Reasons for the 1941-1945 War with Japan: Contrasting Interpretations

David J Krus and Edward A. Nelsen
Arizona State University

James M. Webb
Kent State University

Summary.- Alternative interpretations of events leading to war with Japan were evaluated. The standard version of the events, frequently presented by the media, was found believable only by 31 from the 90 subjects who participated in the study. The major issues underlying this controversy were described, as based on content analysis of the subjects’ responses.

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

 The Japanese viewpoint on the origins of Great Asia War around the time of the opening of its Pacific theater is perhaps best illustrated by excerpts from the speech of the ambassador to the United States, Saburo Kurusu (1942) upon his return to Japan. 

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.

 Following are excerpts from the speech of ambassador to Japan, Joseph C. Grew (1942), delivered upon his return to the United States on the exchange ship Gripsholm.
 

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.

The Japanese viewpoint on the origins of the war changed little during its course. 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 of East Asia, 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.’

 The present study 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 and asked subjects to endorse the view they judged to be closer to their own views on these events. 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. Reading responses of persons supporting the 'official' explanation of the war 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 paper we are likely to make enemies.

 The additional impulse to publish our findings was constituted by the events preceding opening of the planned 1995 exhibition at the Smithsonian about the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. While the media coverage of the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor was merely one-sided, the ‘Smithsonian’ media campaign resulted in the outright suppression of an opposing point of view. We finally decided to publish our findings if for no any other reason than to suggest that those who endorse the censorship of opposing views, even though often viewing themselves as patriotic, perhaps are not the real Americans.

Method

Subjects.- Data for the study were collected in the early months of 1993 when the massive media campaign accompanying the 50^th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ceased, but was still remembered. The questionnaire was administered by 20 graduate students to their family members and acquaintances. The youngest respondent of the sample of the 90 subjects was 17 years old; the oldest participant was 73 years old. The mean age of subjects endorsing Version A was 35.4 years with standard deviation of 12.7. The mean age of subjects endorsing Version B was 31.2 years with standard deviation of 10.6. The ratio of males to females was about equal, with 47% of female and 53% of male participants.

Instrument.-The questionnaire front page contained questions about the age and gender of the respondent; 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.’ The questionnaire consisted of two pages of narratives, labeled Version A and Version B, printed on the facing pages of the questionnaire and reproduced below. In the pilot version of the questionnaire, Version B was longer (866 words) than Version A, which was comprised of 649 words. Subsequently, Version B was edited for length and shortened to 643 words to make the length of both versions about the same. The following statements headed 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.- The official U.S. view of the events leading to war with Japan is captured by a sizable body of literature and documents. 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.

Emerging Viewpoint.- Pioneered by Stanford’s University professor of history Barton J. Bernstein (1975, 1995), the reconsideration of the Pacific Theatre of the Second World is advocated by historians as Toland (1982) and social scientists as Hasegawa (1984). This view asserts that the series of encounters of the West with 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 (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 informed persons on the American, National Chinese, Imperial Chinese, Japanese, and Korean sides of the conflict. Labeled ‘Version B,’ this viewpoint was presented as follows. 

From a 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. Recently declassified documents show that as early as six months prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the purchase of several hundred Lockheed Hudson bombers, purportedly to strike Japan’s industrial centers. He also 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.

Four years later, Japan suffered an agonizing defeat at the hands of the Americans, but eventually regained her economic and industrial prosperity. The real losers of that war, however, were the Chinese. After a half a century of rule embodying alien politico-economic ideology, their female population has been decimated by the ‘one-child policy,’ and their cultural heritage is distorted. These outcomes were determined by Western efforts to conquer and dominate, with the Chinese being the ultimate victims.

Results

In sampling opinions on this issue within a large southwest metropolitan area, the present study shows that the majority of the 90 persons who responded 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, 34% of subjects endorsed Version A and 56% of subjects endorsed Version B. The 10% of subjects were undecided, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Percentage of Subjects Endorsing Extant (Version A), Emerging (Version B), or Neither Perspective.

 The null hypothesis that the frequencies of subjects voting in favor of either version is due to chance can be rejected with p < .05 (c² = 5.0). The fact that Version B was supported by more subjects participating in the study than Version A is not likely due to chance fluctuations. Version A was endorsed by 16 women and 14 men (mean age = 35.4 yr., SD = 12.8). Version B was endorsed by 25 women and 25 men (mean age = 31.2 years, SD = 10.6). Gender comparisons between proponents of either version revealed no statistically significant difference. With respect to age, older subjects tended to support version A, however this difference was not statistically significant. The question to which degree the sample is representative of the general population remains open. The questionnaire was not answered by graduate students; graduate students served as administrators, giving the questionnaire to their friends and relatives. Thus, the sample can be defined as representing people indirectly associated with Arizona State University. It might be argued that subjects in such a sample are more highly educated and more liberal than the national average. On the other hand, it also might be argued that Arizona is more conservative than most of the other states. The range of subjects' ages (17 to 73 years) is in favor of sample being representative, as is the mean age of respondents, close to the national average. As true of most public-opinion studies carried on with limited resources, the question of degree the sample is representative cannot be fully answered within the confines of a single study. We have included the complete narratives of both Versions A and B with the hope that some researchers may replicate this study with various sub-populations in other geographic areas of our country. The importance of this topic merits such a replication, as the issues described herein are a part of our past and contribute to how we define ourselves. Reasons for selecting one version over another, together with self-descriptions with respect to what subjects felt made him or her different from those who might endorse the opposing viewpoint are excerpted below, separately for supporters of Version A and Version B. Information in brackets, introducing a statement, identify each subject with respect to age and gender.

Comments of Subjects who Endorsed Version A

[1:45F] While I find the information in Version B interesting, it is not something found in basic history books.

[2:28F] 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.

[3:27F] 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.

[4:49F] Its more from American point of view. It's more emotional for Americans. I am not of an oriental background. If I were, perhaps version B would have meant more to me.

[5:25F] Version A seems to include more statistical facts, but mainly it is history I was taught. Those endorsing the opposing views are most likely Asian.

[6:29M] Version A agrees with information I have been more accustomed to hearing as factual.

[7:25F] I selected Version A because it was more precise and factual.

[8:27F] Version A seems to place the Americans as more of the ‘victims’ - surprise attack - they felt secure, etc. I am a very sensitive person - often take sides easily, especially if it's for the underdog.

[9:-] Version B seemed to rely less on indisputable facts (naval battles and diplomatic contact) and more on second-hand stories. Hitler tried to purify Europe of Jewish, non-Aryan values. You would have to convince me that Japan was not just another Nazi-Germany.

[10:30M] Supporters of Version B are saying that communism as represented by the Soviet Union, was a worse form of government than the Fascists and Nazis they allied with.

[11:27,M] I choose A not because of any falsities given in B, but because of the motivations behind Japanese actions. Violence rationalized not by the passion of a return to Asian self-determination but [by the Japanese urge for] control and domination. To ascribe any altruistic notions to Japan is absurd. You do not kill those you are liberating. I am from Japanese ancestry and very familiar with what is slated in Version B and its arrogance.

[12:36F] Version A is a simple history fact. Version B is a little bit complex.

[13:45F] Version B sounds like it was written by a Japanese sympathizer.

[14:54F] 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.

[15:39F] Version I remember studying in high school. Also, movies I have seen are based more on Version A than B.

[16:67M] I prefer Version A because it is more familiar to me. To my knowledge it is historically correct. Version B deals with Japanese perspectives, which are all foreign to me. The only bit of truth (in Version B) is that Roosevelt was considering the bombing of Japan prior to the Pearl Harbor. I am puzzled why he didn’t.

[17:50M] Version “B” is all lies!

[18:20F] The history books I have used throughout my education take the position of Version A. I feel that in picking a version, I am taking a side. The American side is the side I want to be on. If 2,000 Americans lost their lives, I’d feel unpatriotic choosing Version B.

[19:48M] Version B is inconsistent with historical events as I know them. I doubt that Version B would be widely accepted in the United States or Western Europe. An Asian view or third world view might accept Version B more readily.

[20:50M] I believe that Version A is generally more accurate. I chose Version A probably because of my age (50 years), race (Caucasian, not Asiatic) and perspective.

[21:21F] Version A seems more believable because I have heard and seen other supporting evidence outside of the version itself.

[22:48F] Version A is more factual and less ideological. It is a recording of what happened; not why it happened as is Version B.

[23:20M] The Japanese version sounds as if they are making many after-the-fact excuses. I’m not just saying this because I am American. I honestly feel these are just reasons they came up with to try and sound as if they had good reason to attack. I believe many choosers of the opposing view would be older Japanese people.

[24:23M] 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.

