| |||||||
![]() Related articles from The Atlantic's archives: "The Kamikazes Rise Again" (March 2001) This time, to help Japan confront its past. By Murray Sayle |
![]() Flashbacks Pearl Harbor in Retrospect May 25, 2001 In July, 1948, Major General Sherman Miles, the chief of Army intelligence between 1940 and 1942, wrote "Pearl Harbor in Retrospect," in which he examined why the base at Pearl Harbor was so dismally ill-prepared for the attack and looked at what was known and communicated at the time among government, intelligence, and military leaders. It has since been implied that the reason Hawaii was not on the alert was that Washington thought the Japanese would not attack there. That suggestion points up very neatly the crucial issue. For the opposite was true—Washington thought the Japanese would not attack Hawaii largely because it believed Hawaii was alerted and prepared.Miles likened the events to classical tragedy: for him, looking back, it was as if the disaster arose inexorably from Japan's belief "that the incredible might happen and Hawaii be surprised"—and from dangerous negligence by military leaders in Hawaii. David M. Kennedy, in his March, 1999, article, "Victory at Sea," traced the dramatic story of how World War II was waged upon the oceans. He began with a look at the attack on Pearl Harbor, through which "a few hundred Japanese pilots enormously widened the arc of naval war, and transformed its very nature." Kennedy contended that, contrary to popular belief, Japan's attack represented not suicidal folly, but a calculated risk. The plan was hugely ambitious but not mad. Its slender logic resided for the most part in the hope that the isolationist and militarily unprepared Americans would be so stunned by Japan's lightning blows that they would lose the will to fight a protracted war, and would accept a negotiated settlement guaranteeing Japan a free hand in Asia. All the Japanese planners understood that a conventional victory, ending in the complete defeat of the United States, was an impossibility.In December, 1991, James Fallows's article "Remember Pearl Harbor How?" described Japan's paranoia, in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor's fiftieth anniversary, about a possible backlash of anti-Japanese feelings in the United States. However the United States responds to the Pearl Harbor observances, it cannot possibly meet the expectations that have been building up in Japan. Indeed, by far the most interesting part of the fiftieth anniversary is the way Japan's opinion-making class—its popular press and foreign-policy specialists—has prepared the public to cringe in dread of U.S. outbursts this month.Fallows pointed out that Japan's intense uneasiness about Pearl Harbor was somewhat surprising, considering that, by contrast, the fiftieth anniversary of the Rape of Nanking "had passed almost unnoticed in Japan." He speculated that part of the explanation may have been that the Japanese anticipated being "victimized"—fifty years later—by a wrathful America as it remembered the sting of Pearl Harbor. Discuss this article in |