6 ms·

We did not choose war willingly, the japanese govt made the choice for us when they attacked pearl harbor.

astrodust 10y ago
Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. I'm not saying what Japan did was in any way noble, but it was certainly far from unexpected. The US administration knew the war in Europe was a serious problem if left unchecked, that Britain and its allies would never prevail, but there was considerable resistance to the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor instantly catalyzed support. This doesn't even touch on the fact that many American companies were looking at Germany as an important customer, a country spending lavishly to build up its capability, at a time when American companies were struggling. Politics are complicated. It's rare that any of those involved in a conflict are entirely innocent.
- chrishacken 10y ago
  > Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. Are you kidding me? So honor was their reason to start a war that eventually caused millions to die?
  - laumars 10y ago
    You're taking his brief argument far too literally. Of course there was more at play than honour alone. However reasons aside, I'd argue your comment is moot as there's never a good reason to start a war. Edit: wow I'm surprised by the downvotes. Are you (who ever you are) suggesting you do agree with starting wars? I'd be very interested to hear why you disagree with me.
    - knz 10y ago
      I didn't downvote you but personally I feel conflict can be justified - stopping the Holocaust and defeating the nation that committed genocide and atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking were enough justification without considering the invasion of a huge number of sovereign territories. It disgusts me that the world has sat by during recent genocides.
      - laumars 10y ago
        Thanks for the insight. I don't disagree your point per se. If war could be accomplished without further harming those citizens then I might agree. Or if war brought about positive change then maybe you could justify the means. But sadly we've seen time and time again that destabilising governments through instigating war - even horrible despotic regiems like the aforementioned - usually ends up with more long term conflict. I should add that I'm against starting wars but not against retaliating, even ending the war, if and when required.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        In the cases of Germany and Japan, we won very thoroughly, and then re-did their government and society very thoroughly. In the case of Iraq, we won very thoroughly, and then decided that we should not re-do their government and society. There may not have been the political will to do anything else, but that turned out to be less than effective at transforming Iraq.
        chrishacken 10y ago
        "To date, the U.S. has spent more than $60 billion in reconstruction grants to help Iraq get back on its feet after the country was broken by more than two decades of war, sanctions and dictatorship. That works out to about $15 million a day. And yet Iraq's government is rife with corruption and infighting." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of-60b-from-us-to-rebuild-iraq-wasted-special-auditors-final-report-to-congress-shows/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of-60b-from-us-to-rebuild-i...
        10y ago
    - gurkendoktor 10y ago
      No downvote from me, but if Germany hadn't started the war, others should have done so to stop us. (I would have preferred a clean Stauffenberg-style solution, of course.)
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I completely agree with starting wars if it stops the suffering of large numbers of civilians. As it stands, 15-20 million Chinese were killed by the Japanese in that war. How many would have died if the US had not gotten involved?
      - laumars 10y ago
        I understand the point you're making but you are quoting numbers of suffering due to war which defeats the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by going to war. Plus the American involvement wasn't out of humanitarian reasons either. They only joined the war after getting attacked by Japan themselves. Which, which since I support retaliatory action if another party has already initiated war, would mean the US followed my stance on war in that regard.
        mikeash 10y ago
        How does quoting the suffering of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese defeat the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by the Americans going to war with the Japanese? Yes, war causes suffering. It can also prevent suffering. This would only be contradictory if I were for some reason arguing that all war is good, which I most certainly am not. I would argue that the US did join the war partly out of humanitarian reasons, since the war was precipitated by economic sanctions that were enacted due to Japan's actions in China. But ultimately my argument has nothing to do with their reasons.
        laumars 10y ago
        > How does quoting the suffering of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese defeat the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by the Americans going to war with the Japanese? Because you are using the sorrow of war to justify the means of war. It's a cyclic argument with each new participant upping the stakes; each time bringing about more suffering. In the case of the America vs Japan conflict during WW2, America's "humanitarianism" lead to two nuclear bomb being dropped causing around two hundred thousands casualties - many of who suffered long deaths from radiation exposure. Yes it shortened the war, but at what cost? We'll never know which hypothetical scenario would have saved the most lives but it's fair to say that America's involvement did contribute to large scale suffering too.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    You do realize that Japan, at the time, was run by a highly militarized government that still carried a lot of tradition from the feudal Japan era. Honour was a massive concern. Also remember that Japan had already conquered large parts of China and trounced Russia militarily, so they were feeling confident they'd prevail in any conflict with the US. At the time the US was in the middle of a poor economic period and its Pacific navy was in sad shape, many warships were simply relics from WWI. It wasn't exactly threatening. What Japan didn't realize was that the US would not be bullied, and instead would bite back a lot harder than anticipated. It's a lot like how America assumed Iraq would be a cake-walk, or Afghanistan could be resolved in a weekend.
