Japan had to try and take out the US early on. The US would not stand for the New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Thus, the reason for the Pearl Harbor attack. Once the US decided to go onto a total war footing it was just a matter of time before the Japanese were beaten back. Due to the immense resources of the USA. Japan did however quickly take a very large Asian – Pacific empire. Which meant the US and allies weren’t going to defeat Japan overnight. At 1st the Japanese had superior planes more experienced soldiers, pilots and the going was rough. However by the battle of Midway it was proven that the carriers would be the deciding factor in the Pacific war and the US had a distinct advantage in carriers from Midway on. Later the US developed superior deck top aircraft as well (i.e. the Corsair). The US out produced and outnumbered the Japanese. The war was prolonged however in a brutal island hopping campaign due to the dedication of both the Japanese soldier (even in the face of obvious defeat) and the steadfastness of the US army and marines. By 43 the air and sea battles were all allied victories such as the great Mariana’s Turkey Shoot which could be called the death kneel of the Japanese air force. From here a bloody war of attrition finally drove the Japanese back, cutting off all vital supplies and slowly destroying their armed forces.
Why did Japan attack the US?
@lljadw
We're all agreed that the Japanese couldn't make it without oil or other raw materials. But why would the Japanese think war was inevitable with the US, that is unless--as I stated earlier--what they wanted was to dominated half the globe with their co-prosperity sphere. That indeed would put them in conflict with the US. But they already had French Indochina under their thumbs (the US did nothing) Dutch Indonesia would have provided the oil.
It's a good point that this would leave their shipping greatly exposed to the US; however, even on the balls of their butts in 1945 the Japanese were able to force a train route through to French Indochina. If they weren't at war with the US, this could have easily been achieved early on--if they were transshipping oil and other raw materials from Southeast Asia.
Frankly, I don't know if it was necessary for the Japanese to even attack the British and take Singapore and, ergo, Malaya. Don't know if the rubber in British Malaya was absolutely essential for Japan or if it could be procured elsewhere. I believe Germany used synthetics to get around their rubber shortage.
None of this would mean much if the risk to Japanese expansion was some minor country, but the US? Anyone could see it would ultimately be suicidal. So what I'm hearing is that you believe that the risk to the Japanese flanks IF the US decided to declare war was greater than the risk of fighting the US to begin with? A conclusion that--to me at least-seems highly far-fetched. Unless, that is, you're seeking some sort of world domination.
But the common explanation for the war--that Japan attacked the US when it found it had no other choice once embargoed--is a rather shaky one, at best.
We're all agreed that the Japanese couldn't make it without oil or other raw materials. But why would the Japanese think war was inevitable with the US, that is unless--as I stated earlier--what they wanted was to dominated half the globe with their co-prosperity sphere. That indeed would put them in conflict with the US. But they already had French Indochina under their thumbs (the US did nothing) Dutch Indonesia would have provided the oil.
It's a good point that this would leave their shipping greatly exposed to the US; however, even on the balls of their butts in 1945 the Japanese were able to force a train route through to French Indochina. If they weren't at war with the US, this could have easily been achieved early on--if they were transshipping oil and other raw materials from Southeast Asia.
Frankly, I don't know if it was necessary for the Japanese to even attack the British and take Singapore and, ergo, Malaya. Don't know if the rubber in British Malaya was absolutely essential for Japan or if it could be procured elsewhere. I believe Germany used synthetics to get around their rubber shortage.
None of this would mean much if the risk to Japanese expansion was some minor country, but the US? Anyone could see it would ultimately be suicidal. So what I'm hearing is that you believe that the risk to the Japanese flanks IF the US decided to declare war was greater than the risk of fighting the US to begin with? A conclusion that--to me at least-seems highly far-fetched. Unless, that is, you're seeking some sort of world domination.
But the common explanation for the war--that Japan attacked the US when it found it had no other choice once embargoed--is a rather shaky one, at best.
In 1942,the south (=mainly DEI) produced some 26 million barrels of oil of which 10.5 million (40 %) was transported to Japan.
In 1943 50 million barrels were produced and 14.5 million (29%) transported to Japan.
In 1944 37 million were produced and 5 million (13.5 %) transported to Japan.
In 1945 6.5 million were produced and 1.1 million (16 %) transported to Japan .
In 1943 50 million barrels were produced and 14.5 million (29%) transported to Japan.
In 1944 37 million were produced and 5 million (13.5 %) transported to Japan.
In 1945 6.5 million were produced and 1.1 million (16 %) transported to Japan .
1)You are forgetting Singapore
2)The Japanese felt they had no other choice : it was bowing or fighting and dying as a Samourai .
3)The Japanese wanted to expel the white man from south-east Asia : Yankee go home
NO: it is not because they would not need Malaysia that they would not need Singapore :Singapore was a British naval base,and if there was a war with the US (who ever started him) there would be a war with Britain :Britain was in no position to remain neutral during a war between the US and Japan .
