• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

Shad

Veteran Member
On Dec. 7 our carriers were out of port, and the entire carrier fleet remained intact.

The Carriers in the Pacific were the Lexington and Enterprise not the whole Carrier arm of the fleet. The Ranger was too small and slow for Fleet Operations against surface ships. Ranger was assigned to ASW and convoy escort in the Atlantic while the Wasp was more or less a ferry for plane. The Warp was too small and had no armour as it's construction used the last of the tonnage leftover for carriers the US could use according to Naval Treaties. The Yorktown was in the Atlantic at the time. The Saratoga just finished an overhaul in WA and was on the way to pick up planes in San Diego. The Hornet was in the middle of it's shakedown and sea trials.

At best the US could have lost 2 carriers.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The extreme right wing can't help but bring in lies to a review of any historical event.

The truth is that both left and right had isolationists and the leftist FDR was not one of them. Milestones: 1937–1945 - Office of the Historian
Sure. My description was supposed to represent the kind of thing that would have gone through Yamamoto's mind, him being, as he was, part of a far-right militaristic regime with the customary delusions that everyone who is not in a far-right militaristic regime is, ipso facto, a flabby liberal.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Is it possible that another solution could have been found?

Sure but I think it would be unlikely without the Japanese or American leadership changing their views.


Did the Japanese act too hastily, without any foresight as to what they were really getting into and how it would ultimately end in an atomic horror?

Yes. Japan at the time had it's own arrogant views of racial and philosophical superiority. Beside the Japanese Navy Japan's military forces were using WW1 tactics while their equipment was lacking. No major MBT for example. Tanks were still used as an infantry support role which Germany smashed as per the Battle of France tactics-wise as the Allies did used the same support role tactic. Japan had no tank that could counter the T-34. AT guns are a poor offensive tool compared to tanks.

Could the US have been more conciliatory and avoided war?

Not without conceding China to Japan

Or, as I've seen suggested, should the Japanese have attacked the Soviet Union instead?

Depends on the goal. The Axis was an alliance of convenience not cooperation. It would have helped Germany as per the Battle of Moscow if the USSR redirected unit to the east. However it wouldn't have benefited Japan's resource issue. It would have sapped both manpower and resources Japan needed in China after being bogged down in China for years. It wouldn't resolve any issues Japan had with America. Japan's own push into the colonies and attacking America was due to an invasion of Russia not being a benefit to Japan.



With the transfer of the Siberian troops to the European front, the Russians' backdoor was wide open.

The USSR transferred some the Far East forces after Japan attacked America and the colonies not before. Those tranfered were not even a significant portion of the armies in the Far East. The majority of the Far East Force remained in the Far East. Far East is a military district label not merely all of Russia east of the Urals. Japan would have been fighting a force trained and possible led by one of the best Generals of WW2; Zhukov. (He was in Moscow at the time) A force Japan lost to repeatedly in border conflicts. The forces you are thinking of are Siberian units which are not Far East. More so those units were minimal in the West as far as impact. The "rescue force" is really a myth. The Far East had multiple armies which remained in the area for the whole war. In the case of the Battle of Moscow (the relevant battle of the dates around Dec 7 41) were saved by reserve divisions numbering between 45 to 54 which were all brand new units. That is around half a million troops. The Siberian units were insignificant to those numbers.

Again your views are mostly based on the "rescue" myth with an undefended Far East which is another myth. Japan could have taken the developed area of the Far East around Vladivostok but would have had to create it's own infrastructure from that area all the way to the Urals. The battles for the area would have been costly not a push over. The USSR did practice scorched Earth so would have destroyed the rail system linking Russia west of the Urals with the Pacific if Japan won around Vladivostok.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
If he had not done that, Roosevelt might have had a struggle to persuade his public to engage two different enemies, in two different theatres.

FDR was open about how action against US shipping would result. He was setting up another Lusitania so was waiting for Germany to mess up, again.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The Carriers in the Pacific were the Lexington and Enterprise not the whole Carrier arm of the fleet. The Ranger was too small and slow for Fleet Operations against surface ships. Ranger was assigned to ASW and convoy escort in the Atlantic while the Wasp was more or less a ferry for plane. The Warp was too small and had no armour as it's construction used the last of the tonnage leftover for carriers the US could use according to Naval Treaties. The Yorktown was in the Atlantic at the time. The Saratoga just finished an overhaul in WA and was on the way to pick up planes in San Diego. The Hornet was in the middle of it's shakedown and sea trials.

At best the US could have lost 2 carriers.
The Japanese did not know this, else their plan would not have had carriers as a primary target.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The Japanese did not know this, else their plan would not have had carriers as a primary target.

