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

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

The Japanese elite didn't fight an imperialist war to maintain their grip on Japanese society; they fought the war to achieve autarky by way of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The main lesson that the Japanese took away from WWI was that a state needed to be self-sufficient in terms of resources if it wanted to survive in a modern, total war. They fought WWII in an attempt to gain this self-sufficiency. It's no coincidence that Manchuria and the Dutch East Indies were the main targets of Japanese aggression, for their coal/iron and oil respectively.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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.

Not so. The Japanese economy was hit bad by the embargoes, and Japan was rapidly running out of resources. You have to remember, Japan has very little natural resources of its own. In fact, before invading China, Japan had already invaded Korea and turned it into a colony.

The subsequent attempt in creating a "Co-Prosperity Sphere" was just a pretext to pillage the area of its resources and to enslave the people to work for Japan's war machine.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Calc II
Answer is just too easy.
If you're pro-imperial japanese yes
If you're anti-imperial japanese No

Simple as that.

It was justified in the Tojo admin. Just like the invasion of Iraq was justified in the W Admin.

[monkspider]

Japan could have easily won the pacific war if fortune favored them more than it did. They were the underdogs, but more unlikely things have happened. Who would have expected the Mighty Ducks to sweep the Red Wings in the first round of the playoffs?

Do I consider it justified? Since I consider no military action to be justified, it is certainly no exception. Interestingly, it could be seen as one of the harbingers of the modern day Bush doctrine.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by monkspider
Japan could have easily won the pacific war if fortune favored them more than it did. They were the underdogs, but more unlikely things have happened. Who would have expected the Mighty Ducks to sweep the Red Wings in the first round of the playoffs?

Do I consider it justified? Since I consider no military action to be justified, it is certainly no exception. Interestingly, it could be seen as one of the harbingers of the modern day Bush doctrine.

Japan didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Pacific War. For instance, in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Paul Kennedy calculated each major power's war making capabilites, factoring industrial capacity, manpower, and other statistical data. While the US had 41.7% of the world's capablities, Japan had only 3.5%. Japan went up against a nation which had twelve times its capabilities as far as mobilizing for war. During the war, more than 33 million tons of merchant shipping were launched by the US. This was more than Japan, Britain and the Commonwealth nations, Germany, the USSR, Italy, Brazil, Argentine, and Chile combined. A Japanese victory would be the equivalent on the Mighty Ducks winning with only 3 men on the ice and their goalie pulled for the entire series.

[monkspider]

Don't be so proud of the industrial monster that we have created. The power to produce large amounts of munitions is insignificant next to the power of the human spirit.
There have been far greater upsets in history, such as Thermopylae for example. If Japan's generals made better decisions than their American couterparts, and fate smiled upon them, they could have fairly easily acheived victory. Nothing is impossible, and this is a circumstance that I would not even hold as improbable.

[Dis]

upsets are less likely in modern warfare.

bombs know no emotion...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not so. The Japanese economy was hit bad by the embargoes, and Japan was rapidly running out of resources. You have to remember, Japan has very little natural resources of its own. In fact, before invading China, Japan had already invaded Korea and turned it into a colony.

The subsequent attempt in creating a "Co-Prosperity Sphere" was just a pretext to pillage the area of its resources and to enslave the people to work for Japan's war machine.

The American embargo of raw materials didn't come until the summer of 1941, after 5 years of pleading with the Japanese empire to end the slaughter.

[Ned]

Question: Would FDR have asked Congress to declare war had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, but simply invaded Dutch East Indies?

I think America was very pacifist at the time. Congress may not have approved.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monkspider
they could have fairly easily acheived victory. Nothing is impossible, and this is a circumstance that I would not even hold as improbable.

Yes. If things were different, we might have had a different result.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Question: Would FDR have asked Congress to declare war had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, but simply invaded Dutch East Indies?

Given the effects the embargo was having on Japan and the strategic choices of both sides, I'd have to say that war was inevitable Pearl Harbor or no.

[Kramerman]

in this uncivilized time, the world exists, in reality, in a jungle... sure, sure.. we have the UN and other global governing bodies.. but they are just props in the bigger picture. All countries try to gain adantage over others, and put their enemies in a disadvantage, many times using "civilized" means (ie political means... such as the UN) to achieve this, and other times not.

Until all countries could exist together in harmony, it will remain a jungle out tehre, and as such might will make right. This is as true now, as it was in 1941, in my opinion. Japan did what it thought in its self interest, and at the detrament of America went thru with it.

From a moral standpoint, depending on ones POV, almost any perspective could be taken on the subject. Fro a realist standpoint, it was justified by the fact that in the jungle, anyone can do what they want as long as thy can back it up. Rights arent given and protected, they are taken and are only worth as much as one can back them up.

Kman

[Kramerman]

i agree with DinoDoc