For Pearl Harbor To Have Worked... (influence, combat, strategic, why)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And here's a partial list of books I have on "isolationism".
I've read a few of the titles. I'm still curious what your thesis is on the topic? A list of books is just that. I would appreciate if you could express what you got out of the books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer
Once again, the US was not isolationist by Dec. '41.
Perhaps this is all really a semantics argument? I would agree that the US was not "isolationist" in late 1941. There had been a steady movement away from true "isolationist" thought and it was really now more a debate about the degree to which the US should be interventionist. In fact, that's how most authors treat the debate...Interventionist vs. Non-Interventionist as "Isolationism" isn't really an appropriate term for this time period.
The Interventionists had certainly been gaining a ton of ground over the opposition. By late 1941 Americans were very open to the idea of the US actively supporting Britain and Russia during the war and opposing Japan's expansionist aims. They were even at the point of being willing to go to war if war was absolutely necessary to accomplish those goals.
So, you are correct. The US was not "isolationist" and I have never argued otherwise. Where I have an argument with you is the implication in your arguments with others that the majority being interventionist was the same as the majority wishing to go to war. That was not true. Short of a reason, a casus belli if you will, the nation was not going to support going to war at that time.
The polling data and all of those books all agree on this point. You may think I'm splitting hairs for the sake of argument, but I do think there is an important distinction there and one you have repeatedly glossed over when addressing other peoples statements.
Where I have an argument with you is the implication in your arguments with others that the majority being interventionist was the same as the majority wishing to go to war.
Ah, I see the problem, you're claiming I said something I didn't say.
Ah, I see the problem, you're claiming I said something I didn't say.
You don't always fully explain yourself or your position when you post.
Several times people stated that the US population did not want to go to war at that time. You said that wasn't true and posted the poll numbers as evidence to backup your statement. I think you ignored the subtlety of what was going on and just corrected what you perceived to be the repetition of a myth.
It was a very complex picture, but the simple reality is that the US population did NOT want to go to war in 1941 and wouldn't have, absent a very compelling reason to stir the country to actual war. The Japanese historically provided that reason. People who suggest that the US may not have gone to war had Japan taken a different strategic approach are not incorrect.
You don't always fully explain yourself or your position when you post.
Several times people stated that the US population did not want to go to war at that time. You said that wasn't true and posted the poll numbers as evidence to backup your statement. I think you ignored the subtlety of what was going on and just corrected what you perceived to be the repetition of a myth.
It was a very complex picture, but the simple reality is that the US population did NOT want to go to war in 1941 and wouldn't have, absent a very compelling reason to stir the country to actual war. The Japanese historically provided that reason. People who suggest that the US may not have gone to war had Japan taken a different strategic approach are not incorrect.
I said "No sane person wants to go to war." Reading fail on your part.
Very true. We had about sixty million more people than Japan and five time the industrial capacity. We had our own POL resources as well.
It never fails to amaze me that Yamamoto Isoruku would think that a "sharp blow" would make us turn over on our backs and present our belly. He'd been here twice for long-ish periods. Just remembering traveling from San Francisco to Boston should have given him furiously to think.
Yamamoto did advocate that "sharp blow" and was the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor. You are also quite correct, he lived in the United States for a time and was probably as familiar with American values and culture as anyone in Japan was.
The part you leave out is that Yamamoto was against war in the first place. He and some other naval officers attempted to convince Japanese leaders in the government that war with the United States was folly. When asked about fighting the United States, he made it clear to his leaders that in the beginning he could achieve some success, but after a year of conflict, he would promise absolutely nothing. In fact, the Battle of Midway took place a mere six months after Pearl Harbor and was the turning point in the war.
In its 1904 war with Russia, Japan had launched another surprise strike against the Russians at Port Arthur. This strike had been successful and Japan was able to reach a favorable negotiated settlement with Russia. The surprise strike or "sneak attack" had been part of the Japanese military culture for a long time before Pearl Harbor.
Yamamoto was in a tough position. He was clearly opposed to a war with America, but as a military man, had an obligation to follow orders. He decided that if he was ordered to fight a war, Japan's only hope lay in a surprise strike against the Americans that would decimate much of the Pacific fleet at the outset. So, Yamamoto set about planning Pearl Harbor, but still felt in the back of his mind, the war would probably go badly. In his wildest imagination, I'm sure he couldn't imagine the USA being in a position within a few years where it could literally fire bomb Japanese cities to the ground. Even his experience, could not lead him to imagine how powerful our war machine would become.
To expand: I post at times from a oxygen tent. My phone is clipped to a stand outside the tent because "certain people" are still paranoid about sparks. Getting any post done is challenging then, so I practice being terse. You can tell the gravity of the problem by the time between the post I quoted and this one. This for five sentences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
