No Clear and Present Danger
A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II
Harper & Row, 1972
Bruce M. Russett
Chapter 3
A
Hobson’s Choice for
Japan
Japan in China
If one rejects the
purely moral justification of American entry into the war against Hitler,
no very effective moral brief can then be made for the war in the Pacific.
True, the Japanese were often unkind conquerors, though this can easily
be exaggerated by American memories of the Bataan death march and other
horrors in the treatment of prisoners. Japanese occupation was often
welcomed in the former European colonies of Southeast Asia, and Japan
retains some reservoir of good will for its assistance, late in the war,
of indigenous liberation movements. In any case it is Hitler, not Tojo,
who is customarily presented as the personification of evil. Possibly
Americans did have some vague obligation to defend Chinese independence,
but more clearly than in Europe the basis for American participation has
to be realpolitik. The case has to be founded on a conviction that
Japan was too powerful, too dangerously expansionist without any apparent
restraint, to have been left alone. An extreme but widely accepted
version is given by an early chronicler of the war:
Japan in the spring
and summer of 1941 would accept no diplomatic arrangement which did not
give it everything that it might win in the Far East by aggression,
without the trouble and expense of military campaigns.1
The evidence,
however, shows quite a different picture both of intent and capability.
Nor is it enough simply to assert that, because Japan attacked the United
States at Pearl Harbor, America took no action to begin hostilities. This
is formally true, but very deceptive. The Japanese attack would not have
come but for the American, British, and Dutch embargo on shipment of
strategic raw materials to Japan. Japan’s strike against the American
naval base merely climaxed a long series of mutually antagonistic acts.
In initiating economic sanctions against Japan the United States
undertook actions that were widely recognized in Washington as carrying
grave risk of war. To understand this requires a retracing of the events
of the preceding years.
By the beginning of
the 1940s Japan was involved in an exhausting and seemingly endless war on
the Asian mainland. The “China incident” dated back to the Japanese
seizure of Manchuria in 1931, and was greatly escalated by the clash at
the Marco Polo Bridge which expanded into severe open warfare with China
in 1937. Although the Army did willfully create an incident at Mukden in
1931, the Marco Polo Bridge affair seems not to have been a deliberate
provocation by Tokyo. Nevertheless most Japanese military and political
leaders did seek a “Co-Prosperity Sphere” of economic and political
predominance. They apparently believed that their Empire’s status as an
independent world power depended on military equality with Russia and the
United States in the Far East; that in turn depended on a hegemonial
position, preferably economic but achieved by force if necessary, in the
area of China.2 Though this
seems strange now, an adequate view of Japanese policy in its contemporary
context has to remember Tokyo’s position as a latecomer to colonialism, in
a world where France, Britain, and the United States all had their own
spheres of influence.
Japanese forces made
important initial gains by occupying most of the Chinese coast and most of
China’s industrial capacity, but with a trickle of American aid the
nationalist armies hung on in the interior. By 1941 the Japanese armies
were bogged down, and their progress greatly impeded by raw material
shortages. In 1940 Congress placed fuel oil and scrap iron under the new
National Defense Act as goods which could not be shipped out of the
Western Hemisphere without an export license. Although commerce in these
products was not actually cut off for another year, the threat to Japan of
a raw material scarcity was obvious, and deliberately invoked by an
American government seeking to apply pressure against the Japanese
campaign in China. This strategy was exercised in a series of dozens of
gradually tightening economic measures—an escalation that was to drive
Japan not to capitulation, as it was intended to do, but to war with the
United States.3
Following the July
1941 freeze on Japanese assets in America, and the consequent cessation of
shipment of oil, scrap iron, and other goods from the United States,
Japan’s economy was in most severe straits and her power to wage war
directly threatened. Her military leaders estimated that her reserves of
oil, painfully accumulated in the late 1930s when the risk of just such a
squeeze became evident, would last at most two years. She was also short
of rice, tin, bauxite, nickel, rubber and other raw materials normally
imported from the Dutch East Indies and Malaya. Negotiations with the
Dutch authorities to supply these goods, plus extraordinary amounts of oil
from the wells of Sumatra, had failed, ostensibly on the grounds that the
Dutch feared the material would be re-exported to the Axis in Europe. The
United States, and the British and Dutch, made it quite clear that the
embargo would be relaxed only in exchange for Japanese withdrawal from air
and naval bases in Indochina (seized in order to prosecute better the war
against China) and an agreement which would have meant the end of the
Japanese involvement in China and the abandonment of any right to
station troops in that country, not just a halt to the fighting. The
purpose of the Western economic blockade was to force a favorable solution
to the “China incident.”
Under these
conditions, the High Command of the Japanese navy demanded a “settlement”
of one sort or other that would restore Japan’s access to essential raw
materials, most particularly oil. Without restored imports of fuel the
fleet could not very long remain an effective fighting force. While the
navy might have been willing to abandon the China campaign, it was utterly
opposed to indefinite continuation of the status quo. Either raw material
supplies had to be restored by a peaceful settlement with the Western
powers, or access to the resources in Thailand, Malaya, and the Indies
would have to be secured by force while Japan still retained the
capabilities to do so.
If the navy demanded
either settlement or war, most members of the Japanese elite were opposed
to any settlement which would in effect have meant withdrawal from China.
No serious thought was given to the possibility of peace with Chiang’s
government, for it would have meant the end of all hopes of empire in East
Asia and even, it was thought, of influence on the continent of Asia.
Moderate Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo reacted to the most forceful
statement of American demands, on November 27, 1941, “Japan was asked not
only to abandon all the gains of her years of sacrifice, but to surrender
her international position as a power in the Far East.” In his view, that
surrender would have been equivalent to national suicide.4
In any case, the
Army High Command simply would not have tolerated any abandonment of its
position in China. Its own prestige and influence had been built up step
by step during the war there, and its position in China became its power
base in Japanese domestic politics. General Hideki Tojo, by no means the
most violent of the Army war hawks, feared that any concession on the
China issue would risk an actual revolt by extremist elements in the Army.
In fact, on the resignation of Prince Ronoye’s government in October 1941
Tojo had urged the appointment of Prince Higashi-Runi as Premier, on the
principle that, should a compromise with the United States be decided
upon, only a member of the royal family would have a chance to control the
Army and make peace. In the context of Japanese politics of the 1930s,
when there had been several plotted coups and when one after another of
the political leaders thought to be too conciliatory toward foreign
elements were assassinated by extreme nationalists, this was hardly a
far-fetched fear. Tojo once characterized the Japanese internal political
situation in these terms to Joseph C. Grew, American Ambassador to Tokyo,
“If Japan were forced to give up suddenly all the fruits of the long war
in China, collapse would follow.”5
Before we judge the Japanese too harshly Americans must remember their
own difficulties in terminating a stalemated war 30 years later.
The
hardening American commitment
Thus, for the
various elements in the Japanese government, and for somewhat different
reasons, a peaceful settlement ultimately become unaccep-table. They could
not accede to the American demands, and they could not even continue to
drag out the negotiations because of the increasingly precarious nature of
the war economy and especially the Navy’s fuel supplies. On rejecting
this unpalatable alternative they were again thrown back on the other; the
necessary raw material could be obtained only by seizing Thailand, where
there was rice; Malaya, with its sources of tin, nickel, and rubber; and
the Dutch East Indies, with their oil. But, according to the Japanese
calculations, the United States was certain to fight if British or Dutch
territory in the Far East were attacked. Japanese analysts reached the
latter conclusion despite the absence of any American threat or promise.
