Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, left, gave his famous “Infamy Speech” shortly before Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, in response to the surprise morning attack on Pearl Harbor, right, on December 7, 1941.
On December 7, 1941, Japanese bombers launched an early morning surprise attack on Pearl Harbor Naval Base in Hawaii, which destroyed 188 U.S. aircraft, killed 2,403 Americans and injured 1,178. Presidential Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed Congress on December 8, 1941, in what became known as the famous Infamy Speech delivered at 12:30 P.M. ET. The address is regarded as one of the most famous American political speeches of the 20th century.
That very day, just one day after the attack, the U.S. Congress declared war on the Empire of Japan, ushering in U.S. involvement in World War II.
But many Americans have a distorted version of history, one which even the Discovery Channel and History Channel specials have perpetuated with little mainstream pushback. America’s entry into the war was long underway before Japanese pilots ever took off from their assaulting aircraft carriers.
The importance of the Anglo-American alliance, a 20th century progressive worldview held by former Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, enabled him to reason leading Americans into World War I. In the years leading up to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt’s agreement with this worldview made him inclined to favor U.S. intervention in the war in Europe, and he made policy decisions in accordance with this inclination.
Modern progressives reconcile the real historical record by distorting it further, just as long as it fits with their modern-day cause. “Few people realize that it was oil — the shortage of oil — that precipitated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941,” the liberal-progressive outlet Salon published last year on this very day.
Because big oil is now the enemy of the left, which has moved in an increasingly radical direction, they highlight this part of the story and leave out — well — the other 99 percent.
While a multitude of so-called “moderate” Democrats have been sacrificed on the altar of global warming by party leadership — including, in part, their House and Senate majorities, i.e. most recently Sen. Mary Landrieu — there haven’t been too many facing defeats over scrap metal.
That’s right, scrap metal. U.S. embargo policies on scrap metal, steel and various other items — one being oil, which only came much later — prompted the fascist empire to attack Pearl Harbor. In October of 1940, a year before the oil embargo, Secretary of State Cordell Hull wrote to Roosevelt regarding his meeting with Japanese Ambassador Kensuke Horinouchi, who at that time made it very clear “conquest by force of all worthwhile territory in the Pacific Ocean area” would only be moved up if the U.S. insisted on the embargo policy.
However, while conservative “America First” Republicans such as Henry Stimson, who was appointed to head up the War Department, held out hope that the Japanese were bluffing, progressives like Mr. Hull hoped they were not. For Mr. Hull, who ironically was more restrained toward Japan than other progressives in the Roosevelt Administration, believed Japan was “a challenge to international order, civilized behavior, and the open door.”
The “open door” referred to U.S. and European big business interests in China and greater Indochina, hardly an industry confined to oil. The idea that Oil led to Pearl Harbor, as Slate declared, is an oversimplified and borderline bogus interpretation.
But progressive internationalists, who wanted a global body to keep the world stable for their business partners, couldn’t actually tell the public their intentions. That just wouldn’t have been an easy sell to the American people, who still favored conservative “America First” isolationism.
Former President Wilson justified U.S. intervention in World War I by calling it an American duty to preserve freedom, arguing “the world must be made safe for democracy.” He didn’t say “the world must be made safe for” my multinational corporate cronies.
President Roosevelt went one step further, belittling the fact “our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are of no concern to us” in his national radio address on December 29, 1940. In his radio remarks — which were made both before the oil embargo and almost exactly one year before the fateful attack — he argued that the U.S. must play a greater role in the world to further the cause of freedom.
“We must be the great arsenal of democracy,” he said. (As a side note, the once great city of Detroit, which took the nickname “Arsenal of Democracy” for its role in World War II, is now broke.)
Yet, the attack on Pearl Harbor was sold to the American public as an unprovoked attack, as was the Lusitania. In reality, Wilson’s and Roosevelt’s worldview led to policy decisions that left Germany — and then the Empire of Japan — with little choice but to launch such attacks.
New York World-Telegram dated December 8, 1941, was one of many around the nation printing headlines of the Pearl Harbor attack and the subsequent congressional vote to declare war.
While each of these tragedies are horrific and public outrage over them more than just, we would be fooling ourselves if we didn’t acknowledge the truth. Allowing progressive politicians, or any group of politicians who believe they are smarter than us to pull the wool over our eyes, isn’t patriotism — it’s blind ignorance.
That said, I not only support the eradication of fascism and all its horrors, but recognize what an equally horrific world dominated by fascists would look like. As a result, I also support President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan rather than invade, costing hundreds of thousands if not a million American lives.
However, I do so with the realization that sometimes “better them than us” truly does make sense. I do so with the full knowledge that both Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt did what proponents of big government do best — create crisis to expand government and further crony interests. I do so with the sad understanding that cronyism was infinitely furthered by the post-World War II world order, an order they promised the “Greatest Generation” was meant to protect their freedom.
If we are to truly honor those who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor, as well as the 407,000 American lives lost as a result of direct military action in World War II, then we must recognize the whole story, not just the parts that fit political agendas or appeal to nationalistic fervor.
Richard D. Baris is the editor of People’s Pundit Daily and author of Our Virtuous Republic: The Forgotten Clause in the American Social Contract.
View Roosevelt’s Entire Infamy Speech Below:
The most damning journalistic sin committed by the media during the era of Russia collusion…
The first ecological study finds mask mandates were not effective at slowing the spread of…
On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris note how big tech…
On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris discuss why America First…
Personal income fell $1,516.6 billion (7.1%) in February, roughly the consensus forecast, while consumer spending…
Research finds those previously infected by or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 are not at risk of…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
As a liberal and a veteran, I find author Baris' apologist version of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to be a festival of half-truths. Yes, the Japanese attacked the United States because their oil (and steel) were cut. But Baris fails to mention that the Japanese had not only waged a brutally aggressive campaign of imperialist expansion throughout Asia - including attacking US protectorates and allies in the region. The atrocities of Japan's actions in Asia were grossly under-reported in the press before 1941, and the oil embargo was the U.S.'s attempt to slow Japan's expansion (and aggression). Regardless of what Roosevelt (or Hull or Stimson) wanted, war was coming to the United States either in Asia or in Europe. The assumption on Baris' part seems to be "The U.S. deserved Japan's aggression because...Roosevelt," is tantamount to a wife-beater saying "I hit you because you made me mad, and you shouldn't make me mad because you know I'll hit you."
This guy is full of shit. Period.
The oil embargo was a result of the invasion of French Indochina by Japan--an attempt to cut off the flow of arms and supplies into China. At the time, Chinese citizens were being tortured, murdered, raped, and enslaved by the Japanese--a 1930s version of ISIS, writ large. This barbarism was literally fueled by U.S. oil--accounting for 80% of Japan's supply. So--you believe that the Unites States should have continued to sell oil to Japan? Really?
The idea that Japan had "no choice" but to attack Pearl Harbor after the U.S. oil embargo is clearly, obviously false. Here's another option: Japan could have withdrawn from its brutal relentless regime of war, slavery, rape, torture and murder.
The military minds that were the real power inside Empire of Japan at the time were extremely conservative and based their military operations on the ancient principles of Bushido - a cultural code in which any enemy of the Japanese master race was inhuman and required no mercy. Soldiers under the command of Bushido - driven superiors were encouraged to butcher anyone who stood in their way by any creative means possible and leave indelible impressions on the survivors of their carnage in order to assure their absolute compliance with their new owners. Any and all of this is well-documented everywhere - except in Japan's history books, that is.
Which embargo are you referring to? You, have no idea what you are talking about. The embargoes weren't imposed all at once. You do know that don't you? Don't be a fool, what I wrote is exactly what happened, even if it hurts your feelings.
See http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets. YOU are the fool.
Your take on Truman's bombing of Japan needs updating. No such choice existed btwn bombs and soliders. Surrender was imminent, without emperor. It was coldblooded murder by Truman. He should have hung for war crimes on civilians for a power display for USSR.
Nonsense...You're just plain wrong...
" Surrender was imminent"... Nope, you got that wrong too...
Google this site.... American Military Leaders Urge President Truman not to Drop the Atomic Bomb. Its true.
anyone can find a small minority dissent for any military or political activity.. a very tiny minority... listened to, and dismissed.. for all the right reasons...
obviously you didn't read it. There were more generals and admirals there than you can shake a quirt at. No small minority. War crimes have a way of bringing out the most in people. If you have evidence of them being refuted, then post it. Hard to refute a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention. Bombing civilians is wrong. It's not like he missed a military target and accidentally hit a major city.
Evidence by Google, Great...I pronounce you nuts. I did try and look up "SHAKE A QUIRT AT" but not much luck with that either...
(there were over 1200 generals and admirals in ww2, so your number is a tiny minority... get used to it, you are in the minority opinion dating back to 1945)
The fact that you would support the bombing of civilians pretty much says it all. No sense arguing with degenerate mentality. The article about generals is from a book by that goes into great detail about this crime and the many efforts by people who tried to stop it or spoke out against it. You said there were none. The book proves you wrong. If you care to reply, please bring some facts to the table. Here's the website....one of many to present historical facts exposing Truman's act as unnecessary, let alone a war crime. http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm Look further and you'll find the book.
But I suppose facts don't really interest you. You are like the loyal solider who will support his emperor no matter how many innocents he murdered. No sense in letting a little international law and moral compunction cloud your loyalties.
Here is a letter from MacArthur stating clearly the unnecessary act of dropping the bomb.
and his statement that the other high ranking leaders of the Allies did not need the A bomb. You may have heard of him. I hope this is satisfactory. I can't find any generals higher ranking than him. http://wagingpeacetoday.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-unnecessary-bombing-of-hiroshima-67.html
Until the Geneva Convention, there were myriad International laws against bombing civilians.
The saddest part about this thread, is that I am more conservative than anyone commenting. However, I am also not a blind idiot, and everything I wrote is, in fact, true -- backed-up by Wilson and Roosevelt's own records. Sadly, some cannot come to grips with the culpability we have in WWII or other wars, which is not what you would expect from self-proclaimed conservatives, who should always be weary of government action-inaction and lies. Blind patriotism, pathetic.
You REALLY need to get a life....
Wishful thinking. Some elements in Japan acknowledged that they had lost, but the head military brass wasn't buying it. Dying for the Emperor was the height of personal honor in a way that westerners don't quite consider or even comprehend. Defeat before dishonor and as long as there was one person left to fight on, they weren't defeated.
What a load of biased buffalo chips. Anyone with any knowledge of the 1930's knows that the embargoes were a result of Japanese incursion into China, including the "Rape of Nanking" in 1937. The embargoes are equivalent to today's sanctions that have been leveled against Russia for it's incursion in Ukraine.
Which embargo? You, as with the last commentator, have no idea what you are talking about. The embargoes weren't imposed all at once. You do know that don't you? Don't be a fool, what I wrote is exactly what happened, even if it hurts your feelings.
Revisionist history is fabricated the same way today as it was back when Josef Goebbels was running his propaganda ministry, and this article is an excellent 21st century example.
It takes snippets of fact out of context, mixes them with jingoistic phrasing and uses the opportunity to invert the results in order support a false conclusion.
One obvious example (quoting from the article}:
"That’s right, scrap metal. U.S. embargo policies on scrap metal, steel and various other items — one being oil, which only came much later — prompted the fascist empire to attack Pearl Harbor."
Correct on only one point - Roosevelt's oil embargo on Japan DID come much later after the scrap metal prohibition--- AFTER Japan used all that scrap metal to build battleships, Zeros and tanks and rape Nanking. The objective was to slow down Japan's advance through the western Pacific region. Roosevelt had to know he could not stop it, however, because Japan went straight for the Indonesian oil fields thereafter. Retarding Japan's murderous advance through Asia was just about the only thing that could be done until the Empire of Japan did something that justified a formal declaration of war. So the Premise in this article is spurious at best and fabricated claptrap at best.
Then, the author presumes to rely on the usual neoconservative's short-term selective memory with this ridiculous statement aimed at people other than tea baggers (again, quoting):
" I do so with the full knowledge that both Wilson and Roosevelt did what proponents of big government do best — create crisis to expand government and further crony interests."
This is not only patently absurd but ignores a few other facts... Henry Ford's cozy relationship with the Reich's Krupp Armament steel works and Prescott Bush's petroleum technology exchange with Speer's ministry of production for the possible creation of synthetic lubrication oil. And then there's the most obvious deliberate omission of all: the yellow cake and aluminum tubes gambit that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld used to ratchet up their fabricated Iraq war.
Even more facts: the Republican party did everything they could to block the Lend-Lease programs to Great Britain before the war and in fact was adamantly against any aid to anyone involved in the European theater of war - in fact I recall an article in the old New York Tribune which chronicled a Republican political rally in the city on December 7th, 1941 where one of the speakers at that event was ranting on over "...that socialist Roosevelt trying to get us involved in foreign entanglements"... then as the news among the crowd spread that Pearl Harbor had been attached, the theater began to empty, and the speaker was still screaming epithets against Roosevelt, Henry Wallace and others.
This author is probably the same guy who's rewriting the school book history texts for the state of Texas - the ones in which Thomas Jefferson is omitted because of his position on the subject of separation of church and state and replacing him with Moses as being one of the founding fathers. And as far as that goes, perhaps the author should read the article that Wallace wrote for the New York Times written on April 9, 1944 entitled "The Danger of American Fascism" (easily Googled). Though I suspect this author wouldn't deign to sully his preconceived beliefs with anything that might threaten them, it is nevertheless a worthwhile read as well as a visionary glimpse into America's future at the time it was written.
It's disgusting when people like this rely on today's woefully lacking education curriculum which almost completely overlooks American History and takes advantage of that ignorance to spread bigoted inaccuracies, revisionist fiction and distorted facts inserted in contexts loaded with biased agendas.
This story makes the rounds every so often -- Japan was starved for oil by US policy, hence Pearl Harbor.
A war uses a lot of energy -- ships, manufacturing, aircraft -- it's never been properly explained how Japan, down on her knees and struggling for oil, suddenly had enough of the stuff to invade and hold several nations and hold them for years, all while maintaining a huge war machine.
Let's hope that what Americans "remember" about this event is that it was the template for what the neocon Project for a New American Century called "a new Pearl Harbor" - the attacks of 9/11/01 which, just like its predecessor, was allowed to happen by our military leaders and White House in order to justify engaging in yet another global war.
Weather forecast for Hawaii, December 7th, 1941: partly cloudy, with a little nip in the air
More shameful liberal blame-the-victim nonsense. I'm sure this version will make the rounds on MSNBC.
Many things I have been called, but liberal - nay. Read the column again, in its entirety. It is very critical of liberalism and liberal internationalism.