Pearl Harbor... Revisionist History

[old_pop2000]

I decided maybe a good discussion of revisionist history, as opposed to just a recounting of the story we are all familiar with.

Use politics as a reference, please. Those are the rules.

[old_pop2000]

The three standard bearers of the revisionist history are:

1. Harry Elmer Barnes

2. Admiral Fuzzy Theobald

3. John Toland

[Ed Rotondaro]

The three standard bearers of the revisionist history are:

1. Harry Elmer Barnes

2. Admiral Fuzzy Theobald

3. John Toland

Dennis:

I checked out the first two on Wikipedia and they sound like they were way off base. Toland I know has still got some credibility, but most serious historians feel he was an apologist for Japan. (IIRC he was married to a Japanese woamn?).

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I checked out the first two on Wikipedia and they sound like they were way off base. Toland I know has still got some credibility, but most serious historians feel he was an apologist for Japan. (IIRC he was married to a Japanese woamn?).
I think Toland wrote some good material, but got a little ahead of himself in his Pearl Harbor book. But, in all fairness, the multiple investigations, the secrecy concerning our radio intercepts and what we knew, really had or has contributed to the conspiracy theories.

[Mart]

I think Toland wrote some good material, but got a little ahead of himself in his Pearl Harbor book. But, in all fairness, the multiple investigations, the secrecy concerning our radio intercepts and what we knew, really had or has contributed to the conspiracy theories.

I think that something that feeds the "alternative history" debate is that the entry of the US into the war was SO needed. Very few people died that day (compared to the rest of the world) but it's iconic status as that "day of infamy" means that even suggesting that it's only real significance in history was to bring the US into a war that had already torn China and Europe apart, is usually enough to bring howls of derision.

Roosevelt needed that US entry into war, and so did the world. From a European perspective, Hitler had made a pre-emptive strike too - it wasn't interesting news any more. For us, Pearl Harbor meant just one thing - US entry into the war.

If we could stop thinking of Pearl Harbor as "special", because Americans died, the debate might be more informative. I suspect that too many people are afraid to air their views on Pearl Harbor, whatever they are. Even as I type I am being VERY careful how I phrase things, which, when you think about it, is plain ridiculous

Unless we ever see clear paper evidence or testimony, I suspect that it is simply an event that will escape rational discussion, possibly for another generation

Cheers,

Martin

[Kyle Holgate]

I think that something that feeds the "alternative history" debate is that the entry of the US into the war was SO needed. Very few people died that day (compared to the rest of the world) but it's iconic status as that "day of infamy" means that even suggesting that it's only real significance in history was to bring the US into a war that had already torn China and Europe apart, is usually enough to bring howls of derision.

Roosevelt needed that US entry into war, and so did the world. From a European perspective, Hitler had made a pre-emptive strike too - it wasn't interesting news any more. For us, Pearl Harbor meant just one thing - US entry into the war.

If we could stop thinking of Pearl Harbor as "special", because Americans died, the debate might be more informative. I suspect that too many people are afraid to air their views on Pearl Harbor, whatever they are. Even as I type I am being VERY careful how I phrase things, which, when you think about it, is plain ridiculous

Unless we ever see clear paper evidence or testimony, I suspect that it is simply an event that will escape rational discussion, possibly for another generation

Cheers,

Martin

Speaking for myself I don't think I have emotional baggage when speaking of Pearl Harbor. Yes, I'm an American and yes, Americans died. While you can quite possibly look dispationately back at the event from now, you cannot but consider that the attack itself struck the US as anything but pationate. It was the emotional response damage (if you will) far more than any material damage that brought the US into the war and allowed for the US to wage "total war" not "nickle and dime" war as may have happened if the country had entered some other way.
I think maybe we can discuss the event openly and that you're probably being more careful than you have to. This page isn't full of a bunch of emotion driven flamers like some - most here are thinkers in my experience - and though we can get heated in our debates we come out the other side having learned and holding no hard feelings.

