Could you plausibly claim that the US provoked Japan before Pearl Harbor

[Orko]

Dunnoh if this is entirely within the purview of this forum, since this is OTL history and AH (mods, please delete this if this violates any rules, though I tried to check if it does before posting this and i don’t think it does). But I got into an online argument with someone who claims that Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was partially provoked by US actions such as the embargoes, lend-lease to China, re-armament, and stationing the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor. I argued that those acts can’t be seen as provocations against Japan because Japan’s aggression against its neighbors made at least some international response inevitable and the Japanese were aware of that in advance, that some of those actions can’t even be seen as provocation anyway (such as re-armament), and anyway that the main reason for Japan’s attack was to seize Indonesia and Malaysia, not pre-emptive strike against the US. She claimed that the US was not neutral as they were arming the Chinese and thus not innocent in this, and I claimed that this doesn’t in any way justify the Japanese to attack the US and that anyway it wasn’t even the main reason for Pearl Harbor and therefore moot. The argument soon became very nasty (on both sides admittedly) so no further progress could be achieved.
Do you think it’s reasonable to say that the US provoked Japan by embargo, lend-lease, moving the fleet to Hawaii etc. and therefore Japan was partially justified? Or would you agree that those shouldn’t count as provocations?

 

[The Byronic Hero]

The embargoes were made to halt Japanese expansion into China by grinding their military capability to a halt. Either the Japanese would be forced to stop the war (not happening) or seize assets from surrounding territories to continue functioning. Doing so guarantees American intervention. So did America want war? No. But did their actions make it inevitable? Yes.

 

[Deleted member 90949]

Any provocations by the US were in turn provoked by Japan's invasion of China. 'They won't sell us oil' is not a valid casus belli. Although admittedly it is basically the same justification the UK and USSR used to invade Iran in 1941.

 

[Orko]

Any provocations by the US were in turn provoked by Japan's invasion of China. 'They won't sell us oil' is not a valid casus belli. Although admittedly it is basically the same justification the UK and USSR used to invade Iran in 1941.

True, doesn’t mean that the Allies aren’t hypocritical, just unprovoked.

It does lead me thinking, what exactly do we mean when we say “provocation”? Because in the eyes of an expansionist and aggressive power even perfectly reasonable acts of self-defense are aggressive, hell the Japanese even saw the mere fact that China wasn’t just passively letting itself be invaded as a provocation for which Chinese civilians must be punished. So being “provoked” doesn’t necessarily have to do with having a valid casus belli, so we chilling pretend as though the US “provoking” Japan removes any of the burden of aggression from Japan.

 

[marathag]

The embargoes were made to halt Japanese expansion into China by grinding their military capability to a halt. Either the Japanese would be forced to stop the war (not happening) or seize assets from surrounding territories to continue functioning. Doing so guarantees American intervention. So did America want war? No. But did their actions make it inevitable? Yes.

Or Japan could have withdrawn from French Indochina.

 

[naraic]

Well if you take American minority public opinion during ww1 a small minority of people argued that the british blockade of Germany was an act of war against America.

Similarly the war of 1812 was fough the partially due to British blockade of France.

Now there's a difference between a blockade and an embargo (in one you refuse to trade in the other you stop anyone from trading).

Traditionally a blockade has been an act of war but if you embargo someone who considers you a major trade partner and you convince other people not to sell there's no really difference between a blockade and an embargo.

Obviously the Americans imposed their embargo for reasons that seemed to be in their national interest but to the japanese it seemed like a valid cause of war.

Different people have different perspectives.

From a neutral point of view if the blockade was in force Japan couldnt continue their war in China. Japan had to pull out of China to keep their economy going. It's understandable that they considered this a major provocation.

 

[Archduke]

A blockade is a military action because it involves the a military force preventing any supplies from passing a certain point for the purpose of starving out or diminishing an opponent. An embargo is not a military action as it does not involve the military taking action. Also, an embargo does not blanket stop supplies from reaching some place. An embargo targets certain items. Finally an embargo does not involve taking an action against the other country so much as it does involve having your own country act in a certain way. An embargo is about you stopping your own country from sending certain items.

 

[raharris1973]

Or Japan could have withdrawn from French Indochina.

Hull's note made it quite clear that would not be enough to get Japan any economic relief.

 

[Scott Washburn]

If diplomatic and economic actions are considered 'provocations for war', then war becomes the only option in any sort of dispute between countries. Not a valid argument IMO.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The embargoes were made to halt Japanese expansion into China by grinding their military capability to a halt. Either the Japanese would be forced to stop the war (not happening) or seize assets from surrounding territories to continue functioning. Doing so guarantees American intervention. So did America want war? No. But did their actions make it inevitable? Yes.

