Origins of the Great Asia War
From a bomb shelter with the entrance covered by green foliage of the imperial garden, following the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohito spoke to senior members of the Imperial Diet and to members of the General Staff upon whom rested the fate of the nation. The Emperor expressed despair he felt when thinking about those who perished in this war and their families. He analyzed the situation and concluded that the time had come to consider the inconsiderable and to bear the unbearable. In closing he said:

 
‘I swallow my tears
and give my sanction to the proposal to surrender.’

That was the end of the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. How did it begin?

Fading of the Eurocentric World-View Selection and consideration of antecedent events, as well as causal attribution, are affected by social and cultural contexts. Changes within these contexts often lead to re-examination and re-interpretation of historical events. The passage of a half-century after the war with Japan and the demise of the Eurocentric world-view have opened a window within the intellectual climate to reconsider the history of our relationship with countries of the Far East. Among the many facets of this relationship, its impact upon the culture of countries of the Pacific Rim is among the issues discussed by a new generation of social scientists. The involvement of the United States in the Great East Asia War is another of these closely intertwined issues.

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Excerpts from the speech of the U.S. ambassador to Japan, Joseph C. Grew, upon his return to the United States in 1942 perhaps best illustrate the American perspective on the origins of the war.

The cruelty, brutality, and utter bestiality, the ruthlessness and rapaciousness of the Japanese military machine brought on this war. That Japanese military machine and military caste and military system must be utterly crushed, their credit and predominance must be utterly broken, for the future safety and welfare of the United States and of the United Nations and for the future safety and welfare of civilization and humanity. I had long known of Japan’s preparations for war and I kept my Government currently advised of the information, which came to my knowledge on that subject. We are fighting this war for the preservation of righteousness, law and order, but above all for the preservation of the freedoms which have been conferred upon us by the glorious heritage of our American citizenship, and while we are fighting against the forces of evil, lawlessness and disorder in the world, we are primarily fighting to prevent the enslavement which actually threatens to be imposed upon us if we fail.

Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.  Excerpts from the speech of the Japanese ambassador to the United States, Saburo Kurusu, upon his return to Japan in 1942 perhaps best illustrate the Japanese perspective on the origins of the war.

The causes of the present Great East Asia War are remote. Since the 19th Century, the people of East Asia have been subjected to economic, as well as military invasions by West European powers. Many countries of Asia lost their territory and independence. This war is the reaction of the people of East Asia against the European invasions. Following the Spanish-American war of 1898 the United States abandoned its tradition of non-intervention and annexed Philippines, joining the European powers in infringing upon East Asia. Since that time, United States policy toward East Asia changed its character, producing an irreconcilable inconsistency between professed purity and humanitarianism and practiced interventionism and exploitation. The United States mastered the art of encapsulating its imperialistic designs with high sounding idealism. What I wish to stress especially is that although the United States and Britain were always professing friendship to China, what they are really after is China, that is, Chinese territory and resources.
 

Japanese viewpoint of the origins of the war are outlined in the 1942 white book Dai Toa Senso to Warera (The Greater East Asia War and Ourselves). Japanese intended to unify the East Asia to be able to resist the Western imperialism. This view changed little during the course of the war. At its beginning, Japanese poet Takamura Kotaro wrote
 

We are standing for justice and life
They are standing for greed and profits
They raise their heads in arrogance
We are building the Great Asia family 

Japan's Allies At its end, Emperor Hirohito, broadcasting to the Japanese people on August 14, 1945, reiterated the war aims of Japan and its allies when expressing the
‘deepest sense of regret to our allied nations who have consistently cooperated with the Empire toward the emancipation of East Asia.’
This was also the viewpoint of Premier Suzuki, describing the war aims in his June 9, 1945 address to the Japanese Imperial Diet as follows:
‘In the final analysis, the current war is a war for the liberation of East Asia. The fundamental policy of our empire is to insure the coexistence and prosperity of nations based on principles of political equality, economic reciprocity, and respect for the traditional culture of every nation.’

