Like what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke
The reviews are less than stellar: "Historian Noel Malcolm described it as a "strangely childish book"[3] and journalist William Grimes in The New York Times as a "self-important, hand-wringing, moral mess of a book."[4] Christopher Hitchens accused Baker of ahistoricism and wrote that numerous passages in the book served as a reminder of how "fatuous the pacifist position can sound, or indeed can be."
Instead, IIRC, the US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan to the extent that the Japanese economy was within a month or so of collapsing. The Japanese - who had been invading other asian countries - were left with little choice but to attack the US to stop the blockades.
My understanding is that the US goal was to avoid Japanese hegemony in Asia. Certainly, the idea that the Japanese attack was a “surprise” was a convenient myth. The form of the attack, maybe, but not the expectation.
I don’t have references handy. This is just from memory.
The US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan in response to their invasion of Manchuria, and was willing to remove the blockade if Japan withdrew.
I'm not sure you could say the US "wanted" war any more than you could say Ukraine "wanted" war with Russia.
As far as I can see, there is very little to compare that situation and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
No doubt some in the government wanted to attack, no different than you could find who want to attack Iran in today's government, but it's not the US government's position. FDR was definitely more interested in getting involved internationally, but the Republicans were staunchly isolationist.
The comparison to Russia and Ukraine is there. Russia preemptively attacked Ukraine because it wanted to prevent NATO from getting a foothold in it's sphere of influence. Japan considering the Pacific Ocean and namely the resources in South East Asian there's, so preemptively attacked the US to prevent it from opposing it's control over the Pacific.
They were except for their nominee running against FDR in 1940. His interventionist stance (and otherwise complete lack of political experience) made FDRs victory all but assured.
I’m not sure how you have a base so aligned on a topic that gives them an excellent chance on defeating the incumbent nominate a political nobody who holds a dissenting opinion. The same nobody who went on to serve in FDRs administration.
Other reviewers praised the book's use of documentary research as well as its intricate construction. Irish novelist Colm Toibin wrote in his New York Times review that "the issues Baker wishes to raise, and the stark system he has used to dramatize his point, make his book a serious and conscientious contribution to the debate about pacifism."[1]
Anyway, I've actually read it and found the perspective enlightening even as someone obsessed with WWII since I was 12.