Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

Interesting new book just hit the shelves that details events that led up to the attack on Pearl Harbor according to Former president Herbert Hoover.

Today, 70 years after Pearl Harbor, a remarkable secret history, written from 1943 to 1963, has come to light. It is Hoover’s explanation of what happened before, during and after the world war that may prove yet the death knell of the West.

Edited by historian George Nash, “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war.

Prior to this Historic event, Japan was in quite the pickle with China

Consider Japan’s situation in the summer of 1941. Bogged down in a four year war in China she could neither win nor end, having moved into French Indochina, Japan saw herself as near the end of her tether.

Inside the government was a powerful faction led by Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye that desperately did not want a war with the United States.

The “pro-Anglo-Saxon” camp included the navy, whose officers had fought alongside the U.S. and Royal navies in World War I, while the war party was centered on the army, Gen. Hideki Tojo and Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka, a bitter anti-American.

On July 18, 1941, Konoye ousted Matsuoka, replacing him with the “pro-Anglo-Saxon” Adm. Teijiro Toyoda.

The U.S. response: On July 25, we froze all Japanese assets in the United States, ending all exports and imports, and denying Japan the oil upon which the nation and empire depended.

Stunned, Konoye still pursued his peace policy by winning secret support from the navy and army to meet FDR on the U.S. side of the Pacific to hear and respond to U.S. demands.

What follows is essentially a continued plea by the Japanese to meet with FDR to work out a deal. A plea that was utterly ignored by FDR in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor.

U.S. Ambassador Joseph Grew implored Washington not to ignore Konoye’s offer, that the prince had convinced him an agreement could be reached on Japanese withdrawal from Indochina and South and Central China. Out of fear of Mao’s armies and Stalin’s Russia, Tokyo wanted to hold a buffer in North China.

On Aug. 28, Japan’s ambassador in Washington presented FDR a personal letter from Konoye imploring him to meet.

Tokyo begged us to keep Konoye’s offer secret, as the revelation of a Japanese prime minister’s offering to cross the Pacific to talk to an American president could imperil his government.

On Sept. 3, the Konoye letter was leaked to the Herald-Tribune.

On Sept. 6, Konoye met again at a three-hour dinner with Grew to tell him Japan now agreed with the four principles the Americans were demanding as the basis for peace. No response.

Plea after plea was ignored by FDR

At a Nov. 25 meeting of FDR’s war council, Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus: “The question was how we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into ... firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”

“We can wipe the Japanese off the map in three months,” wrote Navy Secretary Frank Knox.

As Grew had predicted, Japan, a “hara-kiri nation,” proved more likely to fling herself into national suicide for honor than to allow herself to be humiliated

We all know what happened next...and the world was forever changed as a result.

Good Reading
cnsnews.com...

I have read accounts in the past regarding FDR's cold stance toward Japan at this time, however this new account according to Hoover is quite the eye opener and leaves me with little doubt as to the intentions of FDR.

As always there are two sides to every story.

As for the attitude towards Japan by the U.S.? Mostly because, but not limited to, the very war in China you mentioned. China was an ally of sorts, and in a war against a challenger for dominance in the Pacific Rim. Neither side were innocents wronged...both had reasons for every action they took. Neither would back down past a certain point, making a war in the Pacific inevitable.

reply to post by jibeho


Good old Patrick Buchanan. Buchanan is of the opinion that the United States should have stayed out of the war in Europe, letting the Nazis and the Communists slug it out, then the US could sweep in and trounce the exhausted victor. Never mind the wanton destruction and limitless suffering such a scenario would lead to. He is also not very fond of FDR's economic policies, so implicating him in provoking the war in the Pacific suits his agenda. The simple fact of the matter is that, drunk with their victory in the Russo-Japanese war, Japan decided that it could seize Manchuria with impunity, thus providing access to raw materials the island nation lacked. The US quite rightly refused to legitimize the brutal occupation, and conflict became inevitable. Japan hoped that a pre-emptive strike against America's Pacific fleet would keep it out of the war for at least two years. They were wrong. Granted, FDR had been spoiling to enter the war in Europe, and used Japan's alliance with the European Axis powers as a pretext. Nevertheless, everything worked out for the best, don't you think?

reply to post by DJW001


Pat didn't write the book, he merely commented on it. www.amazon.com...

Plenty of theories regarding our involvement in Europe in a post Depression era.

Yeah, I believe the US goaded Japan into attacking. I'm typing this on my lunch break, so bear with me.

In order to win the Presidency, Roosevelt had to promise to keep us out of WW2. That's what the majority of US citizens wanted. He added the disclaimer, "unless we are attacked" so that he could enter the war at some point. Right from the start, he was chomping at the bit to enter the war, and Churchill was pressuring him to come to the aid of England.

Roosevelt began by shipping arms and supplies to England, hoping that Germany would attack the supply ships. Once they did, he could say that we were attacked and we could enter the war. Germany steadfastly refused to take the bait. Roosevelt then went to a new plan.

Germany, Italy, and Japan had signed the Tripartate Treaty, which essentially meant that if any country declared war on a treaty member, the other members would come to their defense. So, if the US could get Japan to attack the US, we could declare war on them, and by treaty, we would be at war with the rest of the Axis powers. The US then went to work on Japan. The US began to pressure Japan by systematically cutting off their supplies to oil and raw materials in the Pacific. The Japanese saw the writing on the wall. If they couldn't decimate the US Navy influence in the Pacific, they would be slowly starved of the raw materials they needed for their war machine. They had to act. They figured if they could neutralize the US Navy at Pearl, their supply lines would be safe.

So they attacked, but as good fortune (?) would have it, what the Japanese destroyed at Pearl were obsolete vessels, and ships that wouldn't play a large role in the battle for the Pacific, like battleships. All the carriers were absent, not the norm for a lazy Sunday morning at Pearl.

After the attack, Roosevelt had no problems drumming up popular support for declaring war on Japan. Which meant that Germany and Italy had to declare war on the US. The "proof in the pudding" for all of this is that after Pearl Harbor, we devoted the bulk of our military into fighting the war in Europe, and only enough in the Pacific to keep the balance until Germany was on the run. Only then did we devote the necessary resources to defeat the country that actually attacked us in the first place.

Just the way I see it, anyway.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


I've always read that in support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Secretary of War Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to block Japan’s advance in Asia. FDR then hoped that such sanctions would stoke the Japanese into making a mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied.

What was new to me was the constant attempts by the Japanese to come to terms with the US and FDR's administration only to be shut down week after week in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor. FDR just kept tightening the economic noose on Japan instead until the final economic freeze in July 1941. All attempts made by the Japanese to work out a deal thereafter were ignored.

I read about Pearl Harbor then look to the US's constant manipulation of nations in the Middle East and I just scratch my head in wonderment of the new Obama Doctrine that is now playing out before our very eyes. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Tunisia, We have troops on the ground in Uganda and an apparent covert war being fought in Iran. Ooof! and all of the usual players are on the board once again. We are in for a rough year.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


That's an interesting look at things.

I'm often on the fence when it comes to the idea of a Pearl Harbor Conspiracy.

Yes, they devoted the vast majority of resources towards fighting Germany, but people such as Admiral King were strongly against the policy.

The Americans often threatened to turn their attention towards Japan when they weren't getting their way in military discussions.

Originally posted by jibeho

I read about Pearl Harbor then look to the US's constant manipulation of nations in the Middle East and I just scratch my head in wonderment of the new Obama Doctrine that is now playing out before our very eyes. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Tunisia, We have troops on the ground in Uganda and an apparent covert war being fought in Iran. Ooof! and all of the usual players are on the board once again. We are in for a rough year.

I think we're seeing history repeat itself there. After 9/11, the first country we attacked was Afghanistan. Once we had some control, we completed the pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, through Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean where it could be shipped out to US interests. Otherwise, the oil would have been piped to either Russia or China. Then we invaded Iraq, gaining a controling interest in where their oil goes. Lately, we "helped" overthrow the government of Libya, setting up a central bank and again gaining control of their oil exports. You can bet Iran and Venezuela are on our list, and I expect to see the US exerting a greater influence in Africa to gain control of their raw materials. I don't see the US resorting to much military action in Africa, though. Except for Ghaddafi, most African "leaders" are pretty easily corrupted or replaced.

The noose is slowly closing around China, and they must see this coming. We are already knee-deep into World War 3, and it's a war of resources. Whoever controls the resources will win, whoever loses control of the key resources will resort to a military strike, just like Japan did in 1941.

Again, all just my opinion.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


I'm getting the impression that central Africa is going to be the new frontier for the US in regards to oil, ore and minerals. We have all but paved the way for Islamic revolution in Northern Africa/Middle East to surrender oil interests while we are currently working to secure Central Africa with 100 Spec Ops troops already on the kill or capture mission for Joseph Kony of the LRA. That region must be secured prior to bringing in the equipment and interests necessary to harvest the resources. Al Shabaab in Somalia is also on the radar.

Here is a recent thread on our operations in CA.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by jibeho

 

The simple fact of the matter is that, drunk with their victory in the Russo-Japanese war, Japan decided that it could seize Manchuria with impunity, thus providing access to raw materials the island nation lacked.

while generally agreeing with your summary - this bit is odd.

the Russo-Japanese war was in 1905 - the annexation of Manchuria was started with the Mukden Incident of 1931 - 26 years later.

While Japaese sense of entitlement can probably be traced back to its victory ofver Russia I don't think it can be accurately described as something they did "drunk with victory" after 1905.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

While Japaese sense of entitlement can probably be traced back to its victory ofver Russia I don't think it can be accurately described as something they did "drunk with victory" after 1905.

You know I can't resist a colorful phrase, even if it means collapsing the "story arc" a little.