[25:29M] I did not read enough evidence to be convinced that Japan was forced to attack Pearl Harbor or face economic devastation.

[26:57M] Version B is Japanese rationalization and revision of history. Because of this rationalization, Japan doesn’t suffer the guilt the Germans experience since World War II. I lived through some of that time and Version B doesn’t correspond with what was happening as I recall it. Supporters of Version B would likely be Japanese.

[27:33M] 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.

[28:-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.

[29:28F] Because I was taught this version and I do not know enough which is ‘objective’ about the Asian aspects of the war. I agree that China is the big looser, but for probably a different ultimate reason.

[30:24M] 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.

[31:22M] 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

[1:34M] 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.

[2:39M] 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.

[3:40F] I have chosen Version B because it has more depth, covered a greater span of time. There was much at stake for the Japanese and their culture. I have more liberal viewpoints. I am also skeptical of our government.

[4:24M] Version A is about US against them. Version B offered a different outlook and is more likely.

[5:26M] 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.

[6:23F] 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.

[7:45F] Version A contained information I already knew and I didn’t learn anything new. Version B was more informative.

[8:31F] Version B is certainly possible. Those who endorse the opposing view may have ‘have been there’ arguments to support their views.

[9:30M] 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.

[10:31M] Version B, although biased from an Asian viewpoint, contains more accurate information. There were many reasons why Japan attacked Hawaii and I think Version B is more comprehensive. Version A is too slanted towards the Western view of what happened.

[11:-F] Version B is very believable. When it comes to politics, so much goes on that the public doesn’t know about. The government only tells us what it wants us to know. They want us to believe and go along with what they have decided to do. I like to get all the facts and to see both sides [of an issue] to form an opinion.

[12:35F] 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.

[13:23F] Version B is more objective. There is more than one side to a story. Version A just blames the Japanese and characterizes Japanese as being aggressive warmongers. I am sure other nations have different interpretations of why we attacked Iraq. I prefer Version B because it provides more information than we are usually given in history books or classes. There is so much that the Government does that the public is not aware of. I am not afraid to know that my ‘opponents’ have good intentions - even if it threatens my security. I also prefer to look at the mistakes or ‘errors in judgment’ of the past as to not repeat them. To see clearly, you need to have more than one perspective.

[14:23M] I have more knowledge of the subject than most. I am also more open to differing perspectives and opinions and more eager to understand different cultures.

[15:23F] Version B provided for insights into described events, provided context, and gave a more global perspective. I like information to be presented in a balanced and informative manner.

 [16:33M] 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 19^th and early 20^th 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.

[17:22F] 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.

[18:23F] 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.

[19:28M] 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.

[20:26F] Version B is more believable because more facts are given. Often Americans forget that every issue has two sides.

[21:17M] 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.

[22:32M] Version A is the story told in all American history classes. Version B tells the story from the other side and has more reason behind the action taken. Version A depicts the United States as the unsuspecting victim. As any student of history knows, the U.S. has been the instigator of the downfall of many governments, destroyed economies, and changed political perspectives. I do not believe the United States government is always right. I have worked for the U.S. government for several years and I have studied history from both sides.

[23:39F] I can’t imagine that Japan would bomb the United States out of sheer aggressiveness.

[24:43M] I am concerned that we are not told the whole truth regarding world policy. Our media distorts the American viewpoint and men who feel a need to misinform the public for its own good lead our government. I question the government version of what it deems to be the truth.

[25:47F] The B Version seemed more substantial and less emotional. I am more unbiased and less nationalistic than those who would endorse the opposing viewpoint are.

[26:40F] 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.’

[27:39F] I believe much political actions involve ulterior motives; Roosevelt wanted the Japanese to make the first move to get American sympathy. I wouldn’t put anything past the U.S. Government. I am more of a realist as opposed to a one track minded - total trust in US government kind of a person.

[28:30F] Version B did not seem as one-sided as Version A. It also seemed more factual with a greater historical background. I differ from those endorsing different viewpoints mainly in not believing that the world revolves around the United States exclusively.

[29:36F] Version A expresses an ethnocentric view by stating several times that Japan had aggressive tendencies. I am probably more open-minded and able to understand and empathize with different countries and cultures.

[30:25M] Most wars were started because of religious differences or because of economics and Version B reflects these reasons more than Version A.

[31:27M] Version B simply presented more facts surrounding the conflict. I rely on facts to make a sound judgment.

