Okay, freightdawg...I know my military history very well. The battle of Midway was simply Japan's first serious defeat at sea (Coral Sea being essentially a draw). They were by no means incapable of doing further effective offensive fighting far from Japan, as they proved in the constricted waters around Guadalcanal for the next 6 months, inflicting the most serious defeats in direct ship-to-ship fighting that the American Navy ever suffered in its history. That's why they call it "Ironbottom Sound". It's bottom is covered with sunken Japanese and American warships.

So to answer your question: why not just blockade Japan after Midway? Because Japan was far too strong at that point for anyone to even imagine blockading them yet.

Midway was the beginning of Japan's troubles, it was not the end of their ability to fight effectively. That end came after the fall of Okinawa and the sinking of the Yamato (a symbolic end to the Japanese Navy, which never launched another offensive mission of any sort after that suicide run...and they would have if they could have.) They were out of fuel for their big ships, and incapable of doing anything further except being helplessly massacred. That was most certainly not the case after Midway, when half their carriers and most of the rest of their big navy was still intact.

A battle is over when:

1. One side gives up, or...

2. One side is incapable of fighting effectively any longer, and is thereby forced to give up.

The Japanese were not inclined to give up...never had before in their history...but they were incapable by early '45 of launching any further offensive actions at sea or anywhere except in mainland China, where they still had powerful armies in the field. They had lost power at sea utterly, aside from a few submarines which were still trying to snipe at the American ships here and there. It's not necessary to kill a few hundred thousand more people or a few million more in a situation like that, when the other guy can't hurt you anymore anyway.

I do understand the emotional reasons behind Americans' desire for the unconditional surrender of Japan, however. Those were quite clear.

Now, Amos, explain to me how different, in a material sense, was the American pre-emptive attack on Iraq recently than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour? More Iraqui stuff got smashed up, more bombs dropped, more Iraquis killed, and it was an unprovoked attack on someone who had not attacked America. How would this be seen in future histories if America were to LOSE a major war and fall from her position of world dominance? Not well, I can assure you.

You may argue that the Japanese attack was a "sneak attack". Well, it HAD to be in order to work! Japan in '41 had decided that they had to fight the USA, Holland, and Britain...due to FDR's trade embargoes on Japan. FDR knew that they would fight. He expected it. The only thing he didn't know was when, using what tactics, and exactly where they would strike. The whole American Navy at the high command level knew war was coming very soon. This doesn't necessarily mean, though, that they told the general American public about it! War had become absolutely inevitable. The Japanese had to attack it in such a way that they might actually win. That certainly required "surprise" attacks, as any other kind of attack would have been idiotic from a Japanese perspective, given the nature of modern war at that time.

America decided in 2003 that it had to attack Iraq. America was so powerful that it didn't NEED to launch a sneak attack. When you hit an egg with a sledgehammer you don't have to be sneaky about it! :-)

The Japanese did not have that luxury in 1941. They were outnumbered.

Now...suppose FDR had had a couple of fireside chats in early '41 with the American public and said the truth:

"Look, folks, I've already decided that we're going to war with Germany and Japan when it can be arranged. We must for our future security on the world scene, because the Nazis are too dangerous.    The trouble is, I can't get Congress on side for that war, and I can't get a majority of Americans on side for it either, because most people would rather live quiet lives safe at home than see their young men got shot to hell on the other side of the world. Okay, so here's what I've decided to do. I am going to hit the Japs with a trade embargo that'll FORCE them to go to war. When they do, and they WILL...I just know you people are gonna be hopping mad about it, and all rally round the flag and go kick the bejeesus out of Japan. Once we're already at war with them, I figure it won't be too hard to arrange a fight with the Germans too, cos the Japanese and Germans are sort of loosely allied with each other. There you have it. Expect a totally dastardly sneak attack by those dirtly little yellow scoundrels within, oh, 9 or 10 months at the most, and get ready for some rationing and hard times. But be assured, we will win in the end."

Well, that was the truth, but if he'd said it he would probably have been impeached or something. People don't like the unvarnished truth, they prefer familiar fairy stories. So Roosevelt did what he figured had to be done...drove the Japanese into a corner...got his war...found out that Japan had a far more effective military than anyone stateside had ever expected...and had a few gloomy months till Midway.

Pearl Harbour may have surprised and shocked ordinary Americans. The only reason it shocked the US Navy brass was they had had no idea the Japanese were anywhere near that good!

Why be "outraged" over a war that was engineered in advance directly by decisions made at the White House? (and for some very good reasons, I might add...FDR was wise to take on the Axis, despite his isolationist Congress and public)

It's not a case of "sneak" attacks, or perfidy..it's a case of real power politics played out on the world stage. As is Iraq. Nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

- LH



I agree that their aggression was wrong. So was the American invasion of Iraq, in my opinion. But the victors write the news and make the judgements of right and wrong, don't they?