[old_pop2000]

Speaking for myself I don't think I have emotional baggage when speaking of Pearl Harbor. Yes, I'm an American and yes, Americans died. While you can quite possibly look dispationately back at the event from now, you cannot but consider that the attack itself struck the US as anything but pationate. It was the emotional response damage (if you will) far more than any material damage that brought the US into the war and allowed for the US to wage "total war" not "nickle and dime" war as may have happened if the country had entered some other way.
I think maybe we can discuss the event openly and that you're probably being more careful than you have to. This page isn't full of a bunch of emotion driven flamers like some - most here are thinkers in my experience - and though we can get heated in our debates we come out the other side having learned and holding no hard feelings.
One of the problems is that there is a difference between alternative history and revisionist history. In alternative history, we are speculating on a different series of events or timeline of events based on one or more changes to the sequence. However, in revisionism, it is simply revising what we know of the event or events, we are not actually attemping to change the sequence. We are simply explaining them differently or suggesting a deeper difference in the interpretation of events.

I believe that fact based, rational approach to the series of events that led to the attack, can be fruitful and important to history and historiagraphy. One problem, over the years, is that the generation who witnessed this event, was still alive and controlling the US. They made this an emotional issue. Now, most of them are gone and no longer in control of the US. This allows the later generations to open the files and see exactly what was known, what was felt and what was actually done. This will happen to the 9/11 event, after our generation has left this world.

I hope we can examine the revisionist views and see where they went wrong and why they felt this was a great conspiracy.

[Mart]

Speaking for myself I don't think I have emotional baggage when speaking of Pearl Harbor. Yes, I'm an American and yes, Americans died. While you can quite possibly look dispationately back at the event from now, you cannot but consider that the attack itself struck the US as anything but pationate. It was the emotional response damage (if you will) far more than any material damage that brought the US into the war and allowed for the US to wage "total war" not "nickle and dime" war as may have happened if the country had entered some other way.
I think maybe we can discuss the event openly and that you're probably being more careful than you have to. This page isn't full of a bunch of emotion driven flamers like some - most here are thinkers in my experience - and though we can get heated in our debates we come out the other side having learned and holding no hard feelings.

Thanks Kyle
I realized some time back that, as the US had never really been attacked, "at home", the psychological impact was huge. I've come a cropper before when I misunderstood that. So I'm grateful for your comments. Also, once we've got the baggage out of the way. I'll find it easier to talk about. Not least the most amazing images of the damage to material at Pearl. If ever there was a sign of the havoc war can cause, in an instant, then the images of how a fleet that once stood proud, was smashed up in hours, must be among them. There are loads of other, more disturbing, more personal, images of what war is, but it was a dramatic scene. Thanks for freeing me up to discuss this rationally.

Cheers

Martin :)

[Mike Malanaphy]

Thanks Kyle
I realized some time back that, as the US had never really been attacked, "at home", the psychological impact was huge. I've come a cropper before when I misunderstood that. So I'm grateful for your comments. Also, once we've got the baggage out of the way. I'll find it easier to talk about. Not least the most amazing images of the damage to material at Pearl. If ever there was a sign of the havoc war can cause, in an instant, then the images of how a fleet that once stood proud, was smashed up in hours, must be among them. There are loads of other, more disturbing, more personal, images of what war is, but it was a dramatic scene. Thanks for freeing me up to discuss this rationally.

Cheers

Martin :)

Hi Mart,

I'm still holding a grudge for Ft McHenry. :)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Mart,

I'm still holding a grudge for Ft McHenry. :)

Mike:

Now that's a serious grudge bro! Hell we brought that war on ourselves, can't blame the British for that.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Thanks Kyle
I realized some time back that, as the US had never really been attacked, "at home", the psychological impact was huge. I've come a cropper before when I misunderstood that. So I'm grateful for your comments. Also, once we've got the baggage out of the way. I'll find it easier to talk about. Not least the most amazing images of the damage to material at Pearl. If ever there was a sign of the havoc war can cause, in an instant, then the images of how a fleet that once stood proud, was smashed up in hours, must be among them. There are loads of other, more disturbing, more personal, images of what war is, but it was a dramatic scene. Thanks for freeing me up to discuss this rationally.