I think it is fairer to say the Japanese reaction to the embargo made war inevitable. They had to sail across the Pacific with the Kido Butai and launch a surprise attack to start it after all.

 

[spkaca]

Because in the eyes of an expansionist and aggressive power even perfectly reasonable acts of self-defense are aggressive

Exactly this. The attitude is that "everyone else is obliged to see things from our point of view". Japan felt provoked by American actions; weren't the Americans allowed to feel provoked by Japan's actions? Were the Americans obliged to agree that Japan had every right to invade China and occupy Indochina? Even if American motives were less than pure, the US had every right to pursue its interests by economic and diplomatic means. Beyond a doubt the US vision for the Asia- Pacific was a great deal more equitable than anything Imperial Japan had in mind.

 

[Father Maryland]

Depends on what you mean by "provoked". The US sanctions were justified in the sense that the US was trying to use them to keep the Japanese from conquering China (and the more stringent final ones were put in place when the Japanese occupied French Indochina).

They did however make war more or less inevitable (Since much of the Japanese leadership and military officer corps had more or less set themselves up with the expectation that they had to conquer all of China or nothing). Ultimately that was a good thing but unfortunately the Roosevelt Administration (and to a larger extent Congress) just didn't make the preperations neccesary. Once war became inevitable then defenses and garrisons at Hawaii and Wake should have been heavily reinforced and readied for a potential attack. The Garrison in the Phillipines should have prepared for the old War Plan Orange plan (basically gather all the supplies possible in the fortified zone of Corredigor and Bataan and retreat their).

 

[Post]

Sure Japan felt provoked, but it's the pot caling the kettle black. They went to war (in China). The US didn't like that. And Japan felt provoked?
The provocation was the country that actually went to war. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

In fact I think it's more self-defence by the US than provocation, because militaristic-imperialistic countries never seem to stop conquering other countries, unless they are stopped.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Exactly this. The attitude is that "everyone else is obliged to see things from our point of view".

Just a comment.
Not to derail the thread or launch a discussion in current affairs but I read this and a chill went up my spine as I thought of the PRC's attitude to rest of the world.

 

[Orko]

I read this and a chill went up my spine as I thought of the PRC's attitude to rest of the world.

TBH a bunch of other countries as well, but let's not make it a modern politics thread.

 

[Veiovis]

Well, I think you need to first define "provoke". The word has a neutral meaning, as in "this action caused me to do X". Under this wide standard, Japan was very obviously provoked.

Now,do you attach any moral attributes to it? As in "this action caused me to rightfully and legitimatly do X". Thats much harder to answer, and impossible really as morality is subjective.

 

[Jellico]

Either the Japanese would be forced to stop the war (not happening) or seize assets from surrounding territories to continue functioning.

Winding up the war is a death sentence for any Japanese official who makes it happen.
War with the US is possible death in a few years time.

Honestly it is hard to imagine an exit strategy for Japan that doesn't end up in an arse kicking at some point. Even if it is China finally getting its act together and pushing Japan off the mainland.

Did the US provoke a war? No. But they inadvertently limited the Japanese options so that the Japanese felt that they had no choice. And if you put yourself in the position of a Japanese politician, I am not sure that they had a choice.

 

[Father Maryland]

Winding up the war is a death sentence for any Japanese official who makes it happen.

Literally. It's one thing is taking a certain political position means a guranteed defeat in the next election or getting kicked out of the military. It's another if you know that if it gets out you'll likely get shot by some fanatical young Lieutenant within the next day or so.

 

[Ryan lozano]

I watch the movie Midway in the beginning of the movie yammoto said don’t back japan into a corner or it will do something drastic leave it to the reasonable ones to counter the fanatics and what the USA did... they cornered japan and it bite back with the bite of a scared corner animal so yes we provoked japan by letting the fanatics get their way with the oil

 

[wcv215]

I watch the movie Midway in the beginning of the movie yammoto said don’t back japan into a corner or it will do something drastic leave it to the reasonable ones to counter the fanatics and what the USA did... they cornered japan and it bite back with the bite of a scared corner animal so yes we provoked japan by letting the fanatics get their way with the oil

Basing your claims off of a terrible Roland Emmerich movie completely ridiculous. The reality is that the fanatics had been in charge of Japan since the 20s at least. There were no reasonable men in charge in Japan. And frankly that includes Yamamoto.