FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Pearl Harbor Revisited

by Carl Estabrook

In our state capitalist society, everything becomes a commodity, even truth — you can have as much of it as you pay for. The Disney corporation’s desire to market their movie “Pearl Harbor” in Japan compelled them to suggest in the movie that the Japanese attack on the US navy base in Hawaii in 1941 was something other than purely evil and cowardly. The commander of the attack, Admiral Yamamoto, is given a line (in Japanese, with subtitles) in which he explains that Japan was compelled to attack Pearl Harbor because of a US oil embargo. Thus crass commercialism has slightly redressed the balance of more than two generations of American concentration on the “infamy” of the Japanese “sneak attack.”

In the 1950s, comedian Zero Mostel had a routine in which he portrayed a rather dim Senator demanding to know, “What was Pearl Harbor _doing_ in the Pacific?” The humor of fifty years ago contains an unintended truth. Why was there a major military base in this US colony in the mid-Pacific? The US had seized Hawaii by force, against the will of its inhabitants, less than fifty years before the Japanese attack. Then a few years later, the US slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people in the Philippines in a Vietnam-style war to bring those islands into the US Pacific empire. So the US rejected as ludicrous the eventual Japanese claim that it was establishing an equivalent to the Monroe Doctrine for East Asia.

The opinion ascribed to Admiral Yamamoto (a Catholic from a Nagasaki family converted by Jesuit missionaries in the 16th century, he was eventually assassinated on orders from President Roosevelt) has, as the well-known war criminal Henry Kissinger was wont to say, “the extra, added advantage of being true.” Radhabinod Pal, one of the judges in the post-war Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (run exclusively by the Americans, but meant to parallel the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi leaders) said later that the US had started the war with embargoes that were a “clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence.”

The Japanese home islands contain little in the way of mineral resources and no oil, so after the German conquest of France, Japan signed an agreement with the puppet French government in the summer of 1941 that led to Japan’s assuming military control of Vietnam and its energy resources. “Almost immediately, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands instituted a total embargo on oil and scrap metal to Japan — tantamount to a declaration of war,” writes one historian. “This was followed soon after by the United States and Great Britain freezing all Japanese assets in their respective countries” (as the US did more recently in regard to Iraq).

My grandfather, an Annapolis man newly appointed captain the in the US Navy, became commandant of the Navy yard at Pearl Harbor in 1932. In that year — nine years before the Japanese attack — the US Pacific fleet carried out a war-game that included a simulated attack by carriers and planes on Pearl, an exercise adjudged a complete victory for the attackers. So the US was hardly in doubt about the feasibility of the attack that eventually took place. Ever since 1941 it has been suggested that the Roosevelt administration purposely left the fleet open to attack, in order to stampede the American public into a war. Like Lincoln with the Confederates at Ft. Sumter, every government launching a war wants to appear in an aggrieved and defensive role. (Even Germany invading Poland in 1939 announced, “We’re finally shooting back!”)

By the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the war in Europe had been under way for more than two years with the US officially neutral, and there was strong anti-war sentiment in the US. The US fought the Second World War not to stop Fascism, much less to prevent the Holocaust. When the US finally entered, the decisive events of the war in Europe — the fall of France, the battle of Britain, and the invasion of Russia — had already taken place. Nor did the US go to war because of Japanese atrocities in Manchuria or the rape of Nanking, but because Japan attacked military bases maintained by the US on colonies that it had stolen in the Pacific.

Three days later Japan’s ally Germany declared war on the US. Whatever else it was, the death of almost 2,400 Americans at Pearl Harbor was a propaganda triumph for the pro-war US government. Sixty years later, that tradition is maintained in different circumstances by a “cheesy melodrama [with] a lot of sugary, unashamed American patriotism.” CP

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

December 06, 2016
Anthony DiMaggio
Post-Fact Politics: Reviewing the History of Fake News and Propaganda
Richard Moser
Standing Rock: Challenge to the Establishment, School for the Social Movements
Norman Solomon
Media Complicity is Key to Blacklisting Websites
Michael J. Sainato
Elizabeth Warren’s Shameful Exploitation of Standing Rock Victory
David Rosen
State Power and Terror: From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock
Kim Ives
Deconstructing Another Right-Wing Victory in Haiti
Nile Bowie
South Korea’s Presidency On A Knife-Edge
Mateo Pimentel
Some Notes and a Song for Standing Rock
Bill Fletcher Jr – Bob Wing
Fighting Back Against the White Revolt of 2016
Peter Lee
Is America Ready for a War on White Privilege?
Pepe Escobar
The Rules of the (Trump) Game
W. T. Whitney
No Peace Yet in Colombia Despite War’s End
Mark Weisbrot
Castro Was Right About US Policy in Latin America
David Swanson
New Rogue Anti-Russia Committee Created in “Intelligence” Act
George Ochenski
Forests of the Future: Local or National Control?
December 05, 2016
Bill Martin
Stalingrad at Standing Rock?
Mark A. Lause
Recounting a Presidential Election: the Backstory
Mel Goodman
Mad Dog Mattis and Trump’s “Seven Days in May”
Matthew Hannah
Standing Rock and the Ideology of Oppressors: Conversations with a Morton County Commissioner
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
#NoDAPL Scores Major Victory: No Final Permit For Pipeline
Fran Shor
The End of the Indispensable Nation
Michael Yates
Vietnam: the War That Won’t Go Away
Michael Uhl
Notes on a Trip to Cuba
Robert Hunziker
Huge Antarctica Glacier in Serious Trouble
John Steppling
Screen Life
David Macaray
Trump vs. America’s Labor Unions
Yoav Litvin
Break Free and Lead, or Resign: a Letter to Bernie Sanders
Norman Pollack
Taiwan: A Pustule on International Politics
Kevin Martin
Nuclear Weapons Modernization: a New Nuclear Arms Race? Who Voted for it? Who Will Benefit from It?
David Mattson
3% is not Enough: Towards Restoring Grizzly Bears
Howard Lisnoff
The Person Who Deciphered the Order to Shoot at Kent State
Dave Archambault II
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Statement on Dakota Access Pipeline Decision
Nick Pemberton
Make America Late Again
Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
The Coming War on China
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Patrick Cockburn
Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Michael Hudson – Steve Keen
Rebel Economists on the Historical Path to a Global Recovery
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail