Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2015, 04:39 AM
 
76 posts, read 107,669 times
Reputation: 102

Advertisements

Japan was an Empire with the notion that they were destined to control what they could for their own safety and prosperity (sound familiar?). Power hungry and delusional Japanese leaders decided to attack the fleet in Hawaii, to disarm an aggressor. Perhaps they should have stayed huddled on their little island nation and grow rice.

Oh, hang on a moment: didn't we invade them when Admiral Perry and his Black Ships arrived in search of silk and other riches? Didn't we intrude our ways onto their society and break their tradition of being secluded? Right, that's the only time the U.S. first meddled in the affairs of others.

No, they should not have attacked but there was a long sequence of events started long before that. Should we have dropped 2 atomic bombs on their elderly, women and children?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2015, 05:15 AM
 
83 posts, read 74,883 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
In hindsight, the answer to the title question is blindingly obvious: no, they should not have done so, because in so doing, they launched a brutal war that ended up costing them millions of lives lost and leaving nearly all of their major cities in ruins.

But Prime Minister Tojo did not have the benefit of hindsight in the summer of 1941. What he did know was that the United States, in response to Japan's aggressions in China, had cut off their oil supply. Unless Japan were to capture the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, they would totally exhaust their supplies within a couple of years. His nation would be brought to its knees.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the initial historical conditions apply: Japan is not willing to lose face by agreeing to American demands to disengage from China, and therefore a diplomatic solution to the crisis is out. Instead, Tojo will plunge forward in his quest to conquer the Dutch East Indies and take control of their oil, as happened historically. The question then becomes, what should he have done to neutralize the potential threat from the United States to his designs? Was preemptively attacking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor the best option, or should Japan have done something else (and if so, what?) to keep the United States out of their hair?

I'm not asking about the morality of launching an undeclared sneak attack, nor am I asking about the strategic wisdom of launching a war of aggression against a much stronger opponent. Instead, what I'm asking is this: if you were in Tojo's shoes in the summer and fall of 1941, and you were faced with the looming oil crisis and the potential American counter-threat to the intended seizure of the Dutch East Indies, what would you have done?
War with America was inevitable. That was fact. And had Japan destroyed the American carriers at Pearl Harbor - which was the main objective that was not fulfilled as the carriers were out at sea that day - they would have had a better chance. Although complete success would have probably been out of the question in the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 06:44 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,105 posts, read 13,124,520 times
Reputation: 10062
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
In hindsight, the answer to the title question is blindingly obvious: no, they should not have done so, because in so doing, they launched a brutal war that ended up costing them millions of lives lost and leaving nearly all of their major cities in ruins.

But Prime Minister Tojo did not have the benefit of hindsight in the summer of 1941. What he did know was that the United States, in response to Japan's aggressions in China, had cut off their oil supply. Unless Japan were to capture the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, they would totally exhaust their supplies within a couple of years. His nation would be brought to its knees.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the initial historical conditions apply: Japan is not willing to lose face by agreeing to American demands to disengage from China, and therefore a diplomatic solution to the crisis is out. Instead, Tojo will plunge forward in his quest to conquer the Dutch East Indies and take control of their oil, as happened historically. The question then becomes, what should he have done to neutralize the potential threat from the United States to his designs? Was preemptively attacking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor the best option, or should Japan have done something else (and if so, what?) to keep the United States out of their hair?

I'm not asking about the morality of launching an undeclared sneak attack, nor am I asking about the strategic wisdom of launching a war of aggression against a much stronger opponent. Instead, what I'm asking is this: if you were in Tojo's shoes in the summer and fall of 1941, and you were faced with the looming oil crisis and the potential American counter-threat to the intended seizure of the Dutch East Indies, what would you have done?
I can think of at least three other possible options the Japanese could have took.

1. PEACE - End the invasion of China.

2. Gradually undermine the Oil Embargo - bribe, threaten, stall, negotiate, offer to pay two or three times the price for oil from any source possible. Still much cheaper then going to war with the two Anglo naval powers.