Cheers

Martin :)

Martin:

Actually the US had been attacked at home in 1812, but Pearl Harbor was the first time since then. I'm not trying to start a debate on the war of 1812 by any means, merely clarifying the point so to speak.;)

[Kyle Holgate]

Thanks Kyle
I realized some time back that, as the US had never really been attacked, "at home", the psychological impact was huge. I've come a cropper before when I misunderstood that. So I'm grateful for your comments. Also, once we've got the baggage out of the way. I'll find it easier to talk about. Not least the most amazing images of the damage to material at Pearl. If ever there was a sign of the havoc war can cause, in an instant, then the images of how a fleet that once stood proud, was smashed up in hours, must be among them. There are loads of other, more disturbing, more personal, images of what war is, but it was a dramatic scene. Thanks for freeing me up to discuss this rationally.

Cheers

Martin :)

I'm curious to see what you were being so cautious about or were not saying with concern toward how it would be received. Let fly - let's hear what you have to say! I really think you'd be hard pressed to offend anyone here - though that's not a challenge ;).

[john964]

I decided maybe a good discussion of revisionist history, as opposed to just a recounting of the story we are all familiar with.

Use politics as a reference, please. Those are the rules.
My take on revisionist history is when they manipulate the facts to change previously held conclusions to suit there own adgenda. Like the debate over Truman dropping the A-bomb and calling him a War Criminal because of what happend to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I always counter with what would we be saying about Truman if he decided not to drop the bomb and we went ahead with Operation Downfall and all the klled and wounded that would have resulted on both sides.

[Ed Rotondaro]

My take on revisionist history is when they manipulate the facts to change previously held conclusions to suit there own adgenda. Like the debate over Truman dropping the A-bomb and calling him a War Criminal because of what happend to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I always counter with what would we be saying about Truman if he decided not to drop the bomb and we went ahead with Operation Downfall and all the klled and wounded that would have resulted on both sides.

John:

Good points! As a history major, I feel that history must always be reexamined especially if new facts are declassified or come to light. But you can't go in with a preexisting opinion/agenda or else you will end up cherry picking which facts to include and which to ignore. I will allow that it is difficult to be totally impartial, because we study history because we have an interest in it that was probably sparked by a book, movie, documentary, whatever. That to a degree colors our judgement. I used to have strong feelings against the Lakata Soiux for killing Custer until my dad told me to see if from their point of view. That's a tough lesson for an 11 year old to learn.

Regarding the use of nuclear weapons on Japan, Richard Frank's book entitled "Downfall" blows any doubt out of the water about what would have happened if a conventional approach had been chosen. He also points out from signals intel that even after the first weapon was used, Japan's ruling council was not inclinded to surrender and it took the Emporer himself to demand the end of the war.

[Mike Malanaphy]

My take on revisionist history is when they manipulate the facts to change previously held conclusions to suit there own adgenda. Like the debate over Truman dropping the A-bomb and calling him a War Criminal because of what happend to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I always counter with what would we be saying about Truman if he decided not to drop the bomb and we went ahead with Operation Downfall and all the klled and wounded that would have resulted on both sides.

Hi John,

I remember the term "revisionist" from the old Soviet Union where history books had to be printed in loose leaf binders so they could be "corrected" after the fall of a leader. Remember "Destalinization"?

