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
980 Views
And a personal comment
- 01/02/2010 11:39:28 PM
715 Views
Who's to say YOU really know what's happening in Washington, though?
- 02/02/2010 01:41:20 AM
750 Views
? *NM*
not to mention those who mistake knowledge for understanding
- 02/02/2010 10:41:14 PM
564 Views
Even so.
- 05/02/2010 05:45:54 AM
608 Views
Like the NYT?
- 05/02/2010 02:12:36 PM
613 Views
I don't believe the Times has ever conceded bias.
- 05/02/2010 06:03:02 PM
634 Views
and neither does Fox so I am not sure that matters
- 05/02/2010 06:40:15 PM
689 Views
Note that I didn't mention Fox (or anyone, for that matter. )
- 05/02/2010 07:13:31 PM
612 Views
PBS is biased
- 05/02/2010 07:21:14 PM
588 Views
You're entitled to believe that.
- 05/02/2010 07:31:07 PM
735 Views
PBS has an obvious yet undeclared bias so does NPR
- 09/02/2010 04:47:53 AM
558 Views
Even were that true (which I dispute) my statement stands.
- 09/02/2010 09:50:36 AM
691 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
635 Views
We have been for some time.
- 02/02/2010 03:31:10 AM
649 Views
I don't think that's the case
- 03/02/2010 02:59:50 PM
595 Views
Universal healthcare was the primary plank in Clintons '92 platform.
- 04/02/2010 10:02:18 AM
588 Views
That does not mean his bare plurality was an endorsement of National Healthcare
- 04/02/2010 02:09:32 PM
691 Views
I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue.
- 05/02/2010 08:09:50 AM
742 Views
Re: I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue.
- 05/02/2010 03:52:23 PM
682 Views
[insert witty subject line here]
- 06/02/2010 02:15:21 AM
698 Views
Let me break this into multiple replies here
- 06/02/2010 07:45:36 PM
694 Views
'K
- 08/02/2010 01:22:12 PM
701 Views
Probably time to go into 'summary mode'
- 08/02/2010 07:34:55 PM
719 Views
Again, we're back to "how would you prefer to do it?"
- 09/02/2010 09:42:51 AM
717 Views
Any way that works, which currently probably is none
- 09/02/2010 06:12:41 PM
677 Views
I think HDI is more accurate than nothing, though it certainly needs some fine tuning.
- 10/02/2010 11:03:08 AM
742 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
581 Views
Let's put it another way: Why did Dems nominate him instead of, say, Gephardt?
- 06/02/2010 02:22:04 AM
675 Views
you don't get mandates from primaries
- 08/02/2010 02:12:29 PM
568 Views
No, but end of the day more people wanted healthcare than didn't.
- 08/02/2010 03:09:31 PM
589 Views
everyone want health care they just don't want congress runnig it
- 09/02/2010 04:56:44 AM
626 Views
Whom do you prefer?
- 09/02/2010 10:07:39 AM
661 Views
Sorry not a big fan of socialism I hear it big over in Europe though
- 09/02/2010 02:23:55 PM
553 Views
In other words you prefer the system we have; thanks for admitting it. 
- 10/02/2010 10:05:38 AM
617 Views
- 10/02/2010 10:05:38 AM
617 Views
I prefer Thomas Woods Jr's description of bipartisanship
- 02/02/2010 02:49:06 AM
627 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
759 Views
you're making a good job taking things out of context, Joel
- 03/02/2010 12:47:57 PM
577 Views
Don't speak in absolutes and I won't read absolutes.
- 04/02/2010 10:08:43 AM
586 Views
Some qualifiers can be left unsaid for a clearer message. Or better delivery 
- 04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM
586 Views
- 04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM
586 Views
Qualifiers are clarifying by nature.
- 04/02/2010 10:49:06 AM
703 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
555 Views
Perhaps, but it's hardly the greatest weight, or even in the top three, IMHO.
- 05/02/2010 05:44:49 AM
694 Views
Pearl Harbor would never have happened to a classically liberal nation
- 05/02/2010 01:33:56 AM
606 Views
Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you!
- 05/02/2010 04:22:59 PM
754 Views
I do generally agree, but I think the Washington Naval Conference is too often overlooked.
- 06/02/2010 02:33:51 AM
739 Views
Some information and a question
- 02/03/2010 05:49:20 AM
1155 Views
Politicians and pundits should stop calling things that happened in the last decade "unprecedented"
- 02/02/2010 03:23:27 AM
818 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
568 Views
You didn't hear all the whining when Bush was in charge with a Republican Congress?
- 02/02/2010 08:50:05 PM
581 Views
I there was plenty of whining going on
- 02/02/2010 10:36:56 PM
526 Views
Is this you conceding that the GOP is being obstructionist?
- 08/02/2010 01:43:04 PM
563 Views
I agree they are obstructing the libs from doing whatever they want
- 08/02/2010 02:19:13 PM
465 Views
They've tried including Republicans in drafting bills.
- 08/02/2010 03:08:17 PM
662 Views
tyring to pcik off one republican is not including republicans
- 09/02/2010 05:03:44 AM
579 Views
So we've gone from "stop being secretive" to "no public meetings" eh?
- 09/02/2010 11:59:50 AM
626 Views
well it was your guy who was up in arms about private meetings
- 09/02/2010 02:29:34 PM
589 Views
Was it? I don't recall any Dem complaining about private meeting on healthcare.
- 10/02/2010 09:44:56 AM
740 Views
most liberals seem to foretting the "rhetoric" that Obama used to get elected
- 13/02/2010 06:54:34 AM
566 Views