At the Atlantic Conference, Roosevelt had acceded to Churchill’s plea
that he issue a “war warning” with regard to any further conquests by
Japan in the Far East. After he returned to Washington, however, the
State Department dissuaded him and no such warning was ever issued. The
nearest equivalents were two statements by President Roosevelt to
Ambassador Nomura in July and August of 1941. The first declared:
If Japan attempted
to seize oil supplies by force in the Netherlands East Indies, the Dutch
would, without the shadow of doubt, resist, the British would immediately
come to their assistance, and, in view of our policy of assisting Great
Britain, an exceedingly serious situation would immediately result.6
On the second
occasion Roosevelt stated:
If the Japanese
Government takes any further steps in pursuance of a policy of program of
military domination by force or threat of force of neighboring countries
the government of the United States will be compelled to take immediately
any and all steps which it may deem necessary toward safeguarding the
legitimate rights and interests of the United States and American
nationals and toward insuring the safety and security of the United
States.7
Despite its firm
language, this was not an unequivocal warning. On presentation to Nomura
it was, as Langer and Gleason point out, not given the status of a
“written statement” or even of an “oral statement.” It was merely private
“reference material,” for Nomura’s use in communicating with his own
government. No unequivocal warning could be given, simply because
President Roosevelt could not be sure of American reaction in the actual
event of crisis. He was fully aware of the need to secure congressional
approval for war, of the strength of isolationist sentiment in the United
States, of the difficulties involved in demonstrating that an attack on
British and Dutch colonies was a direct threat to American interests, and
of the dangers inherent in going to war with the country deeply divided.
By autumn 1941,
however, opinion was crystalizing in the highest levels of the American
decision-making system. In November, Roosevelt informally polled his
cabinet on the question of whether the country would support war against
Japan in the event of attack on Malaya or the Indies. All members
responded in the affirmative. General Marshall and Admiral Stark, the
Chiefs of Staff, concluded that the United States should fight if Japan
attacked British or Dutch territory, or Siam west of 100 degrees East or
south of 10 degrees North. In two conversations on December 1 and 3
Roosevelt assured Lord Halifax, British Ambassador to Washington, that the
United States would give Britain armed support if the Japanese attacked
British or Dutch territories, or if Britain went to war as a result of a
Japanese landing in Siam. This assurance was communicated to London, and
from there to Sir Robert Brooke-Popham, British commander in the Far East.8
On the morning of December 7 in Washington (before the Pearl Harbor raid,
which took place at dawn, Hawaii time) Secretaries Hull (State), Knox
(Navy), and Stimson (War) discussed the anticipated Japanese attack on
Siam or Malaya. They agreed the United States should go to war if the
British did. Roosevelt then expected to go before Congress the next day
to explain why a Japanese invasion of Siam threatened the security of the
United States.
These decisions came
too late, however, to affect directly the Japanese deliberations. By the
beginning of December their attack was irrevocably set in motion. The
Japanese conviction that war could not be limited to the British and Dutch
had to be based wholly on inference. Yet it was a correct analysis and a
solid conviction, as shown by the otherwise inexplicable risk they took at
Pearl Harbor.
The
perception of encirclement
Rather close links
had been forged between the United States and the colonies in Malaya and
the East Indies, bonds that were known to the Japanese and considered to
be of great importance. The Southwest Pacific area was of undeniable
economic importance to the United States—at the time most of America’s tin
and rubber came from there, as did substantial quantities of other raw
materials.9 American
political involvement in the area was also heavy. The United States was
cooperating closely with the British and Dutch governments, and according
to the Japanese evaluation, if the United States failed to defend the
Indies it would lose its influence in China and endanger the Philippines.10
Premier Tojo even referred in this context to the approval given Pan
American World Airways to establish an air route between Singapore and
Manila.11
Unilateral American
actions to build up their military forces, both generally and in the
Pacific in particular, were seen as evidence of aggressive intent.12
But most convincing of all were the military ties apparently being
established among the ABCD (American-British-Chinese-Dutch) powers. The
United States was known to be supplying munitions and arms, including
aircraft, not just to China but to British and Dutch forces in the
Pacific. In cooperation with the British, Dutch, Australians, New
Zealanders, and the Free French (at New Caledonia), the United States had
begun construction of a string of airfields to the Philippines.
