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.

ealgeone: "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?"

Agreed.

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

Agreed.

ealgeone: "Dims love high unemployment and government spending."

Agreed.

Can you give me a direct quote where I advocate Nazi victory. If you insist on claiming I wanted a Nazi victory I will persist in calling you a Communist. Not that any of that matters. It “require(d) doing everything possible to support Stalin’s Soviet armies in the East.” That included giving them territory belonging to our ally China. It included giving the half of Korea resulting in another war with 50,000 dead. Read Diana West’s American Betrayal. It will give you a more accurate perspective. Please don’t accuse her of being a Nazi. Like the term racist it is designed to shut down debate.

Vehmgericht: "Can you give me a direct quote where I advocate Nazi victory. "

I already did, in my post #141 I quoted your #137.
In it you say the Soviets were always the greater threat and US should have stayed out of WWII entirely.
That can only mean the Nazis would have won the war, in your scenario.

So, like I've said already, that's the first time I can remember seeing a poster on Free Republic openly advocating for a Nazi victory.
But then, possibly you know some trick of logic & language where the US stays out of WWII and yet somehow the Nazis are still defeated?

Vehmgericht: "That included giving them territory belonging to our ally China.
It included giving the half of Korea resulting in another war with 50,000 dead.
Read Diana West’s American Betrayal.
It will give you a more accurate perspective.
Please don’t accuse her of being a Nazi. "

If you claim that President Roosevelt "gave away" too much to Stalin's communists, I'd certainly agree -- it would have been much better had FDR struck better deals with "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
But as late as 1943, so we're told, Stalin was still trying to strike a separate peace deal with Hitler, which Hitler was still brushing aside.
Had any of Stalin's peace "feelers", or any of the late-war Nazi peace "feelers" born fruit, the US would have faced either increasing our army from 90 divisions to, potentially, over 200 divisions, with correspondingly higher casualties, and some loss of war-production or atom-bombing Germany in the summer of 1945, or striking a peace deal with the Nazis, or some combination.

Which brings up the question of A-bomb diplomacy -- you may remember that's what MacArthur wanted to do along the Yalu in North Korea, but President Truman fired him for it.

Not at all clear what Truman would have been up for in 1945, assuming the Soviets had made a separate peace with Hitler and the US was trying to win WWII in Europe by itself.
All of that sounds like "Nazi victory", or at least long term survival, to me.

So, do you have a scenario where the US stays out of WWII, Stalin makes a separate peace with Hitler and yet the Nazis are still somehow defeated?

BroJoeK, If the US stayed out of the war the only result would be a Nazi victory. You don’t seem to have much imagination. There could have been a stalemate or a Communist victory. Your claim that I openly advocated for a Nazi victory is an attempt to discredit me. There is a direct quote of me advocating Nazi victory. Your “so we’re told” is not very reliable. We are told so many things that are not so. I don’t have “a scenario where the US stays out of WWII, Stalin makes a separate peace with Hitler and yet the Nazis are still somehow defeated.” Do you have a scenario where everyone holds hands and sing Kumbaya?” Lets deal with reality.

Vehmgericht: "You don’t seem to have much imagination.
There could have been a stalemate or a Communist victory."

Anything less than utter destruction & unconditional surrender was a Nazi victory, leaving them in power for World War Three.
There was no acceptable alternative to Allied victory.

Vehmgericht: "Your claim that I openly advocated for a Nazi victory is an attempt to discredit me."

There is no justice in any court which allows Nazi Germany to survive undestroyed and Nazis still in power.
That court can go straight to h*ll, FRiend.

Vehmgericht: "Do you have a scenario where everyone holds hands and sing Kumbaya?”
Lets deal with reality."

The only scenario I have is the one which actually happened: President Roosevelt made nicey-nicey with "Uncle Joe" Stalin, keeping hundreds of Soviet divisions fighting the Eastern Front and so reducing the number of US divisions (and casualties!) required on the Western Front by at least half.

The result was utter destruction of Nazi Germany, Unconditional Surrender, war crimes trials, Allied Victory & complete freedom for Western Europe (including West Germany).
Eastern Europe did not do so well for the following 50 years, though it is at least arguable whose regime was more beastly, Nazis or Soviets?

Vehmgericht: "You can not argue with people’s religious beliefs."

Your whole argument is 100% complete nonsense, FRiend.

What you really can't argue with are the facts of history, and they clearly show the Nazi regime and Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed, unconditional surrender.

The historical question is whether the U.S. could have, or should have, tried to win WITHOUT Soviet help?
And it's not really a question, since I've never seen anybody argue we SHOULD have.
Nobody then or now ever argued the U.S. should have suffered double or triple the number of casualties in Europe, just so we didn't sully ourselves by helping out "Uncle Joe" Stalin.

BroJoeK, Glad to see you have exposed yourself as a big fan of Soviet agent Harry Dexter White: “the Nazi regime and Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed.” White’s Morgenthau Plan was implemented as much as possible until 1947. German industry was being dismantled, its POWs enslaved and its civilian population starved. France and Italy were on the verge of electing Communist governments. That is what inspired the Marshall Plan. There were many reasons for the Second World War. The unique evil of the Nazi regime was not one of them. According to Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School anti-Semitism was much worse in the U.S. than in Europe. I would suggest you read Diana West’s American Betrayal but I know you are not interested in learning anything that contradicts your beliefs. You would silence me if you could. Eventually people of your ilk will be able to do that.