- andars 10y ago
  Japan was "repeatedly slapped in the face" because of their increasing militarization, invasion of China (also Rape of Nanking), alliance with Italy and Germany, desire for control of all of East Asian (the Co-Prosperity Sphere), etc. The US response seems totally reasonable to me.
  - dilipd 10y ago
    Correct! Repeatedly slapping Japan was reasonable because of Japan's imperial ambitions, e.g. Taiwan(1895), Manchuria(1905), Korea(1910) etc. And, England and some other European countries were not 'repeatedly slapped', even though they were also imperialist, may be far longer, may be far worse!
    - vkou 10y ago
      Japan was also promised the world for their support of the Entente in World War I - and, much like Italy, received nothing for its efforts. Let's not forget the context of their imperial ambitions - in the first half of the twentieth century, most of the world was still ruled by empires.
      - tankenmate 10y ago
        Actually Japan was mandated large amounts of German New Guinea by the Treaty of Versailles and the South Pacific Mandate; Palau, almost all of Micronesia, and parts of Papua New Guinea. Other parts of German New Guinea were ceded to Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Britain. France of course kept their South Pacific colonies.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - astrodust 10y ago
    I mean with deliberate intent to provoke a military response from Japan. It wasn't that Japan wasn't up to no good, because they were, absolutely destroying large swaths of Asia and committing atrocities so horrifying even German observers were concerned, but that the US leadership needed Japan to attack to get on board versus Germany.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  > Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. Is that what it's called when we objected to Japan's war of conquest against China? Antagonism? Fine, let it be so. Japan brought doom on themselves.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Japan didn't care about words. Japan cared about things like the US selling Japan fuel even when they were doing all these things, preferring to stay "neutral", then abuptly cutting that off and leaving them scrambling to keep their military running. Japan did bring doom on themselves, but America kept poking the tiger with a stick until America itself got attacked, which was the goal.
djsumdog 10y ago
After the US et. al. cut off fuel and oil trade. They don't teach you that part in school. The saddest thing about WWII is that the people who started the war, by funding it, were never brought up on charges at Nuremberg. Prescott Bush and Standard Oil made millions off selling fuel to both sides. IBM made the punch-card based catalogue service for the Nazis. Henry Ford's company made tank treads for both allied and Nazi tanks and even built the rails leading to Auschwitz. The reality is that there were entire industries that actively did everything they could to get that war going, in order to profit from it. People look at Hitler and forget that wars need to be funded.
- shawndumas 10y ago
  Are you saying that Japan's decision to go to war over a hit to their oil supplies is reasonable and understandable?
- woofyman 10y ago
  They cut off the oil exports to stop the Japanese war machine.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a strategic preëmptive strike, because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point. I don't think Japanese imperialism can really be defended. Of course, Japanese imperialism was very much inspired by European imperialism in… well, everything. But that doesn't make it right either, merely just as bad.
  - knz 10y ago
    > because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point. This makes it sound as if the US only acted to end competition against another Empire. Japan invaded numerous territories for access to resources and committed horrible atrocities while doing so. The attack on Pearl Harbour may have been preemptive but the only reason for Japan to fear attack from others was due to actions of the Japanese.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Major General Smedley Butler, in 1935: "At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh. The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast. The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles. " https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  Does it not matter that we were running those maneuvers largely in response to Japanese aggression in China and the Pacific? Does it matter that the reason we were in tension with Japan was their murder and conquest spree in China? Does any of it excuse the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor? I think the answer is no, despite my great respect for General Butler.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    It appears that if that was the real reason, then the government of the time wasn't prepared to tell anyone that was the case, going by the General's account anyway. Many of the things he suggest merely re-align incentives. So if the Senators and Corporate CEOs really think that Japan is a menace to be dealt with, then they should be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than having the moral hazard of benefiting selfishly from unnecessary wars.
knz 10y ago
Japan also forced the hand of the Allied nations by invading other territories. Personally I think Japan forced our hands earlier than that (Invasion of Manchuria was a big geopolitical move IIRC) - it just wasn't apparent at the time.
stmfreak 10y ago
There are many interpretations of history that tell a different story.

Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. I'm not saying what Japan did was in any way noble, but it was certainly far from unexpected. The US administration knew the war in Europe was a serious problem if left unchecked, that Britain and its allies would never prevail, but there was considerable resistance to the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor instantly catalyzed support. This doesn't even touch on the fact that many American companies were looking at Germany as an important customer, a country spending lavishly to build up its capability, at a time when American companies were struggling. Politics are complicated. It's rare that any of those involved in a conflict are entirely innocent.

chrishacken 10y ago
> Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. Are you kidding me? So honor was their reason to start a war that eventually caused millions to die?
- laumars 10y ago
  You're taking his brief argument far too literally. Of course there was more at play than honour alone. However reasons aside, I'd argue your comment is moot as there's never a good reason to start a war. Edit: wow I'm surprised by the downvotes. Are you (who ever you are) suggesting you do agree with starting wars? I'd be very interested to hear why you disagree with me.
  - knz 10y ago
    I didn't downvote you but personally I feel conflict can be justified - stopping the Holocaust and defeating the nation that committed genocide and atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking were enough justification without considering the invasion of a huge number of sovereign territories. It disgusts me that the world has sat by during recent genocides.
    - laumars 10y ago
      Thanks for the insight. I don't disagree your point per se. If war could be accomplished without further harming those citizens then I might agree. Or if war brought about positive change then maybe you could justify the means. But sadly we've seen time and time again that destabilising governments through instigating war - even horrible despotic regiems like the aforementioned - usually ends up with more long term conflict. I should add that I'm against starting wars but not against retaliating, even ending the war, if and when required.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        In the cases of Germany and Japan, we won very thoroughly, and then re-did their government and society very thoroughly. In the case of Iraq, we won very thoroughly, and then decided that we should not re-do their government and society. There may not have been the political will to do anything else, but that turned out to be less than effective at transforming Iraq.
        chrishacken 10y ago
        "To date, the U.S. has spent more than $60 billion in reconstruction grants to help Iraq get back on its feet after the country was broken by more than two decades of war, sanctions and dictatorship. That works out to about $15 million a day. And yet Iraq's government is rife with corruption and infighting." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of-60b-from-us-to-rebuild-iraq-wasted-special-auditors-final-report-to-congress-shows/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of-60b-from-us-to-rebuild-i...
        10y ago
  - gurkendoktor 10y ago
    No downvote from me, but if Germany hadn't started the war, others should have done so to stop us. (I would have preferred a clean Stauffenberg-style solution, of course.)
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I completely agree with starting wars if it stops the suffering of large numbers of civilians. As it stands, 15-20 million Chinese were killed by the Japanese in that war. How many would have died if the US had not gotten involved?
    - laumars 10y ago
      I understand the point you're making but you are quoting numbers of suffering due to war which defeats the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by going to war. Plus the American involvement wasn't out of humanitarian reasons either. They only joined the war after getting attacked by Japan themselves. Which, which since I support retaliatory action if another party has already initiated war, would mean the US followed my stance on war in that regard.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        How does quoting the suffering of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese defeat the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by the Americans going to war with the Japanese? Yes, war causes suffering. It can also prevent suffering. This would only be contradictory if I were for some reason arguing that all war is good, which I most certainly am not. I would argue that the US did join the war partly out of humanitarian reasons, since the war was precipitated by economic sanctions that were enacted due to Japan's actions in China. But ultimately my argument has nothing to do with their reasons.
        laumars 10y ago
        > How does quoting the suffering of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese defeat the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by the Americans going to war with the Japanese? Because you are using the sorrow of war to justify the means of war. It's a cyclic argument with each new participant upping the stakes; each time bringing about more suffering. In the case of the America vs Japan conflict during WW2, America's "humanitarianism" lead to two nuclear bomb being dropped causing around two hundred thousands casualties - many of who suffered long deaths from radiation exposure. Yes it shortened the war, but at what cost? We'll never know which hypothetical scenario would have saved the most lives but it's fair to say that America's involvement did contribute to large scale suffering too.
- astrodust 10y ago
  You do realize that Japan, at the time, was run by a highly militarized government that still carried a lot of tradition from the feudal Japan era. Honour was a massive concern. Also remember that Japan had already conquered large parts of China and trounced Russia militarily, so they were feeling confident they'd prevail in any conflict with the US. At the time the US was in the middle of a poor economic period and its Pacific navy was in sad shape, many warships were simply relics from WWI. It wasn't exactly threatening. What Japan didn't realize was that the US would not be bullied, and instead would bite back a lot harder than anticipated. It's a lot like how America assumed Iraq would be a cake-walk, or Afghanistan could be resolved in a weekend.
andars 10y ago
Japan was "repeatedly slapped in the face" because of their increasing militarization, invasion of China (also Rape of Nanking), alliance with Italy and Germany, desire for control of all of East Asian (the Co-Prosperity Sphere), etc. The US response seems totally reasonable to me.
- dilipd 10y ago
  Correct! Repeatedly slapping Japan was reasonable because of Japan's imperial ambitions, e.g. Taiwan(1895), Manchuria(1905), Korea(1910) etc. And, England and some other European countries were not 'repeatedly slapped', even though they were also imperialist, may be far longer, may be far worse!
  - vkou 10y ago
    Japan was also promised the world for their support of the Entente in World War I - and, much like Italy, received nothing for its efforts. Let's not forget the context of their imperial ambitions - in the first half of the twentieth century, most of the world was still ruled by empires.
    - tankenmate 10y ago
      Actually Japan was mandated large amounts of German New Guinea by the Treaty of Versailles and the South Pacific Mandate; Palau, almost all of Micronesia, and parts of Papua New Guinea. Other parts of German New Guinea were ceded to Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Britain. France of course kept their South Pacific colonies.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- astrodust 10y ago
  I mean with deliberate intent to provoke a military response from Japan. It wasn't that Japan wasn't up to no good, because they were, absolutely destroying large swaths of Asia and committing atrocities so horrifying even German observers were concerned, but that the US leadership needed Japan to attack to get on board versus Germany.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
> Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. Is that what it's called when we objected to Japan's war of conquest against China? Antagonism? Fine, let it be so. Japan brought doom on themselves.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Japan didn't care about words. Japan cared about things like the US selling Japan fuel even when they were doing all these things, preferring to stay "neutral", then abuptly cutting that off and leaving them scrambling to keep their military running. Japan did bring doom on themselves, but America kept poking the tiger with a stick until America itself got attacked, which was the goal.

