In the post China and Japan: A History, it was noted that as early as the late 16th century, Japan believed it had surpassed China as a nation. It was then that Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the most preeminent daimyo, had unified all of Japan, brought an era of internal peace – and set about to invade China. In effect he was planning to claim for Japan the role traditionally played by China as the center of the East Asian international order. His first step was to invade Korea, a vassal state of China, and establish a strategic buffer. The conflict ended in 1598 with the withdrawal of Japanese forces from the Korean Peninsula after a military stalemate in Korea’s southern provinces. 

But what is of interest is that this memory seems to have set a model for national destiny and success: a unified government with a warrior-culture dominated society (samurai), a reasonable naval force available, and a vision of regional leadership as ordained by the gods. And in the background was the Imperial line, descendents of the sun goddess Amaterasu. 

Japan moved into the Tokugawa shogunate era, ending this period of expansionism. By now China remained a cultural source but no longer considered politically superior. But neither did Japan see itself as categorically superior to Asia. Asia was still a Sinocentric cultural world. China was admired as a source of classical learning, moral philosophy, and bureaucratic norms of governance. Korea was viewed as culturally refined and civilized. Japan’s self-image was distinct, but not hierarchical in a racial or civilizational sense.

But at this juncture of history, the Tokugawa shogun initiated policies designed to limit the access of the world to Japan. This seems to be the point Japan’s history when the seed had been planted: seeing itself as apart and superior to its Asian neighbors

Historians generally agree that Japan’s sense of being apart from and ultimately superior to its Asian neighbors did not emerge all at once. It developed in stages, with a decisive shift occurring from the 1870s through the early 1900s, as Japan’s leaders reinterpreted identity, civilization, and power in a rapidly changing world. It was the beginning of the Meiji Era. The decisive rupture in Japan’s view of itself and its Asian neighbors came after contact with Western imperial power. 

Key leaders in Meiji Japan realized that western powers ranked nations by a different measure of civilization, military strength, and institutional stability. At the same time Japan could see that other Asian states were being colonized or humiliated. Japan’s leaders concluded that Asia as a whole occupied a dangerous lower tier in the global order. It became clear to the leaders that Japan’s survival required reinvention, not merely reform. This produced a new logic: If Asia is treated as backward, Japan must prove it is not truly Asian in the Western sense.

Leaving Asia

The most explicit articulation of separation came from Fukuzawa Yukichi. In the mid-1880s, Fukuzawa argued that China and Korea were stagnant and resistant to reform. With his ideas of social darwinism, he concluded that the world order was like a universal ladder and it was evident that Japan was climbing it faster than its Asian neighbors. His conclusion was that Japan should “leave Asia” intellectually and institutionally. This was not a call for conquest, but it clearly ranked Asian societies hierarchically and framed Japan as exceptional within Asia. This moment marks the conceptual break: Japan begins seeing itself as no longer fully “of” Asia.

Military success transformed Fukuzawa’s theory into conviction. After defeating China in the 1890s Japan became the first Asian power in modern times to defeat another Asian state using Western-style warfare. Victory was interpreted not just as strategic success, but as proof of civilizational advancement and evidence of national superiority. Discourse within Japan’s political, educational, and other civil institutions – including the newspapers and periodicals – increasingly portrayed China as decadent and obsolete. Korea was seen as weak and incapable of self-rule. It is at this point that Japan began to assert a cultural claim of superiority, which was slowly shifting from cultural claim to demonstrated fact.

That sense of shifting hierarchy in the Asian sphere was amplified and accelerated with Japan’s defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. For Japan it confirmed parity with Europe and elevated Japan from more than a regional leader to an equal of great power on the world stage. For Japanese elites, the implication was stark.  Other Asian nations had been victims of western power. Japan was a victor. From this point on, Japanese superiority was framed as historical, moral, and increasingly racial.

By the early 20th century, Japan’s self-image had evolved and hardened into a view that held Japan as the preeminent leader and guide of all Asian nations who were viewed as pupils or dependents. This mindset underpinned colonial rule in Korea (annexed in 1910), expansion in China in the 1930s and claims of “liberating” Asia while dominating it as time moved into the 1940s. What began as defensive differentiation was assertive hierarchy. When their neighbors resisted, it was interpreted as backward, uncivilized and above all, a lack of gratitude.

In short, Japan first separated itself from Asia to survive incursion by the West. In time, ideologically driven by social darwinism, bolstered by military victories in China,  then came to believe it had surpassed Asia altogether. Japan took on a great-power identity as the hierarchy of Asian nations hardened in Japan’s estimation with Japan having surpassed any other Asian nation and attained parity of honor and prestige among modern nations – or so they assumed.

Education and Propaganda

What is interesting is that the government-supplied elementary and upper school textbooks’ content parallel this evolution. Early Meiji textbooks were reformist rather than openly chauvinistic. They taught that civilization (bunmei) as a universal, linear process that allowed the observer to rank nations by technology, institutions and moral discipline of the people and the leaders. China and Korea were depicted as once-great civilizations grown stagnant and bound to outdated customs. Japan, by contrast, was presented as energetic, adaptive, and willing to learn from the West.

By the late 1800s the textbooks introduced moral education, but not in the traditional sense. It now linked national character to the nation’s destiny. Japan was portrayed as loyal, disciplined, and public-spirited – characteristics lacking in their Asian neighbors who were described as corrupt, disunited and passive. It was at this point in history the Emperor issued an Imperial Rescript on Education, which centered on loyalty to the Emperor; framed Japan as a moral community, not just a state; and cast other Asian nations as lacking a moral unity.

After the First Sino-Japanese War the supplied history texts rewrote East Asian history in the framework of  decline vs. renewal.  China was described as a nation that was a living fossil dependent on the achievement of their ancestors, refusing to renew. The world passes them by in terms of technology and power. In China’s refusal to renew, Japan was cast as the rightful heir to “true” Asian civilization, now modernized. It was at this same point in time that mass circulation media became accessible. Such media consistently portrayed Japanese soldiers as loyal, trained, possessed of samurai spirit and humane. Chinese soldiers were portrayed as chaotic, cruel, or cowardly. This war marked the first time military victory was presented as proof of civilizational hierarchy, not merely strategic success.

Victory in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) transformed the tone and content of school materials. Geography and civics texts ranked nations explicitly. Japan was placed alongside Europe while Asia was treated as problematic: weak, unstable, in need of order. The lessons were clear: Japan had a special destiny, strength equaled virtue, and power justified leadership. In popular media Japan was portrayed as the champion of Asia against the West, protector of the childlike other Asian nations. Japan was seen in the role of  paternal superiority.

After the annexation of Korea (1910) when Japan entered its empire-building era, textbooks depicted colonies as historically incapable of self-rule and now the beneficiaries of Japanese administration. That was in Japan. In Korea and other regions, colonial textbooks taught Japanese history as the main narrative in that it was a history to emulate centered on loyalty to the Emperor as universal virtue. Popular children’s books and magazines showed colonial subjects smiling under Japanese tutelage.

By the 1930s the theme of textbooks and media had evolved from simple Japanese superiority to Japanese destiny. History became overtly teleological, showing Japan’s rise as natural and moral, with Japan positioned as destiny’s leader in the western Pacific.  Japanese military “adventures” were seen as defensive measures that were historically inevitable. Resistance to this evolution and tide of history was irrational as the rest of Asia was clearly incapable of progress without Japanese leadership.

It was the era of a different colonialism masked under the language of “co-prosperity” that gave an acceptable face to Japan’s deeply entrenched sense of superiority.

Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archive.

More than two months ago, we started a companion series to the 2025 series on the Asia- Pacific War. The focus of that series was less about how or why it started, but about its ending. You can read that series here. The focus of this 2026 series has been exploring how the currents of history brought the U.S. and Japan to the events of December 7, 1941 that was a final domino to fall and bring the United States into the firestorm that was the already on-going Asia-Pacific War. 

In the previous post, Dialogue to War, described the departure of the Japanese fleet to attack Pearl Harbor while discussions were still underway, the final throes of diplomacy between Japan and the United States, and the result:

“A small fire at the Marco Polo Bridge in 1937 spread to Manchuria, northern China, key Chinese ports, and French Indochina. On December 7, 1941 by attacking the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, the growing fire became the full firestorm of the Asia-Pacific War that lasted until September, 1945 at the cost of more than 30 million Asian lives…Such was the path to the Asia Pacific War.”