Vehmgericht: "I would suggest you read Diana West’s American Betrayal but I know you are not interested in learning anything that contradicts your beliefs.
You would silence me if you could.
Eventually people of your ilk will be able to do that."

That's total nonsense.
Common sense and simple sanity would silence you, if you had any, FRiend.

In my small library of WWII books, I have two which make similar points to your Diana West's.
They are Patrick Buchanan from 2008: "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War -- How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World", and
Guido Giacomo Preparata from 2005, "Conjuring Hitler -- How Britain and America made the Third Reich."

Buchanan argues that the US should have stayed out of WWII and forced Britain to make peace with Hitler, while Preparata goes even further, claiming that the US & Britain actually put Hitler in power so that they could then destroy Germany.

Point is: I'm very familiar with wild conspiracy theories, and they're all just nonsense.
To see this, you have only to honestly answer the following questions -- was it Stalin or Hitler who first invaded:

Austria
Czechoslovakia
Poland
Denmark
Norway
Holland
Luxembourg
Belgium
France
Yugoslavia
Greece
Romania
Bulgaria
Libya
Egypt
Crete
Soviet Union
Holocaust of Jews, Gypsies & other "untermenschen"
Declared war on the United States?

So, whatever else you may believe, remember this: there's a reason it's called the Second World War and that reason explains why leaders like Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were dead-set determined there would never, ever, be a Third.
And that's why Nazi Germany had to be utterly destroyed, even at the cost of unholy alliances with dictators like "Uncle Joe" Stalin.

As for your concerns about the Democrat Left's war on America, I'm sure I agree, but remember this: the choice in, say, 1941 was not between Left (Stalin) versus Right (Hitler), but rather between the far-far Left (Hitler) and the far-far-far Left (Stalin).
Both sides were anathema to American ideals of liberty and limited Constitutional government, but only one side (Hitler's) declared & waged war against the United States.

Vehmgericht: "Hollywood and the Government education system did a really good job on you."

Now you're just repeating yourself.
That was a lie the first time you posted it, and repeating your lies -- contrary to what your hero Goebbels taught you -- repeating lies does not magically make them true, FRiend.

Vehmgericht: " 'Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed' this involved the starving to death of infants and young children."

See, here's the point which your buddy Goebbels never taught you: if you are going to score WWII only by counting up the numbers killed, then Nazi Germany WON World War Two, hands down, no contest, not even close.
Germans lost around 7 million killed, roughly two thirds of them military.
But Nazis killed around 40 million in countries they invaded of whom roughly 25 million were civilians.

So, if we go by body counts, the Nazis WON WWII in military deaths about 4 to one and in civilian deaths roughly 10 to one!

So, FRiend, what exactly is your argument for why Nazi Germany did not need, need, need to be utterly destroyed?

Vehmgericht: "That was a Satanic policy you advocate.
Are you any better than a Nazi?"

Any sane court of justice would issue death penalties for the massive war crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germans.
War is h*ll, and Germany suffered terribly, but for every German civilian killed, Nazi armies killed 10 civilians in the countries they conquered.

So Germany did not receive justice from the Allies, even those brutish Soviets -- Germany received infinitely kind mercy for the infinite brutal crimes they committed.

Vehmgericht: "Read The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy."

The Morgenthau Plan was not even remotely close to fair justice for the mass-murder war-crimes committed by Nazi Germans, and Morgenthau's plan was never fully carried out (except in East Germany) before it was utterly reversed by the Cold War Marshall Plan.

It turned out that we needed Germans as allies against the Soviet Communists, and, once their Nazi masters were removed and their Prussian arrogance wiped away, Germans were/are nice people, somewhat conservative, relatively hard working, friendly even, strong enough to become the economic backbone of Europe.

So, the Western Allies' policy of infinite mercy towards former Nazi Germany paid off for us, though the absence of justice for the tens of millions Nazi's murdered must be a bitter pill to swallow for those surviving families & countrymen.

I guess you contend that Hollywood and the government education system have not influenced your opinion. You formed your beliefs through independent research. Goebbels is not my hero. You write this in an attempt to discredit me.
You do not dispute the murder of children. Your argument that the Nazis killed more people sounds like one made by an adolescent. We would like to be remembered as the people who fought for justice not imitators of barbarians. One of the arguments for the Soviets is that they lost 25 million people. How many of those 25 million were killed by the Soviets themselves. Nearly 1 millions Soviets fought for the Nazis.
Your original statement was “Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed” not Nazi Germany. Unconditional surrender prolonged the war and was just what Stalin ordered.
The Morgenthau Plan was designed to destroy the economy of Europe which would push it into the Soviet camp. It was never “fully” carried out. Neither was the Marshall Plan. By 1947 Europe was on the verge of going communist. The Morgentthau Plan and the Yalta Agreement had provisions for slavery in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

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.