Why would anyone think it's a good idea to attack the most powerful country on earth, with the most resources and industry?
Even Barbarossa, another terrible decision, makes more sense than Pearl Harbor. At least there was a theoretical possibility that Germany would overrun the USSR. A Japanese victory over the US wasn't even possible in theory.
IIRC they expected the US to declare war on them so they wanted to get a head start and cripple as much of the US fleet as they could
Its the smartest decision in History if you plan on defeating the United States in the Pacific without the use of Atomic bomb or any weapons of mass destruction
America was not the most powerful country on earth at the time. That being said, still a monumentally stupid decision
Is that image real? If it is, hell of a picture.
>A Japanese victory over the US wasn't even possible in theory.
Read a history book nigga, the Japs knew this.
Their biggest mistake wasn't Pearl Harbor itself, but their expectation that the Americans were pussies that would chicken out if they could inflict some damage on their fleet and hold them out of the Pacific.
that's from Tora Tora Tora me thinks
US GDP was 800bn while second place (the empire was only 680)
What would you do if you were sure that a war would have broken out?
Wait untill the enemy marshalls its forces and declare war or take the initiative by launching a suprise attack on the harbour you think the bulk of their naval forces are located in?
They were counting on the US to take it easy in the Pacific, seeing as the more important war was happening on the other side.
More important war? The only theater where the enemy was attacking US soil was the pacific.
If the US attacked first, they would be the aggressor. Also, there could have been an anti-war movement like there was during Vietnam, if the American people believed it to be a war of aggression.
anti-war movements during Vietnam were a result of mass media and the cultural revolution. It wouldn't have happened during WW2 even with America as the aggressor.
Besides if Japan was only interested in keeping their image they wouldn't have entered the war in the first place, or genocided the ch*nks.
Japs weren't as retarded as you and could read the obvious signs of US prepping to enter WW2 against Germany.
It's just politics really, the sea faction had won over the land faction in Japan and the only way to advance the sea war was to secure oil resources from US held places.
Everybody knew that if US really got into it Japan would be absolutely decimated, they were counting on the US not caring enough to fight the war.
Nope. From a movie.
There was already a pretty substantial anti-war movement prior to December 1941, it completely collapsed after Pearl Harbor.
>Japs weren't as retarded as you and could read the obvious signs of US prepping to enter WW2 against Germany.
>US prepping to enter WW2 against Germany
>attacking a country preparing for war against another country and causing it to redirect its rage and anger at you isn't retarded
Jeannete Rankin (the first women to hold federal office in the United States) vote against declaring war on the Japanese after pearl harbour.
>Was Peral Harbor the dumbest decision in history?
It made half a billion dollars despite being a Michael Bay piece of shit, so I'd say not a bad decision at all.
Nah, there were WAY dumber decisions in history.
My vote is providing the Vandals with a fleet so they can go to North Africa. Bonifacius a shit.
I'd vote on that one Arab general that burned his fucking supplies after the Byzantine emperor told him he'd let him take the city if he does.
...
If those carriers were there like they were supposed to be the strategy of the attack would have been a little more obvious. It looks stupid in hindsight but really it was a gamble that they happened to lose.
Why tho?
If those carriers were there like they were "supposed to be" the U.S. would still have 5 to throw at the Japanese, and all the ones that they would go on to build during the war.
Also, what is the consensus about the theory that FDR had advanced intelligence about the attack and deliberately evacuated the carriers (but not the people) in order to secure the pretext needed to join the war?
It's a fringe conspiracy theory. It doesn't even make sense, considering the state of then-current american doctrine that focused on battleships as the core of a battle fleet, not the carriers. Not to mention that if he really wanted to do that, he would have moved said carriers back to the U.S. west coast, instead of making deliveries of aircraft to islands closer to the Japanese holdings.
They knew they weren't going to be totally defeating the US, they weren't that stupid.
What they were retarded about was thinking the US was 1905 Russia that would throw in the towel if they shit on their fleet hard enough and took their overseas holdings, and that they weren't much interested in a long, drawn out war to take back the Asian side of the pacific. They were really banking on them just signing a quick peace and exiting the war when they got the chance and leaving the Japs the Euro colonies in SEA.
Here's the real reasons.
1) The Japanese war in China was going to stall and fail without oil and rubber
2) The US wasnt going to sell them anymore without political changes that would put Japan back in their conquests
3) The only oil sources close to Japan were the dutch east indies and siberia
4) The Japs estimated that they have a better chance against the USA with their navy than the USSR with their army (Khal Golkin was a heavy influence)
5) They never thought the US would give up after Pearl Harbour, they expected a war and wanted it sooner on their terms. They did think the Americans were big pansies.
6) The Japanese plan was to start a war and then force one decisive battle that would force a peace with the US
In reality they kinda got what they wanted. Midway was that big battle.
it was mostly an unproven empire though
America barely participated in WW1 and aside from the Spanish American War they didn't really have much experience fighting other industrialized countries
meanwhile Japan had just crushed China, Russia and most of Asia and was probably overconfident as a result
it's obvious in hindsight but at the time the Japanese may have been a bit myopic
>They did think the Americans were big pansies.