Japan knew which Carriers were in the Pacific as per the relocation of the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Habour itself. The relocation was a public move done as a deterrent which obviously failed. The relocation was a reason why Japan even created the plan to attack as Pearl was close and vulnerable. Japan had detailed knowledge of moorings for BBs and CVs which were the primary targets as per the attack plan. Japan knew which capital ships were assigned to Pearl. What the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl didn't know was that the two CVs were on missions as the Japanese Fleet was radio silent. Again I am talking about home port location not a deployment. You are conflating the two

Carriers were not the primary target alone. The BBs were as well as Japan still followed the Big Gun doctrine as per the Yamato-class battleship which outgunned the Iowa class (largest BB America made)
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There weren't any carriers at pearl parbour during the attack,this would be the Japanese navies downfall.

Another thing which might have been a mistake was in not destroying the tank farm which was where all the fuel for the Pacific fleet was stored. That would have crippled US operations for several months, as the ships would have had to return to the US Mainland to refuel until the tank farm could be rebuilt.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Another thing which might have been a mistake was in not destroying the tank farm which was where all the fuel for the Pacific fleet was stored. That would have crippled US operations for several months, as the ships would have had to return to the US Mainland to refuel until the tank farm could be rebuilt.

Yes another mistake by the Japanese,there was also they're poor Intel,they had no idea where the us us n was until it was too late at Midway.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
78 years ago today, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

It was the manipulation called Back Door to War. Japan was caught between a rock and hard place, and America was forced to enter a war that her presidential-promises said she would never have to do. The Gulf War used the same mechanism.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Another thing which might have been a mistake was in not destroying the tank farm which was where all the fuel for the Pacific fleet was stored. That would have crippled US operations for several months, as the ships would have had to return to the US Mainland to refuel until the tank farm could be rebuilt.

Dry docks as well considering 5 BBs hit returned to service after Pearl. A few of those ships fought the Southern Force during the invasion of the Philippines. Without the dry docks the US would have faced a problem in attempting to repair those ships in order to have those ships return to the mainland for major repairs.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
78 years ago today, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This was part of a larger coordinated attack which included the US territories of the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island, along with British Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

The attack came after a slow deterioration and breakdown of US-Japanese relations, as the US became increasingly critical of Japanese aggression in East Asia and worried about further Japanese expansionism, particularly in French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies, while France and the Netherlands were under German occupation. The fact that Japan had allied itself with Nazi Germany was also extremely troubling to the US.

The Japanese lack of oil, coupled with the US embargo, created the need for Japan to take the oil rich Dutch East Indies. However, the shipping lanes ran right alongside the US-controlled Philippines, which was deemed a threat to Japanese oil shipments and their lifeline. A pre-emptive strike was deemed necessary to protect their interests and the pursuit of their war aims.

Is it possible that another solution could have been found? Did the Japanese act too hastily, without any foresight as to what they were really getting into and how it would ultimately end in an atomic horror? Could the US have been more conciliatory and avoided war?

Or, as I've seen suggested, should the Japanese have attacked the Soviet Union instead? With the transfer of the Siberian troops to the European front, the Russians' backdoor was wide open. (The only trouble was, the Japanese needed oil immediately, and there wasn't any oil in that section of Russia.)
There's also another factor: Gekokujō - Wikipedia

Japan before and during WWII lived by the principle that lower-level officers could disobey orders to achieve a higher objective.

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria was started by an incident like this: officers at the level of Lieutenant and Captain took it upon themselves to stage guerrilla attacks. The Japanese military command didn't want it to seem like they didn't control their own troops, so they committed more forces to secure a victory.

I'm sure that the Japanese military command thought that something like this could happen again, so better to carefully plan an attack than to be drawn into one by rebellious Japanese units without a plan or proper preparations.

Also, the principle of gekokujo would sometimes inspire right-wingers to murder political leaders who they disapproved of. Japan in the 30s had what was described as a "government by assassination." Political leaders whose policy wasn't aggressive enough could expect assassination attempts.

... so that was all in the background, too. The leadership of Japan may have expected that if they didn't decide to attack the US, either they'd be murdered and replaced with people who would do it, or mid-level officers would ignore their orders and attack on their own initiative.
 
Last edited:

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Does it seem like school education is so spotty as to assume it was Hitler's go-ahead? Japan! The Trigger Man!
I watched a 2 hour thing recently, which basically, the stages of an intellectual society turning into a Militarists society.

They'd probably be African AMericans today, man. We get it, hey check out Ahn Jung-geun . Pan Asianism! Ya the Europeans think they get everything, why doesn't all Asia for Asians? Ahn Jung-Guen.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Thanks for that.

You're welcome.

Japanese leadership had a major flaw in most of their planning. Japan believed a decisive battle would win a war instead of could. This goes back to the Russia/Japan war in 1904/05 as per the Battle of Tsushima. Victory over Russia created the idea that Japan was a 1st rate power when it wasn't as Russia was no 1st rate power. Until the attack on Pearl and invasion of European colonies Japan never fought a peer power in modern warfare. A peer power is a nation which is comparable in military and economic power. This goes beyond mere numbers including technology, tactics, strategy, training, etc. During WW1 France, UK and Germany were peer powers. In WW2 Germany, under Hitler, was a peer power except for the navy with UK and France. This is part "victory fever" in which repeated victories creates arrogance which becomes underestimating an enemy. Japan was often surprised in the first year of it's war with America as Japan often thought America wouldn't commit as per Guadalcanal and the Coral Sea. Both operations saw American action beyond the expectation of Japanese leadership. The battle of Midway itself was Japan attempting another decisive victory as the plan was to draw out the USN which of course failed. One thing to note is Japan didn't follow the idea of the decisive victory which it came to it's own defeats as per Midway and the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

Another issue in Japan at the government level as it was more or less a military junta. The navy and army were in competition from war goals, resources, manpower, etc instead of working together. This was not a rivalry. Yamamoto was a thorn in the army's side as he was against a lot of Japanese war goals, alliances, etc.

The final nail for the IJN was Yamamoto himself as he followed the decisive victory idea yet only seems to have read the summary of Mahan's ideas itself.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Or, as I've seen suggested, should the Japanese have attacked the Soviet Union instead? With the transfer of the Siberian troops to the European front, the Russians' backdoor was wide open. (The only trouble was, the Japanese needed oil immediately, and there wasn't any oil in that section of Russia.)
As far as I have learned, the Imperial Japanese Army had actually tangled with the Red Army during the Chinese campaign in a series of battles along the border between Mongola (a Soviet puppet state) and Manchukuo (the Japanese puppet state). The result of these battles at Khalkhin Gol were a victory for the USSR, with the Japanese pushed back by the Russian armored columns to such an extent that Japan signed a pact of mutual neutrality in the opposite sides' conflicts, freeing both them from obligations to fight one another.

The Siberian troops being transferred to the Moscow front were actually the long-term consequence of this treaty.
Despite the treaty, USSR leaders were still wary of a possible Japanese attack, but by the time the Germans invaded the USSR, the Japanese were already planning their far-reaching conquest of South East Asia and the Pacific islands.

The Soviet spy Richard Sorge informed Moscow that no Japanese attack would be coming for the time being, which in turn allowed the USSR to reinforce the front against Germany with fresh reserves from Siberia and the Urals.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
78 years ago today, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This was part of a larger coordinated attack which included the US territories of the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island, along with British Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

The attack came after a slow deterioration and breakdown of US-Japanese relations, as the US became increasingly critical of Japanese aggression in East Asia and worried about further Japanese expansionism, particularly in French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies, while France and the Netherlands were under German occupation. The fact that Japan had allied itself with Nazi Germany was also extremely troubling to the US.

The Japanese lack of oil, coupled with the US embargo, created the need for Japan to take the oil rich Dutch East Indies. However, the shipping lanes ran right alongside the US-controlled Philippines, which was deemed a threat to Japanese oil shipments and their lifeline. A pre-emptive strike was deemed necessary to protect their interests and the pursuit of their war aims.

Is it possible that another solution could have been found? Did the Japanese act too hastily, without any foresight as to what they were really getting into and how it would ultimately end in an atomic horror? Could the US have been more conciliatory and avoided war?

Or, as I've seen suggested, should the Japanese have attacked the Soviet Union instead? With the transfer of the Siberian troops to the European front, the Russians' backdoor was wide open. (The only trouble was, the Japanese needed oil immediately, and there wasn't any oil in that section of Russia.)
Is this really a question? Japan at that time was an empire hell bent on taking over their half of the world. No further explanation is needed.

There will always be Barbarians riding over the hills to burn your vilage to the ground. They want your land. They will kill you and your young men, make slaves of your children, rape your wives and your daughters... There is no such thing as negotiating with them. You fight back or you face annihilation. They can be political or religious. They can be modern, or backwards. The only thing they have in common is the desire to conquer.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Is this really a question? Japan at that time was an empire hell bent on taking over their half of the world. No further explanation is needed.

There will always be Barbarians riding over the hills to burn your vilage to the ground. They want your land. They will kill you and your young men, make slaves of your children, rape your wives and your daughters... There is no such thing as negotiating with them. You fight back or you face annihilation. They can be political or religious. They can be modern, or backwards. The only thing they have in common is the desire to conquer.

So, that's how we should look at other countries and their motives? Just as nothing more than mindless barbarians and brutes?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Is this really a question? Japan at that time was an empire hell bent on taking over their half of the world. No further explanation is needed.

There will always be Barbarians riding over the hills to burn your vilage to the ground. They want your land. They will kill you and your young men, make slaves of your children, rape your wives and your daughters... There is no such thing as negotiating with them. You fight back or you face annihilation. They can be political or religious. They can be modern, or backwards. The only thing they have in common is the desire to conquer.
Ironically, that thinking was a big part of why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Japan is dependent on foreign oil. The US was threatening to blockade Japan. If that had happened, the Japanese would have lost access to foreign oil, and with that, the ability to fight off China.

They were looking down the barrel of the very real possibility that China, with the US's help, would have killed Japan and its young men, made slaves of its children, and raped its wives and daughters... so just as you suggest one should do in that situation, they fought back rather than face annihilation.
 
Top