Reasons of Pearl Harbor?

Theory.

Why would US need to step into war?
US economy was practicaly destroyed by depression in 1929. It came from recession in mid-late 30's and finaly saved by start of the war in 1939. US armmament industry was the only industry that managed to export it's products. British were practicaly bancrupt by 1941 so lend -lease was adopted. If British lost the war that would hurt US economy realy bad. Consequences for US would be dissterous.

Did US provoke the war?
US NAVY escorted convoys almost all the way as early as summer 41. Was that atempt to provoke Germany to attack US ships? Fact is that German commanders had strict orders NOT under any cicumstances attack US ships. Unfortumatly mistakes happened ( USS Ruben James and few others). But US public opinion was still against the war.
Japan was mayor ally of Germany. What happened in China was last thing on US public mind as long it was far, far away. Japan also had one of most modern navy's in world. US knew that. By my opinion trade embargo ( especialy for oil) was provocation. Japanese tried to negotiate. Conditions were that Japan must completly withraw from China and Manchuria ( not Mongolia Grieg - Mongolia was a protectorate of SSSR at the time, remember Khalhin Gol ). For Japan that was unacceptiable bacouse Japan hardly has any natural resources. Their primary source of resources was Manchuria. For that reason they were prepared to withraw from China but not Manchuria. US still demanded complete withdrawl from Manchuria. If embargo would last few months longer Japanese military and their economy would halt to standstill as it would run out of oil and resources. US knew how Japan would react to the embargo. Remember Japan was a regional super power at the time.

Did US sacrifice PH?
No. US thinkers did not consider PH as possible target. Japanese cought them with their pants down. On the other hand Philiphines ( and some other territiries like Wake, Palmyra, Duch East Indies etc) were considered to be targeted by Japanese. If i reccal correctly there was law suit ( couple of years ago) against US goverment by US civilians captured by Japanese on Philiphines on basis that US goverment sacrificed them ( their passports were revoked so they coud not leave the islands and some documents now relesed by goverment).


Was defense of PH prepared?
NO. Adm. Kimmel tryed to rush defensive mesures but he lacked material. He was simply not given the materials he needed. All material was mainly in transit to Philiphines ( like B-17 and mostly army units). Most of war preparations were concetrated on Philiphines.

Did US knew about imminent attack?
Firstly: If all reports ( about Japanese sub and radar images) would be acted upon nothing would make difference as most of the airplanes were under maintenance ( guns mostly) and were not refuled ( fear of sabotage). PH was simply not cosiderd to be the target and was prepared accordingly.
Secondly: US knew that war is imminent. They had a lot of info on Japanese preparations. US planes were photographing Formosa ( and some other bases) almost daily. Becouse of that Japanese themselves were not expecting to achive complete strategical suprise. How do you explain warnings about possible sabotage by Japanese poeple living on Hawaii if not by danger of war?


Is this theory possible?
By my opinion yes. No one can claim that he studied all relevent archival documentation that is now available, least of all me. One has to consider age ald question: QUE BONO ( who benifits).

 

Dear Grieg,
Wasn´t the promise made to give him the Office again? And even if not – he was actively, even very actively, helping Britain, as well as squeezing Japan with his eyes open. How could he have expected another outcome of his good works? Was he THAT naïve? He was maybe not the smartest president in history, but hardly a moron.

Good point about WW1. involvement.
But one could speculate that Bernard Baruch was sending the shiploads to the Allies hoping, together with the rest of the Establishment to get the money back, somehow. And the best way to see your hopes come true is to help the Fate a little bit. I know that it sounds extremely cynical, but where big money and very many human fates get involved, there is not much space for idealism.

“The special relations”… You are certainly aware that the majority of public opinion before the US intervention in WW1. was with the Germans. Besides, one thing is kinship, or sympathy, still another – to get involved in a big, nasty war, where you or your relatives are likely to die.

“Idealism”. You can´t intervene anywhere because you think, you are right. It is a dangerous path, I think. And self-righteous. What if you make a mistake?
Many political writers thought after WW1. that without the US intervention, the Europeans would have sorted things out between themselves. Somehow. The “artificial” boost from USA changed the balance and, who knows, maybe gave the Allies too much self-confidence, which led to the infamous Versailles and …… I´d better stop here, lest you kill me by e-mail.

“I didn't mean to imply you were making a direct comparison. It's just that I wouldn't use Hitler's thoughts or actions in any way to try and determine what was behind Roosevelts motivations and plans.”
Grieg, I didn´t do that either. Hitler was sort of crazy and had his stupid plans, and Roosevelt had his agenda too. That´s all.

“at some point Roosevelt knew that it was unavoidable that the US get involved and that he would have to begin to prepare the country for war. IMO all the evidence points to him having come to that conclusion much later than many people seem to think.”
Maybe. But he was in close contact with Churchill practically from the beginning. The Jewish lobby was nudging him energetically very early on to do something about Hitler, too. Being an intelligent man, he must have known what he was doing and WHY.
I must confess: far from being a conspiracy theorist, I know, due to perusal of many books on politics, that a damn lot of things don´t get printed at all or has to be looked for very actively. And that one has to view things from all possible angles in order to have a chance of understanding what´s going on.

I am just reading Robert Baer´s “See no Evil” now. This is a story of CIA falling apart, written by an insider. I haven´t finished yet. What strikes me is, that once such a powerful organization disintegrated so easily. As if someone wanted it to happen. But I don´t understand why. Yet. The tendency was too strong to be just accidental. Do you have a clue (apart from the easy one: USSR was gone)?

 

Dear Tiso,
For me it is enough that the US policy was an open provocation, without the American public approval or knowing.
Whether PH was intentionally sacrificed? I don´t know that.
Could USA afford to lose those ships and still beat Japan with one hand in the pocket? I think, yes. History showed it itself. Japan was doomed from the start (just like Germany, but that´s another story).

Is this kind of thinking cynical? Yes! But, unfortunately, not unfounded.

 

Just a short note on the 'Special Relationship':

The attitude of the average American' towards Britain is quite well shown in the large amount of donations (from money, to 'care packages', to weaponry for the Home Guard) given by the American Public to be sent to Britain (before America got involved).

On America & China:

back in the late 1930s, when Japan really started on China, Japanese aircraft sank an American gunboat on a Chinese river. The gunboat was liberally furnished with American markings, including some deliberately designed to be seen from the air. It is commonly thought that this action was the Japanese testing how far American interest out in China went, and how far they could push the Americans. There was effectively no comeback on the incident.

 

Are you sure of that, because it sounds rather strange to me.
In 1914, thousands of americans volunteered for the french army(The Lafayette/Rochambeau effect,as well as the common republican ideal....) but I haven't heard of similar volunteers for the german army.

And certainly the rape of Belgium did not help german image in the USA.

 

You´ll always find a part of the American population with these or those sympathies. And, generally, the Americans will often help those in trouble. In the start of WW2 – Britain. Particularly as the Press was heavily against Germany and portrayed the Germans as aggressors.

What about the large number of Irish, very much against Great Britain? In a similar fashion – there were many Americans of German stock, who “hepped” with Germany.
But that´s not all: before USA got involved in WW1, siding with the Germans was, as I understand it, an expression of sentiments against British colonialism, as well as maybe - an attempt to avoid US involvement in the war.

The East coast establishment would have never allowed USA get involved on German side. Too great was the financial involvement between the American and British.
I cannot cite any sources now to show the sympathies in USA at the start of the War. But, I hope we can agree (at least) that the American public was at least neutral at the beginning. Later, as a consequence of various events and of the propaganda in the press – most Americans were backing the Coalition.

The Jewish opinion in USA was very much on the side of the Germans and only when the British and, later US decisionmakers backed the “Jewish national Home” in Palestine, that this sector of American opinion became firmly pro-British and pro-war.

I don´t know how many Americans of German origin volunteered to fight for Germany. Maybe some were afraid of ostracism after the war? Maybe such cases were hushed down during and after the war. I don´t really know.
Later – it would have been a treason for an US citizen to fight on German side.

 

Izaak, i would disagree with your assesment of the steel and oil embargos as provocative. at the time japan was engaging in offensive warfare against the wishes and will of the rest of the world. actions taken to restrain a bully are not provocative in the common sense. the bully may percive them to be so and no doubt japan did see them that way but the fault and the blame must lie with the bully and not with those that attempt to protect the victims. japan must bare the burden of starting the war both in thought and in deed. she and she alone made the choices that lead to the war.

 

lynn1212,
of course, I am talking about what was perceived as provocative by the Japaneese! If the aim was to provoke Japan, it was the only thing that counted.

You write:"....japan was engaging in offensive warfare against the wishes and will of the rest of the world..."
The rest of the world meaning USA (plus a few European states)?
Why should USA more and more dictate the rest of the world, how to behave? Had Japan an agreement with USA forbidding it to wage aggressive war? Had China a treaty with USA? No, no and no. And what would you said if all the Arab countries tried to stop the bully USA in their war with Iraq (not in any possible way a threat to the US)? It was a purely aggressive war. What if all countries who didn´t like the US attack "had tried to stop the bully"?

You write "...those that attempt to protect the victims.."
Who gave the USA the right to say who is victim and who a villain? I am not defending Japan here, not at all. But I am trying to tell that I don´t like the new American role of the cop of the world. As well as the judge.

 

The kind of "provocation being discussed here is merely an excuse and rationalization for an imperialistic, aggressive expanionist and militaristic Japanese attempt at world hegemony.
The embargo on oil was well within the rights of the US who was the worlds major oil producer at the time and they could also decide who they wished to sell scrap iron to( and who they did not wish to sell to).

If I lock my door you ,as a burglar, might consider it a provocation.

I don't like it either. As far as I'm concerned the rest of the world can continue to kill each other for the next millennium.
(The country you live in would probably have ceased to exist long ago without this meddling by the US.)
Some people may consider these comments harsh, so be it. They might be surprised to know that many in the US feel exactly the same way and hear it expressed by common people (as opposed to policy makers) every day.

 

I should point out that the League of Nations (ineffective fore-runner of the UN) had condemned Japanese aggression - Japan subsequently left the League in a huff - so lynn1212 is correct in pointing out the opinion of the world's diplomats, if not the populations. Although the USA was not in the League...

As to 'punishing the aggressors' - American foreign policy between the wars was isolationist. Why do you think the League was so ineffective? No America. So, why did America not punish the aggressor Italy, in Abyssinia & Albania? I assume it is because they had no interest in doing it. Britain & France should have, but did not, as they needed Italy as an ally against Germany.

So, why did America start on Japan?

Because she threatened American markets?

Japanese activity in China & elsewhere actually tended to be very respectful of European & American interests. One thinks of the 'International Settlement' in Shanghai.

Because of the poor Chinese people?

Call me cynical, but I doubt it. The Sino-Japanese 'conflict' was under-reported in the 'West' (although America is actually east of Japan... I've always found that anusing), and I'm not sure that even atrocities like Nanking would stir up America to fight for China. Heck, Japan deliberately sinking an American gunboat didn't.

So why?

 

Well, America is currently in the same bit of her history as we Brits were under Victoria.
Top Dog.
And assuming that we, as political, military & moral superiors, should tell the rest of the world (only the under-developed bits that can't fight back, or the developed bits that need our help) what to do.

Were we any better?
Nope.

It happens. Yesterday Britain, today America, tomorrow... China?

Maybe it is annoying having America being the world policeman/judge, but better them involved than them isolationist.

Note -
Obviously Britain's spot as 'top dog' is arguable, but as we ruled 1/4 of the world, and remained the single greatest naval power & pretty much undefeated on land...

Ok, back to the core of the debate.

 

since the USA is the richest and strongest nation on earth the question of responsiblites arises. do the stronger have a duty to protect the weaker? do the rich have a dury to feed the poor? where do these duties start and stop? what is the duration of such help? there are differences of opinion here. we as amercians give more to charity that do any other two nations without considering our governments spending for aid. since we do seem to accept that we have a duty to others it would follow that our leaders would also seek to help. this help is often resented and mocked but the fact remains that offering aid runs deep in the amercian sprit. we screw up from time to time but would you want us to stop trying?

 

Grieg, you´re right about the embargo being an equivalent of locked door. However, Roosevelt knew that Japan could only exist and develop (and continue their expansion) on US oil. The question is thus: was Roosevelt aware of that Japan would respond with an aggressive act vs. the US? I don´t know.

Maybe the only reason for the embargo, aside the humanitarian aspects, was to help USSR in their fight agains Hitler, by stopping a possible attack by the Japanese due to lack of oil and steel? (a kind of supplement to L/L).

Besides, I think that by that time the US Establishment was through with any vestige of thought of isolationism. I think the elite was preparing itself for controlling as much of the world as possible after the impending destruction of Europe. Stopping the supply of Japan with raw materials equalled the elimination of a possible competitor in Far East.

As to the US helping my country: you needn´t mention it to me. But is this meddling ever since WW2 to the good of world peace and justice? It just happens that a strong lobby in Washington has enough power to make the US pursue this line. My country is dependent on it and it´s no secret. The US would have probably (certainly?) be better of without this burden.

Whether it´s better to have the US involved or not…. You can´t change history. It is involved, very much so. Maybe more than it can afford.

 

Nope.

What I would prefer is more effort (by all nations) into making the UN a more effective body, and for most help to go via that route.
Why? Pragmatism.
Mostly because that would disguise the 'It's America helping the world' aspect, which would downplay a lot of the resentment, and prevent many problems (like Iraq) from getting out of hand.
Also, it would allow an easier hand-over to the next superpower, when that event arises.

 

Just out of curiosity how much do you give and how much is given by others. Also are you measruing this as a total figure or as a percentage of national average wages?


As for America to stop trying we all appreciate help where ever it comes from, but if America learns from other nations mistakes they can do a lot better.

 

the swamp that is the un

the un is a perfect example of a good idea gone wrong. it is a swamp of mismanagenent, theft, featherbedding, and self interest. it would be wonderful if there were a functioning body along the lines of the un but there isn't. since we cannot relie on the current gang of thieves there there is not much else to do but go our own way. if having the US help someone upsets them we could always keep our money rather that upset them.
as to aid given we far outpace whoever is in second. we give billions and billions both as private donations and as government aid as well as a lot of help that never shows up in any budget such as SAR and other on the spot help done as a side task just because it needed doing at the time.

 

Re: the swamp that is the un

And the US doesn't mismanage funds, is not corrupt and doesn't steal from companies. Everyone with wealth does it. Enron, mismangement of the Iraq reconstrution effort.


Yes they do give Billions , so do others.

Ever heard of the widows mite?

 

Enron executives violated financial reporting and accounting procedures i.e. they stole from their stockholders using improper financial and accounting procedures. They were business executives who broke the rules. They were detected and punished for their misdeeds.
The UN is supposed to be a high-minded organization that inspires trust around the world (whew..managed to get that out without bursting into laughter ) How many UN officials have been punished? Annan?

The US pays about 22% (down from 25%) of the UN's operating budget but has the same amount of say as Botswana i.e. one vote in the General Asssembly.

 

Yes, but that's because no country is allowed to be dominant within the UN to prevent the UN from becoming a puppet for the most powerful nation in the world. You Americans already have NATO for that.

You guys seem pretty good at condemning the UN but do you realize that in order for a supranational organization to work properly, all the member nations will have to be prepared to give up parts of their own sovereignity? As long as members refuse to do so, the organization is going to be crooked and ineffectual. In other words, either we scrap the whole thing or the US itself could contribute a lot to the practical value of the UN by having a more positive and willing attitude toward it.

 

too close to respect

maybe its because we see up close and first hand how the people of the un act. we are the ones that have to put up with them ignoring any law that inconviences them [ like parking in the middle of fire lanes, DWI, and what not], forgetting to pay their bills, telling our cops "i'm with the un. you can not do anything to me and if you're lucky i woun't have you fired", and all the other little signs that they are not the sort of people i want in charge of anything. most of the un is a waste of money, oxygen, and space, period.
i sure as he** do not want that bunch telling to do anything let alone surrender some of our soveneignity to them. any outfit that puts libia in charge of human rights is flat out nuts. at least we try to punish the bad guys here. scrap it? best idea i've heard in a long time.