What's new

WW2: was Japan provoked?

Sukotto

先輩
9 Jul 2003
1,305
20
53
War w/US: was Japan provoked?

This topic may have come up before?
I searched the forum for the topic and only found
reference to it. I was wondering what people
thought of the following exchange between
Gore Vidal and Ian Buruma:

Pearl Harbor: An Exchange


The idea that Japan was provoked is a held
by some right wing Japanese politicians,
according to the two at the above link,
and by some historians as well, not necessarily 'right-wing'.

I've not read much from either side.
 
Last edited:
Less about provoked, maybe many japanese politicians and leaders thought they had no other choice then to attack america.

I dont really understand why...the american people were dead set against joining up, and japan could quite happily go around building and consolidating its empire (even though it wouldnt manage to hold all those peoples under its thumb for more then a few decades before it had a problem with resistance and military reminants and rebel militia's) but i guess america and japan had an important trade agreement that america stopped or something?, somethnig about oil anyway.

Bleh i just woke up, but i think it has something to do with oil and an american sanction on it or something, anyway, my point is, if oil can be a provacation for war, as america demonstrates in these more modern times, then maybe it is for japan.

But for the sake of argument, its just best considor the attack on japan the start of the war, carried out by the japanese technically unprovoked, but, that can still be argued since, countries have gone to war over less provacation.
 
You know, you're opening up a can of worms here...

But for argument's sake, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean "Was Japan provoked into going to war with China?" or "Was Japan provoked into going to war with USA?" They're not really the same thing.
 
Japan was certainly provoked by the USA, but not by other Asian countries. By invading French, British and Dutch colonies in SE Asia, Japan effectively knew it meant war with their ally the United States. So, Pearl Harbour was not really went things were decided between Japan and the US. It was a few months before. Japan's alliance with Nazi Germany in the first place somehow forced them to attack Germany's ennemies. So, as far as Western allied powers are concerned, Japan entered the war when it form the Axis alliance with Germany and Italy.

As for China, I don't think that China ever attacked or threatened Japan in all its history (if we except Kubilai Khan's failed invasion, but he was a Mongol, not a Han Chinese). In the 16th century, I know that Japanese pirates frequently wrought havoc the coast of China though. It's quite odd that a country so much smaller than China should dare attack it so boldly. Japan could have been grateful for importing so much from China (kanji, Buddhism, Confucianism, system of government, architecture, customs, traditions, festivals...). Instead it has been Japan that bullied China without provocation - as if wanted always more from its big brother.
 
History repeats itself

Despite democractic systems (the UN) being in place, politicians (Bush) can convince citizens (Americans) that war on a country (Iraq) is justified by telling lies (terroists, nuclear weapons) and keeping real motives (oily kebabs) a secret.

Can we ever know the REAL motives of a war?
 
Mikawa Ossan said:
You know, you're opening up a can of worms here...

But for argument's sake, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean "Was Japan provoked into going to war with China?" or "Was Japan provoked into going to war with USA?" They're not really the same thing.



yes, being provoked, with regards to war between the US and Japan.
Japan certainly was not provoked in to warring all over Asia.
As far as empire, colonies, and being hostile to other peoples,
Japan at that point in history, regarding these two countries, definately
did not have a monopoly.


I will say this regarding the exchange (at the link above),
it does add to the point of view that WW2 was a case of empires bumping
up against one another. Note the US still having control of the Phillipines,
which they/we? took from Spain in the very imperialist Spanish/American War.
And when did the US cease having colonies/being an empire? I've not
heard any reference in US history texts when I was in high school or since
to the US officially ending its empire/hold on colonies any time previous to WW2 (or ever?)
 
I just wanted to share a story with you all that goes hand in hand with the thread topic.
A few months ago my grandmother died and I started to spend more time with my grandfather...who, as one can imagine, is quite lonely. He loves to talk about his time in the service and on one occasion we had a long chat about the current war...which somehow led to his recollections about his time in WW2. Carl joined the Navy in 1937 and was discharged in 1946 after his boat was hit by a kamikaze in July of 1945 (boat could not be repaired, and like many others in the Navy Carl was discharged due to the downsizing of the military after the war).
In late 1939 and 1940 he helped with the Lend-Lease program to Britian. American Navy crews delivered outdated warships and materials to Britian to stave off German air and submarine raids.
It was during this time that Carl said that most of the talk was with the impending war with Japan (of which he became a part after the 1942 invasion of northern Africa). I asked him if he might be mistaken about his timeline which he took offense with (he is still very sharp minded even in advanced age). He said that the people in the Navy were readying for war with Japan in 1939 and 1940 even though we were neutral (although openly helping Britian and gearing toward eventual war with Germany). He said that the in late 1940 especially the talk of war with Japan geared up due to the steel embargo against Japan. He claimed that it was an unavoidable clash between the two countries. I asked him if the thought that America had provoked a war with Japan. His answer was absolutely he thought that. He did say, however, that even though provoked he could not understand to this day why they took the bait....it was (in his opinion) inevitable that America would prevail due to industrial capacity.
Just thought I would share what a WW2 veteran thought about this issue.
 
I agree mainly with Mr. Guruma on this one.

Did the US endeavor to limit Japanese political and strategic choices prior to WWII? Vidal makes a convincing case that the US did just that, but he ignores / doesn't go into the larger issues surrounding US Far East policy which made the US subscribe to "FDR's policy of provocation."

Japan had been waging an expansionist campaign driven by a "continuing preoccupation with strategic advantage and a peculiar combination of nationalist pride and insecurity (Pyle, Kennith B. The Making of Modern Japan, pg 145)" since at least the Sino-Japanese War, and without a doubt by the Manchurian Incident in 1931.

Vidal's focus on US policy in 1941 - at least in the scope of his brief NY Times article - ignores a decade of highly confrontational and volatile Far East political friction.

Japan's Pacific War started in 1931. The US didn't make Japan invade China, set up a puppet state in Manchuria, annex Korea and Taiwan and attempt to forge and new Japan-centered Asian order based on racial and ethnic stratification.

Japan backed itself into a corner, and the US made sure they stayed in it. Pearl Harbor was Japan's last attempt to get out.
 
Sukotto said:
Note the US still having control of the Phillipines,
which they/we? took from Spain in the very imperialist Spanish/American War.
And when did the US cease having colonies/being an empire? I've not
heard any reference in US history texts when I was in high school or since
to the US officially ending its empire/hold on colonies any time previous to WW2 (or ever?)

A law was passed at the US Congress in 1935 granting the independance of the Philippines in 1946. The period in between (1935-46) was supposed to be a transition period to smooth up the process. The Japanese invaded the Philippines a few hours after attacking Pearl Harbour, so they knew exactly what they were doing. If colonies are considered as part of the national territory of one country, then Japan did invade and occupy a part of the USA during WWII.

I also recommend this short summary of mine of the subject : Japan and WWII : Asian hegemony
 
Thank you Maciamo for informing me of when the US congress officially gave back
independence to the Phillipines. Now I know.
Further investigations on my behalf will have to be taken to find out if a puppet regime
was set up or the only gov't allowed was one that would give free reign to trans-national corporations (historically a primary tool of colonialism/imperialism. Political independence, fine. But to say they cannot have control of their own economics? No independence in reality).
(we know the regime that was forced from power during US's Reagan was essentially a puppet).

With the idea of Roosevelt provoking Japan to attack the US has been around for years. I heard of it before I knew who WBush was, probably from Vidal in one of his short pamphlets? So it is still interesting if Sept 11 never happened.
Throw in Operation Northwoods, in which the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually proposed setting up attacks on the US itself to justify an invasion of Cuba,
Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962
that such thinking is possible, and conspiracy theories are abound.

So, sticking to just the idea of the US provoking Japan to attack,
it's still up in the air with me. I don't know enough even of the mainstream
history pre-Pearl Harbor to enter into a serious debate. Since there is a lot
of post-war history that we do not know; that what was said publically and
done privately do not coincide, it is enough to make one question other
things as well. Especially when the history texts present it in such a way
as "rah, rah. aren't we great. war sure is, because we won."


I hope I don't seem to come off like I'm trying to justify Japan's imperialism.
That cannot be done. There is no such thing as a just imperialism. There is an endless number of self-serving justifications, but ...
Imperialism by definition means others are subjegated. i.e. slaves of
one sort or another.

As far as colonies go, the colonizer may consider them to be a part of
their country. But are the colonized ever asked the question?
Without the intimidation that an occupying army has by its mere presence,
no matter how friendly the occupier may be?

I am seeing WW2 more and more as a war amongst competing empires.
And many of the European countries (maybe mostly the elites and ultra-nationalists?) thought they had a right or maybe even a moral imperative to retake their lost colonies after the war (lest they fall into chaos? ha!) ? "the nerve" , right?
 
Sukotto said:
(we know the regime that was forced from power during US's Reagan was essentially a puppet).


I just wanted to take an exception to something I wrote.
The above.
While I've read stuff saying something close to that,
I've not read even a basic Phillipine history timeline
and so feel kind of dumb for having posted that,
and for the attitude I came across with in
response to Maciamo's post previous to it. Like: "oh yeah, well..."

Although I do stand by the matter of economic policies being
dictated by other countries in general, mostly being the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom