Around 2003, I read a small blurb in the recent news section in Time Magazine about some wreckage that was discovered that Japan views as evidence of America being the aggressor before they attacked Pearl Harbor. That was the first time in my life that I had ever heard of anything contrary to the "surprise attack" narrative we are taught in America (I'm American).
I'm very skeptical of the claim that America was the first to attack Japan, but I'm having trouble finding any information about it. So far my best guess is that Japan views the sinking of a small submarine by the USS Ward hours before the attack as being the first strike that justifies the attack on Pearl Harbor.
And beyond the details of the wreckage that may be evidence of who attacked first, does anyone know how the attack on Pearl Harbor is viewed in Japan?
Thank you.
The USS Ward shot first in regards to Pearl Harbor, but it did so within an area it had every right to engage targets. In so many words there's conditions that warships follow to move through other people's waters, what is usually called "innocent passage (basically a more legalish way of describing just passing through)"
The Japanese submarine was submerged which in the context of the day was 100% not within the standards of innocent passage, and it was attempting to gain access to not just US territorial waters (in which it was already well within!) but trying to sneak into a US military installation (which is why the Ward was on station, to prevent access to said installation).
Basically there was no legal reason for that submarine to be there except for to attack Pearl Harbor, and the USS Ward defended Pearl Harbor well within reasonable actions for not being the aggressor.
Lame analogy: If you are trying to break into my house, and you're armed, and poke my head out, see you're armed and shoot you, you're still in the wrong because you have to right to access my house, and you are reasonably meaning me harm.
As to the Japanese perspective on the US being the aggressor, this usually roots back to the US oil and steel embargoes on Japan. This is popular with certain kinds of historical revisionists who try to argue the US forced Japan to go to war (or basically face economic ruin).
This isn't really a good leg to stand on. The US had been fairly benign towards Japan (not like, "great super awesome fun times!" but in light of the attack on the USS Panay and the rather naked aggression in China on the part of Japan, contrasted to the fairly tepid US response does not seem to indicate the US was aiming to destroy Japan, or was seeking Japan's destruction).
Which is not to imply entirely friendly relations, but generally speaking the US viewed Japan as a competitor vs an enemy (not a "friend" but the US end goal didn't have Marines raising the flag over Tokyo, or claiming portions of Japan's pacific holdings).
Within this context as Japan became even more aggressive, ultimately seizing French-Indochina became the straw that broke the camel's back (Japanese war crimes in China also served to spur action). The US again lacked a real military plan to go to war in an aggressive way (Warplan Orange was mostly based around how to absorb an initial offensive from Japan, and roll it back vs attacking Japan), but ultimately choose to ensure US materials (namely scrap metal and petroleum products) did not aid Japan's actions.
This lead to the earlier mentioned embargoes, which are not generally considered acts of war (blockades are however, which is where many revisionists try to twist the embargoes into acts of war, but embargo is just refusing to sell you stuff I own, vs preventing you from trading). These embargoes did put Japan in a difficult place, basically they had to either stand down from their war because they were out of oil/they back down and the US resumes trade, or find a different source for oil (in the Dutch East Indies, modern day Indonesia).
This of course is only part of the picture, even beyond the embargoes Japan ultimately envisioned expanding into the Pacific, and in many ways viewed war with America as inevitable.
It could also be argued the American Volunteer Group in China might be seen as "aggression" to some degree, but it's a pretty weak argument (or attacking Pearl Harbor is pretty out of proportion to what the AVG was).
The "US as aggressor" argument doesn't carry alot of water. Which isn't to describe the US as a lily white actor in the Pacific, simply that for it to work, you have to accept Japan had a right to invade and conquer China, and the US was obligated to sell strategic materials to Japan no matter what (or that Japanese submarines have a right to go into US harbors at any time while submerged if we're getting back to the Ward).
The film "Tora! Tora! Tora!" was doubly filmed with the US scenes filmed by US director Richard Fleischer while the Japanese scenes filmed by Toshio Masuda and Kinji Fukasaku, the porpouse of which was to show both sides of the attack and a mayor plot point is the Japanese claim that the US was the first to attack.
So far as I know the movie has minimal historical mistakes like using Essex-class ship models instead of Yorktown-class models, but its as far as I know pretty accurate in its depictions (plural) of the attack.