[32:25M] Version B gives a better overview of the related factors leading up to the attack instead of the one-sided accounts we are taught in our schools. I believe I am a more insightful and realistic than those who see the Japanese as bloodthirsty tyrant.

[33:43M] Version B relates the reasons for Japan’s attack to economic conditions and states political and cultural issues in a way which sounds more plausible. I am suspicious of standard homogenized accounts of historical events told from a partisan viewpoint to justify own actions.

[34:48F] I strongly suspect our one sided view of history. I have heard Version A many times. It presents a sanitized view of history I was taught. Some people are so pro - American that viewing history or current events for them has only one interpretation. I don’t believe America is always right. I am tired of the Western, white male view of history.

[35:34M] Version B seems more believable because it notes more historical points and does not address emotion as Version A does. I feel that it is important to analyze facts.

[36:73F] Both accounts are believable and are accurate as I remember. Version A was the one I lived with during the war years. Knowing more about China and Japan came later for me and I am now open to other interpretation of W.W.II than Version A represents.

[37:30F] 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.

[38:17F] 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.’

 [39:21F] 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.

[40:47F] 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.

[41:27M] 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.

[42:22F] 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.

[43:40M] I don’t believe that Pearl Harbor was attacked by surprise. I feel that he [President Roosevelt] did want to engage and was looking for an excuse to get involved. I differ from those endorsing Version A that I have possibly more background information and I am younger. I believe older people would WANT to believe Version A.

[44:40M] I believe Roosevelt knew.

[45:17M] Version B is more consistent with the mess-ups, screw-ups, and abuse of government power predominant in most countries, especially the U.S. and Japan. The viewpoint I choose described all the parties involved (China, Japan, U.S., Germany, etc.) and the political stresses many of them faced. The Version A described more of the U.S. point of view. I am skeptical of propaganda and I am more open to viewpoints of all people involved.

[46:17F] Version A uses more emotional adjectives, so it seems less objective. I am skeptical of propaganda that I feel both versions are examples of. However, I tend to shy away from propaganda depicting Americans as the good guys who do no wrong since that’s more common in this country than exaggerations making it to look bad.

[47:42M] I selected Version B because U.S. has allied itself in the past behind the scenes with communist countries.

[48:26M] 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.

[49:24M] 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.

[50:-M] I selected Version B because it shows that other nations lost beside the United States and lost not just lives, but their cultures as well.

Comments of Subject who did not endorse either Version

[1:36M] I think both of the versions have an equally valid argument. The truth is probably something between.

[2:24M] Both passages seem equally believable.

[3:24M] Portions of both accounts are believable. Certainly, Version B’s conclusion that the Chinese were the real losers of W.W.II is accurate. I am not entirely in agreement with the opinion that Roosevelt saw the attack coming and did nothing, however, I am certain that he did want the U.S. to become involved in the war. President Roosevelt was in charge of a country ravaged by a Depression, but the country still remembered W.W.I. He needed to involve the U.S. to help spur the economy, but needed to do in such a way as to make our involvement appear to be a purely defensive reaction. Japan presented this opportunity by invading Pearl Harbor.

[4:56M] By selecting either of the two versions one would demonstrate a poor grasp of American history. Version A is a standard textbook interpretation that is somewhat oversimplified. Version B lumps together various revisionist points of view including those with a Marxist tinge.

[5:36M] I believe that by endorsing one version over the other you must have a very narrow minded view of the subject. I try to view situations from as broad perspective as possible and in doing that, it is obvious that many points from both versions are correct.

[6:30F] Both accounts are rich with facts as well as speculations. The decisions that led to this situation were political decisions made by men, need I say more?

[7:63M] I believe both versions have a certain amount of credibility but would like to lean toward Version A as I am an American citizen. However witnessing recent events going on in Washington, I have no doubt that Version B could be more accurate.

[8:-F] It is possible to have two sides and two accounts of the same events. I am also sure that information about wars and politics are not shared totally openly and honestly with citizens of any country.

[9:23M] I choose neither because each account contains part of the truth of what happened. One version is pro-American and one pro Japanese. Each of the stories blames the other side for causing the conflict; there seems to be truth and fallacy in both.

The main reasons given for endorsing Version A vs. Version B, classified into four categories, are listed here as Issues 1-4. Reasons given by supporters of Version A are listed first, the reasons given by supporters of Version B follow.

