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.
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?
If it were my call i would have focused on procuring just the Dutch East Indies http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hLUqH17anP...-h/NEI+Map.jpg rather than trying to conquer the entire Pacific starting with an American held island some thousands of miles away.
It was clearly a gamble, and one that initially seemed to pay off. I'm not sure there was a better way for them to keep the US from interfering with their plans, at least on their own. The only thing I could see that would potentially work would have been if America had gotten absorbed into the Europe theater and pulled resources from the Pacific, but Japan couldn't realistically make that happen.
1) No, they should not have attacked Pearl Harbor.
2) However, once they decided to continue their war in China - and given that western sanctions on vital materials for the Imperial war machine was not going to allow them to continue that war - they had to act to secure those materials.
So, given the decision to seize those war materials from Indochina - once that decision had been made - yes, attacking Pearl Harbor was a logical consequence of that decision.
The U.S. presence in the Philippines was simply a strategic position that would unacceptably compromise extended Japanese lines to Indochina. American neutrality was not going to continue regardless of Axis action short of attacking the U.S. forces. Public opinion polls from 1941 increasingly show a public willing to go to war in order to protect American allies, and in greater proportion than those wanting the U.S. to stay out of the war regardless of the fate of our allies.
Given Yamamoto's mission of dealing with the United States when Japan moved to secure the resources it needed, invading the Philippines and attacking Pearl Harbor in order to seize the former and to try and hit the U.S. hard enough that it was willing to come to terms was the best play of a poor hand.
It wasn't a good decision. It was a decision Japan should have avoided having to make. But given the circumstances and the greater Japanese strategy of the time, the Pearl Harbor attack was simply the least bad option for dealing with the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
they didn't have a choice...we basically pushed them to do it...they were at war long before pearl harbor and our sanctions and oil embargo was hurting their war effort
I think they saw us as cowards...they really did underestimate our war making machine...I always wondered who the hell gave them their intel on us LOL...
the famous line uttered after the invasion by one of the Japanese admirals...about waking a sleeping giant...not sure if this is mythical or it was really said...but it was so true
it was apparent after the battle of midway that they could not beat us, but wouldn't surrender...
they didn't have a choice...we basically pushed them to do it...they were at war long before pearl harbor and our sanctions and oil embargo was hurting their war effort
I think they saw us as cowards...they really did underestimate our war making machine...I always wondered who the hell gave them their intel on us LOL...
the famous line uttered after the invasion by one of the Japanese admirals...about waking a sleeping giant...not sure if this is mythical or it was really said...but it was so true
it was apparent after the battle of midway that they could not beat us, but wouldn't surrender...
They had plent of choices. #1 would have been avoiding the tempation to build an Empire based on conquest.
They had plent of choices. #1 would have been avoiding the tempation to build an Empire based on conquest.
agreed...but that wasn't the question...
Should the USA have ignored the atrocities Japan was committing in China???
Would China have been less willing to help North Korea 15 years later had the USA come to its aid sooner
lots of what ifs
Should the USA have ignored the atrocities Japan was committing in China???
Would China have been less willing to help North Korea 15 years later had the USA come to its aid sooner
lots of what ifs
Fair enough, but yours are not the questions either.
I don't think we ignored it as we had implemented sanctions.
We did help China. Chiang was not the greatest leader and it was Mao who helped NK. Different governments.
Unless Japan were to capture the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, they would totally exhaust their supplies within a couple of years.
I had always thought it was WEEKS, not years.
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.
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.
