat? (just returning the snark). I think it was President Truman who suggested that the Nazis and Soviets should fight it out to the death. I suppose he was a Nazi too. FDR was pro-Soviet from the beginning. He was the father of the Deep State. His efforts are finally bearing fruit. You might want to learn to speak Chinese.

ealgeone: "We have different definitions of what an economy that is working "just fine"."

My opinion and your opinion, on what exactly constitutes "just fine" in 1940 are totally irrelevant.
What matters is, what did people at the time think, and nothing could better express their feelings than their strong vote to reelect President Roosevelt for a THIRD term.

FDR did not promise Americans in 1940 to go to war against Nazi Germany just to further reduce their unemployment rate, just the opposite.
In 1940 FDR said, "I hate war" and he promised, "not send American boys into any foreign wars."

Again, I ask, what exactly is your problem with this?

I see you're going down swinging with the election argument.

My opinion and your opinion, on what exactly constitutes "just fine" in 1940 are totally irrelevant.

Except, that's what you said about 1940 being "just find"...well before you moved the goalposts with the election angle.

ealgeone: "LOL....you're citing probably one of the sorriest WW2 movies ever made as a source??!! Your credibility on this topic just went out the window."

As usual, you misunderstood.
There have been numerous movies & documentaries on both Pearl Harbor & Midway.
Each offers its own explanation for events and failures.
There are so many different ones, you may well have some of them confused.

The most recent Midway movie (2019) is actually both accurate and enjoyable, I found no major faults with it.
But what exactly Layton said to Kimmel or Nimitz, I don't know, nobody knows, and nobody knows exactly what they knew & didn't know on December 6, 1941.

So the significance of the 2019 movie version is that it gives us a pretty fair representation of what today's "conventional wisdom" thinks on the subject -- namely that Layton (or maybe just Rochefort) knew more than they were able to impress on Kimmel.

I've seen no evidence, ever, to suggest they knew the attack was coming from Japanese carriers on Sunday morning, December 7, 1941.

"While the film takes some artistic license, Emmerich and Tooke were both adamant about being historically accurate, and Midway received praise from some combat veterans and historians for being more accurate of events than Midway (1976) and Pearl Harbor (2001).
Naval History and Heritage Command director and retired Navy Rear Admiral Sam Cox said: "Despite some of the 'Hollywood' aspects, this is still the most realistic movie about naval combat ever made."[30] "

ealgeone: "In the context of the original discussion...yes.
The original assertion was YOUR opinion of how the economy was performing....not how the public perceived the economy."

As usual, you misunderstood, and I think deliberately since clear comprehension would destroy your own pathetic opinions.
Your argument is that President Roosevelt needed war -- his motive for war -- was purely economic, he "needed" to reduce the unemployment rate and recover from the Great Depression.
I pointed out that by 1940 & 1941 the US economy was already well into recovery and FDR didn't "need" a declaration of war to achieve that.

For FDR's purposes the economy was doing "just fine".

That's not my opinion, that was FDR's opinion, and proof of it is his reelection in 1940 to a THIRD term.

So I "get" that you just hate, hate the suggestion that FDR's motives were something other than purely economic, because that throws your "economics only" theory into history's garbage can.
Nevertheless, it's true, regardless of what your Marxist professors taught you in school.

From a review of your movie.

*****

In December 1937 in Tokyo, American naval attaché intelligence officer Lieutenant Commander Edwin T. Layton and his counterpart are discussing the US and Japanese positions in the Pacific Ocean during a state function. Layton is warned by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto that if the Japanese oil supply is threatened by the US, the Japanese will take immediate action.

Your argument continues to fall apart.

ealgeone: "If we could field 213 divisions we had sufficient manpower.
We would have had to do some things differently on the Home Front."

It's worse than useless to send troops into battle without adequate equipment & logistical support.
That would have happened had the US tried to field all 213 originally planned Army divisions.
So, in effect, the manpower difference between the 213 original divisions and the 90 final divisions (123 divisions) was kept stateside to work in production of war materials.

Your suggestion that even in, say, 1943, the US had spare manpower just sitting around available to man another 123 divisions is not born out by the unemployment statistics of that time.

Further, the use of those extra divisions in Europe to replace a hypothetical Soviet withdrawal from the war would have at least doubled US casualties.
That's what FDR's nicey-nicey with Stalin was all about.

What is it that you don't yet understand?

The economy was benefiting from the War beginning in 1939 and subsequently in 40 and 41.

What we do not know is what would the economy be doing without that boost.

More New Deal spending? More regulations?

There is no way to know if the unemployment level would have continued to improve.

For FDR's purposes the economy was doing "just fine".

Of that I have no doubt. Dims love high unemployment and government spending.

Vehmgericht: "BroJoeK, If I disagree with you I must be a Nazi."

Nonsense, but I don't remember seeing anyone on Free Republic openly advocating for a Nazi victory in WWII.
And without the US entry, that would surely be the result.

As to who was the worse devil, Hitler or Stalin, I don't think that can be answered, they were both god-awful monsters.
But Americans' first concern was how to free up our friends & allies in Western Europe, and that was believed then (and now) to require doing everything possible to support Stalin's Soviet armies in the East.

I've never before seen anyone here openly advocate Nazi victory in WWII.

Vehmgericht: "FDR was pro-Soviet from the beginning.
He was the father of the Deep State.
His efforts are finally bearing fruit.
You might want to learn to speak Chinese."

I agree with all that, but it happens that in WWII he helped the Western allies win with a minimum loss of American lives.
Most people commend him for that, if for nothing else.

ealgeone: "Your argument continues to fall apart. "

Nonsense, but you continue to deliberately misunderstand it.

Nobody disputes that the Japanese were provoked to war by American economic sanctions and diplomatic demands.
Nobody disputes that President Roosevelt wanted into the war in Europe to help out our British, French and other Western allies.
Nobody disputes that Washington expected some sort of Japanese attack in late 1941, and sent out official War Warnings to Pacific commanders about it.

The historical dispute is whether Washington knew exactly of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.
I've seen no evidence they did.

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.