3. IF WAR IS NECESSARY MAKE IT MR. ROOSEVELTS WAR - only take control of some Dutch oilfields and islands. Do not attack the British or Americans directly. This only made it easy for their leaders. Instead make it Mr. Roosevelt's war. If Roosevelt wants a war with Japan over Dutch colonies, then he can explain to the American people why he did nothing when the Nazis invaded the Netherlands, but now he wants a war to defend a few Dutch colonies. And without a Pearl Harbor to stoke American naturalism, any American lives lost becomes Roosevelt's fault not the Japanese.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Elysium
12,303 posts, read 7,998,223 times
Reputation: 9102
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I can think of at least three other possible options the Japanese could have took.

1. PEACE - End the invasion of China.

2. Gradually undermine the Oil Embargo - bribe, threaten, stall, negotiate, offer to pay two or three times the price for oil from any source possible. Still much cheaper then going to war with the two Anglo naval powers.

3. IF WAR IS NECESSARY MAKE IT MR. ROOSEVELTS WAR - only take control of some Dutch oilfields and islands. Do not attack the British or Americans directly. This only made it easy for their leaders. Instead make it Mr. Roosevelt's war. If Roosevelt wants a war with Japan over Dutch colonies, then he can explain to the American people why he did nothing when the Nazis invaded the Netherlands, but now he wants a war to defend a few Dutch colonies. And without a Pearl Harbor to stoke American naturalism, any American lives lost becomes Roosevelt's fault not the Japanese.
This is my opinion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 07:10 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,105 posts, read 13,124,520 times
Reputation: 10062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
This is my opinion
Thanks, but I should probably have said American nationalism not American naturalism! Two different things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,779,216 times
Reputation: 6650
Without access to Japanese confidential papers dealing with how they examined war or no war scenarios the best we can do is examine military outcomes which are known.

The problem even with a successful Pearl Harbor operation is ships sunk in shallow water, unless they suffer catastrophic explosion(Arizona) or capsized(Oklahoma) can be raised and refitted[As at Taranto] unless the island is occupied.(As is what occurred at Port Arthur when the Japanese launced a surprise attack against the Russian Fleet which was only minimally successful. Only when the harbor was captured by Japanese land forces were the ships irretrievably lost to Russia.)

It does take three years to build a BB and CV and then there are lessons of war in terms of operating a Task Force and managing battle damage. The IJN actually achieved a situation where USN naval operations scaled down for much of 1943 because all of the US CVs were either sunk or damaged/refitting. USN had to borrow a British CV. New construction aircraft carriers and battleships from pre-war US allocation commissioned at that time. But by then the Japanese had been whittled down as well and were on the defensive with conspicuous inferior quality armaments.

I presume in late 1941 it was seen as ideal, Russia occupied, Britain occupied, France and Netherlands defeated and the U.S. having to deal with a two front war meant Japan could build a defensive perimeter in the Pacific defended by naval and island based aircraft. Sound idea but they did not have the resources for even limited defense against a strong force. Especially after suffering a critical loss at Midway. Perhaps no one calculated or if they did, miscalculated[as did the Germans], US industrial capability. U.S. military appropriations are public record and japanese naval attachees and consular staff could to the math regarding when U.S. naval construction would lead to too much superiority for the USN.

Last edited by Felix C; 03-27-2015 at 08:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,145,765 times
Reputation: 13779
I think that the Japanese should not have attacked Pearl Harbor for a couple of reasons, the first being that picking a fight with somebody capable of kicking your butt with only one good arm is probably not a good idea. The only chance the Japanese had to win a war with the US was to totally knock out the Pacific fleet and hope the US would sue for peace. When they failed to catch the US carriers at Pearl, they were cooked.

A second reason to not attack Pearl Harbor was because of how the war in Europe was progressing. In late 1941, it appeared that the US was likely to be drawn into the European conflict in order to save Britain. The US Navy was already engaged in an undeclared naval war in the North Atlantic, and it seemed likely to be drawn into the conflict sooner rather than later despite the isolationists' best efforts. If that happened, or if Britain surrendered or sued for peace, Japan might have gotten access to the oil it needed without having to attack the US at all. Did the Japanese not know what was going on in the North Atlantic? That's entirely possible given the technological limitations of the time, but if that was the case, it would be a major intelligence failure for a country planning to go to war.