And,there is an other reason : the war in China : Japan did not succeed to finish this war which was ruining the country:the Japanese military blamed Britain (and the US) claiming that China continued the war because it received aid from Britain and the US (the French military used the same argument in Algeria,saying that without the help of Nasser,the revolt in Algeria would collaps).
Thus:if Britain and the US were chased away,the Chinese would give up .
And,there is an other reason : the war in China : Japan did not succeed to finish this war which was ruining the country:the Japanese military blamed Britain (and the US) claiming that China continued the war because it received aid from Britain and the US (the French military used the same argument in Algeria,saying that without the help of Nasser,the revolt in Algeria would collaps).
Thus:if Britain and the US were chased away,the Chinese would give up .
You're presenting a purely hypothetical case in your why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor question and then hoping others present you with the so-called right answer. Simple put the Japanese wanted to expand under the military leadership of Tojo and others. They knew the US would not tolerate such expansion, so they struck 1st banking on the fact that they could take out the Pacific fleet and that the US would not have the stomach for war after such a loss (being as strongly neutral as the US was at the time). They were wrong on both accounts.
@lljadw
NO: (I figured I'd take a page out of your stylebook here.) All you are doing is restating the standard answer for why Japan attacked the US. You are not answering my points.
Your first statement says that Japan had to attack Britain because they had to attack America. Well, uh, okay. But that has nothing to do with why they had to attack America to begin with.
Next you note that China had remained a thorn in the side of Japan. Fine. But the Chinese were incapable of winning battles, their commanders were akin to Afghan tribal leader-commanders today, their men ran at the first sign of trouble, success only measured by the limitation of Japan's ability to supply it's army. Some success did come from the communists, but only as guerrilla fighters.
The Japanese took almost the entire East Asian continent in--what--five months? I can't see them having a problem with pushing a front along the coast down to French Indonesia to provide an overland route to its conquered territories without provoking a war with America. For God's sake--as I stated previously--the Japanese were able to push the very same route through in 1945 even after they had been bled dry fighting in the Pacific.
NO: (I figured I'd take a page out of your stylebook here.) All you are doing is restating the standard answer for why Japan attacked the US. You are not answering my points.
Your first statement says that Japan had to attack Britain because they had to attack America. Well, uh, okay. But that has nothing to do with why they had to attack America to begin with.
Next you note that China had remained a thorn in the side of Japan. Fine. But the Chinese were incapable of winning battles, their commanders were akin to Afghan tribal leader-commanders today, their men ran at the first sign of trouble, success only measured by the limitation of Japan's ability to supply it's army. Some success did come from the communists, but only as guerrilla fighters.
The Japanese took almost the entire East Asian continent in--what--five months? I can't see them having a problem with pushing a front along the coast down to French Indonesia to provide an overland route to its conquered territories without provoking a war with America. For God's sake--as I stated previously--the Japanese were able to push the very same route through in 1945 even after they had been bled dry fighting in the Pacific.
@JOC
Asking a question is not necessarily asking a hypothetical question. What I did was question the standard answer for why the Japanese attacked the US and then give reasons why that answer made no sense. What I've gotten back is nothing other than an exact rephrasing of the standard answer with no attempt to address the points I made.
I've been like a broken record, phrasing and rephrasing the same points over and over (check out the commentary, it's truely been comical) and I keep getting the same stone-wall parroting of the standard answer--one which I myself mentioned in my first commentary with a clear explanation (I thought) of why I had qualms with it.
As an aside, I went to the coffee shop this morning and talked with a friend explaining to him my conundrum. He had no problem understanding my point--and he knows nothing about WWII. So I know it is at least possible for people to understand me and I'm not losing my mind.
(Sorry, but that rant was a long time coming.)
Asking a question is not necessarily asking a hypothetical question. What I did was question the standard answer for why the Japanese attacked the US and then give reasons why that answer made no sense. What I've gotten back is nothing other than an exact rephrasing of the standard answer with no attempt to address the points I made.
I've been like a broken record, phrasing and rephrasing the same points over and over (check out the commentary, it's truely been comical) and I keep getting the same stone-wall parroting of the standard answer--one which I myself mentioned in my first commentary with a clear explanation (I thought) of why I had qualms with it.
As an aside, I went to the coffee shop this morning and talked with a friend explaining to him my conundrum. He had no problem understanding my point--and he knows nothing about WWII. So I know it is at least possible for people to understand me and I'm not losing my mind.
(Sorry, but that rant was a long time coming.)
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor must be viewed in the context of how the world looked like for the Japanese government in 1941. The Germans were very successful in their war effort against the Russians and would probably turn against the British again when they have defeated the Russians. In addition to that, the Japanese and the Russian were keeping their non-aggression treaty even after a few border clashes. The Japanese were also craving for conquer the European colonies in the East, especially when the British were forced to have their resources in Europe and North Africa. It looked very tempting for the Japanese to take these colonies. The huge uncertainty was the US and how it would react to an expansion south. However, the US had watched the GB fighting for its life for a quite long time without intervening in the conflict. I would guess the Japanese government viewed the passivity as a sign, the US would avoid a war and maybe negotiate after losing a huge part of its naval capacity.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I am of the opinion that you have an answer you will accept already so how about you give us your opinion so we can stop playing 20 questions?
