From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:51:08 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Jul22125147@lark.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>>We cut off oil shipments and froze Japanese assets in response to further
>>Japanese incursions in Asia (a unilateral embargo). For this, we were
>>attacked. IMO, this attack was completely unjustified.
>
>While we cut off Japan, Britain was still active in China, Germany was active
>in China, and many European nations had already grabbed up most of Asia. Why
>did we single out Japan?

Um, what trade did we have with Germany at that time? Also, I believe that
Germany lost ALL of its colonies during/immediately after WWI; if they were
"active in China", it was with the Japanese. As for the British, they were in
China from about the time we became a nation; not much we could do.

>In a US Policy in Asia class that I took about a year ago we looked at the
>rather ambiguous stance the US took with regard to imperialistic efforts in
>Asia in general and in China specifically. Supporting the British one moment
>and the Japanese the next in the name of the "Open Door" policy. Moveover, the

I don't remember Britain colonizing Manchuria at that time. Perhaps my history 
class missed something.

>US had it's own imperialistic efforts underway in Asia. So while the unilateral

Whom were we invading at the time?

>embargo might at first appear a rather noble effort to protect our "brown
>brothers" I think it is reasonable to conclude that alterior motives might have
>been at work.
>
>This is not to say that it is all the US fault. Rather that the US was not as
>squeaky clean as many high school and college history classes would have us
>believe.

"squeeky clean" has nothing to do with it. It is irrefutable that the Japanese
were expanding their war effort in Asia, and therefore expanding the Asian war,
despite promises to the contrary. We retaliated with an embargo. They retaliated
with bombs.

>>As it wasn't much of a military success, this is doubtful. Our entire supply
>>of fuel for the Pacific Fleet was in Pearl Harbor; it was untouched. Not one
>>of our aircraft carriers was damaged. It mobilized one of the (actually THE)
>>major industrial powers and focused its anger. This was all done without
>>declaration of war, against what was, after all, a neutral power.

>Japanese managed to catch ALL BUT the Aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor. Our

Actually, I believe most of our fleet was at sea, including all carriers.

>Battleship fleet was heavily damage and at the time Battleships were still
>thought to be the better weapon, or at least there was still a serious debate
>on the issue. The US forces were not able to launch but a handful of aircraft
>to defend because most of them were destoryed on the ground. The Japanese
>imposed a great deal of damage at very little cost. The Japanese then went on
>to enjoy a long period of military success during the first part of the war due
>at least in part to their successful attack on Pearl Harbor.

Not really. Most of their success against us came immediately after Pearl
Harbor; they suffered military setbacks less than one year after the attack.
There was also not much debate about which type of ship was a better weapon; 
the German admiralty was very much against a war with Britain because, while
their battleships were very good, they had a single aircraft carrier, and they
knew this was insufficient. 

That the Japanese thought the carriers were the better weapon is shown by the
fact that the attack was designed in large part to wipe out our carriers.

>Stormin' Norm, of Gulf War fame, called the attack on Pearl Harbor a stroke of
>military genius. He is among many military experts who consider Pearl Harbor an
>extremely successful attack.

>It is easy, with 20/20 hindsight, to list what the Japanese should have done. 

The Japanese listed what they should have done before the attack; the admirals
who were aware of what they were doing considered it madness. They were right.
A successful attack and a military success are different; the purpose of the
attack was to cripple the US fleet, particularly the carriers, and force the
US to the negotiating table. It failed in both respects.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
Newsgroups: soc.history