Perhaps it was the inevitable consequence of Admiral Perry’s uninvited sail into Tokyo Bay in 1853 using “gunboat diplomacy” to force the isolated Japan during the Tokugawa Shogunate to open up for trade. Or was that simply incidental to the movements already underway that led to the fall of the Shogunate and the beginning of the Meiji Era centered on the Emperor. A coincidence of timing? Within the resource poor home islands, the population was already outstripping the ability of the nation to feed itself – a trend that continued into the 20th century. Were the internal pressures within Japan driving the nation to look for land and resources to sustain itself? 

Perhaps it was the ascendancy of the military within the halls of power. Or the basic structure of the Meiji Constitution that provided virtually no civilian oversight to the military, leaving the only “firewall” as the Emperor who showed no inclination to involve himself in such affairs? All led to a military that seemed to have acquired all the bushido spirit of the samurai but no longer had the internal battles to seek glory and honor. It began a history of seeking such glory on the Asian mainland.

The military was not the only element of Japanese society that was looking outside the home islands. Contact with the West brought new observations and with them new insights and conclusions. The idea of “social darwinism” reshaped elite thinking leading to a re-evaluation of their views of China and East Asia after the Meiji Reforms. The core assumptions absorbed in Japan was that the nations compete like organisms in which there will always be a struggle for the resources that make life flourish and history will be governed by conflict in which weak states are absorbed or eliminated. Moral intention will not stave off extinction. For a nation that had long been invested in Confucian life where virtue and moral order are essential elements, the shift away from moral intentions to survival of the fittest, the natural pathway was imperialism and permanent competition for local, regional and global dominance.

It was a rapid shift away from traditional and classic ways of understanding the world order because they watched it unfold in the living laboratory called China. For Japanese elites and leaders, social darwinism was evident in the Opium Wars, the Unequal Treaties, loss of economic control, and disintegration of internal cohesion. China became the empirical proof that moral civilization without power equals extinction.

In 1870, Fukuzawa Yukichi published “Conditions in the West,” a meditation based on his observations in Europe and America. He introduced the concept that international relations operate by power, not morality and as a result weak nations are exploited regardless of virtue. He pointed out that China, while being morally refined, is politically helpless, no nation at all, and is subjugated to the economic interests of the non-Asian world powers. Among Japanese elites the dialogue asserted that Asia was collectively at risk, only strength and modernization could prevent subjugation, and equality would be granted only to those who could enforce it. Thus national survival required military parity, industrial capacity and territorial buffers

In 1882 Katō Hiroyuki published “A New Theory of Human Rights,” work in which Katō explicitly rejected natural rights, arguing that rights arise from power. He applied what was essentially evolutionary logic to politics: “The strong rule; the weak are destroyed—this is the law of nature.” His work marks the moment when evolutionary struggle became normative political theory within Japan. This movement in political thought was more fully described in the post Japan and Social Darwinism. 

By the time Japan entered the post-WW1 era, it began to see itself as the only qualified leader of Asia for the modern world, a guardian of Asia against incursions by the West, and possessed of the destiny to assume it role of leadership a greater Asian prosperity sphere: an oriental Monroe Doctrine.

Jumping ahead to December 1941, Japan was bogged down in China fighting a war it started and, despite early successes, had very little chance of winning but every chance of experiencing the endless quagmire that had always been China. It is akin to the dog that chases the car, catching up to it, and clamping onto the bumper…now what? The fighting in China was already draining Japanese national reserves, was being fueled (literally) by oil and gasoline from the U.S., and was beginning to drastically reduce the standard of living among the Japanese people on the home islands. Why would Japan start a conflict with the U.S.?

It was a battle that the leaders of Japan knew they could not win. A war the Japanese government’s Total War Research Institute reported there was no chance of winning. Their actions were not rational; made no sense to the Western mind. Even the best minds in Japan argued against the possibility of success. But as Prime Minister Tōjō once remarked: “Occasionally, one must conjure up enough courage, close one’s eyes and leap off the veranda of the Kiyomizu Temple.”

It wasn’t rational by any standards of Western thinking steeped as in the biblical admonition of caution and wisdom: “Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?” (Luke 14:31). The combined power of the western allies would bring to bear far more than a 2:1 advantage. Surely, Japan would “count the cost.”

It wasn’t rational. But what was it? As I try to “wind down” this series, that question will be the path of inquiry. Previous posts have laid a foundation in terms of prior U.S.-Japanese contact, economic issues, financial and market pressures, political and diplomatic conflict, and a range of core issues. Future posts will draw on that foundation (and include links to those posts rather than repeat their argument in whole) with a goal of answering the question of “why would Japan force the United State into the Asia-Pacific War?” It is a question of history but also an opportunity for “lessons learned”  for application to future conflicts.

Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archive. |

On November 26, Hull presented what became known as the Hull Note, demanding full Japanese withdrawal from China and Indochina and adherence to multilateral principles. Within Japan, the note was discussed in emergency meetings and ultimately rejected as unacceptable. Hull delivered what was seen within Japan as an ultimatum. It required Japan to:

• withdraw all military forces from China and Indochina.
• end support for any puppet regimes (i.e., dissolve Manchukuo).
• recognize the Nationalist government (Chiang Kai-shek) as legitimate in China.
• abandon the Tripartite Pact commitments.
• agree to non-aggression pacts and equal commercial opportunity in the Pacific.
• and in return, the U.S. would resume normal trade, including oil.

For leaders who had already committed themselves to war preparation, it confirmed that diplomacy could not secure Japan’s objectives. 

Japan’s leaders viewed this ultimatum as humiliating and as requiring them to give up everything they had fought for since 1931. Yet, Japan’s oil reserves were running out. The Navy warned that by late 1942 or early 1943, Japan would be unable to support its armed forces anywhere in the Pacific.

Historians have asked if Hull’s note was a rogue act and the historical record is clear that it was not. Negotiations were dragging on and MAGIC intelligence (diplomatic not military) pointed to Japanese troop movements toward Southeast Asia along with repositioning of naval assets in that general direction. Roosevelt and his Cabinet were increasingly suspicious of Japanese intentions, seeing the protracted delays in responses as “stalling” to complete their war footing.

Going to War

The Second Imperial Conference was held November 5, 1941 after weeks of Army–Navy–Cabinet debates. It was decided that Japan would give negotiations until early December. If no settlement was reached, Japan would launch war against the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands. The military finalized operational plans — the Navy would strike Pearl Harbor while also moving into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.

There was a final Imperial Conference on December 1, 1941. The cabinet reported to Hirohito that negotiations had failed. The Army and Navy both argued that war was now unavoidable. Hirohito approved the resolution that war with the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands would begin in early December. Diaries record Hirohito as somber, but he gave no objection. His silence ratified the decision. Hirohito performed the ritual reading of the imperial rescript that authorized hostilities. The debate was closed.

In his post-war memoirs, Lord Privy Seal Kido wrote that Hirohito considered the Hull Note a “humiliation” Japan could not accept. There are layers of reasons why, but from Japan’s perspective the U.S. was treating Japan like a defeated power before a shot was fired. Kido recorded that Hirohito was deeply offended that the U.S. would presume to dictate terms so sweeping without acknowledging Japan’s own status as a great power. Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tōgō wrote that it was “tantamount to a demand for unconditional surrender” for a war that had not begun.

Japan had spent a decade building the “New Order in East Asia” and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Hull Note demanded Japan dismantle these achievements entirely — which would have been politically impossible for the Army, and a blow to Hirohito’s prestige as the figurehead of expansion. 

In Japanese political culture, especially at that time, “losing face” before domestic and international audiences was nearly as bad as military defeat. If Hirohito had accepted the Hull Note, he would have been remembered as the Emperor who surrendered Japan’s destiny without a fight. Even though he disliked war, he considered acceptance dishonorable and humiliating — worse than risking war with the U.S.

On the same day the Hull Note was received, November 26th, the Japanese First Air Fleet (Kido Butai) — the carrier strike force that attacked Pearl Harbor — sailed. It consisted of 6 aircraft carriers, 2 battleships, 3 cruisers, 9 destroyers, 8 oilers. At dawn on December 7 it launched its first wave of aircraft. 

The Asia-Pacific War in the Pacific expanded to include the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, and in time a host of other nations. 

