They will never be fogotten

[NotCranky]

I don’t agree with the “bullied” part either, in hindsight they must have been on sake.

The massive appropriations were going to the Army. Maybe they were contingencies, or from there they were going , “lend lease” or to the war with American men. The war happened. What direction we were committed prior to is probably still mostly sealed somewhere right? I know the McCollum memo is not. What do you think of that? (I know what conservapedia has on the topic)

[Arraya]

[quote=Jacarandoso]I don’t agree with the “bullied” part either, in hindsight they must have been on sake.

[/quote]

They hated us for our freedoms

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jacarandoso]I don’t agree with the “bullied” part either, in hindsight they must have been on sake.

The massive appropriations were going to the Army. Maybe they were contingencies, or from there they were going , “lend lease” or to the war with American men. The war happened. What direction we were committed prior to is probably still mostly sealed somewhere right? I know the McCollum memo is not. What do you think of that? (I know what conservapedia has on the topic)[/quote]

Russ: You’re talking about the memorandum referenced in “Day of Deceit”, right? That’s the book that postulates that FDR was aware of the impending Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor and allowed it happen as pretext for getting America into the war. Yeah, I’ve read the memo and the book. McCollum himself disputes the position that the book’s author ascribes to him and says that the memo itself did not reach the upper levels of Navy brass, let alone FDR.

However, the US had broken the Japanese code (“Purple”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_(cipher_machine)) as early as 1940 and we knew that Pearl Harbor was a likely Japanese target. I do believe that ONI honestly felt that the Dutch East Indies were a more likely target, especially since the Japanese were desperate for oil.

Not as fun from a conspiracy standpoint, but more believable.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Jacarandoso]I don’t agree with the “bullied” part either, in hindsight they must have been on sake.

[/quote]

They hated us for our freedoms[/quote]

I am open to an explanation. It looks something like competition gone badly,up to the point in time we have been talking about.

Make the argument that defends the statement that Japan was “bullied” into the war by the U.S.

[Arraya]

Competition gone badly sounds about right.

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/japan-oil.htm

Japan is extremely poor in natural resources, and the situation was not much different in the pre-World War II era. Consequently, Japan had to depend on trade heavily to function as a modern nation, and it was a serious and vital issue for Japan to keep all crucial strategic resources, particularly oil, coming in to it from the outside world. If the route for Japan to obtain these materials was cut off, and therefore, the strategic resources were stopped from coming to Japan, there would basically be only two choices left for Japan. One is to lower the level of function as a modern nation to where it could meet the level of domestic productivity for natural resources. And two is to go out actively and find a way to gain what it needed to maintain its function as a modern nation. The conflict and negotiation between the US and Japan in the pre-World War II period illustrates a good example of the case and explains why Japan went to war against the US. The US, the biggest oil supplier for Japan at the time, imposed the oil embargo on Japan in July, 1941, and it helped the Japanese to make up their minds to fight against the Americans. Thus, in a way, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise one at all; it was a necessary result of the conflict and negotiation.

snip

From 1939 to 1941, the US gradually tightened the level of economic sanction. Ironically, however, such squeeze could not deter Japan’s aggression but rather provoked it to take more aggressive actions instead [11]. The vicious circle of retaliations and eventually resulted in the collapse of the US-Japan relationship.

In 1939, the US notified Japan that it would renounce the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation that was signed by both countries in 1911. President Roosevelt, then, went on to the imposition of partial embargo of gasoline for aircraft and scrap-metal on Japan in July 1940. Japan countered the partial embargo by advancing its troops to the northern Indo-China, and the US matched the Japan’s expansion with the addition of more subjects to the list of partial embargo. This vicious circle of retaliations escalated and reached its peak when Japan moved even into the southern Indo-China in July, 1941 and the US replied to it by freezing the Japanese assets in the US and, furthermore, by the complete oil embargo on Japan [12]. As a result, the Japanese leaders found themselves in an extremely difficult situation in which they had to make their decision out of two options: to bow before the US, or to fight a desperate war against the US.

At the time there were mainly three issues between the US and Japan to be solved in the negotiations [13].

(1) Tripartite Pact of Alliance: The US urged Japan to withdraw from the alliance with Germany and Italy.
(2) Southern Indo-China: The US demanded Japan to withdraw from the southern Indo-China.
(3) China: The US demanded Japan to withdraw from China.

