The Unavoidable War: The War of The Pacific

I have notice the war between Japan and the United States being brought up in the comments section of various libertarian and reactionary blogs that I visit.  It is the opinion of some that this war was entirely avoidable was only the result of the machinations of President Roosevelt.  I disagree, the war, while not inevitable, had a very high likelihood of happening. I expect I may take some flak for this statement, I have in the past, but this post will explain my reasoning. Please reserve final opinions and conclusions until you have read it in it's entirety.

 

The claims that Roosevelt forced the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor because he was denying the Japanese oil perplex me, not because it wasn't a factor as it was, but because the US denying Japan oil reasoning is often issued as some sort of condemnation. I have seen this more from libertarians than reactionaries, though some extremely anti-federal reactionaries have done this, and there is a major reason why it confuses me.  The US stopped shipping oil to Japan because of the their invasion of French Indochina. 

 

Imperial Japan had invaded because they wished to stop the transference of US materials through this part of the world to the Chinese military forces.  The US was getting involved, to a limited extent, in the war, however, simply condemning the US for this action would entail that we ignore a major piece of information.  That the Japanese were invading territory that was not their own.  I understand, and agree, that the United States should limit itself when it comes to global conflicts; especially when they are civil wars. But when it comes to naked aggression, and the Japanese invasion was naked aggression, what is the proper course of action becomes murkier.

 

A person could make the humanitarian case, essentially an appeal to the principals of Western morals and idea, that we should become involved when nations come under the assault of a foreign foe. I understand this sentiment, though it has been grossly abused and only applied when it suited the West to do so. But this isn't the major point of concern for me, at least not in this particular instance.  My major point of concern is that naked aggression by a nation towards another nation indicates the willingness, and possibility, of it being done again. Other nations are rightfully nervous about America given the actions of the United States the last 50 or so years, so why would this be any different for the US in regards to Imperial Japan in the 1930s?

 

In this instance, considering Japans stated aims of establishing a sphere of influence over nations that were not under their purvue, the Co-Prosperity sphere originally started as a North Eastern only body but gradually grew in the planned size and scope from 1938 to 1940, why shouldn't the US have been nervous?  To do nothing to try and protect your interests when a nation is belligerent, and you have the capability to do so, reeks of what I call 'Alderaanean Pacifism', which is pacifism for pacifism sake. That is something I will never ascribe.You could have had a man like Congressman Paul as President and I doubt that our actions would have been any different.

 r

But there is another very important item that needs to be considered.  Whether or not the United States ceased shipments of oil, or declined to sell arms to the Chinese, war would probably have happened.  Why is that? One, there were certain material factors that played into it, and two, it had been building up politically from the 1860s if not earlier. 

 

People must remember that it was the United States that first brought Japan out of isolation during the Perry expedition in 1852.  Imagine how startling this must have been for the Japanese elites.  Foreigners had come sporadically since the 16th century but what Perry did was different. He led a military expedition, warships, from Virginia all the way into the port of Edo, modern day Tokyo. The Japanese had used force to expel foreigners before, but those had been trading ships, not warships.  When the Shogunate officials demanded that Perry leave, he refused and the Shogunate could do nothing. This was a major culture shock to the Japanese. They realized how weak they were compared to other nations of the world, it hearkened the end of the shogunate and the rise of Meiji Japan.

 

The Japanese adapted quickly, and in less than 30 years were beginning to colonize the Pacific.  Here is an image of the Pacific and the territorial breakdown in September 1939 - I would insert it into the post but it is far too large so I suggest you open it up in another tab -.  The Japanese and Americans were claiming territories in the pacific around the same time.  Here is a quick timeline of each nations activities.

 

	Japan	United States
1867		Midway Islands
1875	Okinawa / Ryuku Islands
1887	Iwo Jima
1895	Taiwan
1898		Philippines/Guam/Hawaii
1899	Marcus	Wake
1912		Line Islands
1920	Palau/Saipan/Carolina/ Marshal Islands



 

The grabbing of islands in the Pacific happened for many reasons, access to resources, need for ports for replenishment, simple imperialism and security concerns, but one thing should be undeniably apparent to anyone looking at this map, the nations were moving towards confrontation.  I doubt it was a primary motivation, or if it was an ancillary one, of the officials for both nations. But that is how geopolitics works sometimes. Conflicts don't always happen suddenly, though it may appear that way to us, they often gestate over a period of time.

 

This brings me to my point about it not mattering whether or not the US had sold weapons to the Chinese, or put an oil embargo on Japan.  There are two big reasons among many.

 

1. There were conflicting zones of influence. Neither the US, nor Japan, wanted to be at risk of a foreign military invasion of their coasts. Like I mentioned earlier, this is part of the reason why they grabbed islands in the pacific. As each one grabbed more territory they gradually grew towards being a threat to each other, intentionally or unintentionally it doesn't matter. 

 

2. A US territory, the Philippines, lies on the pathway towards a resource Japan desperately wants, the oil in the Dutch East Indies. So long as the US holds the Philippines they have the ability to bring Japans economy to a halt.

 

Now you might ask that why would the Japanese invade the Dutch East Indies if the US hadn't ceased selling oil to the Japanese?  The answer is why wouldn't they? What sort of nation would rely on a single source of oil if the cutting off of that source would bring their war effort to a halt?  The only reason the US continues to allow dependence her on foreign oil is:

 

a. Most of our foreign oil comes from Canada and Mexico.

 

b. The US possess amazing military might and could take the oil if nations wouldn't sell it to us; not to mention we could become energy independent if we desired. Japan circa 1941 does not have that. They aren't the preeminent power in the region, just a power among many others, and they had no major domestic sources of energy.

 

You also have to remember that the Dutch East Indies was owned by the Netherlands, which at this point and time is being occupied by the Germans, I doubt the Dutch would be able to put up much of a resistance if the Japanese invaded. So there you have it, you have a real need for energy independence from a rival foreign power, and an energy rich territory that is weakly defended. Knowing history, I think we know what usually results in a situation like this.

 

This brings the Americans back into play. Who is to say that the United States would allow Japan to invade and conquer the Dutch East Indies? While the argument could be made that the US shouldn't have cared from a geopolitical standpoint about China being conquered, I cannot see anyone seriously suggesting that the US wouldn't have serious qualms about an invasion of the Dutch East Indies.

 

 In the end this is why I say the war between the two nations, while not inevitable, would have been very difficult to avoid. The elimination of one factor, the oil embargo, or two factors, if you include selling arms to China, doesn't eliminate a whole host of other items that made war a real possibility.  There are a lot of things that I fault Franklin Deleano Roosevelt for but the War of the Pacific, and by extension World War II, isn't one of them.