As angry as it makes me, I don't see your example as "revsionist". You can certainly argue that that the allied bombing campaign violated the Geneva accords against attacking civilians on a factual basis. And violate those accords we did. The difference to me is their frame of reference. Does our violation of those accords make us as bad as the Axis powers? In their eyes yes. I agree with you that they wouldn't be by choosing the lesser of two evils to end a horrendous war sooner. But that would require the revisionists to make a choice based upon values, something they are loath to do. Who did you want to win? Us or them? They would argue that they have "evolved" beyond mere national allegiance to a higher moral plane. That's why they fight genocide in Darfur with lawn signs and face painting or rich people like George Clooney travelling the world to get other peoples' sons and daughters to fight for his causes.

That water boarding three people makes us every bit as bad as the Nazis or Soviets or Chinese or arab fighters with their cultural roots in the 8th century. Which victor would give the world more peace and freedom. This inability to discern the difference is what makes their arguments without basis.

[Warship NWS]

Guys, this thread is getting a bit too political now. Let's move on to another topic please.

[john964]

As angry as it makes me, I don't see your example as "revsionist". You can certainly argue that that the allied bombing campaign violated the Geneva accords against attacking civilians on a factual basis. And violate those accords we did. The difference to me is their frame of reference. Does our violation of those accords make us as bad as the Axis powers? In their eyes yes. I agree with you that they wouldn't be by choosing the lesser of two evils to end a horrendous war sooner. But that would require the revisionists to make a choice based upon values, something they are loath to do. Who did you want to win? Us or them? They would argue that they have "evolved" beyond mere national allegiance to a higher moral plane. That's why they fight genocide in Darfur with lawn signs and face painting or rich people like George Clooney travelling the world to get other peoples' sons and daughters to fight for his causes.

There is revisionist and revising history, Revisionist is as I stated manipulating or selective use of facts to fit your preconcived ideas or adgenda. Revising changeing the facts as new information or sorces become avalible case in point read Miricle at Midway and Shatterd Sword.

As to the our violations of the Geneva accords everyone did it during WWII The germans in there attacks on London during the Blitz and the indiscrimanat use of the V-1&2. The RAF and USAAF fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden also the USAAF fire bombing of japanese cities The japanese bombed Shanghai and Rangoon and don't forget what happened to Nanking.

[old_pop2000]

There is revisionist and revising history, Revisionist is as I stated manipulating or selective use of facts to fit your preconcived ideas or adgenda. Revising changeing the facts as new information or sorces become avalible case in point read Miricle at Midway and Shatterd Sword.

As to the our violations of the Geneva accords everyone did it during WWII The germans in there attacks on London during the Blitz and the indiscrimanat use of the V-1&2. The RAF and USAAF fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden also the USAAF fire bombing of japanese cities The japanese bombed Shanghai and Rangoon and don't forget what happened to Nanking.
There is a difference between revisionism and revising our perception and knowledge of the factual events that occur. Revisionism is manipulation and a selection of facts, but it is also an inclusion of facts that are either not relevent or a restatement of the event to fit a preconceived idea of the event. Historiagraphy demands deductive reasoning to be effective and accurate, not inductive reasoning. IMO.

[Ed Rotondaro]

There is a difference between revisionism and revising our perception and knowledge of the factual events that occur. Revisionism is manipulation and a selection of facts, but it is also an inclusion of facts that are either not relevent or a restatement of the event to fit a preconceived idea of the event. Historiagraphy demands deductive reasoning to be effective and accurate, not inductive reasoning. IMO.


Dennis:

I agree. The hardest part of studying history is being able to be totally objective and also willing to see what actually happened. It has been said that really good history can't be written within the same generation that the events occurred. But then it's awful to lose the first person accounts since everyone has passed on.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I agree. The hardest part of studying history is being able to be totally objective and also willing to see what actually happened. It has been said that really good history can't be written within the same generation that the events occurred. But then it's awful to lose the first person accounts since everyone has passed on.
One of the reasons for my appreciation of the Asado book, is that I believe that a historian of Japanese descent, is far more capable of understanding and describing the psyche of the Japanese people while reading original documents than an occidental historian. While I do not disagree that economic determinism played a role in the initiation of hostilities, I believe that there was a more basic, bellicosity of the Japanese for the occidental nations for, maybe 70 years prior to the PH attack. It is my belief that this was the real, basal reason for the attack. I received Miller's new book yesterday and hope to be enlightened even further about the chain of events leading to PH.