 

Private views and conversations The study described in this chapter was motivated by the media campaign at the 50th anniversary of the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Personal experience led us to observe that many of our acquaintances expressed in private conversations views about these events that were at variance with the publicly promulgated view and that they were afraid to express these views in public. To objectify these subjective observations, we constructed a questionnaire that presented two conflicting perspectives on events leading to war with Japan. We asked subjects to endorse the view they judged to be closer to their own views on these events. Version A summarized the 'official' U.S. version of the events while Version B presented an alternative view of the events surrounding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. After collecting and analyzing data we hesitated to publish our results for the same reasons our acquaintances were afraid to express their views in public.
 

Expletives and accusations Reading responses of persons supporting the Version A we encountered expletives, accusations of being unpatriotic ('Japanese sympathizer', 'I just hope an American didn’t write B'), accusations of lying ('perversion of the truth,' 'Version B is all lies!'), and dehumanization ('what kind of a person (?) could believe Version B') aimed at those who might endorse the alternative viewpoint. It became painfully clear to us that by publishing the results of our study we are likely to make enemies.
 

The Smithsonian Affair An additional impulse to publish our findings was constituted by the events preceding opening of the planned exhibition at the Smithsonian about the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. In 1995, the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum was to display the Enola Gay along with background information on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and photographs of the dead people from Ground Zero.

Initially, the Air Force Association and the American Legion lobbied, successfully, to remove the pictures of the dead. However, the controversy over the planned exhibit did not stop. Tom Brokaw's 'Greatest Generation' escalated the controversy that it reached the Congress. At about that time Thomas Crouch, Project Manager of the Smithsonian's Enola Gay Exhibition wrote:
'You have no idea of the forces opposing this exhibit, not in your wildest dreams. Jobs are at stake. The Smithsonian is at stake.
Smithsonian controversy centered on the script of the exhibition. The generally held view is that the atomic bombing of Japan saved lives of millions of Americans estimated to die during the invasion of Japanese home islands. However, serious research shows otherwise. Before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, forced by the naval blockade of Japan's oil routes, Emperor Hirohito asked the Japanese Naval Headquarters to war-game the impending war in the Pacific. The consensus of two separate analyses of the imminent armed conflict was that Japan could wage war successfully not for more than 18 months (until about mid of 1943) and that Japan must negotiate a peace before that deadline or lose the war. 'Ever since February of 1942 Emperor Hirohito did not miss a single opportunity to communicate peace offers to the American government. However, to his dismay he discovered that American Government had no interest in a negotiated peace. By the end of 1943 the Japanese concluded that they lost the war. They were ready to abandon all territorial acquisitions they had made since 1880.

Afterwards, their only concern was, in the words of the Lord Privy Seal Marquis Kido Koichi (January 6, 1944, alluding to the near-extermination of the American Indians) to
 
'keep the Anglo-Saxons from destroying us, the same way
 they exterminated other non-white races.'
 
The new perspectives on the Pacific Theatre of the Second World War began to haunt Tom Brokaw's 'Greatest Generation.' Incapable of rational argumentation, they resorted to the outright censorship.

Pearl Harbor: Fifty years later  Data for our study were collected in the early months of 1993 when the massive media campaign accompanying the 50th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ceased, but was still remembered. We constructed a questionnaire that contained questions about the age and gender of the respondents. The following statements introduced the questionnaire: ‘This is a study pertaining to your opinions of some historical events that took place in the 1930s and 1940s. When you have finished reading, you will be asked to comment on the believability of these accounts and to explain your reasons for preferring one account over the other.’ There were two narratives, Version A and Version B, printed on the facing pages of the questionnaire and reproduced below. The following statements were on the back page: ‘Please spend a few minutes reflecting on the two versions of the same historical event and decide which version you find more believable. By selecting one of these two versions, you express a strong opinion. Also, give the main reasons why you prefer the version you selected and describe yourself in terms that differentiate you from those who are likely to endorse the opposing viewpoint.'
 