Another reason that the Japanese should not have attacked Pearl Harbor was because the Japanese war lords were blinded by their national ego. They totally misread the American national character and they completely underestimated American resolve. They thought that American isolation was much deeper and widespread than it actually was. They assumed that if they destroyed the US Pacific fleet that the US would meekly sue for peace because they judged Americans as weak because the US in the 1930s was not militaristic the way Japan or Germany were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,145,765 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I can think of at least three other possible options the Japanese could have took.

1. PEACE - End the invasion of China.

2. Gradually undermine the Oil Embargo - bribe, threaten, stall, negotiate, offer to pay two or three times the price for oil from any source possible. Still much cheaper then going to war with the two Anglo naval powers.

3. IF WAR IS NECESSARY MAKE IT MR. ROOSEVELTS WAR - only take control of some Dutch oilfields and islands. Do not attack the British or Americans directly. This only made it easy for their leaders. Instead make it Mr. Roosevelt's war. If Roosevelt wants a war with Japan over Dutch colonies, then he can explain to the American people why he did nothing when the Nazis invaded the Netherlands, but now he wants a war to defend a few Dutch colonies. And without a Pearl Harbor to stoke American naturalism, any American lives lost becomes Roosevelt's fault not the Japanese.
This only makes sense from hindsight. In 1941, Japan was controlled by militarists who would never accept a "work around" when a military "solution" was quicker and bloodier, which in their minds made a military solution "better".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,139 posts, read 22,717,032 times
Reputation: 14115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
In hindsight, the answer to the title question is blindingly obvious: no, they should not have done so, because in so doing, they launched a brutal war that ended up costing them millions of lives lost and leaving nearly all of their major cities in ruins.

But Prime Minister Tojo did not have the benefit of hindsight in the summer of 1941. What he did know was that the United States, in response to Japan's aggressions in China, had cut off their oil supply. Unless Japan were to capture the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, they would totally exhaust their supplies within a couple of years. His nation would be brought to its knees.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the initial historical conditions apply: Japan is not willing to lose face by agreeing to American demands to disengage from China, and therefore a diplomatic solution to the crisis is out. Instead, Tojo will plunge forward in his quest to conquer the Dutch East Indies and take control of their oil, as happened historically. The question then becomes, what should he have done to neutralize the potential threat from the United States to his designs? Was preemptively attacking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor the best option, or should Japan have done something else (and if so, what?) to keep the United States out of their hair?

I'm not asking about the morality of launching an undeclared sneak attack, nor am I asking about the strategic wisdom of launching a war of aggression against a much stronger opponent. Instead, what I'm asking is this: if you were in Tojo's shoes in the summer and fall of 1941, and you were faced with the looming oil crisis and the potential American counter-threat to the intended seizure of the Dutch East Indies, what would you have done?
I'm gonna say yes... it was the sensible and logical strategy to accomplish Japan's goals of regional domination at the time.

The surprise attack did work for it's intended strategic purpose; it kept the US Navy from effectively countering the invasion of the Philippines.
.
What the Japanese could never have imagined was the psychological blowback from the attack. Instead of also serving to instilling fear and submission in "weak" pleasure-seeking, isolationist and depression-weary Americans as hoped by Japanese leadership, "Remember Pearl Harbor" became an incredibly powerful rally cry for virtually every American that immediately banished the old mentality and gave us the strength of will to win by any means necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,145,765 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
I'm gonna say yes... it was the sensible and logical strategy to accomplish Japan's goals of regional domination at the time.

The surprise attack did work for it's intended strategic purpose; it kept the US Navy from effectively countering the invasion of the Philippines.
.
What the Japanese could never have imagined was the psychological blowback from the attack. Instead of also serving to instilling fear and submission in "weak" pleasure-seeking, isolationist and depression-weary Americans as hoped by Japanese leadership, "Remember Pearl Harbor" became an incredibly powerful rally cry for virtually every American that immediately banished the old mentality and gave us the strength of will to win by any means necessary.
A much better description of the American response to the Japanese attack than I made! Thanks. Japan's total misreading of the what the American response would be is exactly why they attacked, and why they would have eventually lost the war even if they had caught the American carriers at Pearl, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top