[Kyle Holgate]

One of the reasons for my appreciation of the Asado book, is that I believe that a historian of Japanese descent, is far more capable of understanding and describing the psyche of the Japanese people while reading original documents than an occidental historian. While I do not disagree that economic determinism played a role in the initiation of hostilities, I believe that there was a more basic, bellicosity of the Japanese for the occidental nations for, maybe 70 years prior to the PH attack. It is my belief that this was the real, basal reason for the attack. I received Miller's new book yesterday and hope to be enlightened even further about the chain of events leading to PH.

My book is on the way!
To be clear on the belief I have - and it is now in question thanks to Dennis (it is a good thing)...
The decision to go to war resulted from the combined impact of a number of different events. There was still ire and ill will from the treatment of the Japanese after the RJ war (they felt slighted and that they were not treated seriously like a European or white nation would be). The Washington treaty insulted them. The problems with the west due to the invasion of China was insulting - they saw it as little or no different than what other western nations had done (in China earlier by the British, in India, in American west to the native population, etc). They were keenly aware of US military expansion and were concerned about it. Finally the trade sanctions ending with the oil and scrap metal trade hault was the proverbial straw (or bale of straw) that pushed it to a clear decision to go to war - and knowledge of the US build up pushed them into doing it at once - no more attempts to negotiate. The US was trying to stall any war until they were ready anyway.

I just hope the book shows up this week! I am stuck up in our Washigton state lab all next week (I find I REALLY miss my books when I'm up there - amazing how often I dive into them for some reason or other!).

[old_pop2000]

My book is on the way!
To be clear on the belief I have - and it is now in question thanks to Dennis (it is a good thing)...
The decision to go to war resulted from the combined impact of a number of different events. There was still ire and ill will from the treatment of the Japanese after the RJ war (they felt slighted and that they were not treated seriously like a European or white nation would be). The Washington treaty insulted them. The problems with the west due to the invasion of China was insulting - they saw it as little or no different than what other western nations had done (in China earlier by the British, in India, in American west to the native population, etc). They were keenly aware of US military expansion and were concerned about it. Finally the trade sanctions ending with the oil and scrap metal trade hault was the proverbial straw (or bale of straw) that pushed it to a clear decision to go to war - and knowledge of the US build up pushed them into doing it at once - no more attempts to negotiate. The US was trying to stall any war until they were ready anyway.

I just hope the book shows up this week! I am stuck up in our Washigton state lab all next week (I find I REALLY miss my books when I'm up there - amazing how often I dive into them for some reason or other!).
I hope you derive enjoyment and knowledge for it, like I did. I hope that all of us, with the detachment of generations, can view the events and actions leading up to the PH attack and Pacific War with an idea to ensure that another sequence of events like that, does not occur. I simply want to understand both sides of the Pacific war.

It is incomprehensible to me, why a nation of limited resources, emerging industrialization would taunt and then attack a nation like ours, with our record of victories in wars and industrial power. But, after reading Asado and others, it appears many in Japan were blinded by their own ego's. Just my opinion.

[Kyle Holgate]

I hope you derive enjoyment and knowledge for it, like I did. I hope that all of us, with the detachment of generations, can view the events and actions leading up to the PH attack and Pacific War with an idea to ensure that another sequence of events like that, does not occur. I simply want to understand both sides of the Pacific war.

It is incomprehensible to me, why a nation of limited resources, emerging industrialization would taunt and then attack a nation like ours, with our record of victories in wars and industrial power. But, after reading Asado and others, it appears many in Japan were blinded by their own ego's. Just my opinion.

It doesn't hurt to believe that your Emperor is a god either - and that gods have previously intervened to help your country. I know religion and politics are verboten here, but discussions about the mind set of the Japanese between WW1 and 2 is virtually impossible without the addition of at least political discussion.

[old_pop2000]

Absolutely, if you are attempting to understand why the Japanese would even consider war with the US, how you would do that without politics is hard to fathom.

[Mike Malanaphy]

I hope you derive enjoyment and knowledge for it, like I did. I hope that all of us, with the detachment of generations, can view the events and actions leading up to the PH attack and Pacific War with an idea to ensure that another sequence of events like that, does not occur. I simply want to understand both sides of the Pacific war.

It is incomprehensible to me, why a nation of limited resources, emerging industrialization would taunt and then attack a nation like ours, with our record of victories in wars and industrial power. But, after reading Asado and others, it appears many in Japan were blinded by their own ego's. Just my opinion.

HI Guys,

Back when I was taking Paul Dull's (The Japanese navy in World War II) oriental history course in the 70's, he recommended a Japanese author, Akira Iriye, who had just publish a couple of books on the subject of the war with America. He was the first of the post war generation of Japanese historians. I have both and will take another look at them. I agree with Dennis that it is good to understand both sides. The Japanese believed that they had real grievances against the west, America in particular. But after over 200 years of cultural isolation, teh Japanese could adopt western technology, but or took much longer to adopt the cultural values that the west developed with them. They looked at the world from an entirely different frame of reference. Whether understanding them or not would have avoided war I don't believe made a difference. The difference in values and international behavior was way too braod to gap.

I think this is still relevant today when we talk about dealing with international issues. The idea that the rest of the world looks at things the same way too is pervasive among many in the west. Even a relatively brief look at international behavior shows that not to be the case. Perhaps sometime in the future that may be true, but not now.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I hope you derive enjoyment and knowledge for it, like I did. I hope that all of us, with the detachment of generations, can view the events and actions leading up to the PH attack and Pacific War with an idea to ensure that another sequence of events like that, does not occur. I simply want to understand both sides of the Pacific war.

It is incomprehensible to me, why a nation of limited resources, emerging industrialization would taunt and then attack a nation like ours, with our record of victories in wars and industrial power. But, after reading Asado and others, it appears many in Japan were blinded by their own ego's. Just my opinion.

Dennis:

In War Without Mercy, Racism and the War in the Pacific, Dower points out the Japanese still believed in their divine descent and inherent superiority over the rest of the world.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

In War Without Mercy, Racism and the War in the Pacific, Dower points out the Japanese still believed in their divine descent and inherent superiority over the rest of the world.
I have read that and it makes perfect sense. It is interesting that when Hirohito was told that the IJN did not believe they could win the war, he seemed to question why they did not mention that fact, a wee bit earlier.

It is hard to understand such a mentality. You are attempting to face down, the worlds most powerful industrial nation then you go ahead and perform a sneak attack on the sabbath. Anyone who had attempted to examine our military history, should have realized that the US has been characterized as one of the most ferocious fighting nations in the world. If one looks at some of our wars, we not only whip our opponent, but we went after his capital. In the Mexican War, we defeated his forces in the California then finished him off by attacking and capturing his capital. Which probably wasn't really even necessary.

The worst part is the naivete of the Japanese, at the end of the struggle, to sit dumbfounded about why we dropped, not one, but two Atomic Bombs on them.

Even in the Civil War, although the end was clearly in sight, and an armistice might have been possible, we still went after the confederate capital and major cities, burning them down and destroying the surrounding area.

I wonder if any of the surviving leaders of Japan's military, ever sat and looked at each other and said "Boy, that was a dumb move".

[Ed Rotondaro]

HI Guys,

Back when I was taking Paul Dull's (The Japanese navy in World War II) oriental history course in the 70's, he recommended a Japanese author, Akira Iriye, who had just publish a couple of books on the subject of the war with America. He was the first of the post war generation of Japanese historians. I have both and will take another look at them. I agree with Dennis that it is good to understand both sides. The Japanese believed that they had real grievances against the west, America in particular. But after over 200 years of cultural isolation, teh Japanese could adopt western technology, but or took much longer to adopt the cultural values that the west developed with them. They looked at the world from an entirely different frame of reference. Whether understanding them or not would have avoided war I don't believe made a difference. The difference in values and international behavior was way too braod to gap.