Extant viewpoint A sizable body of literature and documents captures the official U.S. view of the events leading to war with Japan. Representatives of this viewpoint are works of Lobdell (1989) and Slackman (1990). The actual narrative summarizing these views for the purpose of the present study was selected from the work of Bernas (1977), published under the auspices of the American Council on Education. Labeled ‘Version A,’ this viewpoint was presented as follows:

'A few years before the attack at Pearl Harbor, Japan demonstrated its aggressive tendencies in a variety of ways. It invaded China and took over all the French colonized land and monetary possessions in Southeast Asia. In response, President Roosevelt seized all Japanese assets in the United States and warned the Japanese government as he did many times in those years. To insure western security, Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill met in the North Atlantic and signed the Atlantic Charter, which stated certain common principles and goals of the two nations considering the aggression of Japan, as well as that of Germany and Italy. They agreed to end Nazi tyranny and bring about a peaceful world where people might be free from fear and want. Both leaders felt that the U.S. would inevitably be drawn into the war, but neither could imagine the shocking event that would cause this to occur.
On November 26, 1941, in a diplomatic gesture, the United States called upon Japan to withdraw its troops from China and French Indo-China. Negotiations dragged on in Washington, but the Japanese government was obstinate and had already made plans for an upcoming military campaign to quell any western intervention in their quest for China and subsequent domination of the Orient. A Japanese aircraft carrier armada under the command of Admiral Yamamoto was sailing eastward across the Pacific. Its objective was to destroy the American forces in the Pacific. Japan sought, not only to gain naval and air superiority in the Pacific, but also to overwhelm and crush the American spirit for any further actions taken against Japan.
December 7, 1941 began as quietly as any other Sunday morning on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. American sailors stationed at Pearl Harbor thought themselves fortunate because of the awesome military power there. Thousands of men, hundreds of aircraft, and scores of warships defended Hawaii. America, it was thought, had the most powerful naval defense fleet in the world and defense was a routine matter. This Sunday morning, however, was different from the others. At 7:02 a.m., a pattern of blips on the radar screen suggested a large group of aircraft was coming from the northeast. But the radar signals were often unreliable. These patterns were reported several times to the command post at Pearl Harbor, but they were dismissed as ‘errors’ or ‘friendly air traffic.’ No one ever dreamed that an attack was possible. Thus, the Japanese achieved complete and utter surprise in their attack on Pearl Harbor.
The planes approached the naval base at about 180 miles per hour. They were not identified until 7:55 a.m. - the moment of attack. American sailors and other military personnel (as well as hundreds of civilian workers on the base) awoke in horror to the thunder of airplane engines, machine-gun strafing, torpedo blasts, and bomb explosions. The bewildered men, who managed to make a stand, fought bravely, but in a futile effort. Most of the American naval vessels stationed there were completely disabled or sunk; over 1,000 aircraft were destroyed and more than 2,000 men and women lost their lives. In less than two hours, the Japanese literally crippled the American navy and much of the air force in the Pacific and shocked the world in its brutal and unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. Prime Minister Churchill received news of the attack soon after it happened. He phoned President Roosevelt, who said ‘they have attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We are all in the same boat now.’ Their plans had been carefully thought out and methodically executed. On December 8, 1941, the U.S. Congress formally declared war on Japan. Three days later Germany and Italy declared war on the Unites States. With their naval and air superiority virtually assured, Japanese forces now attacked at many points in the Pacific and in Asia: Malaya, Hong Kong, Guam, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Midway Island.

Poster from Emperor Pu Yi's Manchukuo: “Unity of Japan, China, and Manchukuo  promotes peace on earth.”

Emerging viewpoint Pioneered by Stanford University Professor of History Barton J. Bernstein (1975, 1995), reconsideration of the Pacific Theatre of the Second World is advocated by historians as Toland (1982) and social scientists as Hasegawa (1984). This alternative view asserts that a series of encounters between the West and the classical cultures of the Far East, culminating during the World War II, resulted in the destruction of the classical culture of these countries. Our attempt to summarize this emerging viewpoint is based on archival materials (e.g., ABC Television, 1991, Horn, 1941, House Documents, 1943, 1944, Joint Army-Navy Board Papers, 1941) and on personal interviews with actual participants in these events, including persons on the American, National Chinese, Imperial Chinese, Japanese, and Korean sides of the conflict. The author expresses his thanks to Dr. Mei Yen Lu for introducing him to her Taiwanese friends who made possible the contacts with the Taiwanese soldiers fighting alongside the Japanese Imperial Army. Hyon Ok Ko facilitated research into the Korean side of the conflict. Dr. Yoko Ishigaki introduced the author to officers in the Japanese Imperial Navy and Air Force at the time of the Great East Asia War. However, our greatest gratitude goes to a person, who prefers to remain anonymous, for his fascinating narrative of events and personal insights into characters and motivations of the principal protagonists on the Chinese side of the conflict. Labeled ‘Version B,’ this viewpoint was presented as follows:

