
Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor - log-fire
https://www.timeline.com/stories/pearl-harbor-was-attacked-because-it-would-have-been-rude-not-to
======
dctoedt
The headline doesn't square with everything I've ever read about the attack.
Embarrassment was _at best_ a minor factor in the Japanese thinking. The major
factor, IIRC, was that certain military officers -- many of them belonging to
(or fearful of) a murderous ultranationalist faction -- had come to dominate
the Japanese government [1]. These military men:

\+ wanted to strike south to secure desperately-needed sources of oil, rubber,
and other resources for their war machine (an alternative they debated was to
invade Siberia);

\+ felt that for a strike south to succeed, they had to neutralize both the
U.S. Pacific Fleet and the American bases in the Philippines, from which the
U.S. surface fleet, submarines, and air forces could have caused serious
problems for Japan's maritime supply lines from Southeast Asia; and

\+ perhaps most importantly, were out of their depth when it came to assessing
a _political_ risk, namely the extent to which a surprise attack would bring
down on them the implacable fury of an enraged and industrially-powerful
United States.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_militarism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_militarism)

~~~
Spooky23
The article and the commenters here vastly underestimate the weakness of the
US strategic position and the initial advantage that the IJN had. They
institutionally understood and embraced the new reality of carrier and air
warfare.

The reality is that the Philippines were incredibly vulnerable and run by a
General who was not so effective. Ditto the fossils living in WW1 dreadnought
world on the Navy side.

Had fate turned ever so slightly at Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, or Midway, the
great gamble made by the Japanese would have been genius.

The embarrassment and face saving nonsense killed them not in 1941, but in
1943, when they followed through on a fools errand instead of settling for
peace. Once the US industrial power was mobilized, the result was pretty
certain.

~~~
hga
_Had fate turned ever so slightly at Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, or Midway, the
great gamble made by the Japanese would have been genius.

The embarrassment and face saving nonsense killed them not in 1941, but in
1943, when they followed through on a fools errand instead of settling for
peace. Once the US industrial power was mobilized, the result was pretty
certain._

Disagree strongly. The way those battles turned just sped up the destruction
of Imperial Japan---and if you expect every battle to go your way, you're a
damned fool.

The surprise attack, their brutality in war, plus our memory of how WWI did
not end in a lasting peace, made sure settling for a peace was not an option
by 1943. By the time we were focusing on the home islands with Operations
Starvation and Downfall, plus the fruits of the Manhattan Project, the details
of the Bataan Death March unquestionably revealed by the liberation of the
Philippines ... well, it _really_ sucked to be Japanese by then. But not
hardly so bad as the subject people in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity
Sphere, which they were killing at a rate of 400,000 per month by then.

I'm finishing reading _Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of
Japan, 1945-1947_ [http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-
Downfall-1945-1947/...](http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-
Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160/) and it's really sobering. Olympic as
planned, the invasion of southern Kyuushu, wasn't going to work, and with
Marshall pushing for all nuclear weapons after Nagasaki to be earmarked for
it, and liberal use of poison gas, it would have made Okinawa look like a walk
in the park. And there's no way Coronet, the planned March invasion of the
Kanto plane in Honshu that includes Tokyo would have happened on schedule
before the weather made it impractical. Yet we were absolutely determined to
see it through, one way or another, with as many as a million of our men dying
the process.

------
Cieplak
"Instead of being tried for war crimes, the researchers involved in Unit 731
were given immunity by the U.S. in exchange for their data on human
experimentation."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731)

A bit off topic but perhaps interesting to some.

~~~
merpnderp
An absolute disgrace that so many monstrously evil war criminals were let off
after the war.

But the US is currently shipping weapons and money to brutal dictators in
several countries in a horrible display of RealPolitik, so not much has
changed.

~~~
twoodfin
I'm genuinely curious: Which brutal dictators are currently receiving U.S.
arms? With Mubarak gone I can't come up with any. The Saudis? Hard to describe
what they're running (or at least barely managing) as a dictatorship.

~~~
arrayjumper
Pakistan? Their democracy is a joke. The military holds all the power as
evidenced by the multiple military coups in their past

~~~
newjersey
Knowing nothing about Pakistan, don't the coups demonstrate the lack of power
military holds? If I was a military chief, I'd rather prefer to steer policy
from the background assuming I had any real influence. Not saying you're
wrong. I'm trying to understand...

~~~
merpnderp
They depose a leader then to retain US support they allow elections then
depose him when they no longer approve. Might as well be a Itanian style
theocracy.

------
joshmaker
Interesting read, but there is something a little odd about an article that
describes Emperor Hirohito as "merely a figurehead" but later casually
mentions that Hirohito had the power to surprise General Tojo by naming him
prime minister and spends a good deal of time talking about how Hirohito could
have potentially prevented the war due to how much influence he had.