A small fire at the Marco Polo Bridge in 1937 spread to Manchuria, northern China, key Chinese ports, and French Indochina. On December 7, 1941 by attacking the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, the growing fire became the full firestorm of the Asia-Pacific War that lasted until September, 1945 at the cost of more than 30 million Asian lives.

It was a battle that the leaders of Japan knew they could not win. A war the Japanese government’s Total War Research Institute reported there was no chance of winning. Their actions were not rational; made no sense to the Western mind. Even the best minds in Japan argued against the possibility of success. But as Prime Minister Tōjō once remarked: “Occasionally, one must conjure up enough courage, close one’s eyes and leap off the veranda of the Kiyomizu Temple.”

Such was the path to the Asia Pacific War.

Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archive. 

The Hull note, in its essence, was the same four principles that Secretary Hull had presented to the Japanese since 1937.  The note, in part, reads as follows:

The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan both being solicitous for the peace of the Pacific affirm that their national policies are directed toward lasting and extensive peace throughout the Pacific area, that they have no territorial designs in that area, that they have no intention of threatening other countries or of using military force aggressively against any neighboring nation, and that, accordingly, in their national policies they will actively support and give practical application to the following fundamental principles upon which their relations with each other and with all other governments are based:

The principle of inviolability of territorial integrity and sovereignty of each and all nations.

The principle on non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

The principle of equality, including equality of commercial opportunity and treatment.

The principle of reliance upon international cooperation and conciliation for the prevention and pacific settlement of controversies and for improvement of international conditions by peaceful methods and processes. 

Historians do not agree on a single meaning or intention behind the Hull Note of November 26, 1941. As noted in other parts of this series, depending on when the historical research was conducted, what sources were available, one reaches a different conclusion. 

Early postwar and revisionist historians portrayed the Hull Note as a de facto ultimatum that made war inevitable. The core argument is that the demand for complete Japanese withdrawal from China and Indochina amounted to strategic capitulation. Given Japan’s internal politics, acceptance was politically impossible. In this view, the U.S. leadership, especially President Roosevelt, either knew this or was willing to accept war as the price of principle. Most historians now see this view as overly deterministic and insufficiently attentive to the reality of Japanese internal politics, decision-making, and control by the military.

The dominant 20th century view holds that the Hull Note was not an ultimatum, but a reiteration of long-standing U.S. policy principles. The note did not introduce new demands; it restated positions held since 1937–1938 and it left room for negotiation if Japan chose to engage. The conclusion is that the U.S. did not intend it as a war trigger, but as a repetition of the clear baseline based on principles accepted by modern nations. Secretary of State Cordell Hull himself insisted the note was a “statement of principles”, not a take-it-or-leave-it demand. Perhaps naively, some U.S. officials continued to believe Japan might choose restraint given the note avoided explicit threats or deadlines. One critique of this view is that it does not pay enough attention to how Japanese leaders perceived the note.

Most contemporary historians adopt a synthetic view: the Hull Note neither caused nor prevented war, but clarified that war was already likely. The argument goes as follows:

• By late November, Japan had already committed internally to war, pending a final diplomatic check.
• The Hull Note exposed the incompatibility of U.S. and Japanese strategic visions.
• It removed ambiguity, making continued diplomatic hedging impossible.

In this view, the note functioned less as a trigger than as a diagnostic moment. It must be remembered that Japan’s Imperial Conference of September 6, 1941 had already set war preparation in motion, the Japanese cabinet debated war before receiving the Hull Note, and the note was used in Tokyo primarily to justify a decision already made, not to cause it.

A crucial modern insight is the asymmetry of interpretation:

• Americans saw the note as a firm but reasonable statement.
• Japanese leaders saw it as a demand for humiliation and abandonment of empire.

This gap, rather than bad faith alone, helps explain why the same document could be viewed as both principled and provocative.

Most historians today conclude that the Hull Note was not designed to force war, was not a sudden escalation, did not meaningfully alter Japanese military timelines but it did clarify that no negotiated middle ground remained. In short, the Hull Note was less the cause of war than the moment when diplomacy finally caught up with strategic reality.

