At this point, having not done the research I’d like to, I can say the only direct link I see is a line from the US colonization of the Philippines to the US’s being in a position to impose a devastating embargo on Japan, when Japan decided to ally itself with Germany in 1940, to Japan’s decision to attack Pearl Harbor and make its big push in SE Asia when it did.

The trouble, from an historical viewpoint, is that I cannot say that the same wouldn’t have happened a bit later had the US embargo been less effective or more difficult to enforce. I can’t imagine a scenario in which Japanese and American aims would not have collided, especially given the US’s de facto alliance with the UK, the American rhetorical support for France, and the interests those Western powers had in East Asia, especially SE Asia.

It had never occurred to me in so many words before, but I suppose the US had to fight Japan if it was going to fight Germany and Japan had to make a pact with Germany if it was going to pursue its aims in the region. All of this, of course, is because of the aforementioned British, French, and Dutch interests.

And now, just like that, WWII is looking, to me, a lot more similar to WWI than it ever had before.

Those are thoughtful comments thanks.

It’s interesting you mention the Philippines, because at one point in history there was a strong movement for America not to colonize the Philippines. Among those in protest was Mark Twain, and I’m sure some other famous names as well.

At some point I want to really go back and study American policy in the Pacific and contemplate alternative histories that might have been. Until then …

I tend to think the direct cause argument is least persuasive, only because that makes it seem as if the whole Pacific War (in so far as the US was involved) could have been avoided had the US simply allowed Japanese shipping to go on unhindered. On the other hand, the reaction argument makes it seem as if American policies and actions in the region played no role in provoking Japan into the attack on Pearl Harbor or engaging in hostilities with the US in general.

I’d say American policies put in place as the Pacific War escalated, prior to American involvement, served to accelerate what probably would have happened anyway. Any time a colonial power, especially a new one, expands rapidly, it’s going to threaten the interests of other colonial powers in the region as well as the local governments of the region, which is going to provoke hostilities.

Had the US left the Phillippines and retreated back as far as Hawaii, it might have been able to avoid war with Japan, but might very well have found itself in a standoff in the Pacific for decades.

There was a policy in place in America against Japan prior to the war, embargoes and so on.

In light of what happened, should we regard those policies as good or bad?

I have never seriously attempted to study this issue, but it is something I think about a lot.

If LBJ were president today, he’d be taking on poverty with missiles and refusing to back down in the face of poor people intent on spreading poverty.

Bush tried to channel this moment, and could have, but failed immediately - largely because Pearl Harbor was a terrible analogy for 9/11. Bush’s stance was vague, political, and fearmongering from the outset.

Actually, what struck me was the similarity to Bush’s address to the joint session of congress after 9/11. Bush tried to channel this moment, and managed to lose his high ground within 2 years. FDR’s can be questioned, but has survived much more intact.