Petr - You are absolutely correct in your criticism of Japanese aggression and extreme brutality in China and elsewhere, and you are correct about their postwar evasion of admitting responsibility for that aggression...in that they do not properly inform their public of all the facts. You're right about the rape of Nanking. I agree with every word you've said about all that.

Japanese actions in the 30's and 40's were imperialistic, brutal, and utterly unjustifiable...huge crimes against humanity.

I simply don't consider the attack on Pearl Harbour "cowardly"...anything but! It took tremendous guts to launch and carry out that attack.

As for shooting someone in the back...on a battlefield, yes, it is good strategy and it is exactly what is done whenever the opportunity presents itself. The Allies went to great efforts to achieve surprise every time they launched attacks on Japan, Italy, and Germany. Everyone who is in a war (or about to be in one) uses the tactic of surprise attack whenever possible. The only time such tactics are not necessary is when one has such overwhelming force to bear that the enemy has no chance of stopping it. That, again, is simply the nature of war...and it's why we have terms such as "intelligence gathering" and "reconnaissance".

American cowboys also shot people in the back when they could get away with it...despite the myth-making of Hollywood. Billy the Kid was shot from ambush by Pat Garrett (he never saw it coming), and Garret was simply "doing his job".

Since Roosevelt made economic moves which were absolutely guaranteed to result in a Japanese attack on America, Britain, and Holland within a year or less...how does the entire blame for the ensuing hostilities accrue solely to Japan? I do not deny that the greater blame falls on Japan, and that their imperial policy led to the situation, but the Americans also had an imperial policy of their own in the Pacific, and Japan was in the way of it. The blame for war must be shared among the major players...Japan and America being foremost among those players in that case.

The American military at Pearl Harbour mishandled their reconaissance forces...partly due to underestimating Japanese capabilities...partly due to carelessness...partly due to a series of prior false alarms...partly due to just plain bad luck (they actually saw the Japanese attack coming in on Oahu's brand new one and only radar station...but mistook it for a flight of B-17's from California. Such things can easily happen at the beginning of a war, but are rather less likely to happen later.

I really have no argument with anything you've said other than your labelling of the attack "cowardly". The word "cowardly" has become a standard cliche used for vilifying any and all perceived enemies...and it is almost never appropriate in actual fact. It's hate propaganda, nothing more.

- LH