I mean if the Japs had access to surveys then it sort of makes sense why they would think that
The only thing I would quibble with about what you wrote is equating the DEI and Siberian oil. Eastern Siberia and the Far East was capable of producing a bit over a million tons of oil a year in 1950. cia.gov
The NEI was almost 8 times that much. digital.library.northwestern.edu
No. If you had any historical knowledge of WW2, you'd understand why.
US was heavily involved in both pacfic and the western fronts. Everyone and their grandma saw the official entrance of US from mile away. It was merely a question of when the US would enter.
Instead of giving US the time to mobilize and strike Japan, Japan opted to remove the opening shots and dissuade the US. Japan gambled on the American people instead of the US gov. The US gov wanted a war however public was against it. So this ruse created the opportunity for the gov to legitimately enter the war without public opinion.
>A foreign power directly attacking your most important naval installation is a "ruse."
You know, having the land faction win out over the sea faction has to be one of the most interesting alternate history scenarios I can think of
>possibility of Japanese invasion of Siberia, likely causing the actual fall of the USSR
>either delayed or no US entry into the war
>Nazis now dominate Europe, Japan dominates Asia
>where does the world go
Its an alt history where Japan gets whopped even harder. There is 0 chance the Japanese army could have dealt significant damage to the USSR. Nor distracted enough to significantly affect the european theatre.
It's really questionable how much Japan would have actually been able to hurt the Soviet Union. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a really hard time imagining the IJA going up against the Red Army and winning.
Perhaps they might have been able to do something if they hadn't gotten themselves stuck in an endless quagmire war in China, but that just goes even further down the alt-history rabbit hole.
She thought war “Wasn’t the best way to settle things”
Poor camera man
...
Poking the USSR even a little bit would still be much more productive than literally bombing a neutral superpower. Japan attacking the USSR in July 1941 would have increased the odds of Barbarossa being successful.
Why the fuck did you make this thread? Just so you could call america the most powerful country on earth? Fuck off.
>Osama bin Laden unironcially thought this would cause America to remove all of their forces from the middle east entirely, reduce their military, and cause the world to see islam in a more favorable light
This is unironically the reason.
It's probably true though as they surpassed the British empire in 1924
Let me guess, she was one of those cucks who thought blacks should have rights too.
[spoiler]I'm kidding here btw[/spoiler]
>If the US attacked first, they would be the aggressor.
Japan had been overtly aggressive and antagonistic to mainland Asia for decades by the time they bombed pearl harbor. Literally no one on Earth aside from their axis allies would give a single rancid fart if the US preemptively declared war in the pacific.
>bin Laden wants to start a war
>gets his war
How was 9/11 a failure? It's worked out wonderfully for radical Muslims. They have more power and influence now then at any point in centuries.
He didn’t want to start a war. He thought this would cause America to remove itself from the Middle East. Stop being a gullible fifth column conspiracy tats
Not him, but are you fucking retarded? Have you never read the 1998 fatawa? The entire plan was to suck the U.S. into a series of unpopular wars in the ME to drive wedges between the US and the repressive secular Arab dictatorships, especially in Saudi Arabia. He most definitely wanted to start a war.
No it wasn’t. You clearly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. His suck them into a war was a bullshit excuse on the same level as we invaded Iraq for democracy after it turned out they had no wmds
Japan and Germany both needed to make nice with the US, and keep them out of the war directly. Declaring war on the US doomed them completely, whereas they might have survived if they'd kept them out.
>japs plan to conquer and invade pretty much all of SEA to conquer land for resources, land of which belongs to many countries of which them keeping that land is in the states best interest
>numerous US territories wanted by the Japs
>if conquered the Japanese would become the dominant power in the Pacific
>Japanese launch a preemptive strike in hopes of crippling the US navy in the pacific so that they cannot easily intervene in the Pacific
woah dem japs r dumb heh fukin gooks
That theory isn’t even generally accepted among the fucking japs, that’s how fringe it is.
Except it was dumb of them though. A complete japanese success at pearl harbor(all the major fleet ships including the carriers sunk) would only mean that they get a few more years before the US military skull fucks the imperial japanese military sideways. Combine that with the obvious fact that actually inflicting that kind of damage was for all intents and purposes impossible and the only real question I'm left with is...why? Why do something so self-defeating?
they could have done it better which they admitted to after the war..but no its not the worst idea.
>the US govt wanted a war
Not with Japan.
A looming shortage of Tetra-Ethyl Leaded Aviation Gasolene caused by the U.S. At the conference where the Japs decided to attack Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, etc. it was the first topic discussed, and for the longest (app. 20 minutes, other topics app. 10 minutes). Also a mathematical formula about the effects of outnumbering your opponent in naval warfare. This has to do with the 5-5-3 formula.
USA knew Japan was going to attack somewhere, they just assumed that somewhere was the phillipines. The British were reading both American and Japanese communications and knew about pearl harbor, but withheld that information to get USA into the war
Because it was a fucking gamble Japan did not have convenience of being able to build up all the territory for instance the UK/NL had in asia by defeating literal who countries that no one really cared about to gain small concessions one at a time. They got their little piece of the pie in China/some Pacific islands. But if they wanted to take themselves to the next level it meant directly confronting the British at the very least in the Pacific. Which would in turn probably make the US join at some point anyways.
