Why did Japan attack the US?
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
I'm not sure I agree with this statement, as far as I am aware Japan had designs on both India and Australia.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Yet I have never seen or heard of any concrete plans to attack either with the view to conquer, not even something as silly as Sealion has surfaced since the war.
There was a proposal by the Japanese navy in 1942 but the Army opposed it because of Australia's size and geography they regarded it as unfeasible.
From Wiki (sorry about the source but it was the fastest data I could find):
There was a proposal by the Japanese navy in 1942 but the Army opposed it because of Australia's size and geography they regarded it as unfeasible.
From Wiki (sorry about the source but it was the fastest data I could find):
I think even the Japanese realised they were too big for a country the size of Japan to handle.
Last edited:
You still fail to grasp the essential:Japan was saddled up with a war in China,which it could not continue.Giving up was no option (those who talked of withdrawal were killed by army commandos).The war would only end if China would give up .And in their desperation,the Japanese thought that China would give up if the US were expelled from South East Asia and from the Pacific .Thus Japan decided to increase the stakes .Besides there was the "little " point that from the Japanese POV the US embargo would prevent Japan from continuing the war in China and would send Japan back to the 19 century :to the years when commodore Perry was sailing in the bay of Tokyo . Something that no one in Japan was willing to accept .
As I already said : it was bowing of fighting as a Samurai .
Japan was economically in a dead end :
in 1940 the Japanese GDP was 14.6 billions of $ and it spent 3.1 billions on the military.The US GDP was 104 billions of $ and they spent 2.2 billions on defence .
It was even questionable that even without the US embargo Japan could economically continue the war in China .
in 1940 the Japanese GDP was 14.6 billions of $ and it spent 3.1 billions on the military.The US GDP was 104 billions of $ and they spent 2.2 billions on defence .
It was even questionable that even without the US embargo Japan could economically continue the war in China .
Chiang Kai-shek had no intention of giving up China regardless of what happened elsewhere in the Pacific or East Asia. He was bound and determined to hang onto power no matter what and was a skilled machivellian dictator -politican who drove his American allies nuts. The trouble with China was even after Japan occupied most of the key ports and cities there was just to much territory left over for the Japanese to conquer and fight the US and our allies at the same time. They became stretched to thin.
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
And while the war progressed without a final conclusion in the Japanese favor, the Japanese forces had a problem to reinforce islands and areas under attack by the allied forces. A huge part of the Japanese ground forces were still intact when the war ended in 1945. These forces were stuck in the Asian mainland.
Perhaps the standard answers are solid answers. Tell me what is it that you are looking for? I'm not going to go to the trouble of repeating myself again about why the Pearl Harbor attack occurred. BTW address the forum. If you want to address a particular post use the quote function.
You have no points : you are only repeating : I do not believe the Japanese reasons .Something which is totally irrelevant : nobody gives a damn about what you believe or not .The point is what the Japanese believed and why they started the war,that they were wrong or not ,is totally irrelevant .
The OP is : WHY DID JAPAN ATTACK THE USA.
Totally besides the question : it made sense for the Japanese,and this is the only thing that counts.
brinktk
Active member
Because people, as well as governments make mistakes and miscalculations all the time. The same could be asked of why the heck Germany attacked Russia if they knew how absolutely daunting it would have been to achieve even a marginal victory, particularly on the timelines they expected and needed in order to win.
I would say it is a combination of many of the points addressed on here but at the same time, they didn't have access to the information and consequences of this information at the time that they attacked. As long as humans are involved in an equation dealing with a forecast of things to come, errors will be made. I'm sure hubris factored into the equation, along with the fact that they had a large hammer to solve a diplomatic problem...big surprise they used it. Finally, as a student of history, I have realized that people, groups of people, and organizations large and small often don't take the most rational course of action in dealing with a problem, perceived or otherwise. Sometimes they take an absolutely contrary position to rationality in dealing with a problem.
We can also never forget the fact that many times, people are just incompetent. Always remember that it is easy to confuse incompetence for malice because the results of both often mirror one another.
Has anybody read a word I've written? If the generally accepted answer to a question is X and then somebody comes along and gives his reasons for why he thinks X is incorrect/incomplete, what that person doesn't expect is for people to come along and repeat X (in 847 different ways) without once mentioning, refuting, or weighing the reasons stated by that person for why he has a problem with X being an accurate explanation.
(I'm on the 13th knot as I write.)
It's really not so complex. Japan wanted to expand the empire and wanted resources: oil, rubber, tin, etc., without depending on the US. The Japanese military leadership either believed or fooled themselves into believing that if the US Pacific fleet was wiped out at Pearl Harbor (which it wasn't, not the carriers) that we would sue for - pursue for peace. They had deluded themselves. That is except for Admiral Yamamoto.
Keith it just doesn't seem to be so complex (to me). I've studied WW2 for some time and had plenty of relatives who took part in WW2. The forum is a place where we exchange points of view and insights (not always) on military related topics. Why not make a post greatly simplifying your perspective and leave it at that? In the end that's all one can do anyways. I really don't understand this post, but don't let others posts or lack of posting upset you.
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Maybe you can't ask questions. Maybe your answer for why the Japs attacked is wrong. When a government in the past and current are making a decision, they are usually following a causal reasoning for why they are acting in a certain way. However, the response to the actions by any government is uncertain. Another approach is to use the old prisoners dilemma, in the modern application of it is called the game theory. You act, I respond to your action and you respond to my actions etc etc. The tricky part of governance is to predict how the opponent will react to your actions
Thanks, brinktk for the first answer that addresses the original question!!!! We're 56 responses in, and someone finally figured it out! Your answer is neither correct nor incorrect, nor do I state that I agree or disagree with it, but it FINALLY addresses my question and provides food for thought. Thank you again.
Although their are absolutes such as in some cases of right and wrong. I would agree with you on this. We often get the partial viewpoint and not the total viewpoint which is difficult to achieve since historians and military leaders often conflict with one another.
The recent tread involving the defeat of Germany was a good example. Some say Germany by moving east while leaving Britain undefeated lost the war, others put the date over 2 years later at the German defeat at Kursk. In between are a host of other critical points in the war on the eastern front that are claimed to be the death kneel of Germany. The Historians have widely varying opinions on this and data from the old USSR can be sketchy.
Last edited: