Fwd: Truth is the First Casualty of War

Michael Hoover hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us
Wed Jul 5 19:13:16 PDT 2000



> On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Michael Hoover wrote:
> > What "concessions on China"? . . . This "agreement" seems to have been
> > readily attainable by unilateral Japanese action . . . So what actions
> > was the United States to have undertaken?
> > Brad DeLong [ellipses are mine, not Brad's]
>
> This seems like a fair question, Michael. I don't know why you're
> treating it so scornfully. I'm certainly interested. What were the
> Japanese to get in return for their military concessions? From your
> comments about Fair trade, can we assume it was some sort of an exclusive
> franchise on Chinese trade?
> Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com

With all due respect Michael, DeLong previously asked question about book with which I was unfamiliar and I suggested that he might answer question himself as it appeared that he had read said work. As for comment about Japanese unilateral action, hey, US could have avoided being attacked at Pearl Harbor if it hadn't annexed Hawaii some forty years earlier or if it had chosen not to shift naval power 2500 miles closer to Japan.

Problem is inability/unwillingness to recognize/accept US role in events leading to war in Pacific. FDR accepted Stimson (Hoover's Sec. of State and later Roosevelt's Sec. of War) Doctrine of US intransigence/ belligerence from get-go (Hoover had rejected it) with full knowledge that war would be likely result. It didn't matter how many concessions Japan would make nor could Japan expect US to make any concessions. Any 'agreement' had to be solely on US terms which meant that no agreement could be made.

Assertion that US was 'forced' into war in defense of some 'moral principle' is bullshit. Some of same folks making this assertion were willing to consider tolerating continental Europe controlled by Nazis as more than one US leader considered Hitler useful check against Soviets (some admired Hitler). In Asia, US invoked shibboleth of 'open door' for China. Moreover, Japanese imperialism/militarism in Asia threatened Western colonies. Lenin plus racism looks pretty prescient re. US policy there.

As for what Japan wanted from US in late 1940 in exchange for abandoning China objectives, resumption of regular trade relations that US formally halted when it refused to negotiate renewal of 1911 trade treaty between two countries. Upon treaty end FDR administration began to impose commercial/economic restrictions. That US upping of economic ante strengthened militaristic elements is evident from later Japanese proposals containing growing number of/more specific points unacceptable (surprise, surprise) to Hull & Roosevelt.

Articulation of public ideology of idealism/moralism was necessary in run-up to/aftermath of WW2. 'Saving world from fascist aggression' would become 'stopping international communist conspiracy'. Michael Hoover



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list