• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Japan Attacked Pearl Harbor

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor for different reasons:-
  • President Roosevelt had banned all exports of scrap iron, steel and oil to Japan. The reason for the embargo was the Japanese invasion of China. Japan had lost more than 90% of its oil supply. This crippled their economy and military.
  • The belief that Western powers were hostile to Japan.
  • The United States wanted Japan to withdraw from Indo-China.
  • The US opposed Japanese expansion and Japan’s demands were not being achieved by diplomacy.
  • The Japanese were keen on expanding their empire and had to make a decision between surrendering or going to war with the United States.
  • They wanted the US to acquiesce to their expansion into Asia.
  • Pearl Harbor was the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Japan did not want the U.S. in the war because the U.S at this time had the greatest Naval force. They concluded that if the Pacific Fleet was destroyed, Americans would feel demoralized and not want to fight.
  • The belief that Japan could defeat the United States. They convinced themselves that a devastating attack would dishearten the Americans and lead to cracks in the fabric of the American society that would threaten its stability.

READ THE REST: Why did Japan Attack Pearl Harbor?
 

And so we just annihilated them.

I guess it didn't work out too well.

But it is important to know - it seems that people, shows, etc - tend to mull over the extreme situation (ie: the act of attacking Pearl Harbor) rather than the preceding yet more important events to comprehend and avoid in the future (aka: why they were led to the extreme situation).
 
The U.S. embargo cut off oil needed to fuel the Japanese war machine. The only months supply left, the aggressive government had to choose between invading the Indonesian oil and giving up on its imperial ambitions. Technically, they didn't need to declare war on the U.S. to do that, but leaving the Phillipines unguarded would have been a major risk if the U.S. had decided to intervene anyways. It is quite ironic that the architect of the plan to attack pearl harbor was actually against the war itself. Yamamoto recognized the might of the U.S. industrial base and new that there was no hope in a drawn out struggle.
 
Japan attacked pearl harbor because we stopped exporting oil to them and yeah that's right at one time the U.S. EXPORTED oil haha
 
I read that Stalin played an intelligence and propaganda campaign in Japan, because he didn't want a two front war.
 
Hmmm, let's look at this, shall we?

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor for different reasons:-
•President Roosevelt had banned all exports of scrap iron, steel and oil to Japan. The reason for the embargo was the Japanese invasion of China. Japan had lost more than 90% of its oil supply. This crippled their economy and military.

Not true. Because Japan had occupied part of China legally since 1919. That's right, Japan was occupying China since the end of the First World War, when they took over the German Occupation District.

What the US and other nations objected to was the attempts by Japan to expand their area of occupation, to be specific the Rape of Nanking, and other similar atrocities done by Japan. If they had not done such actions, they still would have occupied China, and there would not have been an embargo.

•The belief that Western powers were hostile to Japan.

Not true. It was their belief that no Western powers had a right to be in Asia, and that all should be removed. Look into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and you will see what it is they wanted.

•The United States wanted Japan to withdraw from Indo-China.

Not true. The United States, England, Germany (and then Japan), France, Russia (ended with the creation of the USSR), Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Spain, and the Netherlands all occupied parts of China.

However, none of these other powers were action in a warlike and expansionistic manner to the people of China.

•The US opposed Japanese expansion and Japan’s demands were not being achieved by diplomacy.

Well, this makes no sense, but I will try and make sense of it.

Yes, the US was opposed to the expansionism of Japan in China. The entire concept of the Foreign Occupation was to try and bring civility to the Chinese Civil Wars. The hope was that the nations could help bring stability to the region, and safeguard the cities and most of the people. They kept trading districts and ports open, and ensured that law and order was maintained. And that once a strong central government came to power (which was starting to happen by the 1930's), they could pull out their foreign forces and maintain trade colonies to maintain trade and relations (like Hong Kong).

However, the Japanese wanted to control everything. And there was no diplomatic answer, since the Japanese wanted everything. How can you negotiate with that?

Leage of Nations Diplomat: How about we give you a bigger region to control along the Yangtze River?
Japanese Diplomat: It is all ours, everybody else must leave.
LON Diplomat: Well, how about more land to control to the North?
Japanese Diplomat: It is all ours, everybody else must leave.