~~~
powera
The article appears to be of the belief that literally nothing the Japanese
government could have said or done was a sign they wanted war.

~~~
mcguire
The article appears to be of the belief that no one in the Japanese government
wanted war but they were all bumbling fools who couldn't say they didn't want
war.

~~~
rangibaby
The anti-war faction weren't bumbling fools, but the decision was made and
that was that. Konoye killed himself rather than lie to exonerate the emperor
in the post-war kangaroo court.

~~~
hga
The members of the anti-war faction knew bloody well that if they made too
much of a fuss about it they would be assassinated. Perhaps _the_ object
lesson to learn from the Pacific War is that it's beyond insane to allow a
culture of acceptable political assassination to develop in your system. See
also how the Nazis were tacitly supported in their street battles etc. with
the Communists et. al.

------
apsec112
"Pundits have long puzzled over why Japan, embroiled in an unwinnable war in
China, attacked a country that supplied most of its oil and had an economy 70
times its own."

That's off by like an order of magnitude. Numbers like this are never exact,
but no way was the difference 70x. Wikipedia's numbers have it at ~5.5x:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_Wor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Reference_data_for_summary_tables)

~~~
merpnderp
By the end of the war, the US was producing as many light aircraft carriers
per month as Japan had produced over the entire war. Whatever the exact
numbers were, it was silly lopsided.

~~~
protomyth
Or the speed at which the US was producing ships. It was beyond lopsided.

Also, I seem to remember reading Canada had a part in the pre-war story (very
anti-Japanese PM), but I don't remember the source.

------
threefour
This timeline seems to put all the blame on Japan. No doubt they had over-
militaristic tendencies. But let's also take the long view on America from
Japan's perspective:

* Settlers displace native peoples in the north east of North America and the Caribbean.

* The first Americans kick out the British.

* Americans move west, killing more native peoples.

* Americans take over land from Mexico.

* "Manifest Destiny"

* Americans topple the Hawaiian monarchy and take over Hawaii.

* Americans go to war with the Philippines, killing tens of thousands.

It doesn't seem unreasonable for Japan at this point to feel threatened by
America or compelled to take action to protect themselves.

~~~
krapp
I doubt Japan felt threatened by the US because of manifest destiny or the
American revolutionary war. I think you're going a bit too far trying to paint
the US as appearing unusually hegemonic or aggressive for the time.

~~~
jkyle
Japanese culture perceives time differently than western culture. For example,
a train in London is considered "on time" as long as it's within 14 minutes.
In Japan, a train is considered late if it's not within 1 minute of schedule.
Those perceptions of "lateness" permeate throughout the culture.

I don't claim any authority, but it's important not to project our own views
of cultural permanence onto other cultures. Japan has businesses that have
spanned over a 1000 years contiguously. I would not be surprised if Japan had
a view that spanned much further into the past (particularly during the days
of the Emperor).

Oh, just another side. Those are only a couple of examples of Western
aggression in the previous century. Europe and the U.S. had been _quite_
active in South East Asia. There likely would have been Japanese alive at the
time who had a living memory of events like the colonization of Vietnam.

~~~
krapp
I think that's less about perception of time as it is cultural expectations.
Plenty of people in Europe would consider a train that's 15 minutes late
"late," it just happens often enough that society has to take the slop of
inefficiency into account.

But, my point is that even conceding such a long view of history, the US
probably didn't look more menacing than Europe. The US was a minor political
and economic power, whereas Europe was much more powerful and had its own much
longer history of imperialism and territorial expansion by divine right.

The implication seems like a bit of historical revisionism in hindsight, based
on how threatening the US seems to a lot of people now.

~~~
learc83
>The US was a minor political and economic power

I agree with you that the US was under-powered militarily at the time, but by
the 40s the US had been the world's largest economy and industrial power for
decades.

------
powera
The tone here is _incredibly_ biased towards "nobody in Japan wanted war".
Apparently nobody in Japan wanted war, but they somehow kept invading
countries?

And the claim that "Japan had planned to declare war shortly before its planes
bombed the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, but a series of errors by typists and
translators prevented the Japanese embassy from giving Washington the
declaration in time." is beyond absurd.