From Dialogue to War

On November 26, Hull presented what became known as the Hull Note, demanding full Japanese withdrawal from China and Indochina and adherence to multilateral principles. Within Japan, the note was discussed in emergency meetings and ultimately rejected as unacceptable. Hull delivered what was seen within Japan as an ultimatum. It required Japan to:

• withdraw all military forces from China and Indochina.
• end support for any puppet regimes (i.e., dissolve Manchukuo).
• recognize the Nationalist government (Chiang Kai-shek) as legitimate in China.
• abandon the Tripartite Pact commitments.
• agree to non-aggression pacts and equal commercial opportunity in the Pacific.
• and in return, the U.S. would resume normal trade, including oil.

For leaders who had already committed themselves to war preparation, it confirmed that diplomacy could not secure Japan’s objectives. 

Japan’s leaders viewed this ultimatum as humiliating and as requiring them to give up everything they had fought for since 1931. Yet, Japan’s oil reserves were running out. The Navy warned that by late 1942 or early 1943, Japan would be unable to support its armed forces anywhere in the Pacific.

Historians have asked if Hull’s note was a rogue act and the historical record is clear that it was not. Negotiations were dragging on and MAGIC intelligence (diplomatic not military) pointed to Japanese troop movements toward Southeast Asia along with repositioning of naval assets in that general direction. Roosevelt and his Cabinet were increasingly suspicious of Japanese intentions, seeing the protracted delays in responses as “stalling” to complete their war footing.

Going to War

The Second Imperial Conference was held November 5, 1941 after weeks of Army–Navy–Cabinet debates. It was decided that Japan would give negotiations until early December. If no settlement was reached, Japan would launch war against the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands. The military finalized operational plans — the Navy would strike Pearl Harbor while also moving into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.

There was a final Imperial Conference on December 1, 1941. The cabinet reported to Hirohito that negotiations had failed. The Army and Navy both argued that war was now unavoidable. Hirohito approved the resolution that war with the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands would begin in early December. Diaries record Hirohito as somber, but he gave no objection. His silence ratified the decision. Hirohito performed the ritual reading of the imperial rescript that authorized hostilities. The debate was closed.

In his post-war memoirs, Lord Privy Seal Kido wrote that Hirohito considered the Hull Note a “humiliation” Japan could not accept. There are layers of reasons why, but from Japan’s perspective the U.S. was treating Japan like a defeated power before a shot was fired. Kido recorded that Hirohito was deeply offended that the U.S. would presume to dictate terms so sweeping without acknowledging Japan’s own status as a great power. Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tōgō wrote that it was “tantamount to a demand for unconditional surrender” for a war that had not begun.

Japan had spent a decade building the “New Order in East Asia” and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Hull Note demanded Japan dismantle these achievements entirely — which would have been politically impossible for the Army, and a blow to Hirohito’s prestige as the figurehead of expansion. 

In Japanese political culture, especially at that time, “losing face” before domestic and international audiences was nearly as bad as military defeat. If Hirohito had accepted the Hull Note, he would have been remembered as the Emperor who surrendered Japan’s destiny without a fight. Even though he disliked war, he considered acceptance dishonorable and humiliating — worse than risking war with the U.S.

On the same day the Hull Note was received, November 26th, the Japanese First Air Fleet (Kido Butai) — the carrier strike force that attacked Pearl Harbor — sailed. It consisted of 6 aircraft carriers, 2 battleships, 3 cruisers, 9 destroyers, 8 oilers. At dawn on December 7 it launched its first wave of aircraft. 

The Asia-Pacific War in the Pacific expanded to include the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, and in time a host of other nations. 

A small fire at the Marco Polo Bridge in 1937 that spread to Manchuria, northern China, key Chinese ports, and French Indochina. On December 7th, by attacking the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, the growing fire became the full firestorm of the Asia-Pacific War that lasted until September, 1945 at the cost of more than 30 million Asian lives.

It was a battle that the leaders of Japan knew they could not win. A war the Japanese government’s Total War Research Institute reported there was no chance of winning. Their actions were not rational; made no sense to the Western mind. Even the best minds in Japan argued against the possibility of success. But as Prime Minister Tōjō once remarked: “Occasionally, one must conjure up enough courage, close one’s eyes and leap off the veranda of the Kiyomizu Temple.”

Such was the path to the Asia Pacific War.

Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archive.