How do you negotiate with that?

•The Japanese were keen on expanding their empire and had to make a decision between surrendering or going to war with the United States.

True. And that is what caused the war, not the fact that they were an Empire. It is that they were an expansionistic empire with a belief in racial superiority.

•They wanted the US to acquiesce to their expansion into Asia.

They wanted everybody to acquiesce to this, not just the United States. When WWII started, they also attacked the territory and forces of France, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, and many others. Just like they had done earlier in Korea, Okinawa, China, Manchuria, and other nations.

Many people seem to forget, WWII in the Pacific was not just Japan against the US, but Japan against every other nation in the region.

•Pearl Harbor was the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Japan did not want the U.S. in the war because the U.S at this time had the greatest Naval force. They concluded that if the Pacific Fleet was destroyed, Americans would feel demoralized and not want to fight.

Actually, the Japanese Navy was superior to that of the United States at the time. They had more capitol ships, and better ones. The US was just starting it's build up when the war started, and it took several more years for them to catch up with Japan, and then pass them through attrition and superior technology and tactics.

And the belief that the US would not fight back was given to the Japanese People, but not seriously believed by the leaders of the nation. They were relying on the Japanese Superiority Myth to hopefully pull them through a war of attrition they knew they could not win.

•The belief that Japan could defeat the United States. They convinced themselves that a devastating attack would dishearten the Americans and lead to cracks in the fabric of the American society that would threaten its stability.

Nope. Their belief is that the US would look at the cost of taking over Japan, and decide it was not worth the cost. And that since the US was a nation of Traders and not "True Warriors", that there would be several battles, and that in the end the US would negotiate a peace treaty similar to the status quo ante bellum, but giving over the Philippines, their interest in China, and agreeing to stay out of the new Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

You really need to expand your understanding of the causes and effects of WWII, in addition to the wars and treaties that set the groundwork for that war. Almost every thing you stated is either totally wrong, or looking at what really happened through distorted glasses, ignoring everything the writer did not want to talk about.

But do not listen to me, go and find out for yourself. There are a great many books written about WWII in the Pacific, read them. I also recommend you read about the Boxer Rebellion, and the founding of the International Community. That will give you an idea on how the Foreign Occupation of China started, and how China got involved in it.
 
Pearl Harbor was the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Japan did not want the U.S. in the war because the U.S at this time had the greatest Naval force. They concluded that if the Pacific Fleet was destroyed, Americans would feel demoralized and not want to fight.

The Japanese thought that destroying the U.S. Aircraft Carriers was their most significant mission, which, officially were on a training mission away from Pearl Harbor. My father, who was on the U.S.S. Enterprise at the time, said once that many of the crew thought the real mission that day was looking for Japanese submarines.
 
It probably goes back to the politics of the time, the moderate japanese politicals had been margenized through intimidation, assasination, the Military had taken over the Government for a long time and the Emperor was also inolved in going along with their views.

The people , the Army had been been brainwashed in Bushido..the leaders of the military were no longer content to be a minor power under the USA, French , Dutch, English in their sphere of influence..whjy they went intio China , who had no oil to speak of I don't understand..basically their leaders made drastic mistakes, oposiibkle because they really knew so little about the Western World..though there were military leaders who had served over seas, but it seems the real leadership, Tojo and his supporters really had no clue as to what they would be facing, also by cozying up to Germany they saw what a strong military could accomplish and felt they could do the same thing in Asia that Hitler was going to be doing in Europe..

Also their success years earlier against the Tsars fleet and it's destruction gave them a false sense of superiority..

Better leadership by them, they probably could have worked something out but didn't want to giive it time, also to wait to see what went down in Europe...
 
Them attacking us was merely a cry for help.... shame really...
 
Pearl harbor was a cry for help?

Then what do you call the Rape of Nanking, USS Panay incident, and the Hsuchow Incident?

Cries for help? They clearly wanted us to manifest enough hatred to go to the extreme measures that were necessary to end the war... their government wouldn't have it any other way.
 