From the Japanese perspective, the Great East Asian War was waged to free Asia from Western domination and to create economic prosperity and cooperation among the nations of Asia’s Far East. Japan belongs to the Chinese cultural sphere. In the course of the last century, the civilizations of the Far East came into conflict with the civilizations of the West. The results of these confrontations were disastrous for the East, contributing to a decline in oriental identity and erosion of Eastern culture. The Manchu dynasty ruling China at that time desperately tried to avert disintegration of its empire and of the Confucian-Buddhist value system it embodied. In the course of this struggle, three political factions emerged: the Kuomintang, the Maoists, and the supporters of imperial Manchu family. Since none of these parties could stand alone and prevail, they looked to foreign powers for support. The Kuomintang, wanting to acquire western wealth and ideology, established strong relations with the United States. The Maoists, with ambition to establish communism, sought support from the Soviet Union. The supporters of Emperor Pu Yi, wishing to preserve original Chinese heritage, looked for help from Japan under Emperor Hirohito.

With the help of the Japanese, the Manchu established Manchukuo, located in Northern China, between the Great Wall and the Amur River. Manchukuo (Manchu country) experienced phenomenal industrial and economic growth, comparable to the postwar growth of the Japanese economy. The combined industrial might of Manchukuo and Japan provided an economic base for an attempt to defeat the coalition government of the nationalist and communist groups south of the Great Wall. These events preceded military operations of the British against Germany and Italy. The Soviet Union entered the war allied with Britain. In turn, Japan signed an agreement with Germany and Italy that bound these European powers to declare war on any country at war with Japan.
The British sought help from the United States to bolster their European war effort. The Roosevelt administration wanted to enter the conflict on the side of Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Many U.S. officials thought that entering the war would deflect the discontent that many US citizens felt with the current administration during the economic hardships of the time.

Prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt ordered Japanese assets in the United States to be frozen and imposed an oil embargo on Japan. British and Dutch warships commenced a naval blockade of Japan to enforce the embargo. Japanese military analysts concluded that the United States Pacific Fleet, stationed in Hawaii, was likely to join the British and Dutch naval blockade and that it would be virtually impossible for Japanese forces to resist this combined Anglo - American armada. This situation exacerbated by the rapidly diminishing oil supplies, made imperative some action on the part of the Japanese.
At the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan had only three days of oil supplies left. Japan viewed her options to either give up the military campaign in China or break the naval blockade and risk military confrontation with Great Britain and the United States. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto’s fleet turned southeast, broke the British naval blockade, and opened the Burma oil route.

Agreement (in perent) with each version.

Most Americans do not believe the official story of Pearl Harbor In sampling opinions on this issue within a large southwest metropolitan area, our study showed that the majority of respondents do not share the perspective on the origins and ethic of the Great East Asia War presented to the public by the mainstream media and endorsed by virtually all textbooks on contemporary history. Asked whether they prefer Version A or Version B, only 10% of the subjects were undecided. The 34% of subjects endorsed Version A and 56% of subjects endorsed Version B.

