Some Debates on 8 December

Eighth December(Japan time), 2011, was the 70th anniversary of Japan's Declaration of War on the US and the UK. This writer, then a primary school boy, still remembers the one-sentence announcement by Japan's Combined Army and Navy Command, broadcast over the radio, which was 'The Imperial Army and Navy(there was no independent Air Force) went into action with the US and British forces in the Western Pacific early today, 8 December'.
The Declaration of War was too difficult for him to comprehend. But gradually it became clear what it was saying. The Anglo-Americans were firm in backing the Chinese Nationalist Government in Chunkiang, were increasing their economic and military threat against Japan, and there is no other way for us to stick to our self-existence and self-defense than to go to war.
Since this was the 70th anniversary, there were more debates than usual on how the war was started, why, and so on. Here are two of them.
One was a TV discussion on 8 December itself on the circumstances of attacking the main US naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. One of the Japanese Ambassadors at Washington(there were two at the time), as the last resort in his view to avoid the war, called an Embassy officer with an American wife, and ordered him to find ways and means to request President Roosevelt to send a wire directly to the Japanese Emperor asking him not to go to war. I do not know if this episode has been known before. FDR duly obliged, and the Japanese side received his telegram. But it was withheld by the military for the crucial ten days, and was shown to the Emperor only minutes before the attack. The majority opinion of the participants was that even if it had been shown to him in time, he could not have gone against the Cabinet and the two Chiefs of Staff he had himself appointed. The decision to go to war on 8th itself was taken at the Conference on 1st with him present.
Another was a newspaper article by Prof.Nemoto Kei of Sophia University on the way Japan started the war on 8th.
According to him, it is wrong to consider the attack on Pearl Harbour as the start of the war. The Japanese troops landed at Kota Bharu on the east coast of the British Malay 65 minutes before. It can be explained in two ways. First, this was a war intended to invade and occupy Southeast Asia. Second, in the case of Pearl Harbour, Japan at least tried to deliver some document, even if it was short of a formal declaration of war and not in time for the attack. But in the case of Southeast Asia there was no such attempt at all. This would show that it was an invasion.
If, he continues, therefore, we call the war the "Pacific War", it will give us a wrong idea that it was a war between Japan and the US, and we were defeated by the US material power. The fact is that it was an invasion and occupation of Southeast Asia, and to be called the "Asia-Pacific War". The war with China was also continuing. Only then we may realize that we were also defeated by the resistance and nationalism of the Southeast Asian people.
This writer agrees with Prof.Nemoto's view. He would also like to add that the whole series of the wars the modern Japan fought for fifty years can best be understood if we turn them chronologically upside down and start from examning why we fought with the Anglo-Americans. If we do so we will come to the conclusion that it was to win the on-going war with China which we were not able to win, and to obtain the resources in Southeast Asia for that purpose.
Next time we will talk about an Indian lady, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, who hinted at a very creative view of the Second World War.