Pearl Harbor: The ultimate pre-emptive strike- Justified?

[Dis]

This whole pre-emption subject has got me thinking a lot lately. Although Iraq really wasn't all that pre-emptive. It was pretty much about oil . Even an anti-Saddam guy like myself can admit that. But enough about that war. It has been done to death.

Pearl Harbor still interests me. Such a daring and brave attack. Despite some american claims that it was cowardly, I disagree. The actions of the military were some of the bravest I have seen. You could call the Japanese leadership cowardly I suppose. If you believe a nation must declare war before attacking.

I do believe in either case Japan had no chance. Even if they succeeded in sinking the carriers eventually the U.S. would have built up and taken out Japan. Japan lacked the resources to build up any larger than they already were.

So because of that there was no hope of pre-emption working in that case.

So the thread isn't about whether it worked or not- it didn't, but whether the U.S. posed any credible threat to Japan. It seems to me FDR was fairly against war. And I don't think he would have ever attacked Japan had they got too strong. But who really knows.

Did the U.S. pose any serious threat to Japanese expansion before Pearl Harbour. Was it likely the U.S. would have went to war with them?

[Static Universe]

To the Japanese it was justified, and yes, war was inevitable. Something I wrote once:

The conflict really began brewing in the early twenties, possibly earlier, when it was realized that Japanese were a growing power in the region that might one day be a powerful threat to U.S. interests in the region.

With the annexation of Hawaii in 1898, and the capture of the Philippines and Guam during the Spanish-American war (same year), U.S. military and economic interests had been firmly established in the Pacific region. By the twenties, this presence had grown considerably, and began to turn its eyes to the Chinese mainland as a possible source of new markets.

Meanwhile, Japan had played a vital role in securing the Pacific and Indian Oceans for the Allied powers. However, the Western powers weren't exactly pleased with the brutal way the Japanese dealt with their "inferiors". They had also taken some notice of the Japanese conquest and ongoing occupation of Korea, so the Rape of Nanking years later probably didn't come as a big surprise to them. They'd already seen it happen.

Japan, on the other hand, wasn't too happy with the fact that their valuable help had been so quickly forgotten. Although the Treaty of Versailles had given the Japanese control over the German Pacific Islands and the German colonies in Shantung province on the Chinese mainland, the Japanese were quickly compelled by the West to give control of Shantung back to the Chinese and return home in 1922.

The true start of WW2 in the Pacific theater was the U.S Immigration Act of 1924, which specifically precluded Japanese emigration into the United States. This was a notable period of racist activity in the U.S, and the Immigration Act was largely intended to keep out "undesirables", such Catholics, Jews, Italians and particularly Asians. (This time period was also the peak of power of the Ku Klux Klan, who were more powerful in these years than most Americans like to remember.)

This act was a huge slap in the face to the Japanese, because it undid Teddy Roosevelt's Gentleman's Agreement of 1907, in which the Japanese agreed not to allow farm laborers to emigrate to the U.S. and the U.S. agreed that it would not completely bar Japanese immigration and that it would work to end anti-Japanese descrimination in the U.S.

The Japanese faithfully upheld their end of the Agreement. The U.S. did not. This only fueled the Japanese miltarists anti-American propoganda. The Japanese ambassador of the time warned of "grave consequences."

The flames only grew higher when the U.S. and other Western nations placed high tariffs on goods imported from Japan. The Japanese were left with only one option: expansion.

The period between 1924 and Roosevelt's outright embargoes of 1941 were marked by considerable manuevering on the part of both countries, as they jostled for position. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria is at least partly a reaction to the growing U.S. influence on the Chinese mainland, as they were one of the principal backers of Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang in the Chinese civil war against the Communists.

There were minor incidents between the two power, such as the Japanese sinking of the U.S.S Panay on the Yangtze River and the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and her Itaska (they had suspicions), both in 1937, but the U.S. was not prepared to engage the Japanese militarily. It's army had grown soft in the years following WW1 and it's industrial base had been to weakened by the Great Depression to leap into war.

But the U.S. knew that war was inevitable by the early thirties. By the mid thirties, they'd even guessed the most likely target: Pearl Harbor.

You all know the rest on that subject.

[Skanky Burns]

The Japanese felt threatened because the US was denying them vital war resources. Their choise was to fight, and perhaps gain needed resources, or to not fight - and very soon not even have the ability to fight.

[Pekka]

Well, even when people say there were lots of civilians, I still agree that it was legit target and military target first and the most. So the actual strike, by surprise.. I don't see that coward but rather very bold attempt. Well anyone knows it backfired to the Japanese at the end.
And I'm not getting into if it was justified to attack .
Just that the target was legit.

[Paul Hanson]

For the Japanese there was no choice but to attack. In 1940, the US had embarked upon the largest naval construction program in history that would have given it the biggest navy in the world by 1944. The US would doubtless have attacked Japan eventually once it began romping over Asia trying to build it's Co-Prosperity Sphere, so a pre-emptive strike was therefore necessary.

[Az]

What I fail to understand is why no ground invasion followed the attack.

[C0ckney]

they did plan for one, but they decided that it would be too difficult to hold and supply the islands and that the shock of the air attacks would be enough to hold the US at bay until japan had built its defensive 'ring'.

[Az]

What a bunch of crapola.

Of course supplying the islands wouldn't be easy, but I don't exactly see the US operating too far without Hawaii.

Really, could US ships go very far without hawaii?

[C0ckney]

well that's what japan decided, their plan was to fight to get the territories required to provide them with war resources and then go on the defensive.

[Frankychan]

Japanese plan was to cripple the American Navy in the Pacific. With the carriers gone, Japan could concentrate on their real goals Dutch East Indies and creating the Co-Prosperity Sphere.

They figured that by taking out America's carriers, they would have a distinct advantage in the Pacific Theater of Operations. In theory they were right. They would have had time to secure the natural resources and build more ships to combat the American retaliatory strike. Unfortunately, the carriers were out to sea.

Conspiracy buffs say that America knew of the attack, but chose to let them attack so the US could join the war and kick Axis a**. You guys are right in that Japan did plan an invasion but decided that it would take too long and be too costly.

Additionally, the Japanese fleet could have sent one more additional fighter/bomber wave out to the targets here in Hawaii, but they didn't. Historians contemplate the reason they didnt. That one more wave would have sealed the deal for Japan but instead they turned away...

[Urban Ranger]

It was justified in Japan's view, just like the preventive attack against Iraq is completely justified in the view of Bush & Co.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
If you believe a nation must declare war before attacking.

The US didn't declare war on Iraq before starting the first round of bombings.

[Wtiberon]

Heh the attack on Pearl Harbor was about...oil. The U.S. had imposed sanctions on Japan to slow its growth and Japan felt that the recent increase in the U.S. forces, which was more in response to the inevitable war with Germany, thought it was meant for them.

[chequita guevara]

According to current US doctrine it was justified. Since they also believed that the US would fold up like a wet paper towel, it even more closely fits in with the Bush doctrine.

Is't it great to know our foreign politics is modeled on imperial Japan?

[DinoDoc]

Iraq wasn't pre-emptive in any sense of the word. Neither was Pearl Harbor.

[chequita guevara]

The government pretended it was and many Americans believed it to be. Many millions of people, some even on this board, seemed to believe it was only a mtter of time before Hussein gave his entire chemical-biological-nuclear arsenal to al-Qaeda who would then attack us with it. The guy I car ride with to work in the morning believes this, and he is an otherise intelligent fellow.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel
What a bunch of crapola.

Of course supplying the islands wouldn't be easy, but I don't exactly see the US operating too far without Hawaii.

Really, could US ships go very far without hawaii?

It's a standard line of supply problem. Hawaii was too far out for the Japanese to reliably invade (it was stretching fuel limits to attack from the air), and attempting to invade would have left the Japanese fleet extremely vulnerable, and left the ground force unsupplied for a significant length of time.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The guy I car ride with to work in the morning believes this, and he is an otherise intelligent fellow.

You should explain to him the difference between pre-emptive and preventative.

[Dr Strangelove]

A war can be just only if it has a chance of succeeeding, but the Japanese had no chance of winning a Pacific war against the US. Even when they did achieve thweir objective, seizing the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies they lacked the means of exploiting their gains. They were never able to pump, transport and refine enough oil to meet even a fraction of their needs.

Also expecting the Iraqi army to collapse with just a little shove was realistic, it had happened before after all. Expecting the US to collapse after minor setbacks in the Pacific was unreasonable, and in fact was based upon Japanese bigotry. They expected the Americans to be about as competent as the Tzarist Russians.

[chequita guevara]

I never said they were right.