Comments of subjects who endorsed Version A. Reasons for selecting one version over another, together with self-descriptions of what subjects felt made them different from those who might endorse the opposing viewpoint are excerpted below. Information in brackets, introducing a statement, identifies each subject with respect to age and gender.
[45F] While I find the information in Version B interesting, it is not something found in basic history books.
[28F] I grew up in the U.S. I have taken classes, which stress the U.S. involvement in the war, not what was happening in China. We learned about Hitler and Germany. Japan wasn’t very stressed in history classes.
[27F] I did choose Version A because it’s the one I ‘know.’ It's the one that we, as Americans, are taught. As a result, it's the one I am more comfortable with.
[45F] Version B sounds like it was written by a Japanese sympathizer.
[54F] Version A reflects the American point of view. I am sure it was published in the U.S. It sticks to the facts and does not include someone’s distorted opinion of what happened.
[39F] Version I remember studying in high school. Also, movies I have seen are based more on Version A than B.
[17:50M] Version "B" is all lies!
[23M] Japan precipitated problem by invading China. Oil embargo is a legitimate political tactic to produce peaceful reductions to aggression. Contingencies for attack and counterattack exist for nearly every strategic point in the world. Instead of complying with the wishes of the Allied powers, the Japanese administration chose to attack the United States Naval fleet at Pearl Harbor.
[33M] Japan brought the war on itself as the clear military aggressor. Version B represents an attempt at revisionist history, which I do not agree with. I am a political and ideological conservative, unlike the liberals who might prefer version B.
[-F] Version A is what I have read in a general history class. Version B makes the US look like the ‘bad guys’ and can be categorized as hearsay.
[24M] I prefer Version A account of the events because most of the information it provided agreed with information I had gathered from other sources. The [Version A] was written with a stress on facts rather than opinions, as was the case [with Version B]. Furthermore, a few of the statements contained in [Version B] I feel are completely incorrect, which causes me to doubt the entire article. For instance it was claimed that JAPAN was within 3 days of running out of fuel when they attacked Pearl. This is simply not true; who calculated this figure, JAPAN? I honestly don’t know what kind of a person (?) could believe Version B. I am sure every JAPAN citizen could buy into B, but only a very unpatriotic American could buy it also. I just hope an American didn’t write B.
[22M] Version B is misleading and contains numerous factual errors. It neglects to mention the historical context of the conflict where the U.S. and Britain had a greater interest in world trade at the time and so, quite naturally, were not the aggressors in a war that would adversely effect this trade. But the major problem with it is that it gives the Japanese the role of defenders of the Chinese, which is a real perversion of the truth. Manchukuo was a puppet state. The Japanese were racist and militaristic. History has been a struggle for power. Most wars are not accidents. They are intentional efforts to gain more power. The humanist rules taken by the U.S. and Britain during World War II currently govern the world. The Germans and Japanese believed that might make right and felt justified in committing whatever atrocities necessary to advance their goals. [This subject also annotated the text of the Version B with comments that ranged from ‘This is Bull Shit!’ to ‘This is total Bull Shit!!’]

