Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

[Stevicus]

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.)

 

[exchemist]

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.)

I understand that Yamamoto believed Japan could never defeat the US, but once the decision was taken he insisted the only hope was to knock out the US Navy right at the start. And he was on the right track, having invested more heavily in aircraft carriers than the US, which still loved its WW1 concept battleships. But he made the usual error of the ideologically motivated, of believing his own country's bull****, hoping the flabby liberal isolationists would lose heart when their navy was wrecked, whereas - of course- it galvanised the whole country into energetically supporting war!

 

[metis]

Clearly, the Japanese were militarily aggressive even before Pearl Harbor, but they ended up biting off more than they could chew.

However, I have felt for a long time now that our use of the two atomic bombs, and also the use of fire-bombing large cities there and against the Germans, was highly unethical.

 

[LightofTruth]

The bombing of Pearl Harbor meant the defeat of Hitler. It also marked the beginning of the Jews having their own state in Israel.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Clearly, the Japanese were militarily aggressive even before Pearl Harbor, but they ended up biting off more than they could chew.

However, I have felt for a long time now that our use of the two atomic bombs, and also the use of fire-bombing large cities there and against the Germans, was highly unethical.

I don't like the bombings of civilians either. But Hitler was a true threat and the gloves simply had to come off. It was the kind of war that amounted to pure survival, and it was savage.

 

[England my lionheart]

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

 

[shunyadragon]

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.)

The reason is Japan believed in the Manifest destiny of the Japanese domination of the region, and felt threatened by Western colonial manifest destiny that was encroaching on the Orient. The concern was the increasing influence of Great Britain and the USA not so much for Russia, because the had already defeated the Russian fleet for control of the seas around Japan. The motivation was strictly Japanese nationalism. Also Japan was weak in resources that they achieved in their conquest of Korea and China. An added goal was the reestablish an ancient kingdom that included Korea and the Manchurian (Japanese derived name for North Eastern China) region.

 

[metis]

It's not bombing in general that I question, but it's the choice of atomic weapons and the use of fire-bombing large populations that I question.

Back when I was in high school [oh ya, that far back!], I did a report of how the decision to drop the atomic bombs was made, and what I read in Truman's memoirs was disgusting to me. He was talked into it by both the military and some scientists that wanted to see what the effect would be on a large population center, thus Hiroshima was selected, which had no major industrial nor militarily strategic advantage. Tokyo was eliminated from possibility because Japanese leadership was needed to stop the war.

Now, Nagasaki was different because it was a center of heavy industry, but the handwriting was on the wall in that the Japanese could not possibly win the war, plus they were running out of fuel.

There's more to this story but I have to leave for the weekend, so may each of you have a great one!

 

[LightofTruth]

I understand that Yamamoto believed Japan could never defeat the US, but once the decision was taken he insisted the only hope was to knock out the US Navy right at the start. And he was on the right track, having invested more heavily in aircraft carriers than the US, which still loved its WW1 concept battleships. But he made the usual error of the ideologically motivated, of believing his own country's bull****, hoping the flabby liberal isolationists would lose heart when their navy was wrecked, whereas - of course- it galvanised the whole country into energetically supporting war!

Ultimately it really doesn't matter what the Japanese were thinking. What matters, I think, is that the timing of the attack was perfect. If it had been delayed or not have happened at all then Hitler might have had the advantaged to accomplish what he wanted....world domination.

 

[LightofTruth]

I believe the whole purpose of WW ll was to begin the second Exodus of the Jews to their own land.

 

[exchemist]

Ultimately it really doesn't matter what the Japanese were thinking. What matters, I think, is that the timing of the attack was perfect. If it had been delayed or not have happened at all then Hitler might have had the advantaged to accomplish what he wanted....world domination.

Yes. The key thing was another own-goal by Hitler, who immediately declared war on the United States!!

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.

 

[exchemist]

I believe the whole purpose of WW ll was to begin the second Exodus of the Jews to their own land.

How absurd.

 

[LightofTruth]

How absurd.

How is it absurd if that's what resulted?

 

[exchemist]

How is it absurd if that's what resulted?

Highly.

That is a well-known fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[LightofTruth]

Highly.

That is a well-known fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

That fallacy only states that one thing is not necessarily the result of something else that followed. However, it can't be proved that the result was not the cause of the thing.

For example, the Scripture says the Jesus was delivered up by the deliberate plan and foreknowledge of God. In other words, the result of Jesus being killed was by the plan and foreknowledge of God.

It seems to me that your fallacy excludes the foreknowledge of God.

 

[exchemist]

That fallacy only states that one thing is not necessarily the result of something else that followed. However, it can't be proved that the result was not the cause of the thing.

For example, the Scripture says the Jesus was delivered up by the deliberate plan and foreknowledge of God. In other words, the result of Jesus being killed was by the plan and foreknowledge of God.

It seems to me that your fallacy excludes the foreknowledge of God.

Indeed it does.

But then I could not ever believe in a God who would cause the death and dispossession of millions, just so one small group of people, out of all of humanity, could go and take the land of another group.

That would be too absurd to contemplate, even for a second.

 

[shmogie]

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.)

The Japanese intelligence was poor, and they attacked with the intent of wiping out the our carrier fleet, primarily.

They knew that the carriers posed a deadly threat to their naval operations. Control of the pacific ocean was critical to maintaining their empire.

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

This proved to be a fatal mistake for the Japanese navy, and thus Japan. In a short while our carrier operations would begin handing Japan naval defeats, then broke the back of their navy by destroying all their carriers left in one battle.

From then on the US navy controlled the Pacific. The Japanese could not resupply their island outposts, which were taken by the US Marines, one by one.

Yamamoto, who reluctantly developed the plan for Pearl Harbor had spent time in the US. He was very worried about the US industrial strength, and knew that after an overwhelming first strike, Japan would only have a short time to defeat the US, before, he wrote, " the sleeping giant would awake" and create a fleet no one could defeat.

His key to the entire thing was destroying our carriers, and he constantly emphasized this.

He was shocked into speechlessness when he learned no carrier was destroyed. He knew the sleeping giant had been awakened, with all of her aircraft carriers.

War with Japan was inevitable when the military cabal in Japan came to power. Their atrocities as they conquered nation after nation were known and rage in Washington was the result. They posed an imminent threat to Australia and New Zealand. The US had dominated the Pacific for a long time, and planned to continue doing so

The US actions against Japan before Pearl seemed almost designed to force Japan into a war, Were they ??

No matter, the Japanese felt they were being strangled and decided to bet everything on one big roll of the dice, they lost.

 

[LightofTruth]

Indeed it does.

But then I could not ever believe in a God who would cause the death and dispossession of millions, just so one small group of people, out of all of humanity, could go and take the land of another group.

That would be too absurd to contemplate, even for a second.

Even before the world wars men had predicted (by the study of Scripture) that the Jews would return to their own land. And it seems the result of WW ll they are returning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Re-engineering history with Japan.....
- Ameristan negotiates to avoid embargo.
- Japan sides with Ameristan.
- Japan leaves China, Korea, & other SE Asian countries.
- More sushi & noodle shops open in Ameristan.
- Japan brings Ameristan up to speed in go.

 

[sun rise]

the flabby liberal isolationists

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