Pearl Harbor was NOT the result of US high-handedness

December 8, 2008

The Grauniad is at it again. Now Pearl Harbor is implicitly the fault of the US for being too hostile…Via LGF.

The article effectively begins by marking its target: Pearl Harbor as a patriotic rallying moment in US history. In the article by Eri Hotta, the wife of liberal Anglo-Dutch intellectual, Ian Buruma, the usual PC demons are brought out against the US to condemn it for provoking Japan into war. (Credit to David T at Harry’s Place for placing EH).
The author fails to understand the basic racism and cruelty in the Japanese political system of the time, nor its part in the reasons for Japanese imperial aggression.
The decision to attack Pearl Harbor was reached after five months of deliberations that included numerous official conferences. It was a gradual process in which more sympathetic, albeit firm, US engagement might have helped sway Japan in a different direction.”  It is not difficult to begin dissecting the prejudices shown here: by the absence of any reference to the murderous war Japan was waging in China, the author shows no regard for the victims of that war or towards China itself. The author displays no understanding of the balance of power issues that would have ultimately been the motives behind the US diplomatic stance, instead blaming the US in the classic PC attack fashion for “aggravating” the Japanese political scene by not being more friendly.
One wonders what the US should have done? Offered to divide up China? These PC idiots do not understand that weakness would have been presented as opportunity by the war-party, giving all the more reason to carve up the European empires in the far East.
Rather than telling Japan that the US was determined to search for a diplomatic solution, America’s categorical reaction confirmed it to the Japanese as an arrogant and conceited enemy. ” What diplomatic solution? Japan had just seized Indochina and Dutch Borneo in addition to continuing to murder thousands in China! What solution could have been presented? Hand over a certain proportion of French and Dutch territory to Japan? Ask the Imperial Japanese Army to withdraw – please?
Moreover, by transferring its Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, the US encouraged the Japanese understanding that the US fully anticipated war with Japan.” Again, the American response is blamed for the original Japanese aggression and subsequent aggression. The US move to Pearl Harbour would have been a warning to Japan that if these attacks on sovereign and independent nations did not cease that  – yes – the US would consider war to recover other states territorial integrity? Isn’t that called being the good guy in international affairs? The author is again paying no regard for the territorial rights of other powers and clearly dismissing all concern about the civilians subjected to the horrors of Japanese rule. In any case, the Roosevelt administration was far from decided on war, hoping that military build-up (what little there was) would deter further aggression.
A cornerstone of PC international theory is that diplomacy possesses magical powers, “The high-handed tone of the Hull Note of November 26, demanding Japan’s withdrawal of all its troops from China, was a final blow to the moderates in Japan’s government, who still hoped for diplomatic negotiations.” Wouldn’t this actually demonstrate how out of touch the “moderates” really were? That the US was not ultimately going to accept the imperial conquest of China and the Pacific? Who were the “moderates” fooling? Only themselves.
It was ultimately in the name of saving Asia for all Asians from what was regarded as western arrogance that the government united to wage war.” Are you really sure that those were the reasons for the Japanese attack? Or the certainty in the military and war-parties that the US stood in the way of “the rising sun” of Japanese imperial greatness? The war plan focused on the destruction of the immediate means of obstruction (the USN) and the errection of an fortified island barrier, backed by the mobile power of the IJN, protecting a zone of economic exploitation in which the natives would be treated as slaves to be used for the glory of the Emperor. One would think that arrogant of the Japanese.
The gunboat diplomacy that resulted in the opening of Japan and unequal treaties in the mid-19th century was but a beginning.” So preventing the carve-up of China and the destabilization of the balance of power was unjust to Japan? “Coupled with the economic hardship of the interwar years were instances of racial prejudice in the US that aimed at preventing Japanese immigration. United by this long-simmering and humiliating sense of exclusion, Japanese policymakers, whatever their differences, stumbled toward the December 1 decision to go to war.” No, the sense that the US was blocking their plans for regional domination (via the invasion of other states and the exploitation of their populaces) was the central factor in the arrogant decision to go war. That the Japanese military realised instictively that they were weaker than the US was a spur to try the attack on Pearl Harbor – knock the US out of the war for two years and become strong enough to deter a counter-attack: it might have worked had the strike gone according to plan.
But no matter how strong and historically justified such grievances may be, those who resort to murderous tactics must be condemned.” But the author goes on to say, “However, high-handedness and tough talk alone are an inadequate response, for this approach further humiliates those who already feel humiliated, and alienates those who might otherwise proffer a more moderate voice.” Clearly she feels that standing up to aggression is wrong because it..does…not work? No, sorry that is nonsense. By this logic, Poland should have been compelled to give up its industrial centres and only port to prevent war with Germany, rather than tell Germany that war with Poland meant war with Britain and France. “Diplomacy no longer works with terrorism,” did it ever work?
With global expectations mounting for a fresh start in US foreign policy, it is vital not just to remember, but to understand the attack on Pearl Harbor.” Yes, if you mean that declaring that aggression will meet force is inherently stupid and flawed, and if you believe in the magical power of diplomacy to solve all problems – because there are always moderates in every camp? Like in al-Qaeda? (We’ll only kill some of the Jews and not directly export terrorism into your nations? Our price?) Or in Russia’s attack on Georgia? (We’ll be content with half of the nation…and control over its politics).

