4 ms·

> It wouldn't have happened if the US didn't own Hawaii in 1941 Which is what I said, except I put it more honestly: it would not have happened had the US not

> It wouldn't have happened if the US didn't own Hawaii in 1941 Which is what I said, except I put it more honestly: it would not have happened had the US not invaded, overthrown and annexed Hawaii. The US 'owned' Hawaii the same way Hitler 'owned' the Sudetenland. The point being the roots (ie, cause) of Pearl Harbor stretch back to 19th century US imperialism, throwing its weight around, and generally being in places it shouldn't have been. > but the US takeover of Hawaii was not the causus belli for Pearl Harbor. I didn't say it was a casus belli (no U), did I?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
You said "caused". Not "it would not have happened" (that is, it was one essential factor), but "caused" (that is, this is what made that happen). To see the difference, do a thought experiment. The US takes Hawaii in 1893, but does not end the sale of oil, rubber, metal, and everything else militarily useful to Japan in 1937. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Probably not, because the US is not signaling opposition to Japan's invasion of China. On the other hand, say the US doesn't "invade, overthrow, and annex" Hawaii. It merely negotiates for a naval base. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Yes.
- hartpuff 11y ago
  > You said "caused". Not "it would not have happened" (that is, it was one essential factor), but "caused" (that is, this is what made that happen). I said "caused" because I was copying the statement and style of the previous poster. His point (I believe) alluded to the commonly held belief that the roots of WWII lay in WWI; my point, since he used 1941, was that the roots of Pearl Harbor lay closer to home. > To see the difference, do a thought experiment. The US takes Hawaii in 1893, but does not end the sale of oil, rubber, metal, and everything else militarily useful to Japan in 1937. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Probably not, because the US is not signaling opposition to Japan's invasion of China. Okay, I say in this fictional version of history that it still does happen, because the US is still in places it should not be, due to its late 19th century imperialism, and still poses a military threat to Japanese ambitions in the region. > On the other hand, say the US doesn't "invade, overthrow, and annex" Hawaii. It merely negotiates for a naval base. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Yes. Why does it still happen? If the US is acting peacefully in this imaginary situation, why can't Japan?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Based on US Navy interviews with Japanese officials after the end of WWII, it seems immensely improbable that Japan cared about the US takeover of Hawaii per se. They cared about the US fleet that was based there, and about US actions to oppose Japan's attempts to conquer China and the Dutch East Indies. So if Hawaii were independent but the US had a fleet base there, no, Japan wasn't going to act peacefully in that imaginary situation - not unless you're postulating an actually peaceful Japan, one that isn't attacking China and the Dutch East Indies.
    - hartpuff 11y ago
      > it seems immensely improbable that Japan cared about the US takeover of Hawaii per se. They cared about the US fleet that was based there Nobody is saying otherwise. Perhaps you have forgotten again how and why the US fleet got there in the first place: violent American imperialism and expansionism in the late 19th century. It's fairly pointless to imagine situations where that didn't happen, when it did. > So if Hawaii were independent but the US had a fleet base there, no, Japan wasn't going to act peacefully in that imaginary situation - not unless you're postulating an actually peaceful Japan, one that isn't attacking China and the Dutch East Indies. Why not? You're postulating a mythological United States capable of negotiating peacefully with Hawaii (and presumably the Philippines, and Guam, and Cuba, and Puerto Rico?). If such a US ever existed, why would it be impossible for it to also come to a peaceful understanding with Japan? I mean, what are we supposed to be doing here, simply coming up with just the right amount of convenient historical changes to prove your point?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

You said "caused". Not "it would not have happened" (that is, it was one essential factor), but "caused" (that is, this is what made that happen). To see the difference, do a thought experiment. The US takes Hawaii in 1893, but does not end the sale of oil, rubber, metal, and everything else militarily useful to Japan in 1937. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Probably not, because the US is not signaling opposition to Japan's invasion of China. On the other hand, say the US doesn't "invade, overthrow, and annex" Hawaii. It merely negotiates for a naval base. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Yes.

hartpuff 11y ago
> You said "caused". Not "it would not have happened" (that is, it was one essential factor), but "caused" (that is, this is what made that happen). I said "caused" because I was copying the statement and style of the previous poster. His point (I believe) alluded to the commonly held belief that the roots of WWII lay in WWI; my point, since he used 1941, was that the roots of Pearl Harbor lay closer to home. > To see the difference, do a thought experiment. The US takes Hawaii in 1893, but does not end the sale of oil, rubber, metal, and everything else militarily useful to Japan in 1937. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Probably not, because the US is not signaling opposition to Japan's invasion of China. Okay, I say in this fictional version of history that it still does happen, because the US is still in places it should not be, due to its late 19th century imperialism, and still poses a military threat to Japanese ambitions in the region. > On the other hand, say the US doesn't "invade, overthrow, and annex" Hawaii. It merely negotiates for a naval base. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Yes. Why does it still happen? If the US is acting peacefully in this imaginary situation, why can't Japan?
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Based on US Navy interviews with Japanese officials after the end of WWII, it seems immensely improbable that Japan cared about the US takeover of Hawaii per se. They cared about the US fleet that was based there, and about US actions to oppose Japan's attempts to conquer China and the Dutch East Indies. So if Hawaii were independent but the US had a fleet base there, no, Japan wasn't going to act peacefully in that imaginary situation - not unless you're postulating an actually peaceful Japan, one that isn't attacking China and the Dutch East Indies.
  - hartpuff 11y ago
    > it seems immensely improbable that Japan cared about the US takeover of Hawaii per se. They cared about the US fleet that was based there Nobody is saying otherwise. Perhaps you have forgotten again how and why the US fleet got there in the first place: violent American imperialism and expansionism in the late 19th century. It's fairly pointless to imagine situations where that didn't happen, when it did. > So if Hawaii were independent but the US had a fleet base there, no, Japan wasn't going to act peacefully in that imaginary situation - not unless you're postulating an actually peaceful Japan, one that isn't attacking China and the Dutch East Indies. Why not? You're postulating a mythological United States capable of negotiating peacefully with Hawaii (and presumably the Philippines, and Guam, and Cuba, and Puerto Rico?). If such a US ever existed, why would it be impossible for it to also come to a peaceful understanding with Japan? I mean, what are we supposed to be doing here, simply coming up with just the right amount of convenient historical changes to prove your point?