From: borders@ms.uky.edu (Johnny Borders)
Subject: Re: An open letter to the Emperor Akihito of Japa
    <7062@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com> <1992Aug15.124608.14760@husc3.harvard.edu> 
    <2351@aegis.or.jp>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 06:12:44 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane) writes:

>liu10@husc10.harvard.edu (Eric Liu) writes:

>This may come as a real surprise but I have been in Japan for 10
>years and during that time I've had many conversations with a wide
>variety of people here and there is a "large" (can't say exactly,
>but among those I have spoken with approx. 90%) segment who do *NOT*
>feel that Japan was responsible for the war.  Instead, they have a
>well-developed set of reasons why and how Japan was tricked into the
>war and they believe this to be the case. Thus I don't think asking
>the Emperor to apologize is going to get anyplace. 

   Exactly how I feel, but I'm glad you substantiated the feelings (as you've
heard them expressed) with some proof. Something, sadly, I could not do. I
had no idea how the Japanese people really stood on this issue.
If they have "well-developed" reasons why Japan was 'tricked' into the
war, I would like to hear them. I can understand that Japan was desperate
for natural resources, and if no one was willing to give them, why not 
just take them? The US has (recently) done worse things and over less
important things. But tricked into bombing Pearl Harbor, um.. I'm not 
going to buy that one, EVER. Of course, the Navy WAS caught with their
pants down, but that's something typically "forgotten" in "remembering"
Pearl Harbor.

>As I said, this may come as real surprise; it sure was a surprise to
>me. When I asked people how come the government doesn't voice this
>opinion (that Japan wasn't responsible for the war) there were a
>variety of answers. I will sum them up by saying that it just isn't
>in Japan's current economic interest to say things that will make
>trading difficult. 

>Perhaps the most curious thing is there was support for the Japanese
>position at the time. According to Life magazine of September 24,
>1945 (yes, I actually have a copy!) in "Pearl Harbor, The facts were
>known ... now is the time to assess their meaning":

>  For a long time the offical explanation of Pearl Harbor was that
>  we were slugged without warning when we were innocently going about
>  our business. Slugged we were, and there is no need to pallitate
>  the Japanese behavior. But to say that we were slugged without
>  warning is a radical distortion of the truth. 

>  As the coming invesitagtions will show, the Pearl Habor case moves
>  on many levels. The Republicans will charge--and prove--that the
>  Democrats ... have chosen tactics and timing designed to frustrate
>  any effective political reaction to it. The "isolationists" will
>  charge--and they have have evidence for their case---that Roosevelt
>  maneuvered the Japanese crisis in such a way as to invite the
>  Pearl Harbor attack when it came.

>Now please note that I'm not saying that Japan *was* tricked, I'm
>only saying there is a significant number of people here who
>*believe* Japan was tricked, and such people also existed in the
>U.S. at the time. While this view seems to have been lost in the
>outside of Japan, I think it remains very much alive here, even
>though it's a relatively taboo subject.. By the Japanese government
>remaining relatively silent on the issue, people in other countries
>can continue to believe that Japan was responsible, and people here
>can continue to believe that Japan was tricked. 

Japan was not tricked into doing a lot of what it did.. The need for 
resources was overwhelming (as history has it, but this may not be
true). Manchuria was close by and rich with numerous resources and raw
materials. I wouldn't say they were tricked here.
   Pearl Harbor? Well, that's a different story.. They thought the carriers
would be there. Why would they think that I wonder? Their intelligence was
accurate enough, but probably just out of date enough to allow the US to
move the precious bait out of the base (if that's the case). And not very
far from base either. They seemed to have sailed away just in time.. They
were still in striking range from the Japanese fleet (though the Japanese
didn't know this, again, as history has it). But why did they attack the
U.S.? Must have been awfully tempting, particularly with something that
looks like a technicality (the presence of the carrier in Pearl Harbor).
It is likely enough that if the carrier had been destroyed at Pearl Harbor,
then Japanese would now be my native language (not that that would be a bad 
thing, mind you :) Tricked or not, how can anyone not admire their courage
and cunning?
   One more piece AGAINST the 'forced hand' theories: What about the
Japanese concentrations around the International Settlement in Shanghai?
Why did they wait until Pearl Harbor to attack? To setup a trap of this
scale would have required British and Chinese cooperation that neither 
probably would have given. If I were Chinese, I wouldn't want a great 
military power camping out outside one of my greatest cities, and if I
were British, I would be more concerned about my citizens living there
then I would be to take part in an American conspiracy.

>Meanwhile the bottom line is that along with it's preoccupation of
>making money, Japan has become an economic giant. I would be
>surprise at anything more than a vague reference to "remembering the
>lesson from the past" from from the Emperor, and I wouldn't expect
>any more than a token request for one as who can afford to bite the
>hand that feeds them? 

   An intriguing question.. Is Japan becoming too powerful once again?
It's looking a lot like Germany is these days.. Nuclear weapons have little
say against the glass and steel banks of Frankfurt and Tokyo. (a quote
borrowed from World Report, with slight modifications :)

   One more apology: I neglected to mention that the US went to no great
pains to hide what they did to US citizens in the camps, and I failed to
mention that these activities were restricted primarily to the West coast.
There weren't a whole lot of Japanese elsewhere at the time, except Hawaii,
where they went on undisturbed (though a lot went back to Japan anyway).
Of all places, too.. Americans in Hawaii should have been the most militant
of all, being as it was Hawaii that was attacked..
-- 
*******************************************************************************
* The University of Kentucky is not responsible * AIX: Marketing or lunacy?   *
* for me, by reason of "Bureaucrats Syndrome,"  * "I never used anything by   *
* a crippling form of insanity.                 *  IBM that I liked."         *
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan