American Involvement in the Pacific: Debate

Isolationism, ongoing diplomatic negotiations, and eventually sanctions. All signs of a nation willing to compromise and mostly definitely not a provocation of war. The United States was left unprepared, surprised by Japanese aggression and expansionism. Ultimately, the Americans were left to fight a war that they bitterly did not want to fight.

Now today, ladies and gentlemen, the opposition will have you believe that the vulnerable Japanese were victims of American aggression and imperialism. Their arguments came down to __ major ideas.

My first speaker concentrated much of his substantive matter on addressing the militaristic and imperialistic ideologies that drove the foreign policies of Japan. The Japanese were held by the firm belief that they were entitled to conquer foreign lands on behalf of their empire. Now obviously the affirmative would dispute this belief, but whether the they chooses to believe it or not, the evidence stands clear.

17th April 1895 - The Japanese defeated the Chinese in the First Sino-Japanese War.

5th September 1905 - The Japanese were victorious against the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war.

22nd August 1910 - The Empire of Japan brutally annexed Korea

19th September 1931 - The Japanese invaded China and eventually conquered Manchuria.

Ladies and gentlemen, if this won’t convince you that Japan was a highly militaristic, imperialist power, then I'm not too sure what will. As the opposition, we've come to realise that Japan's ultimate goal was to seize complete control of South East Asia and the Pacific. However, there was a problem. The Americans retained a powerful naval presence in Hawaii. Put simply, the Americans blocked the path of Japanese conquest.

My first speaker talked about the ideology of Japan and as second speaker I'll be focussing my substantive matter on the American mindset.

The United States was not ready for a war with Japan. However, perhaps more importantly, the Americans did not want a war with Japan. During the 1930s, the combination of having experienced the full effect of the Great Depression and having seen first-hand the tragedy and chaos carried by World War 1, public opinion and policy pushed strictly towards isolationism.

What isolationism meant was to cease American involvement in international politics and in turn, prevent being entangled in foreign affairs. American isolationism affected every citizen. The American government refused to sell arms and weaponry to other nation states.

American industries even refused to export natural resources to other nations. US citizens were even restricted from travelling on foreign vessels for the fear that mortalities would be reason enough to drag America into conflict. Clearly, the US did not want to participate in another war, and certainly not one with the Japanese.

To structure the historical narrative of this debate. I'll be focussing on 3 locations of historical significance. Manchuria, Nanking and the Dutch East Indies.

The Americans had time and time again, given warning after warning against Japanese aggression. Despite being strictly isolationist, US recognised increasing Japanese expansion into Northeast China and specifically, Manchuria as a complete violation of international agreements. It meant that as a world power, America had no choice but to denounce Japan.

American chose not to involve themselves, and I emphasise chose, not to involve themselves with conflicts occurring in foreign lands. If what the affirmative is trying to tell you is true, that the Americans wanted to fight, then Manchuria would have been a perfect opportunity for them to intervene but history shows us they had not, an example of how they stuck closely to their isolationist policies. The