~~~
rntz
> And the claim that "Japan had planned to declare war shortly before its
> planes bombed the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, but a series of errors by
> typists and translators prevented the Japanese embassy from giving
> Washington the declaration in time." is beyond absurd.

It appears to be the truth, or pretty close to it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Japanes...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Japanese_declaration_of_war)

~~~
powera
I think it's _far far far_ more likely that they intended for the declaration
to arrive after the attacks, but with some amount of plausible deniability.

~~~
mikeash
Why is that? What advantage would that provide? It seems like they would have
been a lot better off if the declaration had arrived before, but maybe I'm
missing something.

~~~
marshray
My understanding is that the Japanese' Bushido code specifically looked down
on sneak attacks. I.e., a lower-class Ninja* might kill you in your sleep,
whereas a noble Samurai would wake you up and give you a chance to draw.

If you've ever noticed the Americans' official reaction to Pearl Harbor often
made a curious point about calling it a "despicable sneak attack". While a
sneak attack seems like a rather obvious way to start a war for Westerners,
the emphasis may have been a propaganda point towards the Japanese.

[*] No offense is intended to any actual Ninjas.

~~~
krapp
"Bushido" and the culture of the samurai as most people understand it was more
or less invented whole cloth as a romanticized, retroactive mythology[0], well
after the cultural relevance of the samurai had passed on. It was embraced by
the wartime Imperial government for its propaganda value, but that doesn't
mean the government necessarily bought into it.

[0][http://www.tofugu.com/2014/12/08/bushido-way-total-
bullshit/](http://www.tofugu.com/2014/12/08/bushido-way-total-bullshit/)

~~~
marshray
That was a really interesting read and I think it supports the concept that
"Bushido" was in full swing by the 1940's:

 _Bushido would find its ultimate embodiment in kamikaze pilots and foot-
soldiers who “honorably” sacrificed themselves for their country. “Although
some Japanese were taken prisoner,” David Powers of BBC writes, “most fought
until they were killed or committed suicide._

------
rquantz
And untold millions died because of Japanese leaders' cautious stupidity. It
seems like there are lessons to be learned here? Let's start with, whenever
there are positions that are culturally unspeakable, you have a problem.
Perhaps another is, whatever idiocy a foreign nation's leaders are spouting,
it's a good bet nobody actually wants war ( _cough cough Putin_ )

~~~
rui314
One thing we could learn is that the pre-war Japanese Constitution had a
serious problem. The Constitution gave all powers to the Emperor and let him
govern the country through the parliament, cabinet, courts, army and navy.
That was interpreted to mean the army and navy did not have to obey the
cabinet as long as they obey the Emperor. The Emperor didn't actually govern
just like UK, so there was no head of the country. Japanese leaders had
variety of opinions, but once the atmosphere that a war was inevitable was
made, no one had authority to stop that.

~~~
mcintyre1994
This is a pretty interesting point because Germany had the exact same problem
- with Hitler able to have the Enabling Act passed. It's a more extreme
example because it allowed the Reichstag to vote themselves out of power in
favour of Hitler, but it's interesting that Japan similarly had a
constitutional power balancing problem.

------
MichaelMoser123
WW II was probably the last big colonial war - where the objective of the
warring parties/world powers was to gain or defend direct control over
territories and natural resources. I find it is such a pity that the world did
not figure out a couple of decades earlier that it is cheaper to buy raw
materials rather than to kill dozens of millions in a war over those damned
resources; so many lives would have been saved;

What have the Americans ever done for us? Post WWII American leadership
brought us decolonization; i think that this was a really significant change;
one of the biggest changes of the twentieth century...

------
ctrager
Prescient New York Times article about Japan and oil, 1935:
[http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9F02E1D6123DE53...](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9F02E1D6123DE53ABC4B53DFB466838E629EDE)

And the US military was busier in China that you might think:
[http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9803E1D6163BE43...](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9803E1D6163BE433A25751C0A9649C946094D6CF)

[http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9D0DE2DF1E38E43...](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9D0DE2DF1E38E433A2575BC2A9669D946194D6CF)

------
simonh
I'm wondering to what extent the same social and linguistic issues might be
behind Japan's political and economic policy paralysis over the last 20+
years.

~~~
mikeash
I'm more wondering what sort of similar things are happening in my (USA)
government that I can't perceive because I'm too immersed in it all.

------
bawana
Will the election of Donald trump allow the cultivation of such nationalist
behavior here in the U.S. ?