Warfare: Why Japan Attacked Pearl Harbor;

et al,

There is no one single reason for the "War." But certainly, the 1940 Embargo and ban on exports to Japan was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

Just as America, more so today, needs a revenue generating economy and resources to support its expensive military force, so it was that Japan needed it in the first half of the 20th Century. It was an economic need.

Like many Diplomatic Failures, that result in war, and various invasions by Japanese forces prior to WWII, there were a number of key factors that set the environmental conditions ripe for war. It was a long time coming.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
Cries for help? They clearly wanted us to manifest enough hatred to go to the extreme measures that were necessary to end the war... their government wouldn't have it any other way.

Those all happened years before Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor was their declaration of war.

You mean to tell me that we expect to believe that Japan went into the war with the intention of loosing?

I am sorry, we are talking about the Empire of Japan. Not the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
 
Hmmm, let's look at this, shall we?

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor for different reasons:-
•President Roosevelt had banned all exports of scrap iron, steel and oil to Japan. The reason for the embargo was the Japanese invasion of China. Japan had lost more than 90% of its oil supply. This crippled their economy and military.

Not true. Because Japan had occupied part of China legally since 1919. That's right, Japan was occupying China since the end of the First World War, when they took over the German Occupation District.

What the US and other nations objected to was the attempts by Japan to expand their area of occupation, to be specific the Rape of Nanking, and other similar atrocities done by Japan. If they had not done such actions, they still would have occupied China, and there would not have been an embargo.

•The belief that Western powers were hostile to Japan.

Not true. It was their belief that no Western powers had a right to be in Asia, and that all should be removed. Look into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and you will see what it is they wanted.

•The United States wanted Japan to withdraw from Indo-China.

Not true. The United States, England, Germany (and then Japan), France, Russia (ended with the creation of the USSR), Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Spain, and the Netherlands all occupied parts of China.

However, none of these other powers were action in a warlike and expansionistic manner to the people of China.

•The US opposed Japanese expansion and Japan’s demands were not being achieved by diplomacy.

Well, this makes no sense, but I will try and make sense of it.

Yes, the US was opposed to the expansionism of Japan in China. The entire concept of the Foreign Occupation was to try and bring civility to the Chinese Civil Wars. The hope was that the nations could help bring stability to the region, and safeguard the cities and most of the people. They kept trading districts and ports open, and ensured that law and order was maintained. And that once a strong central government came to power (which was starting to happen by the 1930's), they could pull out their foreign forces and maintain trade colonies to maintain trade and relations (like Hong Kong).

However, the Japanese wanted to control everything. And there was no diplomatic answer, since the Japanese wanted everything. How can you negotiate with that?

Leage of Nations Diplomat: How about we give you a bigger region to control along the Yangtze River?
Japanese Diplomat: It is all ours, everybody else must leave.
LON Diplomat: Well, how about more land to control to the North?
Japanese Diplomat: It is all ours, everybody else must leave.

How do you negotiate with that?

•The Japanese were keen on expanding their empire and had to make a decision between surrendering or going to war with the United States.

True. And that is what caused the war, not the fact that they were an Empire. It is that they were an expansionistic empire with a belief in racial superiority.

•They wanted the US to acquiesce to their expansion into Asia.

They wanted everybody to acquiesce to this, not just the United States. When WWII started, they also attacked the territory and forces of France, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, and many others. Just like they had done earlier in Korea, Okinawa, China, Manchuria, and other nations.

Many people seem to forget, WWII in the Pacific was not just Japan against the US, but Japan against every other nation in the region.

•Pearl Harbor was the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Japan did not want the U.S. in the war because the U.S at this time had the greatest Naval force. They concluded that if the Pacific Fleet was destroyed, Americans would feel demoralized and not want to fight.

Actually, the Japanese Navy was superior to that of the United States at the time. They had more capitol ships, and better ones. The US was just starting it's build up when the war started, and it took several more years for them to catch up with Japan, and then pass them through attrition and superior technology and tactics.

And the belief that the US would not fight back was given to the Japanese People, but not seriously believed by the leaders of the nation. They were relying on the Japanese Superiority Myth to hopefully pull them through a war of attrition they knew they could not win.