No, I rather think Eri Hotta is a deluded PC idiot, who cannot see beyond the end of her anti-Americanism and I also have doubts about her attitude towards the victims of imperial and genocidal aggression  – so long as the attackers are not American.

Sorry, but the Guardian and CiF are just completely amoral and prove the truth of George Orwell’s assertation that all self-professed pacifists are secretly in love with tyrannical power. You lot are disgusting.


Kudos to Oliver Kamm. He’s bang on the money.

Goodbye to Blogger, I hope!

November 23, 2007

Ok. Let’s try writing this in Word and then pasting it across.

Hi, this is hopefully my first blog that actually looks grammatical – on account of the bloody text editors screwing up all the time. I mean all I want to do is write and I feel like I’m being sabotaged by these text windows that break a sentence halfway through and cannot keep into a box.

Anyway, today’s post is on the UN.
The United Nations General Assembly has just approved changes thrust through the UN Human Rights Council by underhand means. These include the abolition of the independent investigators into Belarus and Cuba and the reinstatement of the permanent agenda item on Israel, which comes at the behest of the Islamic bloc.
What does this mean and why does it matter? To you and me on the street in Britain – not a lot in any immediate sense. Israel is far away and who really cares what the rulers of tyrannical states actually do to their own people?
Well, this is why it matters. First and foremost, it is a near-requirement of leftwing politics that we regard the UN and the international community as having more legitimacy than nation states. But we have to scrutinise our own feelings on this and ask why this is the case? We all still believe in nation states, indeed the UN does, it is in the founding charter that the right to national self-determination shall not be breached.
So what then? Is it a belief in the morality of the UN? That by representing almost all the world, then the “united voice” of the international community holds a greater moral sanction than the voice of one man?
Well, patently this is rubbish. Less than half the governments represented at the UN were actually elected and many are outright tyrannies. What does a tyranny mean? It means a government that routinely denies its citizens the right to free speech, human rights, secure property against an arbitrary state and all the things that make life in the West so bearable.
Why have these countries been given moral gravitas by the left? Because they are anti-American. Why are they anti-American? Simple. The USA is not a tyranny, it does not always support tyrannies and indeed has a history of removing them from power. If the US were an empire like the Soviet Union, you could see a lot of these nations sucking up the US for fear of reprisal and envy of emulation.
In sum, the United Nations has to be looked at in the light of the 1940s. The UN was established primarily with the aim of being a body of arbitration between the great powers, Britain, France, the USA and USSR. Moral authority (misplaced in the UN, in any case) can achieve very little without the apparatus of the state. The UN can ask for troops to enforce resolutions but without co-operation this means very little.
Can anyone imagine the UN calling for troops to stop the US and her allies invading Iraq in 2003? For a start, the USA and Britain would have vetoed any resolution and in the theoretical circumstances of abstention, what could physically be done? The European nations have no control over the seas – that’s the US Navy’s prerogative, the Russian fleet is inferior and smaller, the Chinese navy small and still relatively backwards. And given the frightening display of military prowess in 1991 and 2003, Russia and China would not engage western troops at long range.
So on a practical basis the UN proves to be what it was originally, a talking shop for the world, moderated by the Great Powers. But why are we concerned about the subversion of the human rights organisations? Because we still look to the UN as a source of international legitimacy and morality.

It is time for the West to abandon the UN or close it down in its entirety. The UN is a corrupt and weak institution, which cannot manage to wield any authority, moral or real, in the 21st Century.
It would be better for an alliance similar to NATO to be set up, first and foremost a military alliance, as the military are the primary arm of the state. Such an alliance can only consist of democracies committed to the defence of human rights, international peace and order. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have no place in such an alliance, indeed with the exception of China they are the enemies what such an alliance would mean.
End the UN and free the world from the dead grasping fingers of tyranny.