Furthermore, the United States had participated in staff conversations
with British and Dutch military personnel at Singapore. The Japanese came
to associate these conversations with an “Anglo-American policy of
encirclement against Japan in the Southern Pacific Ocean.”13
This notion of encirclement appears time and again in Japanese official
documents and memoirs. The freezing of Japanese assets by the United
States, British, and Netherlands East Indies governments occurred on the
same day: July 26, 1941. Although that act was in direct response to
Japan’s occupation of southern Indo-China, her leaders nevertheless saw it
as the final link in their bondage.14
As early as spring
1941, in fact, the Japanese army and navy general staffs had agreed among
themselves that military action in the Southwest Pacific meant war with
the United States. As we have seen, no definite decision by the United
States had been reached, due largely to the state of American public
opinion. But President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull were quite willing to
have the Japanese believe that a joint American-British-Dutch plan of
defense of the Indies existed.15
The conviction only grew stronger with time, and was reinforced by the
intelligence received from the Japanese embassy in Washington. On
December 3, 1941, for example, the Washington embassy cabled Tokyo:
“Judging from all indications, we feel that some joint military action
between Great Britain and the United States, with or without a declaration
of war, is a definite certainty in the event of an occupation of
Thailand.”16
The American fleet
in the Pacific, while inferior to the Japanese in many respects, was
strong enough to endanger seriously a sustained offensive and quite
possibly strong enough to postpone Japan’s effective occupation of the
Indies until her raw materials ran out. The oil fields might be put out
of operation for many months, and in any case the shipment of these
supplies to Japan under the threat of American air and naval attack would
be too risky. Japan simply dared not undertake such operations while the
American fleet remained intact.
Having decided
against withdrawal from China, failed to negotiate a settlement with
America, and decided on the necessity of seizing supplies from Southeast
Asia, they were faced with the need to blunt what they regarded as the
inevitable American response. Thus they launched a surprise attack on
Pearl Harbor to destroy any American capability for immediate naval
offensive. For all the audacity of the strike at Hawaii, its aims were
limited; to destroy existing United States offensive capabilities in the
Pacific by tactical surprise. The Japanese High Command hoped only to
give its forces time to occupy the islands of the Southwest Pacific, to
extract those islands’ raw materials, and to turn the whole area into a
virtually impregnable line of defense which could long delay an American
counteroffensive and mete out heavy casualties when the counterattack did
come. As a result of their early success the Japanese naval and military
chiefs extended this line a little farther than they had first meant to
do, but their original intentions were not grandiose.
In deciding to
attack Pearl Harbor the Japanese took what they fully recognized to be a
great risk. There is no doubt but that the Imperial government realized
it could not win a long war with the United States if the Americans chose
to fight such a war. Japanese strategists calculated that America’s war
potential was seven to eight times greater than their own; they knew that
Japan could not hope to carry the war to the continental United States.
General Suzuki, chairman of the Planning Board, had reported that Japan’s
stockpile of resources was not adequate to support a long war. Admiral
Yamamoto, the brilliant inventor of the Pearl Harbor attack plan, warned;
“In the first six months to a year of war against the U.S. and England I
will run wild, and I will show you an uninterrupted succession of
victories; I must also tell you that, should the war be prolonged for two
or three years, I have no confidence in our ultimate victory.”17
Because the proposed
attack seemed an escape from the dilemma it was grasped with more
enthusiasm than it deserved. The Japanese never seriously considered
exactly what would cause the United States to forego crushing Japan, or
how Japan might best create the proper conditions for a negotiated peace.
Certain key elements, such as the probable effect of the Pearl Harbor
attack on the American will to win, were left completely unanalyzed.
Japan’s sole strategy involved dealing maximum losses to the United
States at the outset, making the prospects of a prolonged war as grim as
possible, and counting, in an extremely vague and ill-defined way, on the
American people’s “softness” to end the war.
A
considered decision
Nor, certainly, can
the Japanese decision be explained simply as an act of “irrationality,” an
impulsive act by an unstable leader. Such explanations depend either upon
a situation of great stress, which would warp the actions of all or most
of the participants in the decision process, or really apply only to
circumstances where a single individual in fact makes the decision. Some
of Hitler’s most costly mistakes in World War II, for example, were highly
individualistic decisions for which he alone was responsible. Typical of
the pattern was his order to stand and fight at Stalingrad rather than
allow his army to retreat and regroup. High stress plus the peculiarities
of the Fuehrer’s personality produced a command different from what other
men would have given.
The Japanese
decision to attack Pearl Harbor, however, was neither the decision of a
single individual, where much of his behavior could be explained by his
own personality, nor a decision arrived at under time pressures. It was
reached incrementally and reinforced at several steps along the line. On
July 2, 1941, it was decided to press ahead with expansion in Southeast
Asia even though this meant a high risk of war with the United States.
After deep consideration by high Japanese military and naval officials
for months, a formal commitment was made at the Imperial Conference of
September 6 that either negotiations must result in lifting the United
States embargo on strategic raw materials, or Japan would have to fight
the Americans. October 15 was set as the deadline for success in
negotiation. But even though the strategic commitment (in the sense of a
decision for the next move dependent upon the opponent’s reaction to this
one) had seemingly been made, it was the subject of a great deal of
reexamination over the subsequent three months. Prince Konoye’s
government resigned following the expiration of the deadline, but the new
cabinet formed under General Tojo took office not as a regime determined
to take the nation into war, but rather as one still seeking a way out.
Serious negotiation with the United States continued through November. A
new secret deadline of November 25 was once set, “after which things are
going to happen automatically,” but it too was extended until November 30.
Whatever the nature
of the decision to go to war, it was arrived at and reinforced over a long
period of time, and was not the result of anyone’s possibly “irrational”
impulse. In any case, the decision was in no important sense the act of a
single man whose peculiar traits can be used to explain it. Rather, it
was a carefully—if incompletely—considered collec-tive attempt to break out
of a dilemma that no man would relish.
This analysis is
meant to establish an important proposition: that the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor, and for that matter on Southeast Asia, is not evidence of
any unlimited expansionist policy or capability by the Japanese
government. It was the consequence only of a much less ambitious goal,
centering on an unwillingness to surrender the position that the Japanese
had fought for years to establish in China. When that refusal met an
equal American determination that Japan should give up many of her gains
in China, the result was war. Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia
originated less in strength than in weakness; it was predominantly
instrumental to the China campaign, not a reach for another slice of
global salami. Of course there were Japanese political and military
leaders with wider ambitions, but they were not predominant in
policy-making.
Throughout the 1930s
the United States government had done little to resist the Japanese
advance on the Asian continent. There were verbal protests, but little
more. Even in early 1941 Washington apparently would have settled for a
halt in China, and saw little danger of a much wider move into
Southeast Asia. But the application of economic sanctions against Tokyo
was very successful; it was obviously hurting, and the moderate Premier
Prince Konoye proposed a direct meeting with Roosevelt to try to reach an
understanding. At about that point the American Government seems to have
been so impressed with its success that it rebuffed Konoye’s approach,
demanding that he agree in advance on terms of a settlement. Konoye’s
cabinet fell, and American observers concluded—on the basis of untestable
evidence that sounded a bit like sour grapes—that he could not have
enforced a “reason-able” settlement in Japanese politics anyway.
Washington then raised the ante, calling for a Japanese withdrawal
from all occupied territory in China. Several officials in the State
Department proposed settling for a halt, giving China a breathing spell
that would have served it better for several more years of war while
America made its main effort in the Atlantic. Hull considered and then
rejected their plan for such a modus vivendi, which rather closely
resembled the second of two Japanese proposals (“Plan B”) that represented
Tokyo’s last efforts. Economic sanctions continued to provide a warm
moral glow for those who disapproved of trading with an aggressor, but
they then served to make inevitable an otherwise avoidable war which was
peripheral to American vital interests and for which the country was
ill-prepared.
