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]

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

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.