Pearl Harbour. Why?

[Nielsio]

I used to think that Japanese were some combination of crazy/dangerous/evil. After all, they attacked the Americans at Pearl Harbour for no reason. But does that really make a lot of sense? Why would they do such a thing?

[mjkidd]

They wanted freedom to do whatever they felt like doing in the Western Pacific, and they thought we wouldn't put up with their aggressive acts forever. They thought a preemptive strike would cripple us and give them a free hand in the Pacific. They were probably right about us not ignoring thier aggression forever, but miscalculated our response.

[timsbucktwo]

They thought they could beat the Americans in a decisive naval battle, but failed/underestimated them.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to think that Japanese were some combination of crazy/dangerous/evil. After all, they attacked the Americans at Pearl Harbour for no reason. But does that really make a lot of sense? Why would they do such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

"The Japanese saw the base as the pinnacle of America’s military supremacy in the Pacific Ocean. If a catastrophic blow could be struck against America at Pearl Harbour, then the Japanese surmised that America would pull out of the region leaving it free for the Japanese to continue their expansion in the Far East.

The Americans saw Pearl Harbour as impenetrable. The naval station could only be approached by narrow waterways that were only 40 feet in depth, twisting and fully protected by anti-submarine nets. Such was the confidence of the naval command at Pearl Harbour, that the Pacific Fleet was lined up in what was known as "Battleship Row". This was to prove disastrous when a fleet of planes attacked the base as the pilots would have seen rows of warships in a line and would have only needed to have flown in a straight line over these lines to deliver their deadly payload."

If all of our aircraft carriers were in port that day - they may have succeeded in their goal.

[pvn]

Oil Embargo.

[Nonfiction]

[ QUOTE ]
Oil Embargo.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the main reason, although there is a lot of chicken or egg type thinking involved. Japan invaded China in '37, and in response the US (and other western nations? Can't rememner) eventually started an oil embargo against Japan. Since Japan has no oil of its own, it required oil to continue operations. Lots of oil was just out of reach in Indonesia, owned by the Dutch. The Japanese could own the Dutch with ease, but they were protected by the British and the US, who did not want to see an increase in Japanese power in the Pacific, as it would threaten their own interests.

Japan realized that they either needed the Dutch resources or had to pull out of China to end the embrago. Obviously ending the war in China was an unacceptable option, as at the time it seemed that they would have a quick victory. Knowing that it could not stand up to the US and UK in a head to head equal fight, Japan chose to attempt to cripple the US with an initial strike powerful enough to delay the inevitable counter attack long enough to set up a chain of defensive islands. It was thought that these defensive fortifications across the Pacific would prove so difficult to crack and would cost the Americans so many lives that a peace would be made where Japan would keep all of its possestions and become masters of the Pacific. However they underestimated both the recovery time for the US industry to build a new fleet, as well as the desire for revenge the US had, which meant that Japan effectively was doomed from the start.

[Taso]

^I've decided not to post anymore regarding WWII, as it seems nonfiction has this section covered :P Everything he said is correct.

[Nonfiction]

[ QUOTE ]
^I've decided not to post anymore regarding WWII, as it seems nonfiction has this section covered :P Everything he said is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
military history major 4tw

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
However they underestimated both the recovery time for the US industry to build a new fleet,

[/ QUOTE ]

This isnt that relevant. The Japs failed to catch any aircraft carriers in port. Thus in real terms they didnt really damage the US Navies ability to confront them in the Pacific. Thus the yanks didnt have to rebuild that much.

If the Admiral commanding the Japs had sent in a third? wave (as planned) they would have done so, but he got the fear about not having any air cover so kept it in reserve and retreated. In operational terms Pearl Harbour was a total feck up for the Japs.

The naval engagements of WW2 in the Pacific marked the end of the Battleship era, and the rise of the Carrier as the decisive naval weapons platform.

[mjkidd]

In operational terms Pearl Harbor was a stunning sucess for the Japanese. They only lost a few planes and caused massive damage. The operation went much better than they hoped.

LOL at the US industrial capacity not being relevent. We built something like 35 fleet aircraft carriers from '42-'45. The Japanese built 0, or 1, I can't recall.

And the Japanese didn't underestimate our industry, they got it just right. The admiral in charge thought that Pearl Harbor would give them an advantage in '42, and would allow them to face the U.S. on equal terms in '43. They knew that in a longer war the massive industrial capacity of the U.S. would prove decisive.