It was widely
understood in Washington that the next move would probably be some sort of
Japanese attack in Southeast Asia. Ambassador Grew in Tokyo had long been
warning of the limited nature of Japanese goals and the consequences of
resisting them.18 As early
as 1940, Under-secretary of State Sumner Welles had cautioned that an
embargo would bring Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies.
America in China
Why then did
President Roosevelt and his advisers embark on a series of incremental
pressures that had the effect of pushing the Japanese into war? In large
part, of course, they decided that Japanese ambitions in China posed a
long-term threat to American interests, and so they forced a
confrontation. A sentimental American attitude toward China as a “ward”
also must not be forgotten. From missionary days they had been a people
“we had always helped,” to whom there was a sense of obligation.19
Roosevelt had a long-time emotional attachment to China, and from his
days as Assistant Secretary of the Navy had allegedly “become imbued with
the Navy’s conviction that Japan was America’s Number One enemy.”20
Nor should economic, as opposed to strategic, motives be ignored as they
have been in most conventional histories of the period. Beginning with
Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s idea that Chinese reconstruction would have to be
brought about in collaboration with other countries, the nationalist
government sought foreign economic and technical assistance.21
Some interest was expressed in the United States, with a few loans
forthcoming. Nondiscrimination in East Asian trade was almost always
included in American demands on Japan. According to one analyst with a
revisionist perspective
Although the Great
China Market never materialized, many American leaders in the New Deal
period . . . acted upon the assumption that it would, and this gave them
reason to oppose Japan’s forward movement in Asia.22
Another demonstrates
the importance of perceived commercial possibilities in China in the first
American extension of economic assistance to belligerent China.23
Yet another, commenting on policy toward all the Axis states, says:
The actual defense
of the United States was one factor involved in the move to an “all-out
aid short of war” policy, but the restoration of the Open Door world order
was of at least equal importance to the Roosevelt administration.24
Such considerations
surely applied, and probably in greater strength, to continental Europe,
where Nazi plans for autarchy threatened an American market that was
quantitatively very much more important.25
The economic prospect of a German-Soviet dominated Europe must have
seemed unattractive—though, objectively, the threat to the national
interest as a whole amounted to less than two percent of American GNP for
those exports and imports combined. There also was some fear of German
economic penetration into South America. But as for the Far East, by
embargoing Japan in 1941 the United States was giving up an export trade
at least four times that with China. While one must not equate dollar
volume perfectly with relative political influence, the impact of China
traders can easily be exaggerated.26
It is of course
impossible to separate and weigh the relative importance of the various
influences. Strategic considerations, however muddled, were in the
forefront. Certainly the above evaluation implies no conspiracy by
Roosevelt against the general welfare of the United States, but it does
require us again to evaluate the military and political situation of the
day, in light of what was known then and of what we know now.
On purely strategic
grounds some observers might argue that the danger was not from Germany,
Italy, or Japan alone, but rather from their combination in an aggressive
alliance encircling the Western Hemisphere. The rhetoric of the time
could suggest such a threat, but in fact the Tripartite Pact of Germany
and Italy with Japan had become quite fragile. As explained in the
preceding chapter, it was designed to deter United States entry into
either of the then still-separate conflicts. The Japanese foreign
minister in early 1941, Yosuke Matsuoka, had negotiated the Pact and was
by far its strongest supporter in the cabinet. He tried to persuade his
colleagues to follow the German attack on Russia with a similar act by
Japan, but failed and was deposed. Thereafter the Pact faded in
importance to the Tokyo government. In considering their subsequent
negotiations with the United States the Japanese leaders were fully
willing to sacrifice the Pact in return for the necessary economic
concessions. Had Hitler managed to get himself into war with America in
the Atlantic he could not successfully have invoked the Pact unless the
Japanese clearly had seen war to be in their own interests.
Moreover, this drift
away from Germany was, it has been well argued, adequately known to
American and British officials-Ambassadors Grew and Craigie, Cordell Hull,
Roosevelt and Churchill-thanks in part to American ability to crack the
codes used in all Japanese secret cables. “After Matsuoka’s fall . . . no
Axis leader was able even to keep up the pretense of expecting Japanese
intervention in behalf of Germany and Italy.”27
In the context of late 1941, therefore, the prospects of close cooperation
among Germany, Italy and Japan were not very menacing. Given their very
diverse long-run interests, and Hitler’s racial notions, a “permanent”
alliance surely does not seem very plausible. A special irony of the
situation is that Roosevelt was particularly anxious to see Hitler beaten
first, and that British and Dutch colonial possessions in Southeast Asia,
which seemed essential to the European war, be unmolested. His belated
insistence on Japanese evacuation from China then pushed the Axis back
together and endangered his other goals.
Would Japanese
success in China alone, without reference to their allies, have posed such
a long-term threat as has sometimes been imagined? It is easy
subconsciously to invoke old Western fears that still plague American
China policy. Even limited to the home islands, after two decades of
spectacular growth Japan today has the world’s third largest GNP. Yet it
is only about one-sixth as large as that of the United States, and a third
of Russia’s. This third-ranking power is still manifestly weaker than the
United States, as it was in 1941. From a thirty year perspective it is
hard to argue that the great war made much ultimate difference either way
in Japan’s potential power in the world.
Firm
Japanese control of all China would of course be a different matter, and
would indeed have put at Tokyo’s disposal an empire of awesome size.
Still, really what are the prospects that Imperial Japan could
effectively have ruled a population seven times larger than her own?
Herbert Hoover at the time urged:
We must remember
some essentials of Asiatic life that while Japan has the military
ascendancy today and no doubt could take over parts or all of China, yet
the Chinese people possess transcendent cultural resis-tance; that the
mores of the race have carried through a dozen foreign dynasties over the
3,000 years . . . No matter what Japan does . . . they will not Japanify
China and if they stay long enough they will be absorbed or expelled by
the Chinese. For America to undertake this on behalf of China might
expedite it, but would not make it more inevitable.28
The Japanese War in
China was going so badly in 1941 that it seems rather far-fetched to
imagine firm domination ever being established. Japan was already bogged
down on the Asian mainland, as other powers have done since. The Chinese
nationalists, and the Communists, probably could have continued to resist
for years with continuing American and Russian military assistance short
of war. Maybe not, but even so it would seem that there would have been
substantial warning, still allowing the United States to institute a tough
policy against the Japanese later on when the evidence was clear.
Notes
1
Basil Rauch, Roosevelt, from
Munich to Pearl
Harbor
(New York: Creative Age Press, 1950), p. 396.
2
James B. Crowley, Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and
Foreign Policy, 1930-1938 (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1966).
3
On the slow, very deliberate application of economic sanctions see John
Morton Blum, From the Morgenthau Diaries: Years of Urgency, 1938-1941
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), Chapter 10.
4
Quoted
in Herbert Feis, The Road to
Pearl Harbor
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 327.
5
See
David J. Lu, From the Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor: Japan’s Entry
into World War II (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1961), p. 304.
See also the statement of the Japanese minister of war at the cabinet
meeting of October 12, 1941: “The problem of the stationing of the troops
in China in itself means the life of the Army, and we shall not be able to
make any concessions at all.” Quoted in the memoirs of Prince Konoye, U.S.
Congress, Joint Committee on the Investigation of Pearl Harbor Attack,
Pearl Harbor
Attack: Hearings Before the Joint Committee, 79th Congress, 1st Session
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), Part 20, p. 4009.
6
Quoted in Langer and Gleason, Undeclared War, p. 650.
7
Ibid., p. 695. On the contrast between these and the agreement with
Churchill see Theodore A. Wilson, The First
Summit: Roosevelt
and Churchill at Placentia Bay, 1941
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, I969).
8
Raymond A. Esthus, “President Roosevelt’s Commitment to Intervene in a
Pacific War,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50, no. 1 (June
1963): 34.
9
The economic importance of the area to the United States was not left to
Japanese imagination. On July 11, 1940 Ambassador Grew pointed out to
foreign minister Arita that in I937 I5.8 percent of the foreign trade of
the Netherlands East Indies had been with the United States, and only II.6
per cent with Japan. He further emphasized the interest of the United
States in continuance of the open door there. See Cordell Hull, The
Memoirs of Cordell Hull, Vol. 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1948), pp.
895-96.
10
See the Japanese Foreign Office memorandum of early November 1941,
International Military Tribunal for the Far East (hereafter cited as IMTFE),
Document No. 1559A. Similar conclusions were expressed in the Liaison
Conference Meetings of October 1941, according to Robert J. C. Butow,
Tojo and the Coming of the War (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
I96I), p. 317-18.
11
Butow, Tojo, p. 225.
12
IMTFE, Transcript of Proceedings, p. 36246.
13
See the Foreign Office memorandum so entitled, July 1941, IMTFE: Defense
Document No. 1982. Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo in his memoirs, The
Cause of Japan (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956), pp. 84, 156, 163,
repeatedly referred to the conversations this way.
14
IMTFE, Transcript, p. 36273.
15
Feis, Road to
Pearl Harbor,
p. 190.
16
Quoted in U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl
Harbor Attack, Investigation of
Pearl Harbor Attack:
Report of the Joint Committee, 79th Congress, 2nd Session
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 172. See also
Nobutaka Ike, ed., Japan’s Decision for War: Records of the 1941 Policy
Conferences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967), p. 350.
17
Quoted in Roberta Wohlstetter,
Pearl Harbor:
Warning and Decision
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962), p. 350.
18
See Schroeder, Axis Alliance, esp. pp. 168-82, and on the earlier
period Dorothy Borg, The United States and the Far Eastern Crisis of
1933-1938 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964). Grew’s warnings
are related in his Turbulent Era: A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years,
1904-1945 (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1952).
19
For a penetrating documentation of these and other superficial attitudes
by “representative examples of American leadership types” see Harold R.
Isaacs, Scratches on Our Minds: American Images of China and India
(New York: John Day, 1958). See also John K. Fairbank, The United
States and China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), rev.
ed., Chapter 14.
20
Sumner Welles, Seven Decisions that Shaped the World (New York:
Harper and Row, 1951), p. 68.
21
Borg, Far Eastern Crisis, p. 56.
22
Lloyd C. Gardner, Economic Aspects of New Deal Diplomacy (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1964), p. 328.
23
Frederick C. Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American
Far Eastern Policy, July 1937-December 1938,” Journal of American
History 58, no. I (June 1971): 73-92.
24
Robert F. Smith, “American Foreign Relations, 1920-1942,” in Barton J.
Bemstein, ed., Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American
History (New York: Pantheon, 1968), p. 251.
25
See Trefousse,
Germany,
p. 16, and William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy
(New York: World, 1959).
26
See A. Whitney Griswold, The Far Eastern Policy of the
United States
(New York: Harcourt Brace, 1938).
27
Schroeder, Axis Alliance, p. 155, also pp. 154-67 passim. Schroeder
establishes Churchill and the Ambassadors’ knowledge of the estrangement,
and although he has less evidence for Hull and Roosevelt is nevertheless
quite confident. Other recent books supporting this argument that a halt
to Japanese expansion in China could have been obtained without the
Pacific War include Ike,
Japan’s
Decision,
and John Toland, The Rising Sun (New York: Random House, 1970).
28
R. L. Wilbur and A. M. Hyde, The
Hoover Policies
(New York: Scribners, 1937), p. 600. Quoted in Isaacs, Scratches,
p. 166.
Forward to
Chapter 4: From the
North Atlantic to the Tonkin Gulf
Back
to
Chapter 2: The Impending Stalemate in
Europe
Back to
Preface