Among these points, there was a room for both countries to come up with compromising plans about the first two issues. However, Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of the State, was very reluctant to make any compromise on the third issue, namely about China. At this point, the Japanese leaders still had a little hope to settle the issues by negotiations so that the war would be avoided. The Japanese side proposed some plans, too. However, the US eventually refused to accept any plans presented by Japan and replied to Japan with the final proposition called the “Hull Note,” which contained only US original demands on issues on November 26th, 1941. As a result, the war became inevitable.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jacarandoso]I don’t agree with the “bullied” part either, in hindsight they must have been on sake.

The massive appropriations were going to the Army. Maybe they were contingencies, or from there they were going , “lend lease” or to the war with American men. The war happened. What direction we were committed prior to is probably still mostly sealed somewhere right? I know the McCollum memo is not. What do you think of that? (I know what conservapedia has on the topic)[/quote]

Russ: You’re talking about the memorandum referenced in “Day of Deceit”, right? That’s the book that postulates that FDR was aware of the impending Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor and allowed it happen as pretext for getting America into the war. Yeah, I’ve read the memo and the book. McCollum himself disputes the position that the book’s author ascribes to him and says that the memo itself did not reach the upper levels of Navy brass, let alone FDR.

However, the US had broken the Japanese code (“Purple”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_(cipher_machine)) as early as 1940 and we knew that Pearl Harbor was a likely Japanese target. I do believe that ONI honestly felt that the Dutch East Indies were a more likely target, especially since the Japanese were desperate for oil.

Not as fun from a conspiracy standpoint, but more believable.[/quote]
O.K., Allan, I wasn’t aiming too support the conspiracy angle, but thought there was something in the mere existence of the memo that had some significance….not really. It does show that things were getting very hot on both sides,but we all agree on that.

[temeculaguy]

I booked my flights today, priced jumped a little probably because everyone else saw the football games on 9/11 and decided to go as well. I hate country music but I downloaded Toby Keith’s “courtesy of the red white and blue” video to my iphone, I’ll play it at the memorial, and think of this thread, the contrarian patriot I’ll be.

Allan, I’m taking back all the praise I gave you for resisting the urge to get involved in this thread. You failed! Seriously, you can’t win and SD and I aren’t getting suckered in again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=temeculaguy]I booked my flights today, priced jumped a little probably because everyone else saw the football games on 9/11 and decided to go as well. I hate country music but I downloaded Toby Keith’s “courtesy of the red white and blue” video to my iphone, I’ll play it at the memorial, and think of this thread, the contrarian patriot I’ll be.

Allan, I’m taking back all the praise I gave you for resisting the urge to get involved in this thread. You failed! Seriously, you can’t win and SD and I aren’t getting suckered in again.[/quote]

TG: Yeah, my bad. Although, I rather enjoyed the back and forth with Russ regarding the Pearl Harbor attack and the possible conspiracy.

What I lack in good judgment and common sense, I make up for in reckless bravado and dunderheaded pugnacity.

As for knowing I can’t win: Dude, I’m a Raiders fan. What did you honestly expect?

Enjoy the memorial and that is a great song choice.

[KIBU]

TG,

Have a great trip, TG. You will probably find deep meanings from your trip as one of the first to see the monument. Many people probably want to be there but can’t.

I would also like to share with you what’s on my mind as a patriotic American. And maybe, when you are at the monument or have some free time, think about it:

Can we yet avoid another 9/11 for America?

And while everybody probably will tell me that we have improved our security, I am not talking about that 9/11 that patriotic Americans are still talking about.

I am talking about the fact that in the last 2 months, 3 American Solar energy companies filed for bankruptcy, representing 1/5 of the solar panel manufacturing capacity in the United States.

To me, that’s is 9/11 for America. It is probably the first significant sign that the solar energy century will be owned not by us. Due to various reasons, these US companies can’t compete to survive and they will carry down with them the hope for a vibrant key technology/industry in the US.

Will we have more of these invisible 9/11 ? Where will the monument be if not the unemployment lines for our kids and grand kids in the future ?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Where I strongly disagree (and this isn’t pointed at you) is with the notion that we “bullied” Japan into war with the US.[/quote]Your ignorance on this matter is appalling so I’ll spell it out for you.

1. In 1854 the US invaded Japan and demanded through military threats that Japan open up trade with the US under very unfavorable terms.

2. In 1858 the US forced, through military threats, Japan to sign the very unfavorable “Harris Treaty” which lead Britain, France, Russia and the Dutch to also take advantage of Japan.

3. This turmoil forced Japan to try and defend itself in wars against Britain, France, Russia and the Dutch and also lead to Japan’s 6 year long civil war.

4. The US lost power in Japan due to our civil war but attempted to invade and reassert their dominance after the civil war but the Japanese had modern weaponry by this time and were able to defend their country.

5. The British backed the Japanese side that was victorious in their civil war which lead them to become strong allies.

6. Japan fought in WWI from 1914-1918 against the Germans in the Pacific and Indian oceans, the Mediterranean, and off of South Africa. The British made promises of compensation to the Japanese for their help.

7. Woodrow Wilson made every attempt to cheat the Japanese out of land in the Pacific won from Germany and promised by the British.

8. In 1921 Wilson then pressured the British to end their Alliance with Japan, leaving Japan isolated against aggressors such as Stalin, China, and the US.

9. After the US froze Japan’s assets and enacted our radical embargo, Japanese Prime Minister Konoe tried to meet with American ambassadors in the Fall of 41, willing to withdraw from China and Indochina, but the US refused.

The USA invaded Japan multiple times, fucked with Japan for almost 90 years, and wouldn’t take a surrender delivered on a silver platter.

Only a stupid, probably ex-military, nationalist stooge would think that the USA didn’t cause Pearl Harbor. Everyone who died there has no one to blame but our government. Good riddance.

The fire bombing of Tokyo and dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the very definition of a holocaust.

[Anonymous]

Hey Ogre,

I just read your post and it made me so mad that I kicked my dog.

You caused my dog to be injured. It’s your fault.

I’ll send you the veterinarian bill.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=John Ogre]
Only a stupid, probably ex-military, nationalist stooge would think that the USA didn’t cause Pearl Harbor. Everyone who died there has no one to blame but our government. Good riddance.

The fire bombing of Tokyo and dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the very definition of a holocaust.[/quote]

Ogre: A well-balanced and thoughtful response. Civil, as well. I’ll ignore the blatantly one-sided aspect, as well as the complete elision when it comes to the actual facts of Japanese militarism leading up to the war. You present half the argument and then treat that as revealed truth. Combine that with the revisionist approach and you have a nice piece of propaganda, leavened with a healthy dollop of ad hominem.

You don’t think that Japan (or Germany, for that matter) would have used atomic weapons if they possessed them? Um, yeah, pretty sure they would have, especially since Germany was hard at work on a similar program. The fire bombing of Tokyo was indeed horrific, but the Japanese people fervently supported the war and believed that their emperor was a god and his judgment divinely inspired. The military and civilian populace were fully prepared to fight to the bitter end and were willing to sacrifice themselves for “god” and country. No excuses, but this was a war without mercy and Japanese conduct during the war was also appalling.

Do a little research on Unit 731 and the number of deaths caused by Japanese “research” and the use of germ and bio-weapons (anywhere from 200,000 to nearly 600,000). Look at Japanese conduct towards civilians and non-combatants in China, Manchukuo, Korea and Indo-china and then peddle the nonsense that the Japanese were “bullied” into it.

And, no comment on the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”? I’m sure that Western actions “drove” them to this as well?

Spare me the tendentious and mendacious moralizing. There are two sides to every story and facts are facts.

[scaredyclassic]

I don’t think there are 2 sides to every story; like the Iraq war; what’s the story to justify our actions? I haven’t heard it lately.

[Arraya]

[quote=walterwhite]I don’t think there are 2 sides to every story; like the Iraq war; what’s the story to justify our actions? I haven’t heard it lately.[/quote]

It is an interesting question. The endless stream of narratives morphed over time until we were left with a big question mark and a dirty feeling. Kind of like a mass-psychological gang rape. Many people obviously still feel abused. Just watching “real time” history unfold with competing narratives should make you understand how difficult it is to get the whole picture of events that happened 70 years ago.

It’s pretty obvious they had their eyes on Iraq since the mid 90s. Interestingly, in a frontline episode, discussing the run up to war, they would have went to Iraq first if it was not for Colin Powell arguing it would not look good. Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld were arguing hard for just bypassing Afghanistan and going right to Iraq.

[briansd1]

I had a great AP history teacher in HS. I remember Commodore Perry.

With Japan, maybe it started with the unequal treaties. Perhaps, Pearl Harbor was fair payback.

I agree with Walter. What’s the other side to Iraq?

[Author]

Posts