Dec 7: A day that will live in infamy

[LordBrownTrout]

I used to think that this was an honorable war but now I'm not so sure. I've read numerous books, literature that suggests otherwise. From what I've learned, FDR needed Japan to attack in order for him to go after Hitler. So, after cutting off oil and resources to Japan he had his motive. Why would FDR screw with Japan? They had no imperialistic aggressions towards the United States prior to their attack on Pearl Harbor. It was the carrot that FDR needed to enter the war. Shut the oil and the resources off and you have one pissed off country. Kimmel, who was made the scapegoat, was a true hero imo.

 

[Gunny]

I used to think that this was an honorable war but now I'm not so sure. I've read numerous books, literature that suggests otherwise. From what I've learned, FDR needed Japan to attack in order for him to go after Hitler. So, after cutting off oil and resources to Japan he had his motive. Why would FDR screw with Japan? They had no imperialistic aggressions towards the United States prior to their attack on Pearl Harbor. It was the carrot that FDR needed to enter the war. Shut the oil and the resources off and you have one pissed off country. Kimmel, who was made the scapegoat, was a true hero imo.

Adm Kimmel and Gen Short equally took the blame because Americans have to have someone to blame. Shit can't just happen around here. The fact is, Imperial Japan was to blame.

The US has routinely imposed economic sanctions against nations for far less than Japan's attrocious behavior in Asia. Add to that the US also had its own ideas about dominating the Asia sphere, and you have the two biggest powers butting heads.

The success of the attack on Pearl Harbor itself was the result of supreme American arrogance. A lesson it appears we have yet to learn.

I find it a bit humorous that the Dems were the warmongers and the Republicans the isolationists at the time. My how the mighty have tucked their tails between their legs and run.

 

[pegwinn]

Since this is the conspiracy theory zone.......

I do believe FDR provoked Japan in order to get past the isolationists. As the Gunny noted, we do sanctions all the time for less. Donovin knew about the rape of Nanjing etc, so to did FDR. But, Germany was the focus. FDR knew that without US involvement, the Axis just might win. So, provoking Japan was a pragmatic move. IF they had not been provoked, they would have attacked eventually.

New theory. Did the chain of command at the national level know in advance that PH was a target. Everyone who actually said something about it got sacked........

[begin twilight zone music]

 

[Gunny]

Since this is the conspiracy theory zone.......

I do believe FDR provoked Japan in order to get past the isolationists. As the Gunny noted, we do sanctions all the time for less. Donovin knew about the rape of Nanjing etc, so to did FDR. But, Germany was the focus. FDR knew that without US involvement, the Axis just might win. So, provoking Japan was a pragmatic move. IF they had not been provoked, they would have attacked eventually.

New theory. Did the chain of command at the national level know in advance that PH was a target. Everyone who actually said something about it got sacked........

[begin twilight zone music]

Without looking, and IIRC, I think the general belief was that the Japanese would attack us in the PI.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Moving on towards the nuclear bombings of Japan. Hadn't Japan wanted to surrender before they took place. And was this more of a show to Russia of our world dominance moreso than Japan really needed to be obliterated?

 

[pegwinn]

Moving on towards the nuclear bombings of Japan. Hadn't Japan wanted to surrender before they took place. And was this more of a show to Russia of our world dominance moreso than Japan really needed to be obliterated?

Never heard that one before.

 

[Gunny]

Moving on towards the nuclear bombings of Japan. Hadn't Japan wanted to surrender before they took place. And was this more of a show to Russia of our world dominance moreso than Japan really needed to be obliterated?

Japan refused to surrender, even when warned with the use of a "terrible new weapon." Japan refused to surrender again following the first bombing, and only agreed to a conditional "unconditional" surrender following the second bombing.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no such thing as an 'honorable' war. All war is giant indecency imposed upon humankind.

