Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 3 down vote favorite

Right after the Spanish-American War in 1898, the US acquired the Philippines from Spain. At that time, local leaders desired Philippines independence. The Philippines-American War was fought around 1901-1902 in which the US put down this quest for freedom and the Philippines was still US property at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. However, if the US had granted the Philippines independence back in 1901, would Japan still have felt the need to go to war?

share|improve this question
My point is the US didn't go to war against Germany until they declared war on the US in spite of Germany's defeating most of Europe and threatening England. That is why the US would not have gone to war against Japan unless they attacked us. If the Philippines had been granted independence in 1901, then Japan could attack them without it being an attack on the US. Thus, I believe the US would not have gone to war against Japan. The US was still in too much of an isolationist mode at that time. This is why I believe the events of 1901 had a significant effect on the events of 1941. – Barry May 25 '12 at 2:25
Interesting question... – Felix Goldberg Dec 17 '12 at 10:15
I think eventually there would have been war, as Japan was aiming to become sole ruler in the Pacific and would have sought to conquer Hawaii, Australia, and the Aleuthan islands, thus attacking the US. They might even at some point have become daring enough to attempt an invasion of the gold and oil rich regions of Alaska. Whether the US would have attacked Japan unprovoked, I seriously doubt it, unless drawn into that by treaty obligations with the UK (I don't know the texts of those, they might have had obligations to support in case Singapore or India were attacked). – jwenting Jan 24 at 10:03

4 Answers

up vote 11 down vote

As mentioned in this Wikipedia article, Japan's reasons for attacking the US were mostly because of the US stopping oil and other material shipments to Japan and Japanese belief that further Japanese aggression in Asia (which they were intent on pursuing and not just or even primarily in Philippines) would lead to a war with the US anyway. Thus Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to gain the advantage of surprise.

So no, Philippine independence had nothing to do with Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and Japan would probably have gone to war anyway.

share|improve this answer
I don't agree. Going to war with the US was not going to get Japan back the loss of US oil and other materials. In fact, their main intent on further aggression in Asia was to gain them access to raw materials that they could no longer get from the US. They realized that war with the US was risky but the Philippines was part of their plans so war was inevitable. If they could have gotten the Philippines without going to war with the US, they would have done it. Yamamoto was against making war with the US but his opinion was overruled and he eventually planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. – Barry May 24 '12 at 16:06
@Barry: I agree with you but I don't see how anything I said contradicts what you said. If the US hadn't stopped raw material shipments to Japan, Japan would never have gone to war with the US. I also explicitly stated that the cause of the war was Japanese belief that the US would attack if Japan continued its aggression in Asia (especially against the British Asian colonies) – Sid May 24 '12 at 17:26
My point is the US didn't go to war against Germany until they declared war on the US in spite of Germany's defeating most of Europe and threatening England. That is why the US would not have gone to war against Japan unless they attacked us. If the Philippines had been granted independence in 1901, then Japan could attack them without it being an attack on the US. Thus, I believe the US would not have gone to war against Japan. The US was still in too much of an isolationist mode at that time. This is why I believe the events of 1901 had a significant effect on the events of 1941. – Barry May 25 '12 at 2:26
@Barry: I agree that the US would not have gone to war with Japan. Which is why I referred to the "Japanese belief" that the US would go to war with them. – Sid May 25 '12 at 2:59
If the Philippines were independent, a Japanese invasion of them would still be seen by the US as a direct challenge. – quant_dev Jun 21 '12 at 10:32
show 1 more comment
up vote 3 down vote

Japan did not attack the US because of the oil embargo. They went to war, in part, because of the oil embargo. But their most important territorial objective was the Dutch East Indies, with their oilfields.

The Japanese chose to attack the US, rather than just the European colonial powers, because the Philippines would have been a bone in their throat in the event that America intervened in a Japanese-Allied confrontation:

  • The entire Japanese strategic concept for a war against the US would have been undermined if the Pacific Fleet could base safely at Manila. They depended on an extended series of harrying attacks to wear down the numerically superior US battle line on the long voyage into Japanese-held waters for the decisive battle.

