This essay challenges the conventional view of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor as a straightforward military tragedy. It argues instead that the true tragedy lay in the series of missed diplomatic opportunities, economic provocations, and racially charged misunderstandings that made the attack—and the broader Pacific War—nearly inevitable. Drawing on historical accounts of U.S.–Japan negotiations, American trade embargoes, and the subsequent atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the paper contends that persistent jingoistic and xenophobic interpretations of Pearl Harbor continue to obscure the underlying causes of the conflict and prevent genuine historical reckoning.
The December 7, 1941, attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor shocked the American public and precipitated the country's entry into World War II. The mark it left on the United States' culture and public consciousness was arguably not rivaled until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Because of the surprise nature of the attack and the massive casualties, Pearl Harbor has been regarded as a tragedy by historians and the public alike. Viewing the attack in this way, however, actually precludes an effective understanding of the events surrounding the attack, its aftermath, and the true tragedy of the whole affair.
Examining the attack on Pearl Harbor with a sober eye allows one to understand that the true tragedy was not the military lives lost on December 7, but rather the fact that the attack—and indeed the subsequent war between the United States and Japan—could have been prevented had either side been able to move past its ignorant, racist assumptions about the other. Had both nations chosen to engage as equals rather than escalate tensions through a series of shortsighted, punitive measures, the war might never have occurred. Realizing this allows one to further understand how the tragedy of Pearl Harbor is an ongoing one that continues to this day. By framing Pearl Harbor as a ruthless surprise attack by a dishonorable opponent on the noble United States, popular interpretations of the attack only serve to reinforce the very same attitudes that led to the escalation of hostilities in the first place.
Before discussing how the true tragedy of Pearl Harbor lies in the misunderstanding and animosity fueled by racism and ignorance, it is necessary to confront the popular view of the attack directly by suggesting that the deaths of 2,402 American service members, while regrettable, is far from a tragedy in any meaningful sense of the word. Any responsible view of history should not consider these particular deaths to be the primary reason the attack should be regarded as a tragedy. This will likely sound overly callous to anyone accustomed to the usual jingoistic rhetoric surrounding historical discussions of the United States military, especially during World War II, but this statement is both accurate and useful. To understand why, one must consider the true purpose of a military and what it represents.
The death of any member of the military is, by definition, not a tragedy—or at least is only a tragedy in the sense that the death of any conscious being may be considered one. Despite claims that the ostensible purpose of a military is to defend freedom, "the homeland," or "our way of life," at its most basic a military exists to kill people and destroy property as a means of producing a desired result, whether that be political change, genocide, or economic dominance. As a defensive entity, a military exists to be killed or destroyed before civilians and their property, or else to kill and destroy the aggressor. A military can never be truly noble or just, because by definition it represents a failure of society to effectively deploy human intellectual capacity in the resolution of conflict. Although some might claim that in certain cases military intervention is absolutely necessary—Hitler is often invoked as the hypothetical foe against whom violence is always the only answer—even in such cases any situation in which military action is supposedly the sole option may ultimately be traced back to a failure of society and ideology.
Thus, the deaths of the American service members at Pearl Harbor are not a tragedy in themselves, but rather represent the fulfillment of one of the military's purposes. As they failed to repel the attacking Japanese forces, they at least served as a legitimate target of aggression for Japan, which was ultimately retaliating for the economic destruction inflicted by the United States. To pretend that the United States has ever treated human lives as something inherently worth more than their economic potential is to disregard the dominant theme of American history up to and including the present.
Due to Japan's relatively small size and lack of indigenous resources, "Japan in 1941 was heavily dependent on outside sources for the minerals, petroleum and other raw materials needed to fuel its economy," and its goal in the years leading up to the attack "was to insulate the region from worldwide depression by allowing raw materials to flow into Japan for conversion into manufactured goods for the limitless Chinese market, thereby ensuring freedom from Western economic domination."[1] However, as Japan put this plan into action through its brutal assault and occupation of China, the United States attempted to counter its expansion into Asia. "The passage of the Export Control Act gave the President an excuse to retaliate against Japanese expansion without appearing to be punitive," and so President Roosevelt imposed an embargo on scrap iron and steel, followed shortly by a prohibition on "the exportation of aviation fuel and lubricants to all but Great Britain and the Western Hemisphere countries."[2]
Although this was not the most punitive measure the United States would take, it hampered Japan's plans to the degree that in 1941 a new Japanese ambassador was sent to Washington in the hopes of negotiating a deal. He offered "a freeze on Japanese military operations in China and initiation of negotiations with Chiang Kai-shek [the leader of those portions of China not under Japanese control], who still exercised a precarious sway over its unoccupied provinces," in return for "a lifting of embargoes of critical materials, resumption of normal trade with the United States, U.S. assistance in restoring the flow of raw materials from Southeast Asia, and exertion of influence on Chiang Kai-shek to open peace negotiations with Japan."[3] The United States' response demonstrated the condescension with which it viewed Japan and marked one of the crucial junctures at which understanding, rather than ignorance, could have prevented the thousands of deaths to come.
"Hull's four points and petroleum embargo derail negotiations"
"Foreknowledge theory reframed as evidence of racial bias"
"Atomic bombings as consequence of Pearl Harbor trauma"
Examining the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor with an eye toward the underlying assumptions governing the decision-making process of the United States reveals that the true tragedy of the event is the way in which it was almost inevitably precipitated due to both nations' belligerence and ignorance of each other. At numerous points in the run-up to the attack, the United States had an opportunity to defuse hostilities, but rather than meeting Japan on equal negotiating terms, it opted to impose devastating economic sanctions to the point that Japan came to see war as the only remaining option.
You’re 46% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.