•The belief that Japan could defeat the United States. They convinced themselves that a devastating attack would dishearten the Americans and lead to cracks in the fabric of the American society that would threaten its stability.

Nope. Their belief is that the US would look at the cost of taking over Japan, and decide it was not worth the cost. And that since the US was a nation of Traders and not "True Warriors", that there would be several battles, and that in the end the US would negotiate a peace treaty similar to the status quo ante bellum, but giving over the Philippines, their interest in China, and agreeing to stay out of the new Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

You really need to expand your understanding of the causes and effects of WWII, in addition to the wars and treaties that set the groundwork for that war. Almost every thing you stated is either totally wrong, or looking at what really happened through distorted glasses, ignoring everything the writer did not want to talk about.

But do not listen to me, go and find out for yourself. There are a great many books written about WWII in the Pacific, read them. I also recommend you read about the Boxer Rebellion, and the founding of the International Community. That will give you an idea on how the Foreign Occupation of China started, and how China got involved in it.

Outstanding post.
 
Noodle, are you trying to vindicate Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor? Japan was an imperialist nation that desired to conquer Asia. They committed terrible human rights violations against the people who lived in Japanese occupied territories (like Korea, Manchuria, etc.) Japan was militant, barbaric, and has no vindication when it comes to bombing Pearl Harbor.
 
Outstanding post.

Thank you. World War II is something I have been studying extensively now for over 25 years. And this was strongly reinforced when I was able to live in Okinawa. And being a Marine, I concentrated much more on the War in the Pacific then of that in Europe (but I have studied that as well).

And one of the sidelines I studied was the Boxer Rebellion. Most people have never heard of this conflict, and have absolutely no idea what effects it would have on the US in the comming decades.

Up until 1900, the US had pretty poor relations with the UK. We had fought 2 seperate wars with them, and almost gone to war several other times. And they almost joined in our Civil War just to help see the nation torn apart. But most do not know how a small war in China changed all that.

The Rebellion was largely a Civil War in China. But in June 1900, the Diplomatic Legation in Beijing came under seige. And the nations of the US, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Netherlands, Japan, and Russia all had their compouds cut off from the outside. Most notably they were defended by the Embassy guards of the various nations, all placed under the command of the British delegation.

This was the turning point of US-UK relations. The 2 month seige formed strong bonds between the US and UK Marines, and the relief expedition formed similar bonds between the Armies of both nations. By the time this conflict ended, the two countries became allies, and have remained so to this day.

And it also sowed the seeds of WWII. Because when it came time for reparations, Japan was treated most unfairly. Although it provided the largest number of ships and troops to the lifting of the seige, it got one of the smallest amounts of reparations. This caused bitterness in them, and with their victories over the Russians only intensified.

Noodle, are you trying to vindicate Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor? Japan was an imperialist nation that desired to conquer Asia. They committed terrible human rights violations against the people who lived in Japanese occupied territories (like Korea, Manchuria, etc.) Japan was militant, barbaric, and has no vindication when it comes to bombing Pearl Harbor.

Militant, yes. As far as barbaric, to Western eyes it certainly looks that way.

You have to understand, that they had a totally different culture. And they still do to this day. I think Tom Clancey said it well when a character in one of his books (Debt Of Honour) compared them to Klingons. They are a very agressive culture, which has no room in it for the weak. Defeated enemies have no honour, and can be disposed of as the victor wishes. Only the strong survive, nothing else is acceptable. And the strong can impose whatever they want on the weak.

To Westerners, this looks very barbaric, especially when seen how it was applied to those who were not Japanese (foreign civilians, foreign POWs). However, it has to be recognized that they also expected the same in return. That families would throw themselves off of cliffs to avoid being captured shows how serious they all took that belief. And how they were sure they would be treated the exact same way.
 
2011.10.05 The thread seems to completely overlook Australia's white power racist discrimination towards SE Asia ongoing since late 1700s; especially against native Aborigines, 1860s Chinese and Nipponese immigrants. And how that influenced UK political dealings with Imperial Nippon in the 1930s.
 
