History ~ December 7th 1941 : Tora! Tora! Tora!

[Hisuwashi]

Today, December 7th, in 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii by surprise and dealt a severe blow to US naval power in the Pacific clearing the way for the conquest of Hong Kong, Philippines, Singapore, and pretty much all of South East Asia.

This confrontation was inevitable. Since the 1930s the United States had been trying to curtail Japanese colonial expansionism in Asia, principally in China. The US supported the Chinese Nationalists under General Chiang Kai Chek in roundabout ways, but after the "Rape of Nanking" President Roosevelt imposed economic sanctions upon Japan and sent an ultimatum to leave China or face war.

Thus, to conquer Asia, Japan would first need to defeat the United States.

Here is Tora Tora Tora : The True Story of Pearl Harbor, a documentary from the History Channel that gives a lot of context on the event, as well as giving a voice to veterants of the battle, American and Japanese alike. History Channel presents:Tora, Tora, Tora: The True Story of Pearl Harbor - Google Video

After the battle the Japanese commander, Admiral Yamamoto said : "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Peace for the souls of the fallen warriors and the victims.

So, this brings us to the question: Was this attack justified? Or was it a unruly assault of fear, that would inevitably create anger within the US, and ultimately lead to Japan's, and the Axis powers as a whole's loss of World War II?

 

[Wings]

This hardly meets the requirements for a Symposium topic. Moved to General Discussion.

 

[Hisuwashi]

This hardly meets the requirements for a Symposium topic. Moved to General Discussion.

Then I suggest you make a list of requirements for what is considered as a Symposium topic, as I created this topic with the intention that debate over the justification of the attack would arise.

 

[Wings]

Then you should of stated that in your initial post. We are not mind readers. What you wrote tells a story and does not display any interest in a debate.
I would suggest you rephrase your post, and then I'll consider moving it back.

As far as the requirements for a Symposium topic, the above should be suffice. Good day.

 

[Hisuwashi]

Right, right, my mistake. Now is anyone going to debate about something or what?

 

[cos]

So, this brings us to the question: Was this attack justified? Or was it a unruly assault of fear, that would inevitably create anger within the US, and ultimately lead to Japan's, and the Axis powers as a whole's loss of World War II?

Well Pearl Harbour was a very calculate and strategic move that had the effect to eradicate all US presence in the pacific for almost a year and in the same time shown the power of the japanese army and; as a result gave a great benefit to the country who had then acquired control over the pacific.
I mean anyway it was vital for japan to go further.Since japan like germany needed to keep the territorial expansion going,their economic could only go well like that.
As for the US, they would have entered in war even without Pearl Harbor,it just speeded things a little.And still between the US declaration of war and the beginning of american operation more then a year passed, and this was partially due to the very important loss of the biggest part of the navy in pearl harbor.
And even if US entered in war,the final outcome was yet to be decided because the balance of power was fragile.

 

[Erk]

It was a miscalculation on Japan's part. They overestimated the USA's enforcement of pacific power, and underestimated the USA's xenophobia. A clever, less warlike Japan would have consolidated their control over their "co-prosperity sphere" before bringing new opponents in. That's what Hitler did at first in WW2 (his strategy seems to have degraded as the war progressed) and he lasted much longer and Germany suffered a less fantastically devastating defeat (although racial prejudice may play a part in that). America was not making any confident motions of threat to Japan, and Hirohito's war council became arrogant and bit off more than they could chew.

Not that much more, though. It is scary to think how it might have played if they had waited for another decade and attacked, before the European powers had had time to lick their wounds but after Japan had had time to build up its military in their pacific territories. It's impossible to say of course.

 

[Title Loan Man]

Not that much more, though. It is scary to think how it might have played if they had waited for another decade and attacked, before the European powers had had time to lick their wounds but after Japan had had time to build up its military in their pacific territories. It's impossible to say of course.

Well, as a conversational piece, I'd like to point out that Japan surrendered because of civilian casualties, not soldier casualties. America was still in for a hell of a fight, even with Japan fighting a war on three fronts.

 

[Erk]

Japan was pretty low on the soldier front there too. That statement is a misunderstanding based on the fact that japan probably would not have surrendered no matter the soldier casualties. The civilian casualties are what caused the surrender, but the casualties in battle had also been devastating. Really, the bombings can be debated for a long time by people who know much more than either of us though. It's pretty much impossible to say if Japan would have given up based only on their flagging military strength.

 

[Title Loan Man]

They did have crippling soldier casualties, but they were defending a relatively small area (in comparison to other opponents) with terrain that benefited the defense.

It's a question with no correct answer, really.