  • Large areas of the Empire, including Formosa which was practically one of the Home Islands by that point, were within range of heavy bombers on Luzon.

The Japanese reasoning (if you can call it that) for attacking the US still would still have held, if the independent Philippine government had not been reliably pro-Axis. A neutral Philipines probably would have gone the way of neutral Norway.

share|improve this answer
1  
But you are making my point. If the Philippines was independent when the Japanese attacked it, then the US would not have gone to war over it because it was not American territory. Witness how the US stayed out of the European conflict because it had no territorial claims there. I believe the main reason that Japan risked everything by going to war with the US was that they wanted the Philippines and it was American territory so that war with the US was inevitable. – Barry Jun 24 '12 at 21:29
1  
You can believe that, but I don't know that it has much historical support. The Philippines were attacked because of their position astride Japanese supply lines from the Dutch East Indies, not primarily because they were an objective in themselves.You are also going to have difficulty in coming up with a scenario where the US not only grants Philippine independence, but actually take a "you're on your own, kid" attitude in the event that an attack on the Philippines threatens US strategic interests in the entire Pacific. – Evan Harper Jun 25 '12 at 22:14
The US had no interest in the Philippines before acquiring it after the Spanish-American War. Therefore I believe that if the US had granted them independence right after the war, which they wanted, the US would not have cared that much if Japan attacked them in 1941. After all, the US did nothing after Germany ran rampant through Europe. Without being attacked directly, the US Congress would not have declared war on anybody. – Barry Jun 26 '12 at 21:48
up vote 2 down vote

In 1942, the United States offered to accelerate the independence of the Philippines (scheduled for 1946) if Japan would stay out of this country, thereby "neutralizing" it. Japan did not accept.

There were two reasons why. First, the Philippines were a key "stop" on the way "south" (to the East Indies (modern Indonesia), and ultimately, Australia.

The second was that Japan was opposed to the presence of a U.S. fleet ANYWHERE in the Pacific. Neutralizing the Philippines wouldn't have resolved this issue. It would just have given Japan one less base from which to operate.

share|improve this answer
up vote 0 down vote

Hypotheticals belong to what is known as speculative history or allohistory, sometimes as alternate history.

To substantiate a hypothetical you need a theory of causation.

"However, if the US had granted the Philippines independence back in 1901, would Japan still have felt the need to go to war?"

This question asserts that the Empire of Japan went to war with the United States because of US control over the Philippines. Such a causal theory in actuality is demonstrably false. The immediate cause of the war was the presence of a culminating battle grand strategy in the Imperial Japanese Navy combined with the United States immediately hostile behaviour towards Japanese Imperialism in China and the colonies of France, The United Kingdom and Holland.

The intermediate cause of the war between Japan and the United States was competing imperial and neo-imperial interests, mainly voiced over the division of China's economy. Particularly due to the Showa racialist ideology in Japan and the export of Christian liberal-democratic ideology in the United States. (A world-systems / Marxist Imperialist analysis of cause, fairly solid at this level of analysis).

The final cause of the war was the Imperialist stage of capitalism, the development of neo-colonial economics in the United States involving loosely held colonies under nominal self-governance (or development to the same), and the racialist ideology of post-Restoration Japan and the increasing power of the networks of Trusts in the United States and their international imperial ambitions rooted in the Gilded Age.

So no, changing the formal nature of US control over the Philippines in 1901 would not change the conflict of interests between the emerging Showa racialist ideology and US liberalist neo-colonialism. However, it may "butterfly" the specifics of war between Japan and the United States, particularly if Japanese and US imperialist interests can be united against some other force in the area, particularly if the Trusts of the United States gain an interest in seeing Japanese control over China.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.