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.
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?
3. Regarding technology, I bow to those with superior expertise to mine. I would mention, though, that if the fortunate break in the clouds which allowed McClusky's dive bombers to spot and attack the Japanese task force at Midway, had not occurred -- and if the Japanese had not been caught with their carrier decks covered with bombs and torpedoes as they attempted to re-arm their planes -- the story of the war in the Pacific would have taken a grim turn for the Americans.
Not only that, the only reason we even had carriers near Midway was because we had broken the Japanese navy's code and knew they were coming. And even at that, we had to trick them into telling us exactly where they were going to strike - we knew they were attacking "objective AF," but didn't know for sure where "AF" was. So we had the commander at Midway transmit an open message that the fresh water distillation plant had broken down, and the next day Tokyo sent a coded message to the Japanese fleet that "AF" was having problems with their fresh water supply. Without that, we probably would have fallen for their diversionary attack on the Aleutian Islands a few days before Midway, sent the carriers north to meet that threat, and been totally out of position to have any effect on the Midway attack until it was over.
In addition, McClusky's wave of bombers was even luckier than you suggest. Another wave of high-altitude bombers had arrived at the supposed Japanese position shortly before, and - not spotting the carriers - assumed that the fleet had headed south to get closer to Midway. So they headed south to look for them. McCluskey heard no further radio traffic from that group, so he assumed they had not found the carriers. He interpreted that to mean that the carriers had turned north, rather than south, and headed north himself. That's what put him into position to find the fleet.
And, when he got there, he found that the first waves of low-level torpedo bombers had all just finished getting shot down without scoring a single hit on the Japanese carriers. This meant that the combat air patrol defending the carriers was still down at wave-top level, in no position to attack the high-altitude bombers. By the time the Zeros could climb to altitude, the dive bombers had already finished off all three carriers. The whole thing took about 15 minutes. We found and killed the fourth carrier later that afternoon, and from that point on, the Japanese Navy was primarily a defensive force the rest of the war.
A lot of luck goes into winning a war. It's just that since history tends to be written by the victors, it's seldom written that way afterward.
1. Comparing the civil war to a hypothetical attack on our country by enemy air forces is not germane to the discussion. Also, as a former combat infantryman myself (Vietnam, 1967-68), I can attest to the demoralizing effect of air power on enemy combatants and civilians.
2. The views of the Japanese general staff was based, to a large degree, on racism and a sense of cultural superiority stemming from centuries of isolation and a misjudging of the character of their enemy. My view, which is purely hypothetical, is based on my life experience as a citizen of this country who has had extensive professional experience abroad --- Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
.
Yet let us look at Vietnam. Which side was more likely to have its cities bombed and how did they react? Overestimating themselves from what was done 300 years before during Japanese civil wars might have lead to terror attacks on cities. They hoped however that taking our queen, the Pacific fleets would force a gentleman's surrender.
1. Comparing the civil war to a hypothetical attack on our country by enemy air forces is not germane to the discussion. Also, as a former combat infantryman myself (Vietnam, 1967-68), I can attest to the demoralizing effect of air power on enemy combatants and civilians.
2. The views of the Japanese general staff was based, to a large degree, on racism and a sense of cultural superiority stemming from centuries of isolation and a misjudging of the character of their enemy. My view, which is purely hypothetical, is based on my life experience as a citizen of this country who has had extensive professional experience abroad --- Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
3. Regarding technology, I bow to those with superior expertise to mine. I would mention, though, that if the fortunate break in the clouds which allowed McClusky's dive bombers to spot and attack the Japanese task force at Midway, had not occurred -- and if the Japanese had not been caught with their carrier decks covered with bombs and torpedoes as they attempted to re-arm their planes -- the story of the war in the Pacific would have taken a grim turn for the Americans.
Actually, I think it is germane because the Civil War was the first war aimed at civilians as well as military targets. Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman's March through Georgia were intended to prevent the production of war materiel (mostly food stuffs) as well as terrorize and demoralize civilian populations. The technology was different but the intent was the same.
Furthermore, Taiko pointed out that the bombing of cities in WW II as well as in Vietnam did NOT result in surrender. It even took the dropping of 2 atomic bombs to convince the Japanese to surrender. Yet, you seem to think that Americans would have crumpled from an air attack on San Francisco or LA. I disagree. Hawaii was a part of the US in 1941, albeit a remote part, but then, before air travel was commonplace, so was the Pacific Coast to most Americans, especially the bulk of the population living east of the Rocky Mountains.
Seventy years later, Americans did NOT crumple because of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 did we?
Japan was right in their reasoning. They just wanted to have the right to have colonies as European and American powers. They saw the opposition as an act against the Japanese race.
When Americans stopped selling scrap iron, a very needed commodity, and impose measures aganst them, they took that measure out of a tremendous ignorance, mainly taking into account that the person that took the decision studied in the US.
They should have kept a defensive policy.
It's pretty apparent that racist double standard was a contributor. It was perfectly acceptable for the British, the French, the Dutch, and the US to have colonies and overseas 'interests', but not an East Asian country.
Actually, I think it is germane because the Civil War was the first war aimed at civilians as well as military targets. Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman's March through Georgia were intended to prevent the production of war materiel (mostly food stuffs) as well as terrorize and demoralize civilian populations. The technology was different but the intent was the same.
Furthermore, Taiko pointed out that the bombing of cities in WW II as well as in Vietnam did NOT result in surrender. It even took the dropping of 2 atomic bombs to convince the Japanese to surrender. Yet, you seem to think that Americans would have crumpled from an air attack on San Francisco or LA. I disagree. Hawaii was a part of the US in 1941, albeit a remote part, but then, before air travel was commonplace, so was the Pacific Coast to most Americans, especially the bulk of the population living east of the Rocky Mountains.
Seventy years later, Americans did NOT crumple because of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 did we?
You seem to be overlooking the Hundred Years War (among others) in your analysis of military actions involving civilians...
I said nothing about "crumpling." That appears to be your bete noir. I did posit the claim that a virtual destruction of our Pacific fleet would have made the war much, longer and bloodier, and truly put America"s will to fight to the test.
9/11 was not a military act by a foreign foe. It does seem to have divided us, though, in some very unpleasant ways.
The Japanese war party, which was fully in power, believed that the Americans and the British were effete and decadent. Yamamoto believed that a successful attack against the U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor would lead to a collapse of American morale.
It was their best chance of destroying the U.S.'s Pacific Fleet, which they only partially achieved. Even if they had destroyed both the battleships and carriers, it was still a losing play.
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.
Should Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor?