djsumdog 10y ago

After the US et. al. cut off fuel and oil trade. They don't teach you that part in school. The saddest thing about WWII is that the people who started the war, by funding it, were never brought up on charges at Nuremberg. Prescott Bush and Standard Oil made millions off selling fuel to both sides. IBM made the punch-card based catalogue service for the Nazis. Henry Ford's company made tank treads for both allied and Nazi tanks and even built the rails leading to Auschwitz. The reality is that there were entire industries that actively did everything they could to get that war going, in order to profit from it. People look at Hitler and forget that wars need to be funded.

shawndumas 10y ago
Are you saying that Japan's decision to go to war over a hit to their oil supplies is reasonable and understandable?
woofyman 10y ago
They cut off the oil exports to stop the Japanese war machine.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a strategic preëmptive strike, because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point. I don't think Japanese imperialism can really be defended. Of course, Japanese imperialism was very much inspired by European imperialism in… well, everything. But that doesn't make it right either, merely just as bad.
- knz 10y ago
  > because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point. This makes it sound as if the US only acted to end competition against another Empire. Japan invaded numerous territories for access to resources and committed horrible atrocities while doing so. The attack on Pearl Harbour may have been preemptive but the only reason for Japan to fear attack from others was due to actions of the Japanese.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

Major General Smedley Butler, in 1935: "At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh. The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast. The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles. " https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Does it not matter that we were running those maneuvers largely in response to Japanese aggression in China and the Pacific? Does it matter that the reason we were in tension with Japan was their murder and conquest spree in China? Does any of it excuse the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor? I think the answer is no, despite my great respect for General Butler.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  It appears that if that was the real reason, then the government of the time wasn't prepared to tell anyone that was the case, going by the General's account anyway. Many of the things he suggest merely re-align incentives. So if the Senators and Corporate CEOs really think that Japan is a menace to be dealt with, then they should be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than having the moral hazard of benefiting selfishly from unnecessary wars.

knz 10y ago

Japan also forced the hand of the Allied nations by invading other territories. Personally I think Japan forced our hands earlier than that (Invasion of Manchuria was a big geopolitical move IIRC) - it just wasn't apparent at the time.

stmfreak 10y ago

There are many interpretations of history that tell a different story.