Issue 1. Ethnocentrism vs. Cultural Diversity. Uniformity, in-group bias, self-perceptions of subjects as patriotic, view of U.S. as victims, use of own secular and religious values to judge other cultures versus accommodation of diverse cultural and ethnic values, global perspective considerate of humankind.

Issue 2. Loyalty vs. Skepticism. Unquestioned support of the government versus distrust of the government, realizations that governments often give humanitarian and altruistic reasons for military actions that pursue other goals.

 Issue 3. Facts vs. Reasons. Citations of facts, established information, authority, view of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as the main reason for the war versus awareness of the lack of convincing motivation for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor given in the official version of this event, stress on historical events preceding Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Issue 4. Generalization vs. Differentiation of European and Pacific Theatres of War. Perceived similarity of European and Pacific theaters of WWII, lack of awareness of their differences; belief that European and Far East causa beli overlap ('Japan was just another Germany') versus differentiation of issues involved in each theater.

Discussion

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 Second World War and remains closely tied to the cultural, religious, and economic expansion of Western nations. The expansion of Western nations corresponds to the diminishing influence of other civilizations and 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 civilization of the West. Increased contacts with the West are associated with the decline of the Sino-Japanese civilization and the 1941-1945 War with Japan accelerated this trend.

 The fact of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor takes on a different meaning when one starts to inquire for the reasons why Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbor. The central point of Hasegawa's (1984) penetrating analysis of events preceding the 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.

 With the passing years, the differentiation between perspectives toward the European and Pacific theaters of the Second World War grows. Any sensible discussion of a complex event such as the Second World War has to take into account the differences between the two major 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.

 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. A prime example of this is a recent essay in the Time magazine by Krauthammer (1995) on the planned exhibition by the Smithsonian on the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. 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 among others 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 did not just express his disagreement with the commentary, but employed the following rhetoric: 

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. 

The intensity of controversies surrounding this issue more than 50 years after these events took place suggests that an ongoing process of redefinition of American values and goals continues. Edward Linenthal (1995), 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. 

References

ABC television 20/20 broadcast, November 22, 1991, transcript 1149.

Bernas, T.G. (Ed) (1977) The American Adventure. (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Pp. C21-C22.

Bernstein, B.J. (1975) Roosevelt, Truman, and the atomic bomb: A reinterptetation. Political Science Quarterly, 90, 23-62.

Bernstein, B.J. (1995) Understanding the atomic bomb and the Japanese surrender. Diplomatic History, (Spring Issue), pp. 263-266.

Grew,  J.C. (1942) Speech of the former United States ambassador to Japan Joseph C. Grew upon his return to Washington. Department of State Bulletin,  August 29.

Hasegawa, M. (1984) A postwar view of the Great East Asia war. Japan Echo, 11, 29-37, p.37.

Hirohito, Emperor (1945) Emperor Hirohito’s broadcast to the Japanese people on surrender. New York Times, August 16, p.1.

Horn, P.V. (1941) Effects of allied economic blockade on Japan. The Conference Board Economic Record, II: 22, November 25.

House Documents (1943) Papers pertaining to foreign relations of the United States: Japan, 1931-1941. House Document No. 339, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

House Documents (1944) Events leading up to World War II: Chronological history, 1931-1944. House Document No. 541, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Krauthammer, C. (1995) History hijacked. Time, February 13, 145, 6, p. 90.

Kurusu, S. (1942) Radio Tokyo Broadcast. Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service, Federal Communications Commission, November 26.
 

Join Army-Navy Board (1941) Aircraft requirements of the Chinese government. Joint Army-Navy Board Paper 355, Serial 691, July 18. National Archives, Washington, D.C.
 

Linenthal, E. (1995) Personal interview with Philip Nobile. Quoted in Nobile, 1995, p.272.
 

Lobdell, G.H. (1989) Culprits or scapegoats? Some views on Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In W.B. Cogar (Ed.), New interpretations in naval history. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. Pp. 247-278.
 

Nobile, P. (1995) Judgment at the Smithsonian: The uncensored script of the Smithsonian's 50^th anniversary exhibit of the Enola Gay. New York: Marlowe, p.3.

Peres, S. (1994) Quoted in The New York Post, July 2.

Slackman, M. (1990) Target: Pearl Harbor. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Suzuki (1945) Radio Tokyo Broadcast. Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service, Federal Communications Commission, June 11.
 

Toland, J. (1982) Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath. New York: Doubleday.