Noodle, are you trying to vindicate Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor? Japan was an imperialist nation that desired to conquer Asia. They committed terrible human rights violations against the people who lived in Japanese occupied territories (like Korea, Manchuria, etc.) Japan was militant, barbaric, and has no vindication when it comes to bombing Pearl Harbor.

I have no sympathy and love for anybody who tries to cover up what the Japanese did to Korea.
Words just don't do it. I could go on and one for paragraphs about how they tortured, how they killed, with statistics, pictures, videos, and such, but simply, there's no word to describe what they did. That's why anti-Japanese sentiments are still very strong in Korea, and especially because they still refuses to apologize, keep on attacking the Dokdo issue, and many other things
 
Proud South Korean, et al,

There will be, for some number of generations, ill will and harshness expressed by the conquered and defeated - against the invaders and conquerers.

I have no sympathy and love for anybody who tries to cover up what the Japanese did to Korea.
Words just don't do it. I could go on and one for paragraphs about how they tortured, how they killed, with statistics, pictures, videos, and such, but simply, there's no word to describe what they did. That's why anti-Japanese sentiments are still very strong in Korea, and especially because they still refuses to apologize, keep on attacking the Dokdo issue, and many other things
(COMMENT)

It has only been 100 years (one century) since the Emperor Ko-Jong (The Korean Empire) induced the Eulsa Treaty and in 1910; and all that has since transpired; to include the Russian factor and the intervention of the Chinese. While most Koreans with a personal recollection of that experience have passed-on, there are still a number of Koreans that lived through the subsequent conflicts that split the Empire (WWII and the Korean Conflict).

It may take another century before most of the Koreans, with memories of the preceding conflicts, have been left behind.

Trying to compare levels of violence and barbarism against today's standards is impossible. Even the US has not totally dropped the use of torture. There are still countries in the world that practice terrorism as a matter of course. And populace suppression is in evidence everywhere.

The history of any nation - is what it is because - it is history - filled will varying levels of barbarism; a time before the civilization and considerations we know and make today.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
Proud South Korean, et al,

There will be, for some number of generations, ill will and harshness expressed by the conquered and defeated - against the invaders and conquerers.

(COMMENT)

It has only been 100 years (one century) since the Emperor Ko-Jong (The Korean Empire) induced the Eulsa Treaty and in 1910; and all that has since transpired; to include the Russian factor and the intervention of the Chinese. While most Koreans with a personal recollection of that experience have passed-on, there are still a number of Koreans that lived through the subsequent conflicts that split the Empire (WWII and the Korean Conflict).

It may take another century before most of the Koreans, with memories of the preceding conflicts, have been left behind.

Trying to compare levels of violence and barbarism against today's standards is impossible. Even the US has not totally dropped the use of torture. There are still countries in the world that practice terrorism as a matter of course. And populace suppression is in evidence everywhere.

The history of any nation - is what it is because - it is history - filled will varying levels of barbarism; a time before the civilization and considerations we know and make today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Although I agree with your post, there's one thing I find something wrong: The Emperor Ko-Jong never induced the Eulsa Treaty. Those in his government like Lee-Wan-Young and such that were fanatically pro-Japanese and therefore were traitors to their own country induced it instead of him. He vigorously opposed it, but was later exiled.
 
Although I agree with your post, there's one thing I find something wrong: The Emperor Ko-Jong never induced the Eulsa Treaty. Those in his government like Lee-Wan-Young and such that were fanatically pro-Japanese and therefore were traitors to their own country induced it instead of him. He vigorously opposed it, but was later exiled.

Discussion of the occupation of Korea is always a tricky subject, for both sides. And as an outsider looking in, I can see and understand both sides of the issue.

Korea seperated itself from China at a very poor time. China was wracked by civil war, and her empire was crumbling. And as part of the effort to prevent civil wars from breaking out throughout the region, the Western nations thought that protectorates would help keep the peace. And as such, Japan was allowed to "annex" the Empire of Korea. And the same thing happened in most of South-East Asia, which is why we had colonies in the area that belonged to most of the European powers.

The problem in many ways is that Japan was (and still is to this day) a very xenophobic culture. And their belief of Superiority over the Koreans (even though it has been proven genetically that they descend from people that colonized Korea 14kya) has always caused issues between the two nations, even to this day.

Yet most people also have no idea what all happened during that era. The Eulsa Treaty. The assasination of Prime Minister Itō Hirobumi. Or even that the Japanese Foreign Minister during WWII, Shigenori Tōgō was of Korean descent.

Personally, I always thought that people would be best off remembering the past, but not trying to live in it. Know about what events happened in the past, but to not place blame on nations or peoples for what happened often times 3-4 generations before they were even born. Because living like that simply festers old wounds, and never lets healing progress.
 
Discussion of the occupation of Korea is always a tricky subject, for both sides. And as an outsider looking in, I can see and understand both sides of the issue.

Korea seperated itself from China at a very poor time. China was wracked by civil war, and her empire was crumbling. And as part of the effort to prevent civil wars from breaking out throughout the region, the Western nations thought that protectorates would help keep the peace. And as such, Japan was allowed to "annex" the Empire of Korea. And the same thing happened in most of South-East Asia, which is why we had colonies in the area that belonged to most of the European powers.

The problem in many ways is that Japan was (and still is to this day) a very xenophobic culture. And their belief of Superiority over the Koreans (even though it has been proven genetically that they descend from people that colonized Korea 14kya) has always caused issues between the two nations, even to this day.

Yet most people also have no idea what all happened during that era. The Eulsa Treaty. The assasination of Prime Minister Itō Hirobumi. Or even that the Japanese Foreign Minister during WWII, Shigenori Tōgō was of Korean descent.

Personally, I always thought that people would be best off remembering the past, but not trying to live in it. Know about what events happened in the past, but to not place blame on nations or peoples for what happened often times 3-4 generations before they were even born. Because living like that simply festers old wounds, and never lets healing progress.

Japan
The article clearly shows how Ko-Jong never consented to the treaty, and how the infamous 5 Eulsa Traitors did, which of course, infringes upon the Emperor's rights.
As for that tyrant Ito, it's a widely known fact that the Korean hero Ahn-Jung-Geun assassinated him. Ahn is one of the most famous Korean independence fighters and is among many who gave their lives for Korea.
For that Togo, who I never heard of, I don't know about that controversy.
However, the facts that Ahn-Joong-Geun killed Ito and Ko-Jong didn't sign the treaty is pretty clear in history, and Japan (as far as I know) never disputed those claims, and is accepted as historical fact
 
Japan
The article clearly shows how Ko-Jong never consented to the treaty, and how the infamous 5 Eulsa Traitors did, which of course, infringes upon the Emperor's rights.
As for that tyrant Ito, it's a widely known fact that the Korean hero Ahn-Jung-Geun assassinated him. Ahn is one of the most famous Korean independence fighters and is among many who gave their lives for Korea.

I am familiar with An Jung-geun. While little known to most outsiders, he is known to everybody in Korea. He is even a pivotal character in the movie 2009 Lost Memories (which I have had for years on DVD).

For those that do not know, in 1909 An Jung-geun was a Korean patriot who assasinated the man who was the first Prime Minister of Japan, and had recently been appointed Resident-General of Korea. And ironically, he was against the annexation, wanting Korea to remain a protectorate instead. He was forced to resign as Prime Minister because of his refusal to endorse annexation, and in a doubly ironic twist, it was his assasination that allowed Katsura Tarō to force through the annexation. PM Tarō was also responsible in many ways for the rise of the military in Japanese politics, and the weakening of the Diet.

For that Togo, who I never heard of, I don't know about that controversy.

Shigenori Tōgō was of Korean descent, and was Foreign Minister of Japan. He was also Minister of Colonial Affairs and later Minister for Greater East Asia. In many ways, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was his responsibility. But his career in world politics had been a long one, going back to 1918 when he was the Japanese representative to the Treaty of Versailles. He was later one of the key members that negotiated both the Axis Alliance, and the Neautrality Treaty with the Soviet Union.

He also was the one that signed the Declaration of War against the Allied Powers and the United States in 1941.

He was also one of the central defendents in the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. He was convicted of war crimes, and sentenced to 20 years in jail (he died less then 2 years later).
 
Back
Top Bottom