Some Information
Historians across the board agree that Japan's attack on the U.S. was a preemptive strike, carried out because Japan believed the U.S. would counterattack the Japanese in response to invasions of Dutch and U.K. territory. After all, one could "spin" that either way: An antiwar historian might say that the U.S. was prone to military interference where it was none of our business, particularly when European colonies (as opposed to native-controlled nations) were threatened. Pro-war counterparts might say that the U.S. was ready and willing to protect the citizens of the South Pacific from conquest by a brutal, foreign regime.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Background_to_conflict)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)
(http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiipaccauses_2.htm)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Japan_attacks_the_Western_Powers)
(http://www.2worldwar2.com/yamamoto.htm)
(http://www.pearlharbor.org/history-of-pearl-harbor.asp)
If Japan had intended to eventually conquer U.S. Pacific territory, but had not feared a U.S. military response to their occupation of Dutch territory, then the bombing of Pearl Harbor makes no sense. It would have been the equivalent of Hitler declaring war on the Soviet Union on the day that Germany invaded France.
A Question
Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you!
Did you conclude that Cannoli was dumb because you thought his historical account of Japanese motivations was inaccurate?
If so, you might want to change that insulting subject line. An apology would be nice, too, but I understand that those are difficult.
Or: Do you assume that Cannoli is dumb because he disagrees with you, and therefore look for reasons to justify it?
If so, you'll probably want to find some different reasons.
Cheers,
Jason
However you are missing or more likely ignoring, the entire Japanese culture of the time, which was a resurgence of militarism and was being exercised through conquest....
Hawaii was going to get attacked eventually - it is part of the Pacific and the Japanese plan was to make the Pacific their own personal lake.
[...]
Sorry - reality is this. The US REALLY didn't want to get involved in another World War....
As long as Japan wanted what they wanted, all the political efforts in the world weren't going to keep Hawaii and the Aleutians from being attacked. Maybe even the West Coast, hard to say. A few sanctions and the like weren't what caused that, they were in response to that.
Hawaii was going to get attacked eventually - it is part of the Pacific and the Japanese plan was to make the Pacific their own personal lake.
[...]
Sorry - reality is this. The US REALLY didn't want to get involved in another World War....
As long as Japan wanted what they wanted, all the political efforts in the world weren't going to keep Hawaii and the Aleutians from being attacked. Maybe even the West Coast, hard to say. A few sanctions and the like weren't what caused that, they were in response to that.
Historians across the board agree that Japan's attack on the U.S. was a preemptive strike, carried out because Japan believed the U.S. would counterattack the Japanese in response to invasions of Dutch and U.K. territory. After all, one could "spin" that either way: An antiwar historian might say that the U.S. was prone to military interference where it was none of our business, particularly when European colonies (as opposed to native-controlled nations) were threatened. Pro-war counterparts might say that the U.S. was ready and willing to protect the citizens of the South Pacific from conquest by a brutal, foreign regime.
Following Japanese expansion into French Indochina after the fall of France, the U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941, in part because of new American restrictions on domestic oil consumption. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had earlier moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii and ordered a military buildup in the Philippines in the hope of discouraging Japanese aggression in the Far East. Because the Japanese high command was (mistakenly) certain any attack on the British Southeast Asian colonies would bring the U.S. into the war, a devastating preventive strike appeared to be the only way to avoid U.S. naval interference.
Japanese confidence in their ability to achieve a short, victorious war also meant other targets in the harbor, especially the Navy Yard, oil tank farms, and Submarine Base, could safely be ignored, since the war would be over before the influence of these facilities would be felt.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Background_to_conflict)
To secure oil supplies, and other resources, Japanese planners had long been looking south, especially the Dutch East Indies. The Navy was certain any attempt to seize this region would bring the U.S. into the war...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)
The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan.... the military was looking south to the Netherlands East Indies and their rich sources of oil and rubber. Believing that an attack in this region would cause the US to declare war, they began planning for such an eventuality.
...a preemptive strike against the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, HI, as well as simultaneous strikes against the Philippines, Netherlands East Indies, and the British colonies in the region. The goal of this plan was to eliminate the American threat, allowing Japanese forces to secure the Dutch and British colonies.
...a preemptive strike against the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, HI, as well as simultaneous strikes against the Philippines, Netherlands East Indies, and the British colonies in the region. The goal of this plan was to eliminate the American threat, allowing Japanese forces to secure the Dutch and British colonies.
(http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiipaccauses_2.htm)
The Japanese had gambled that the United States, when faced with such a sudden and massive defeat, would agree to a negotiated settlement and allow Japan free rein in China.... Japan's fallback strategy, relying on a war of attrition to make the US come to terms, was beyond the IJN's capabilities.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Japan_attacks_the_Western_Powers)
Before he left, Yamamoto was asked by prime minister Konoe about Japan's chances in a war against the United States and Great Britain. His answer was "We can run wild for six months or a year, but after that I have utterly no confidence."
...Admiral Yamamoto knew that the best thing for Japan in such a war was to destroy the US Pacific Fleet in a long range preemptive attack by carriers aircraft at its main base in Pearl Harbor.
...Admiral Yamamoto knew that the best thing for Japan in such a war was to destroy the US Pacific Fleet in a long range preemptive attack by carriers aircraft at its main base in Pearl Harbor.
(http://www.2worldwar2.com/yamamoto.htm)
September 1940. The U.S. placed an embargo on Japan by prohibiting exports of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan, due to Japan's takeover of northern French Indochina.
June 1941 through the end of July 1941. Japan occupied southern Indochina. Two days later, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. This prevented Japan from buying oil, which would, in time, cripple its army and make its navy and air force completely useless.
They proposed to sweep into Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, and the Philippines, in addition to establishing a defensive perimeter in the central and southwest Pacific. They expected the U.S. to declare war but not to be willing to fight long or hard enough to win. Their greatest concern was that the U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor could foil their plans. As insurance, the Japanese navy undertook to cripple the Pacific Fleet by a surprise air attack.
June 1941 through the end of July 1941. Japan occupied southern Indochina. Two days later, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. This prevented Japan from buying oil, which would, in time, cripple its army and make its navy and air force completely useless.
They proposed to sweep into Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, and the Philippines, in addition to establishing a defensive perimeter in the central and southwest Pacific. They expected the U.S. to declare war but not to be willing to fight long or hard enough to win. Their greatest concern was that the U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor could foil their plans. As insurance, the Japanese navy undertook to cripple the Pacific Fleet by a surprise air attack.
(http://www.pearlharbor.org/history-of-pearl-harbor.asp)
If Japan had intended to eventually conquer U.S. Pacific territory, but had not feared a U.S. military response to their occupation of Dutch territory, then the bombing of Pearl Harbor makes no sense. It would have been the equivalent of Hitler declaring war on the Soviet Union on the day that Germany invaded France.
A Question
It was the actions of the government that gave Japan a reason to attack us. Classical liberal or libertarians would not have incited Japan by freezing their assets or interfering with their commerce.
Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you!
Did you conclude that Cannoli was dumb because you thought his historical account of Japanese motivations was inaccurate?
If so, you might want to change that insulting subject line. An apology would be nice, too, but I understand that those are difficult.
Or: Do you assume that Cannoli is dumb because he disagrees with you, and therefore look for reasons to justify it?
If so, you'll probably want to find some different reasons.
Cheers,
Jason
This message last edited by JasonD on 02/03/2010 at 05:51:11 AM
Why bipartisanship can't work: the expert view
- 01/02/2010 11:34:58 PM
864 Views
And a personal comment
- 01/02/2010 11:39:28 PM
599 Views
Who's to say YOU really know what's happening in Washington, though?
- 02/02/2010 01:41:20 AM
631 Views
? *NM*
not to mention those who mistake knowledge for understanding
- 02/02/2010 10:41:14 PM
444 Views
Even so.
- 05/02/2010 05:45:54 AM
468 Views
Like the NYT?
- 05/02/2010 02:12:36 PM
502 Views
I don't believe the Times has ever conceded bias.
- 05/02/2010 06:03:02 PM
524 Views
and neither does Fox so I am not sure that matters
- 05/02/2010 06:40:15 PM
565 Views
Note that I didn't mention Fox (or anyone, for that matter. )
- 05/02/2010 07:13:31 PM
498 Views
PBS is biased
- 05/02/2010 07:21:14 PM
470 Views
You're entitled to believe that.
- 05/02/2010 07:31:07 PM
600 Views
PBS has an obvious yet undeclared bias so does NPR
- 09/02/2010 04:47:53 AM
433 Views
Even were that true (which I dispute) my statement stands.
- 09/02/2010 09:50:36 AM
545 Views
so they wouldn't be biased becuas it could hurt them but you still argue republicans attack them
- 09/02/2010 02:19:53 PM
507 Views
We have been for some time.
- 02/02/2010 03:31:10 AM
496 Views
I don't think that's the case
- 03/02/2010 02:59:50 PM
476 Views
Universal healthcare was the primary plank in Clintons '92 platform.
- 04/02/2010 10:02:18 AM
460 Views
That does not mean his bare plurality was an endorsement of National Healthcare
- 04/02/2010 02:09:32 PM
589 Views
I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue.
- 05/02/2010 08:09:50 AM
601 Views
Re: I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue.
- 05/02/2010 03:52:23 PM
557 Views
[insert witty subject line here]
- 06/02/2010 02:15:21 AM
588 Views
Let me break this into multiple replies here
- 06/02/2010 07:45:36 PM
568 Views
'K
- 08/02/2010 01:22:12 PM
551 Views
Probably time to go into 'summary mode'
- 08/02/2010 07:34:55 PM
580 Views
Again, we're back to "how would you prefer to do it?"
- 09/02/2010 09:42:51 AM
605 Views
Any way that works, which currently probably is none
- 09/02/2010 06:12:41 PM
543 Views
I think HDI is more accurate than nothing, though it certainly needs some fine tuning.
- 10/02/2010 11:03:08 AM
594 Views
I'll play a bigger age card since it was my third election to vote in and he won because of Perot
- 05/02/2010 05:57:04 PM
482 Views
Let's put it another way: Why did Dems nominate him instead of, say, Gephardt?
- 06/02/2010 02:22:04 AM
553 Views
you don't get mandates from primaries
- 08/02/2010 02:12:29 PM
452 Views
No, but end of the day more people wanted healthcare than didn't.
- 08/02/2010 03:09:31 PM
464 Views
everyone want health care they just don't want congress runnig it
- 09/02/2010 04:56:44 AM
501 Views
Whom do you prefer?
- 09/02/2010 10:07:39 AM
523 Views
Sorry not a big fan of socialism I hear it big over in Europe though
- 09/02/2010 02:23:55 PM
424 Views
In other words you prefer the system we have; thanks for admitting it. 
- 10/02/2010 10:05:38 AM
484 Views
- 10/02/2010 10:05:38 AM
484 Views
I prefer Thomas Woods Jr's description of bipartisanship
- 02/02/2010 02:49:06 AM
485 Views
If only someone had stood up on 8 December, 1941 and said, "hey, you're not supposed to do stuff!"
- 02/02/2010 03:28:38 AM
633 Views
you're making a good job taking things out of context, Joel
- 03/02/2010 12:47:57 PM
452 Views
Don't speak in absolutes and I won't read absolutes.
- 04/02/2010 10:08:43 AM
470 Views
Some qualifiers can be left unsaid for a clearer message. Or better delivery 
- 04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM
453 Views
- 04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM
453 Views
Qualifiers are clarifying by nature.
- 04/02/2010 10:49:06 AM
586 Views
huh. That does make sense. I know malpractice is a big weight on the the system in the US.
- 04/02/2010 11:58:37 AM
422 Views
Perhaps, but it's hardly the greatest weight, or even in the top three, IMHO.
- 05/02/2010 05:44:49 AM
573 Views
Pearl Harbor would never have happened to a classically liberal nation
- 05/02/2010 01:33:56 AM
477 Views
Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you!
- 05/02/2010 04:22:59 PM
657 Views
I do generally agree, but I think the Washington Naval Conference is too often overlooked.
- 06/02/2010 02:33:51 AM
594 Views
Some information and a question
- 02/03/2010 05:49:20 AM
994 Views
Politicians and pundits should stop calling things that happened in the last decade "unprecedented"
- 02/02/2010 03:23:27 AM
646 Views
Or the democratic party has shifted so far to to the left they can't even get all of the dems
- 02/02/2010 02:39:14 PM
455 Views
You didn't hear all the whining when Bush was in charge with a Republican Congress?
- 02/02/2010 08:50:05 PM
472 Views
I there was plenty of whining going on
- 02/02/2010 10:36:56 PM
398 Views
Is this you conceding that the GOP is being obstructionist?
- 08/02/2010 01:43:04 PM
430 Views
I agree they are obstructing the libs from doing whatever they want
- 08/02/2010 02:19:13 PM
358 Views
They've tried including Republicans in drafting bills.
- 08/02/2010 03:08:17 PM
516 Views
tyring to pcik off one republican is not including republicans
- 09/02/2010 05:03:44 AM
464 Views
So we've gone from "stop being secretive" to "no public meetings" eh?
- 09/02/2010 11:59:50 AM
473 Views
well it was your guy who was up in arms about private meetings
- 09/02/2010 02:29:34 PM
452 Views
Was it? I don't recall any Dem complaining about private meeting on healthcare.
- 10/02/2010 09:44:56 AM
604 Views
most liberals seem to foretting the "rhetoric" that Obama used to get elected
- 13/02/2010 06:54:34 AM
444 Views