Ockhams Razor is a great fall back position, the simplest answer is most often the right one and in this case just maybe the "standard" answer is the right one?
That's what I was getting at in post #27. I think sound reasoning for why Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor has been provided for from several angles.
I should explain I'm sort of alone in the woods when it comes to my interest in the Pacific War. I live in a downtown counter-culture kind of neighborhood where you simply do not find anyone with an interest in history, let alone war. So I read my books from Kindle and have zero opportunity to banter them about. Thought I would come to a site where people have had a chance to ask questions on these topics before and had time to stew them out.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Maybe you should try a different approach. Do not ask questions and expect the exact answer you want. I won't say the literature you have read is wrong, but there are other sources out there and others have read these sources and they might contradict your sources. Only because the authors of your and others literature are historians, they can be as any other academics be criticized. View this forum as a seminar in which different matters are discussed, you will not agree with everything and you will agree with other topics. I find it interesting when you are into the Pacific war and it is quite ignored in comparison with the events in Europe.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Well what doesn't make sense to you?
Debate is a two way thing
I can understand that and would like to see more interest in the site which can only be done through discussions such as this one but it requires some input, for example I don't care whether you agree with my points or not but after a while I will stop responding if you don't back your responses with counterpoints and references because you are giving me nothing to respond to other than repeating the same points I have already made and I just don't like repeating myself.
This could be an interesting discussion but you really need to lead it through counter points etc. so that we have something to respond to.
Several times I suggested the reason the Japanese might have attacked the US was because they were looking to conquer half the world. THAT it couldn't do with the US around. But to look at the Japanese as having been "left with no choice" but to attack the US in order to survive just doesn't hold water.
If all they wanted to do was just survive, or even just hold Manchuria, a far more limited war would have done that without rattling the US to war.
I'm not saying I'm in love with that answer. Just that it's a possibility I'm leaning toward because I've heard nothing better. And it certainly clearly answers the question of why the Japanese felt it was now or never: not for survival but for conquest.
I should add that I wasn't holding this up my sleeve to spring on people, and I also wasn't here to teach anybody anything, just to figure out what makes sense and what does't. No alternate agenda do I conceal. You really need to ask yourself, is it always necessary to be ready to present an answer to a question you have? That's what's called begging the question. Which isn't looked upon very well over in my neck of the woods. That said, I above present you with something to chew on.
If all they wanted to do was just survive, or even just hold Manchuria, a far more limited war would have done that without rattling the US to war.
I'm not saying I'm in love with that answer. Just that it's a possibility I'm leaning toward because I've heard nothing better. And it certainly clearly answers the question of why the Japanese felt it was now or never: not for survival but for conquest.
I should add that I wasn't holding this up my sleeve to spring on people, and I also wasn't here to teach anybody anything, just to figure out what makes sense and what does't. No alternate agenda do I conceal. You really need to ask yourself, is it always necessary to be ready to present an answer to a question you have? That's what's called begging the question. Which isn't looked upon very well over in my neck of the woods. That said, I above present you with something to chew on.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I tend to think that Japanese war aims were far more limited than people think, had they been out to rule half the world it is incomprehensible to me that they would not have had plans to neutralise nations like Australia, New Zealand or India (they did attack India late in the piece but I expect that was a mistaken attempt to start an uprising and tie down the British).
Perhaps they wanted to simply rule the Asian world but even that was going to bring them into conflict with the USA at some point.
My belief remains that they probably would have been happy with China but the trade embargo and sanctions were making that an impossibility and rather than back down they went after the resources in the region.
Perhaps they wanted to simply rule the Asian world but even that was going to bring them into conflict with the USA at some point.
My belief remains that they probably would have been happy with China but the trade embargo and sanctions were making that an impossibility and rather than back down they went after the resources in the region.
The Japanese most definitely were interested in empire building. This was the main goal of the New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese name for their new empire. They desired to rule over - subjugate many Asian peoples: Chinese, Malays, Philippines, Burmese, etc. The fact that the US stood in the way of such an empire was why we were attacked in the 1st place. The greatly respected Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (who was educated in the US) knew that if the US was not defeated in a short war that the Japanese empire was doomed. His prophecy turned out to be true.
Japan viewed the subjugated Asian peoples and allied POW’s in a somewhat similar manner as Germany viewed the Slavs, Jews, Gypsies and others. These so-called inferior peoples were abused, murdered, and used as a free source of slave labor. ~ 10 million Chinese, Pilipino, POW’s etc were murdered by the brutal Japanese army and secret police. This was allowed and encouraged at the highest levels of the Japanese military government headed up by Tojo. Many believe the emperor also gave these behaviors the stamp of approval.
As for the attack on India at Imphal and Kohima these were more diversionary invasions to end the British-American buildup that was being prepared to retake Burma. It was a dismal failure for Japan and after some bloody fighting near the border it lead to the very thing Japan was trying to avoid a British invasion - retaking of Burma.
Last edited: