From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re:  Opinion on Japan being "forced" to attack the U.S.
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:41 GMT


From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)

Joseph Askew writes:
> I am afraid this line of argument does do much for me. If the US was going
> be much stronger as time went on and the Japanese had no way of making the
> US talk peace then it would have been insanity to think the US might decide
> to talk. What would the US have to gain by doing so? Nothing! So why did the
> Japanese alledgedly think they might? Was there ever one US military commander
> who advocated a surrender in 1942? I have never heard of one and if there was
> one was he sacked the next day? Japan was not capable of threatening the West
> Coast, she barely managed Hawaii and as has been said could not land there if
> she wanted to. Exactly why would the Japanese have any reason to expect a 
> peace settlement? Again is there much evidence of the Japanese high command 
> actually thinking the US might surrender? I haven't seen any although there 
> might be some.

  Frankly, I have found some your points somewhat puzzling.  You have maintain-
ed that Japan had no desire for war with the US, that FDR wouldn't have minded
one in the least, that the Japanese knew full well what they were getting into,
etc., etc.

  I think we all might agree that Japan felt war (with America) was required 
in order to maintain its conquests in China and elsewhere.  But at this point
things break down.  If Japan felt the war was a long shot at best, why attack?
Especially if they knew they had no real hope of a US surrender?  It has not 
been demonstrated to me (by you) that they even felt they might "get lucky".  
Such apparent irrationality would seem to fly in the face of these supposedly 
(as you, Mr. Askew, have presented them) sober military leaders ALL (or nearly 
all) being well aware of the almost-certain doom they faced.

  Why not simply give up what you felt you were bound to lose anyway, and save
a lot of Japanese lives, the Navy, chances at remaining a Great Power, etc.?
I suspect there were other ways to avoid the humiliation -- like my East Indies
idea, below.

  While I suspect that Japan would have preferred to be allowed to muck about 
in China unmolested by Western powers, they WERE finally called on the carpet
about it by the US (hypocritical act or not), and enforced by the embargo.  And
given the choice between giving up their mini-Empire and war, they chose war.

  I wonder if the US would have intervened if Japan had struck the East Indies
first (and only) instead of Pearl and the Phillipines.  Anybody got any ideas?
Maybe.  But I wonder if the support he wanted from the people would have been
there.  I dunno.  Seems like a REALLY big gamble on FDR's part to get into
the war on Germany.  You know, get Japan to commit suicide by attacking first,
then hope Germany declares war...


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military