- Historical Synopsis
The Second World War of 1939- 1945 is classifed by many as the war that redefined the international hierarchy of nations as the war destroyed and weakened once dominant nations while some rose in dominance. Throughout the war, several critical conflicts had redefined the course of the war, and one of them was the Attack in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The Attack not only signaled America’s formal inclusion in the war, but highlighted that the war was not just in Europe but also in the Pacific. In a surprise attack, the Japanese Imperial Army attacked America’s largest military base in Pearl Harbor in Hawaii through a combination of aerial and marine strikes. The US forces found themselves overwhelmed by the sheer power of the Japanese strike force Kido Butai with many Americans killed in the crossfire. The US forces forced out of Pearl Harbor were unable to counter the Japanese forces due to the damages incurred from the attack
- Transition
Although Japan’s attack in Pearl Harbor triggered America’s inclusion to the war, the attack had occured due to the weak and harsh diplomatic responses of both parties, especially the Americans. In Scott Sagan’s article entitled “The Origins of the Pacific War”, he discussed how both Japan and America’s decisions and policies had forced Japan to direct its ire towards Pearl Harbor and effectively call war. Chichiro Hosoya’s article “Miscalculations in Deterrent Policy: Japanese- US Relations, 1938-1941” indicated that America had been the ones who sold Japan towards their attack in Pearl Harbor and declare war. Finally, the article by Sumio Hatano “Who Moved Down to Pearl Harbor”, expounded on the various factors and events that had transpired prior to the attack in Pearl Harbor. With these sources in consideration, this writer will critique each author’s work using a comparison and contrast style to determine how they presented the argument surrounding why Japan went to Pearl Harbor.
- Analysis
The article written by Scott Sagan, “The Origins of the Pacific War” argued that the Japanese had launched an offensive in Pearl Harbor because of the mutual failure of deterrence both Japan and America employed. On the side of the Japanese, they were mostly focused in expanding into the Southeast Asia and establish a “new order in East Asia”. However, in order to achieve this “new order”, Japan had to ensure America would not intervene while they took over the British and Dutch colonies . America noticed Japan’s movements in Asia and while they stressed they will not get involved, President Roosevelt sought to prevent Japan’s expansion by threatening them of an oil embargo and military intervention. At first, the Americans made the Japanese guess as to what they think about the Japanese movement; however, this had placed Japan into signing the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy. With Japan signing the Pact, several members of the American government pushed for tougher economic sanctions against Japan to stop their imminent attacks in the region. Several attempts had been done by the American government to persuade Japan to stop their actions, but Japan slowly moved towards the British and Dutch colonies to ensure America will not intervene. America retaliated by imposing an economic and oil sanctions to Japan without considering the possible implications it would have to the Japanese. Although both countries were still in negotiations, America’s sanctions had been stressful to Japan. The Japanese government prompted its military to create a military plan to ease the country’s burden and prompted the attack in Pearl Harbor.
The second article which is written by Chichiro Hosoya mirrored Sagan’s argument that America had failed in calculating the possible impacts of sanctions to Japan. This miscalculation forced Japan to wage war to the Americans. Hosoya’s arguments are the abrogation of the Japanese- U.S. Treaty of Commerce and Navigation in 1939 and the imposition of the export ban in 1941. For the first argument, the abrogation of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation was at first, thought by the Americans to be a means to restrict Japan’s actions towards China and weaken its active spirit. However, while the Japanese had tried to re-forge the agreement to revive the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, the American government were divided as to how they can trust Japan’s intentions. With America failing to respond to the Japanese proposal, the treaty was never revived . After the abrogation of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, the Japanese had to contend to the imposition of economic sanctions that was imposed after their attempts in China and the East Indies. The US government attempted to stop the Japanese through economic and oil sanctions. The imposition, however, shocked the Japanese as the sanctions would cripple their military efforts and put them at the state of collapse unless something happens. The US action was also seen by the Japanese to prepare for war
The final article written by Sumio Hatano entitled “Who Moved Down to Pearl Harbor” argued that the changing policies of the Japanese towards China and the failure of the US to reach a compromise with the Japanese. On its end, the Japanese had first tried to settle the issue between Japan and China through ‘regional settlement’ to cement itself as the new leader of East Asia. Japan then created its ‘southward advance policy’ which was supported with Japan’s stronger ties with German and the Soviet Union to ensure their chances in becoming the region’s leader while stopping America in the process. However, while Japanese diplomats such as Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka tried to resolve the issue through diplomacy, the remaining members of the Japanese government opposed the deals that would put the country at a disadvantage. With America now imposing economic sanctions to Japan, the Japanese knew the US would not agree with Japan’s concessions and prolong the discussions to Japan’s disadvantage. Eventually, with the military now prepared to wage war against the US and America failing to reach a compromise with the country, the Japanese slowly made to go to war .
- Criticisms
In its entirety, all three sources highlighted the same premise that Japan’s road to war and the Attack in Pearl Harbor was due to the weak diplomatic policies imposed primarily by the United States. Individually, the articles presented their arguments and suppositions in different styles and tone. For the first article written by Sagan, his writing style provided an objective look as to the events that occurred prior to the Attack in Pearl Harbor. His objective writing style permitted him to present to readers the entire event in a narrative format that clearly indicates how America and Japan acted throughout the events prior to Pearl Harbor. The author did not showcase bias over his article as he indicated both sides of the argument. He had also concluded that the failure of both America and Japan to reach a resolution or agreement prior to Pearl Harbor must serve as an example that
In the second article, Hosoya’s article utilizes the same writing style as Sagan – an objective writing style – in order to present the arguments and points of the entire discussion. However, unlike Sagan, who divided his arguments by indicating the crucial events, Hosoya presented his premise by indicating the actions done by both America and Japan throughout the pre-Pearl Harbor period separately. This presentation permits readers to understand how each country responded to the actions of the other party until the escalation of Japan’s assault in Pearl Harbor. As far as his bias is a concern, Hosoya did not just illustrate the American side of the issue but also indicated that Japan’s expansionist policy had influenced America’s actions towards the Japanese.
Finally, the third article written by Hatano also utilized an objective writing style to indicate the crucial arguments and points that paved the way to Pearl Harbor. In his case, Hatano utilized the objective writing style by providing readers how particular individuals and key events triggered the Attack in Pearl Harbor. The author did not just highlight the situation between the United States and Japan, but he had also shown how the issue between Japan and China and the growing war in Europe affected the discussions. Like the other two authors, this author also did not show bias towards the issue and suggested all aspects of the argument presented by the US, Japan and even China.
Works Cited
Davenport, John. The Attack on Pearl Harbor. New York: Chelsea House, 2009. Print.
Hatano, Sumio. "Who Moved Down to Pearl Harbor?" Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies 4 (2012): 15-28. Print.
Hosoya, Chichiro. "Miscalculations in Deterrent Policy: Japanese-U.S. Relations, 1938-1941." Journal of Peace Research 5.2 (1968): 97-115. Print.
Sagan, Scott. "The Origins of the Pacific War." Journal of Interdiciplinary History 18.4 (1988): 893-922. Print.