[Shi Huangdi]

The Japanese certainly felt so, they felt a US attack would be inevitable and they had the best chance of a strike. Of course in reality it was a retarded move, the Japanese got themselves into a fight they couldn't win. I think Japan severely underestimated isolationist sentiment in the US at the time, it was strong enough to make any intervention in war unlikely.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Expecting the US to collapse after minor setbacks in the Pacific was unreasonable, and in fact was based upon Japanese bigotry. They expected the Americans to be about as competent as the Tzarist Russians.

If the attack had gotten the carriers, or even if the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour another time, they would have enough time to build defenses to stall the US for a very long time.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
A war can be just only if it has a chance of succeeeding, but the Japanese had no chance of winning a Pacific war against the US. Even when they did achieve thweir objective, seizing the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies they lacked the means of exploiting their gains. They were never able to pump, transport and refine enough oil to meet even a fraction of their needs.

Also expecting the Iraqi army to collapse with just a little shove was realistic, it had happened before after all. Expecting the US to collapse after minor setbacks in the Pacific was unreasonable, and in fact was based upon Japanese bigotry. They expected the Americans to be about as competent as the Tzarist Russians.

Doc once again has it right.

[Dis]

Che you are always bringing current politics into these threads.

There are people who truelly believed the U.S. was a paper tiger. Need I make a thread on it? I'll leave that for someone else to do. And I don't blame them for thinking this way. After Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. Yes even Reagan gets into that group.

[Chris 62]

It was SOP for Japan, they did it in two sucessful previous wars.

Their "justifacation" was to be permitted to continue the rape of China undisturbed.
Somehow, the two cases don't match, no matter how hard some people would try to link the modern war into the past.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


If the attack had gotten the carriers, or even if the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour another time, they would have enough time to build defenses to stall the US for a very long time.

Actually they didn't have the capacity to build their defences up much more than they managed. Furthermore the US had an enormous number of carriers in various stages of planning or construction. At best the Japs might have been able to complete their conquest of the Solomon Islands, but it wouldn't have done them any good because they simply didn't have the resources to complete the blockade or invasion of Australia. Fortifying the islands further would have delayed the US advance very little actually, since the build up of American naval forces proceeded at an almost geometric rate. By late 1944 the US had carriers, planes, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, transports and submarines coming out the wazoo. They didn't even really need the bombing campaign to cripple Japan's economy, the horde of American submarines was doing a fine job of that. Perhaps if the Japanese had managed to destroy the two extra carriers at Pearl Harbor Fat Man and Little Boy would have been dropped from planes based on Midway or mainland China. Would it have mattered? The primary effect of having the war drag on further would have been more Japanese deaths.

[Az]

So, is there no way the Japanese could've mounted an invasion of the Hawaii Islands? That, I think could very much interfere with the US' plans.

[Drake Tungsten]

I've never thought that the attack of Pearl Harbor was "unjustified", but then again I consider most attempts at justifying military action to be bullshit. I condemn the attack on Pearl Harbor not because I think it was wrong, but because I think it was really stupid. As Shi already said, the Japanese would've been much better off using the isolationist sentiment in the US to prevent US intervention.

[Dr Strangelove]

The attack on Pearl Harbor was unjustified. Japan had begun a war of purely imperial agression against China in the 1930s. Japan didn't even really need to expand into China, its economy was doing relatively well without the war, but conservative, pro-military factions felt they needed a war to maintain their grip on Japanese society. This portion of Japanese society, while enthusiastically embracing western technology dreaded the social changes gradually eroding traditional culture, and felt that war and conquest was the only way tomaintain the "purity" of Japanese society. During their military campaigns in China the Japanese military allowed themselves a wide variety of utterly unnecessary depradations against the natives of the country. FDR tried in vain to talk the Japanese into relinquishing their criminal campaigns of conquest, and when words failed he resorted to an embargo of essential resources against the Japanese empire. The embargo was completely legal, the goods were ours to sell or not as we chose to. The Japanese attacked not because they wanted to force open the doors of American commerce, but instead they feared to leave a potential adversary intact along their planned invasion of the East Indies. They reasoned that so long as the Phillipines remained in American hands the US would have a base with which to cut them off from lands gained in southern asia. The Japanese attack on Hawaii was unjustified because it was used as a means to support another unjust war, Japan's war on the innocent people of China.

[Zero]

Answer is just too easy.
If you're pro-imperial japanese yes
If you're anti-imperial japanese No

Simple as that.