From meisenscher@igc.org Mon Jun 18 07:14:14 2001
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:43:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@igc.org>
Subject: DEBUNKING MOVIE MYTHS: SOME CLASS TRUTH ABOUT PEARL HARBOR
Article: 121183
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
From: Philip Oke
<philipoke@earthlink.net>
A young couple's romance is disrupted by a foreign enemy's unprovoked attack on a peaceful Pacific isle.
That's the mythical tale depicted in Pearl Harbor,
the
blockbuster film produced by the Walt Disney Co., chock full of
Hollywood stars and state-of-the-art special effects.
Pearl Harbor
opened Memorial Day weekend to unprecedented
commercial and political hype. It claims to tell the story of the
Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese air attack on the U.S. Navy station in
Hawaii. The film depicts a reluctant United States being dragged into
World War II by Japanese aggression.
With the Pentagon's blessing, the producers shot much of the film aboard Navy vessels at the real Pearl Harbor.
Ironically, the film's release coincides with the U.S. government's behind-the-scenes effort to bolster resurgent militarist forces in Japan with the aim of building an imperialist military alliance against the People's Republic of China. Untold millions of Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and other Asian peasants and workers died fighting Japan's brutal colonial occupation of their countries during the 1930s and 1940s.
A film like Pearl Harbor
has the potential to mislead millions
of workers and young people about the real nature of World War II and
the U.S. role in it.
Japanese American and other Asian American groups say it could also spark a new wave of racist violence against Asian people in this country. They note that all of the Asian people in the film are depicted as enemies.
At a Los Angeles rally calling for a boycott of Pearl Harbor,
Floyd Mori, president of the Japanese American Citizens League, said,
No matter what we achieve ... how far we've come in this
country, when the topic of Pearl Harbor comes up, we're always
dragged back to the event.
(Reuters, May 21)
Other speakers noted that there's no mention of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the war's end, nor of the round-up of Japanese American civilians into prison camps.
So what is it that Disney, the Pentagon and crew are trying to hide behind the love story and multi-million-dollar special effects?
First of all, for the U.S. government, big business and the military,
World War II wasn't a war against fascism.
It was a war
among the imperialist powers to redivide the world's riches.
In the Pacific, that meant a war with Japan for control of the natural resources, labor and markets of Asia. Wall Street and Washington were itching for a fight.
Pearl Harbor, in a military-political sense, was very much like the
beginning of the Spanish-American War,
wrote Vince Copeland, the
founding editor of Workers World, in his 1968 pamphlet Expanding
Empire.
The Battleship Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor in 1898, and
Washington used it as an excuse to declare war on Spain. But Spain
needed the sinking of the Maine like it needed the proverbial hole in
the head. And U.S. big business needed a war with Spain.
This is not to say that the Dec. 7, 1941, attack was in itself a
hoax or that the Japanese did not really kill over 3,000 U.S. sailors
by sending them to the bottom of Pearl Harbor,
Copeland continued.
They did. But some thoughtful people later considered it strange
that the Japanese imperialists should have done something so
‘stupid’ as to bring the U.S. into the war against them
just when they had their hands full in China and had taken over
Indochina from the French imperialists. ... Why on earth would the
Japanese want the powerful U.S. to make war on them at just such a
time, when they needed U.S. neutrality more than anything else?
he
asked.
The fact is that the Japan-U.S. war was inevitable, given the
U.S.-Japanese antagonisms over markets, possessions and economic
colonies in Asia. But the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not at
all inevitable. It was not the inevitable beginning of the war.
On the contrary,
Copeland asserted, this attack was
deliberately maneuvered by the politicians of big business, led at
that time by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
It must be remembered that Japan wasn't the only brutal colonial power in Asia. Britain ruled India and Hong Kong with an iron fist. France dominated Southeast Asia.
The United States had taken possession of the Philippines, Guam and other Pacific islands during the Spanish-American War. From 1900 onward, Washington bloodily suppressed continual uprisings by the Filipino people.
And then there was Hawaii itself, the site of Pearl Harbor- robbed from its Indigenous inhabitants by U.S. gunboat diplomacy.
Although Pearl Harbor is best remembered, Japan also targeted U.S. military bases throughout the Pacific on Dec. 7, 1941.
The war between Japan and the United States had its roots in the imperialist redivision of the world that took place after World War I ended. At that time Washington became the senior partner in the U.S.-British-Japanese alliance that dominated China.
In the book A Political History of Japanese Capitalism,
Jon
Halliday writes about the agreement signed at a 1921 Washington
conference on China:
The imperialist powers who gathered at Washington all agreed on one
thing: that they should continue to plunder China and exploit the
Chinese people. In [Japanese Premier] Saito's words, the
arrangement ‘which emerged from the Washington Conference could
be said to be based on a new form of suppressing China.‘
But Japan's ruling class and military caste chafed in the role of
junior partner
assigned to them by the Western
imperialists-especially after the Great Depression took
hold. Following the capitalist law of expand or die,
Japan came
into open conflict with U.S.-British domination of the region and of
China in particular.
As Japanese exports grew to the detriment of the Western powers, and as the Japanese army clashed with the U.S.- backed Nationalist army of Chiang Kai-shek in China, Washington hit back with tariffs and racist laws banning Asian immigration and property ownership.
Although most of Southeast Asia was in the hands of European
powers, Japan's key negotiations were with the United States,
wrote Halliday. This was not primarily because of America's
colonial possession in Asia, the Philippines, but because of
America's key role in Japan's trade, particularly in strategic
raw materials.
The United States began seriously to squeeze Japan in July 1940
when it introduced a licensing system for certain U.S. exports to
that country. The two crucial items, crude oil and scrap iron, were
added to the list after Japan occupied Northern Indochina in September
1940. A full embargo followed on July 26, 1941.
The American embargo, particularly on oil, severely limited
Japan's ability to maneuver,
Halliday explained. Much of
Japanese diplomacy prior to December 1941 was taken up with trying to
secure supplies of oil. ... Prior to Pearl Harbor, Japan had only
about 18 months' supply.
In November 1941, when the talks with Washington were already well
advanced, Japan proposed universal non- discrimination in commercial
relations in the Pacific area, including China, if this principle were
adopted throughout the world. To the United States ... this was
‘unthinkable.’ Japan was, on the whole, eager to reach a
settlement and offered considerable concessions to this end.
Halliday concludes that America could certainly have reached a
temporary settlement within the framework of an imperialist carve-up
which gave Japan slightly more than it had been granted in Washington
in 1921-22. It was America which turned down the Japanese proposal for
a summit meeting between Premier Konoe and Roosevelt in autumn
1941. And it was Secretary of State Cordell Hull's outright
rejection of Japan's proposals of Nov. 7, 1941, which brought
negotiations to a halt.
U.S. imperialism, Copeland writes in Expanding Empire,
maneuvered Japan into firing the first shot
so that Washington
would appear to be waging a defensive war. This was vital, since
anti-war sentiment remained strong at home.
Copeland refers to a revealing document first published in the 1947
book President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War
by historian
Charles A. Beard. It's an excerpt from the diary of
Roosevelt's Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, dated Nov. 25,
1941-about two weeks before the Pearl Harbor attack.
Then at 12 o'clock we went to the White House, where we were
until nearly half past one,
Stimson wrote. At the meeting were
Hull, Knox, Marshall, Stark and myself. There the President
... brought up entirely the relations with the Japanese. He brought up
the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday, for
the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and
the question was what should we do.
The question was how much we should maneuver them into the position
of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to
ourselves.
So the political and military leaders in Washington, especially after they moved to choke off Japan's lifeline of oil, knew an attack was coming. It was, after all, the pretext they were hoping for to extend U.S. military and economic control in Asia.
But no warning was given to the sailors at Pearl Harbor.