Comments of subjects who endorsed Version B
[34M] Persons endorsing Version A seem to have a narrow perspective which doesn’t allow them to recognize that the U.S. might oppress others. Also, some of them perhaps hate Japanese and see the U.S. government and Western culture as ‘good’ and ‘right,’ superseding all others.
[39M] The U.S. government has hidden behind the statement that releasing classified information would be detrimental to the national security of our country. I don’t believe that the way history was recorded at the time it happened would be factual years later. I am not a person to label or pigeonhole or to cling to any political ideology. I stand by my own tenets of humanism, harmony with nature and with my social family of the world.
[26M] Other sources I have looked at support the notion that attack at Pearl Harbor was made into a surprise attack by Roosevelt. The single-minded concern with economic factors by the US and seen presently in China, Iraq, Panama, etc. lends credence to the view that the US was acting on its own economic interests. I feel more open minded than pure nationalists. I have greater cultural awareness, through travel and study.
[23F] Version B consisted of more information that goes beyond what we learn in any history class. It not only tells the Japanese side but the Chinese as well. Everyone has heard rumors that the Americans knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened but we never really read about it. Version B is more believable because has more dimensions. Many people who lived through the war have strong notions against the enemies, including Japanese. This might cloud their thinking and make them unable to accept viewpoints conflicting with their own.
[30M] Given the similar circumstances, America would have done the same. I try to look through religiosity and propaganda, which seems to permeate into the psyche of any American that chooses scenario A.
[35F] Version A has some very emotionally charged words in it, which detracts from the facts of the event. I felt I was being persuaded instead of informed. Version B takes a more global view of the event, with a lot of more background information that you can better place the event in context. Typical patriotic American warmongers are likely to choose version A. I am a pacifist. And I take a global view of world events.
[33M] There are two sides to every story. I tend to give Version B credibility because of the Marxist literature I read at Berkeley. Knowing what we know about the role of our Government in Vietnam, Version B appears plausible. I have read historical accounts about American racism toward Asian population in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. I have a global perspective and also characterize myself as an internationalist. I am less willing to automatically endorse the American version of history. Those endorsing the opposite version might take the nationalistic view of international history.
[22F] I believe Version B sounds more realistic for several reasons. With the vast intelligence, force and power of the American Government and military it is hard to believe that no one was aware of the coming attack. It makes more sense that there was indeed real logical reason, by being backed into a corner, for Japan to attack, rather than random aggression. I am always leery of any historical story taught to me in school as, of course, your own country wants to come across favorably and wants to make the enemy a real villain. I prefer the Version B also because it explains the real human motivation and pays attention to motivational aspects of preserving own culture. This version puts things into perspective, giving the big picture of the world and strives for understanding the events; I strongly advocate this as a more believable version.
[23F] As a woman who grew up during the Reagan-Bush years I have become quite distrustful of the US government. I perceive US government as a manipulative bully of the rest of the Earth and do not believe much of the virtuous and innocent facade it puts forth. Most US citizens are indoctrinated to believe that this country is an omnipotent, do-no-evil entity. Not many of us are encouraged to challenge our government, and question the motives and morals that guide its actions.
[28M] I selected Version B because both Great Britain and the USA were very active in profitable colonization. I perceive myself to be an objective person who questions blind patriotism.
[17M] The second version offers the point of view of the other side as is rarely presented. I believe it more because Americans are power hungry and greedy. Asians are more peaceful and very traditional. Although these are dangerous stereotypes, for the most part they are from my own experience. I think what separates me from those who chose the first version is that I’m not patriotic in a sense that I’ll root for the U.S. in anything they do. I like to have friends from all over the world and to travel around. So, I am exposed to other people’s thinking and what others think of America from an outsider’s point of view, and its rarely good. America really isn’t all that great.
[40F] Version A gives the reason for the Japanese attack as ‘aggressive tendency.’ It is hard to accept that a nation goes to war simply to satisfy an aggressive tendency. Version B is more plausible. It is my opinion that for the U.S., war is often a means of establishing economic security or a political move for an upcoming election. I strongly view the British as a power-hungry nation that tries to present to the world a picture of a ‘helping, caring government.’
[30F] Version A rationalizes the American participation in war by describing some other country as the aggressor. This seems to be a common right-wing theme [justifying] all U.S. wars.
[17F] Version B presents a much more comprehensible picture of the events leading up to the Pearl Harbor by showing underlying causes of the crisis instead of relying on emotional adjectives to stir up patriotism such as ‘the bewildered men who managed to make a stand fought bravely’ which is nice for a story but does not explain much of what was going on. The first version only told the American propagandized side of the story and leaves the reader with the picture that the Japanese in a totally unprovoked manner attacked the U.S. out of spite, which seems an unbalanced view. People tend to believe the first story they hear from media a phenomenon often called ‘mediated reality.’
[21F] I selected the second version because it seems more realistic. It doesn’t just tell the story from one side. It paints a picture that doesn’t favor the United States for a change and shows what the Japanese were going through at that time. There is usually more than one side to every story. I am aware that my country has made some profound mistakes throughout history. Those who believe the first story think that the United States is always right.
[47F] My reason for selection of Version B was primarily due to the fact that I perceived Version A as being purposeful, inciting journalism aimed mainly at swaying opinions vs. presenting all the facts in a non-judgmental, informative manner. I like to come to my own conclusions based on my assessment of facts. I don’t appreciate efforts at being swayed.
[27M] I prefer the Version B because of the recent confirmation by the key witnesses of President Roosevelt actions and subsequent cover-up of these actions. As different from those endorsing Version A, I believe you must consider both opposing sides.
[22F] Version B provides more information regarding how the Japanese felt and what their side of the story was. I was taught Version A all my life. I am different from those endorsing the [Version A] as I am always looking for the other side of the story.
[40M] I believe Roosevelt knew.
[26M] I selected Version B due to the way I see the West getting involved in other cultures. For example, the Native American culture was all but wiped out by the Europeans. We can observe the same as the West culture expands and overtakes different cultures in other parts of the world. It seems as if the U.S. is always pushing its values and culture on other nations. I would think people involved in religion might believe Version A while I believe people are using religion to influence the other cultures.
[24M] I choose Version B because it presents more detail, is more logical, more persuasive, less derogative, and uses reasonable arguments to explain the events. As contrasted with those endorsing the opposing story, I am more willing to see both sides.
 