I think this is still relevant today when we talk about dealing with international issues. The idea that the rest of the world looks at things the same way too is pervasive among many in the west. Even a relatively brief look at international behavior shows that not to be the case. Perhaps sometime in the future that may be true, but not now.

Mike:

I think you have hit on something very important here, namely rapidly transforming a society before it can absorb the implications of change. We see it in many Third World nations. You can give them advanced technology, but they may still have a tribal/feudal mindset. It didn't help that the inter-war period was a time of great upheaval in Japan. Liberal or moderate elements trying to Westernize were suppressed and the conservatives recoiled against social change, with the big fear of communism possibly taking root. Essentially Japan went to war with modern weapons and a 16th. century mentality.

[Mike Malanaphy]

I have read that and it makes perfect sense. It is interesting that when Hirohito was told that the IJN did not believe they could win the war, he seemed to question why they did not mention that fact, a wee bit earlier.

It is hard to understand such a mentality. You are attempting to face down, the worlds most powerful industrial nation then you go ahead and perform a sneak attack on the sabbath. Anyone who had attempted to examine our military history, should have realized that the US has been characterized as one of the most ferocious fighting nations in the world. If one looks at some of our wars, we not only whip our opponent, but we went after his capital. In the Mexican War, we defeated his forces in the California then finished him off by attacking and capturing his capital. Which probably wasn't really even necessary.

The worst part is the naivete of the Japanese, at the end of the struggle, to sit dumbfounded about why we dropped, not one, but two Atomic Bombs on them.

Even in the Civil War, although the end was clearly in sight, and an armistice might have been possible, we still went after the confederate capital and major cities, burning them down and destroying the surrounding area.

I wonder if any of the surviving leaders of Japan's military, ever sat and looked at each other and said "Boy, that was a dumb move".

Hi Dennis,

Excellent point. As much as we commiserate about not understanding others, the lack of knowledge on the part of the Japanese was equally profound. The Japanese haven't been the only ones to make that mistake about us.

The two books by Iriye I have are "Across the Pacific" and "After Imperialism". The first deals with the roots of war and the second examines events between 1921 and 1931 after the fall of the old Imperial order after WW I.
Have to blow the dust off of them. :)

[bridav58]

Mike:

Now that's a serious grudge bro! Hell we brought that war on ourselves, can't blame the British for that.


The British can take a fair share of the blame for that war too!!!!

[Kyle Holgate]

I have read that and it makes perfect sense. It is interesting that when Hirohito was told that the IJN did not believe they could win the war, he seemed to question why they did not mention that fact, a wee bit earlier.

It is hard to understand such a mentality. You are attempting to face down, the worlds most powerful industrial nation then you go ahead and perform a sneak attack on the sabbath. Anyone who had attempted to examine our military history, should have realized that the US has been characterized as one of the most ferocious fighting nations in the world. If one looks at some of our wars, we not only whip our opponent, but we went after his capital. In the Mexican War, we defeated his forces in the California then finished him off by attacking and capturing his capital. Which probably wasn't really even necessary.

The worst part is the naivete of the Japanese, at the end of the struggle, to sit dumbfounded about why we dropped, not one, but two Atomic Bombs on them.

Even in the Civil War, although the end was clearly in sight, and an armistice might have been possible, we still went after the confederate capital and major cities, burning them down and destroying the surrounding area.

I wonder if any of the surviving leaders of Japan's military, ever sat and looked at each other and said "Boy, that was a dumb move".

The way I picture it - from the Japanese perspective: You have a huge man living across the street from you that is working out and practicing with his sword daily. You are a plucky little guy who's pretty darn good, but not changing much. Both of you are at odds. The guy across the street cuts off your food and water supply due to some move you make that seems totally reasonable, and if not "ok" as such - not at all beyond similar moves the big guy has made himself. Now he's got you to the point where you can try to fight him, and die - or just die.
I have to admit, in a simlar situation I might at the very least make sure that he knew he was in a fight before I went down.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The British can take a fair share of the blame for that war too!!!!

Hi:

If I look at the war of 1812 objectively, I have to give the US and Madison the bulk of the blame. I know the old arguments of impressing US sailors and guess what, Britain had already agreed to stop doing that before war broke out. Oh and it might interest you to know that many of those sailors had deserted the Royal Navy and were making a nice living in the US. You could call them deserters. Also the US coveted Canada much as it had during the Revolution. Since so many Americans were living on the borders, Madison and others thought Canada would be ripe for the plucking. Yet even the French Canadians fought side by side with the English speaking Canadians. Note also that Britain fought mainly defensively until around 1814. They also didn't try to re-conquer the US. The war ended with the status quo. I used to have very strong opinions about the great American triumph of 1812. Then I started studying the war and you'll find that the US victories were trumped up to cover a really less than stellar performance by this nation except at sea. A couple of big wins late in the war have been spun to cover up a less than memorable moment in our history. I'll put it this way, better diplomacy could have prevented that war. Witness the Trent affair during the Civil War when the USN stopped a British ship and seized two Confederate diplomats. Most Britons were infuriated and rightly so, but cooler heads prevailed (most notably Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria) and the affair was settled without violence. it's not always easy to see your nation's flaws, but you have to face them. Sorry for the essay!

[bridav58]

Hi:

If I look at the war of 1812 objectively, I have to give the US and Madison the bulk of the blame. I know the old arguments of impressing US sailors and guess what, Britain had already agreed to stop doing that before war broke out. Oh and it might interest you to know that many of those sailors had deserted the Royal Navy and were making a nice living in the US. You could call them deserters. Also the US coveted Canada much as it had during the Revolution. Since so many Americans were living on the borders, Madison and others thought Canada would be ripe for the plucking. Yet even the French Canadians fought side by side with the English speaking Canadians. Note also that Britain fought mainly defensively until around 1814. They also didn't try to re-conquer the US. The war ended with the status quo. I used to have very strong opinions about the great American triumph of 1812. Then I started studying the war and you'll find that the US victories were trumped up to cover a really less than stellar performance by this nation except at sea. A couple of big wins late in the war have been spun to cover up a less than memorable moment in our history. I'll put it this way, better diplomacy could have prevented that war. Witness the Trent affair during the Civil War when the USN stopped a British ship and seized two Confederate diplomats. Most Britons were infuriated and rightly so, but cooler heads prevailed (most notably Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria) and the affair was settled without violence. it's not always easy to see your nation's flaws, but you have to face them. Sorry for the essay!

stopping US ships to recapture deserters when some of them weren't even Englishman to begin with is a good way to start a war . The UK may have agreed to stop impressment but how long did it take for word to get around? There's also the issue of wether or not the UK was stirring up Indian trouble in the west at that time(to be fair that may have been "perspective" rather then actuallity). I think it's suffice to say that better diplomacy by both sides before or during that war would have been much for the better. I knew along time ago that the war was more or less a draw the real help it gave the US was in future territory disputes. The UK basically didn't try & reconquer the US almost assuredly because of having just been through a war with Napolean but because of memories of the Revolutionary War. The US felt bullied and sometimes nations as well as people say "enough is enough" even if thier reaction is "over-reaction" .
As far as the Trent Affair goes well the British showed they weren't hypocrits because what the Union ship did in stopping the Trent was no different then what they did before the War of 1812.
Needless to say the only real loosers in that war were the Indians and that war certainly hastened thier downfall in the respective regions. That war,to me, isn't near the disgrace that the Mexican War or Spanish-American Wars were.