There is, however, such a thing as a lesser of two evils or unavoidable necessity. Roosevelt, already estranged from Congress when he tried to pack the Supreme Court during his second term, only narrowly won his third term. He, however, by that time rightfully saw that Germany would not be appeased and would not stop until Hitler had conquered all of Europe and no doubt beyond Europe. That was not a pleasant prospect to contemplate. Roosevelt, however, had little influence in a Congress still suspicious of him and in an isolationist mood despite its placing sanctions on Japan to prevent Japan from savaging more of its neighbors who were US trading partners.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, however, forced the issue. We saw no choice but to retaliate which of course provoked Germany to declare war on us to keep Japan on their side.

Would we consider sanctions on Iran as justifiable provocation for Iran to attack US installations? Would we consider decades of sanctions on Cuba to be justification for Castro to start lobbing missiles at Miami?

In my opinion, to think that the USA somehow intentionally provoked Japan to attack is simply ludicrous and is the product of historical revisionists who do not want the USA to be justified in anything and who regularly attempt to turn anything positive in US history into a negative.

 

[Annie]

Since this is the conspiracy theory zone.......

I do believe FDR provoked Japan in order to get past the isolationists. As the Gunny noted, we do sanctions all the time for less. Donovin knew about the rape of Nanjing etc, so to did FDR. But, Germany was the focus. FDR knew that without US involvement, the Axis just might win. So, provoking Japan was a pragmatic move. IF they had not been provoked, they would have attacked eventually.

New theory. Did the chain of command at the national level know in advance that PH was a target. Everyone who actually said something about it got sacked........

[begin twilight zone music]

That's one theory. However in fairness, one must look at the late 19th C when Japan underwent the Meiji Revolution. They modernized politically, militarily, and socially in less than 30 years. They became very imperialistic. To forget that Admiral Perry forced it open, is to forget too much.

By the turn of the century, Japan was able to force Russia back from Manchuria and 'won' the Japanese-Russo War. In WWI they are on the 'allies' side, they felt they got the wrong end of the stick with the dividing of spoils. As an expanding empire, without natural resources, they looked to the US for the raw materials to fuel their engine, including oil and metals for weapons.

When they took advantage of the civil war in China and invaded, that's when the oil and other materials where closed off. They had less than months of oil reserves and were in the middle of really growing their empire, they couldn't wait. So I think it as likely than not that it wasn't just Germany that caused the oil embargo or even the desire for war with Japan, they truly were threatening US naval dominance in the Pacific.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's one theory. However in fairness, one must look at the late 19th C when Japan underwent the Meiji Revolution. They modernized politically, militarily, and socially in less than 30 years. They became very imperialistic. To forget that Admiral Perry forced it open, is to forget too much.

By the turn of the century, Japan was able to force Russia back from Manchuria and 'won' the Japanese-Russo War. In WWI they are on the 'allies' side, they felt they got the wrong end of the stick with the dividing of spoils. As an expanding empire, without natural resources, they looked to the US for the raw materials to fuel their engine, including oil and metals for weapons.

When they took advantage of the civil war in China and invaded, that's when the oil and other materials where closed off. They had less than months of oil reserves and were in the middle of really growing their empire, they couldn't wait. So I think it as likely than not that it wasn't just Germany that caused the oil embargo or even the desire for war with Japan, they truly were threatening US naval dominance in the Pacific.

A good brief history, here, but I can't quite agree with the conclusion that we were protecting our 'naval dominance in the Pacific' with sanctions, however. I think we WERE protecting our trading partners in the Pacific against a Japan that had become inceasingly aggressive and imperialistic.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There is no such thing as an 'honorable' war. All war is giant indecency imposed upon humankind.

There is, however, such a thing as a lesser of two evils or unavoidable necessity. Roosevelt, already estranged from Congress when he tried to pack the Supreme Court during his second term, only narrowly won his third term. He, however, by that time rightfully saw that Germany would not be appeased and would not stop until Hitler had conquered all of Europe and no doubt beyond Europe. That was not a pleasant prospect to contemplate. Roosevelt, however, had little influence in a Congress still suspicious of him and in an isolationist mood despite its placing sanctions on Japan to prevent Japan from savaging more of its neighbors who were US trading partners.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, however, forced the issue. We saw no choice but to retaliate which of course provoked Germany to declare war on us to keep Japan on their side.

Would we consider sanctions on Iran as justifiable provocation for Iran to attack US installations? Would we consider decades of sanctions on Cuba to be justification for Castro to start lobbing missiles at Miami?

In my opinion, to think that the USA somehow intentionally provoked Japan to attack is simply ludicrous and is the product of historical revisionists who do not want the USA to be justified in anything and who regularly attempt to turn anything positive in US history into a negative.

"Would we consider sanctions on Iran as justifiable provocation for Iran to attack US installations?"

You've hit upon something rather interesting. Let's say we do tighten the sanctions on Iran and let's say that they attack us for this reason. How many dems would come out and blame Bush for this as opposed to FDR levying sanctions on Japan, 60+ years ago?

 

[Annie]

A good brief history, here, but I can't quite agree with the conclusion that we were protecting our 'naval dominance in the Pacific' with sanctions, however. I think we WERE protecting our trading partners in the Pacific against a Japan that had become inceasingly aggressive and imperialistic.

Perhaps, then again, we hadn't taken over Guam, Hawaii, and the Philippines for no reason.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps, then again, we hadn't taken over Guam, Hawaii, and the Philippines for no reason.

But aren't these different things? Even if we had or were striving for naval superiority in the Pacific and these islands were part of that strategy, that does not necessarily extrapolate into our provoking war with Japan.

 

[Annie]

But aren't these different things? Even if we had or were striving for naval superiority in the Pacific and these islands were part of that strategy, that does not necessarily extrapolate into our provoking war with Japan.

Not alone, but in the context of the times, perhaps one of many factors.

 

[Paulie]

Since this is the conspiracy theory zone.......

I do believe FDR provoked Japan in order to get past the isolationists. As the Gunny noted, we do sanctions all the time for less. Donovin knew about the rape of Nanjing etc, so to did FDR. But, Germany was the focus. FDR knew that without US involvement, the Axis just might win. So, provoking Japan was a pragmatic move. IF they had not been provoked, they would have attacked eventually.

New theory. Did the chain of command at the national level know in advance that PH was a target. Everyone who actually said something about it got sacked........

[begin twilight zone music]

Wow. It's ok to theorize that we allowed Pearl Harbor so we could justify going to war, but not 9/11? What's the difference? They both sure do SEEM to be equally as convenient for the powers that be.

Why should there be a double standard?

 

[Paulie]

"Would we consider sanctions on Iran as justifiable provocation for Iran to attack US installations?"

You know, it's not like it should be considered taboo to say that intentionally choking the economic life out of a country can be construed as an act of war by said country. How many innocent families in Iran do you think have been affected by the sanctions so far? How many people do you think have probably died already as a result? The economy is the life-blood of a nation. You fuck with it, and people will eventually get angry and resentful. Cheney could probably only BE so lucky to have Iran finally decide they've had enough bullying, and respond.

If a nation proposed sanctions against the US because they perceived it as having committing war crimes, you don't think our government would take that as an act of war?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So whose fault is it? Bush's for imposing sanctions OR Mahmoud for ignoring international law? And yes, if Iran closed down our economy,shut off the Straits of Hormuz, he'd be blasted out of the sand. So, since we did impose sanctions on Japan don't you think they were just a little pissed?

 

[Annie]

So whose fault is it? Bush's for imposing sanctions OR Mahmoud for ignoring international law? And yes, if Iran closed down our economy,shut off the Straits of Hormuz, he'd be blasted out of the sand. So, since we did impose sanctions on Japan don't you think they were just a little pissed?

Interesting, I wonder about China and India and trade imbalances. Considering China basically refuses nearly all imports from US, isn't that a type of sanction? Of course we could do the same, perhaps a trade war?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not alone, but in the context of the times, perhaps one of many factors.

In the world of international politics, anything is possible. You could certainly have a point. I'll add it to the list of other possibilities stacked in my head.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Interesting, I wonder about China and India and trade imbalances. Considering China basically refuses nearly all imports from US, isn't that a type of sanction? Of course we could do the same, perhaps a trade war?

You've got a very good point. Perhaps we should have a trade war. But some might get mad since they're the most favored nation. Lol.