Content analysis Content analysis of subjects' responses indicated that supporters of the Version A are ethnocentric, show uniformity and in-group bias, and view themselves as patriotic. They also use their own secular and religious values to judge other cultures. They unquestioningly support the U.S. Government, view the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as the main reason for the war, and use citations of facts, established information, and authorities to justify this belief. They also believe that European and Far East casus belli overlap. The supporters of Version B appear to accommodate diverse cultural and ethnic values, have global perspectives considerate of humankind, and realize that governments often give humanitarian and altruistic reasons for military actions that pursue other goals. They seem to be aware of the lack of motivation for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor given in the official version of this event, and of the differences between the European and Pacific theaters of the Second World War.

 

Marco Polo (1254-1324)

The Post Marco Polo Centuries Even though the events discussed here occurred more than a half of a century ago, their significance can hardly be overstated. Enormous growth of the prestige and influence of the United States is directly tied to the outcomes of the WW II and to the cultural, religious, and economic expansion of Western nations. The expansion of Western nations corresponds to the diminishing influence of other civilizations and the degradation of their cultures, beginning with the European colonial period. At the time of Marco Polo and during the centuries to follow, the civilization of the Far East was considered either on par or superior to the civilizations of the West. Increased contacts with the West are associated with the decline of the Sino-Japanese civilization. The 1941-1945 War with Japan accelerated this trend.

 
 

Sound Clip: Sakura Blossoms

Facts and Reasons The fact of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor takes on a different meaning when one starts to inquire for the reasons why the Japanese attacked the U.S. The central point of Hasegawa's (1984) penetrating analysis of events preceding Pearl Harbor is that Japan was

 
'facing an imminent crisis in the entire Asian cultural sphere, the
Japanese strongly sensed that their own survival was endangered
should that cultural sphere be destroyed.'

With our growing awareness of the moral difference between imposing and accommodating cultural and religious values, this issue is au courant and not only of historical interest.
 

Shimon Peres

Two Holocausts  With the passing years, the differentiation between perspectives toward the European and Pacific Theaters of the WW II grows. A sensible discussion of a complex event such as the Second World War has to take into account the differences between the two theaters of this conflict. The Nobel Peace Prizewinner Shimon Peres who, during his July 1, 1994 speech at the United Nations spoke of 'two holocausts--the Jewish holocaust and the Japanese holocaust', reasserted the increasing cognizance of these differences.

Krauthammer: Lets heads roll.

Malleus Germanicus As the supporters of Version A sense the erosion of support for their arguments to justify the killing of millions of human beings, they respond with increased emotionality. An example of this is a recent essay in Time Magazine by Krauthammer (1995) on the planned exhibition by the Smithsonian on the Pacific Theater of the WW II. Among the exhibits was the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima and which Colonel Paul Warfield Tibbets, the captain of the plane, named after his mother. This exhibit was to be accompanied by commentary containing a statement that

'For most Americans it was a war of vengeance.
For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their
unique culture against Western imperialism’
                                              (Nobile, 1995).

Krauthammer expressed his disagreement as follows:
'There is no point in negotiating. You don’t amend such tendentious anti-Americanism. You kill it. You scrap the 600-page commentary. It is intellectually dishonest. It is corrupted by such revisionist nonsense as the suggestion that we might not have dropped the bomb on Nazi Germany because Germans are white. The analysis offered by the Smithsonian was a disgrace. And not the first such disgrace. Four years ago, the National Museum of American Art produced an exhibition on America’s westward expansion that mined every artifact for evidence of white racism and rapacity. Former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin called the show ‘perverse, historically inaccurate, destructive.’ These exhibits are not accidents. They reflect the extent to which the forces of political correctness and historical revisionism, having captured the universities, have now moved out to dominate our museums. The Republican revolutionaries in Congress have bravely pledged to put a stop to this. Cut off the subsidy. Not cut-cut off. Zero out. Lets heads, and agencies, roll.'
 

Enola Gay. The plaque read: For most Americans it was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism.

The Commissars  The intensity of the controversy surrounding this issue, more than 50 years after these events took place, suggests that an ongoing process of redefining American values continues. Edward Linenthal (1995), a member of the Smithsonian's Exhibitory Advisory Board, commented on the action of Congress to close the Enola Gay exhibition as follows;
 

'In the end, we have all lost a great deal. We have lost a chance to offer a commemorative thanks to veterans. We have lost the chance to remind each other that irony, ambiguity, and complexity are part of every human story. And we have allowed the arrogance and ignorance of members of Congress -- acting as if they were commissars in a totalitarian state--to threaten a public institution, in effect, to press for the regulation of public memory. ‘
 

We agree with Linenthal that suppression of these issues, any issues, is detrimental to our country. Open discussion, no matter how controversial, contributes to the definition of what we are and what we want to be; this process of self-searching ultimately shaping not only us, but also our future.



 

Those who are about to die… On May 27, 1942, Hideki Tojo, Premier of Japan, delivered a speech at the opening of the Imperial Diet where he stressed that
The people of the East Asia suffered greatly by the cruel treatment of America, Britain, and other countries. America and Britain are carrying out vicious propaganda by constantly accusing our country of brutal acts to divert the world opinion from the fact that their policies of subjugation and exploitation brought them innumerable benefits while inflicting immense suffering to those under their domination.
 
The activities of our Imperial Forces are aimed at the termination of the power of the Chungking Government (alliance of the Mao’s communist and Chiang Kai-Shek’s nationalist factions). Chungking Government has been isolated and many of its subjects expressed their desire to cooperate with the Nanjing Government (the third Chinese faction trying to reestablish the Chinese traditional culture and to reinstate the China’s Emperor).
 
In the celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the founding of the Manchukuo government, Emperor Hirohito sent his personal emissary Prince Takamatsu to Emperor Pu Yi with congratulations and expressions of good wishes.
 
Representing the people and the government of Nanjing, Wang Ching Wei visited Manchukuo and has strengthened the ties of Manchukuo and Nanjing. With the dispatch of our delegate on this occasion, it means that the relationship among Japan, Manchukuo, and Nanjing has been further reinforced.
 
To convey felicitation on the Japan Thailand alliance, special emissary Phya Pahon arrived in Japan. He called on the various ministries and exchanged views with high officials on the spirit of firmly establishing the Greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere among Japan, Manchukuo, Nanjing, and Thailand.
A decade after we carried out the study described above, the diaries of the war-time Premier of Japan, Hideki Tojo, executed after the war by the Allies, were published in the August and September 1991 issues of the Japanese journal Hoseki. Tojo's narrative to a great extent parallels ours. Tojo writes that the Japanese war goals were to
'relieve East Asia from the chains and exploitation of the past several centuries of aggression and exploitation by the great powers of Europe and America'
and that war was forced on Japan by the United States and Great Britain. Before his execution he wrote about the Chinese philosopher Mencius and quoted a passage from Buddhist sutra:

Sitting under the moonlight…

Koki Hirota In 2004, The Japan Times (May 12, 2004) published excerpts from poetry written by Japanese prisoners of war, awaiting execution by their captors. The wartime statesman, Koki Hirota, wrote:
 

Sitting under the moonlight
At the right time,
Comes a gentle breeze.
 

Sasaki Sadako (1943-1955) was in her crib when the atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima. She died nine years later, 12 years old, of leukemia. In hospital, she folded the origami cranes, hoping that if she folds 1,000 of them, she may survive. At the time she died  she folded 984 cranes.

After the war…
Akira Kohchi observes how, in the post-war Japan,
…the times have changed. People often wander how we came to fight the war, why Hiroshima was bombed, and for that matter what we have lived for. We have been severed from our collective past - our soil, our forbears, our authentic lives. We never found our fathers’ remains. They may have accompanied the cloud that carried away Japan’s soul.