Debate On Japan Debate

Steven Kwon

Mr. Alschen

IB History II

The Japan Debate: A Critical Analysis

The debate over Japan’s potential instigation of World War II raged on as intensely as the aggressive policies of Japan in question. Both teams engaged in total warfare, utilizing statistics, harsh interrogations through cross-examinations, and all other weapons available to them, in order to defend their grounds from attack. But while some arguments had proven to be successfully devastating, several others had been misused, misinterpreted, or simply unstated; specifically, the contentions regarding Japan’s excluded state from global international politics, the trigger of the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the rationale behind the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been substantially augmented on both sides.

First, Japan’s role in global politics after World War I had been questioned by both sides. Team 1 began the discussion by asking how Japan expected the West to be open diplomatically when it was unwilling and hesitant. In response, Team 2 asserted that Japan was not respected in the political stage from the beginning. This argument, while already strategically successful, could have been expanded to support Team 2’s position further. A blatant example of this lack of recognition can be seen in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919; primarily, while the conference appeared to be controlled by the five major powers resulting from World War I (the U.S., Britain, France, Italy, and Japan), Japan only played a minor role (Albrecht-Carrie 363). Rather, the “Big Four,” leaders of the remaining four countries, met informally numerous times and were responsible for all of the major decisions throughout the conference (Lentin 25).

Moreover, the conference’s resp...

... middle of paper ...

...uch a rationale from the Japanese perspective would have provided Team 2 with both proof of Japan’s extreme economic desperation and reasons for why the attack was planned nearly a year in advance.

Overall, both teams offered various extensive arguments supporting their positions, but they also omitted several critical details regarding Japan’s disrespected nature in global politics, its involvement in the Second Sino-Japanese War, and its intentions for launching the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet in the end, Team 1 could not sufficiently defeat Team 2’s final assertions, which stated that the Japanese pattern of aggression and expansion, while apparent, was significantly a consequence of suffocating actions taken by the West. And so, even though the team had also conceded a few key points, Team 2 provided enough support for its position and thus had won the battle.