A few more years would insane for the Japs, had they succeeded to the full extent of their plan. Then they would have supremacy in the Pacific and take many of the Pacific Islands meaning tons of Airfields for them. That and not having their entire merchant fleet being sunk by the US means they could transport tons of troops and supplies to all these Islands.
By the time the US would be ready to attack the Japs, all things considered it most likely would not be worth it with how entrenched they would be. The fact is with the scrap metal/metal/oil embargo put upon them by the US it meant that they simply did not have the production required to maintain a war effort even in shithole China alone.
>The British were reading both American and Japanese communications and knew about pearl harbor,
[citation needed]
I will add though, that the DOW by Germany on the US was retarded. Even though it was probably going to happen anyways. With how things were ramping up, the undeclared war etc.
>
A few more years would insane for the Japs, had they succeeded to the full extent of their plan. Then they would have supremacy in the Pacific and take many of the Pacific Islands meaning tons of Airfields for them.
t. retard. Even if every single ship at Pearl harbor is sunk, and the two carriers normally harbored there is with them the Americans still have 5 other carriers, as well as all the new battleships that were under construction or recently finished which would historically be sent to the Pacific but weren't based in Hawaii at the time.
Furthermore, the Japanese had extremely limited amphibious capabilities to take opposed beaches. Add to the pile that the 6 carriers that took part in the Pearl Harbor attack could carry a bit over 400 planes between them. That means almost anything with a real airbase is going to be difficult if not impossible to approach once the Americans are at a war footing and keeping track of Japanese movements in a serious way.
But even if they do somehow take more islands and thus airfields, it doesn't help their defensive preparations all that much unless you have long chains strung together that can mutually support each other. And they still would not h ave a doctrine in any way centered around paying attention to merchant shipping, so the wider perimeter wouldn't help much with that.
You don't need to have "their plan work." You need to have literal magic combined with the Americans being drooling retards.
>If those carriers were there like they were "supposed to be" the U.S. would still have 5 to throw at the Japanese,
US had 7 carriers total and 6 that could feasibly operate in the Pacific. It was impossible for the US to lose 2 or 3 carriers and still throw 5 at the Japanese.
The japs had tapped into all the transpacific undersea cables, and had radio intercept stations for both the U.S. and the U.K. They had broken all U.S. military and diplomatic codes and were thus reading all of our traffic. I do not know about U.K. codes.
The U.S. had broken the series of Jap codes know as the Purple Codes, and a couple of others. The U.S. at the time of Pearl Harbor had 4 Purple Code breaking machines, which were being made one at a time. The backlog of low-priority messages to be decoded was app. 2 months. The U.K. got their Purple Code machine from the U.S. in exchange for a promise of access to a captured Enigma machine, on which they reneged .
It is very difficult to find information about how the U.S. broke the Purple code, and how they learned to build the machines.
The Ranger wasn't committed to the Pacific, but there's really no reason it couldn't. It wasn't sent because it was too slow to keep up with the other carriers, but if there are fewer carriers to keep up with, or if you're sufficiently desperate, that makes 5, assuming the Saratoga and Enterprise go down.
>3) The only oil sources close to Japan were the dutch east indies and siberia
There was no major oil sources in Siberia. Soviet oil came from the Caucasus.
That's not actually true. While the bulk of their crude came from the Transcaucus region, the Far East did amount for approximately 2.6% of overall Soviet oil production. That isn't that much, but it's still a bit over a million tons a year.
>The Ranger wasn't committed to the Pacific, but there's really no reason it couldn't
It had very poor sea keeping and could barely operate in the Atlantic in good weather.
> It wasn't sent because it was too slow to keep up with the other carriers,
It wasn't sent there because it wouldn't have been good for anything except ferrying aircrafts to bases.
>Even if every single ship at Pearl harbor is sunk, and the two carriers normally harbored there
Three carriers were normally harbored there you retard.
She was dedicated pacifist. She also voted against declaring war on Germany the next day and against them in 1917. She was opposed to any kind of American foreign military venture, so at least she was being consistent.
Funny then, how it was able to participate in lengthy sea trials, cruises and wargames in the Pacific during the interwar period. You get some pretty rough weather up around Alaska.
The Saratoga literally had not been in Pearl Harbor for over a year by the time of the attack. It had spent most of 1941 in Bremerton (Washington), and then went to San Diego. It was in the Pacific Fleet, sure, but there is no accurate way you can say it was "normally" in Pearl Harbor at around the time of the attack.
There is no accurate way to say any boat was "normally" in Pearl Harbor. It's a matter of semantics. If you mean to say a boat's official home at the time was PH, then Saratoga was "normally" in Pearl Harbor. If you mean to say where a boat spend most of its life, then no PacFleet boat was "normally" in Pearl Harbor.
Anyone have any information on this? That's hilarious.
In the context of a hypothetical situation in which a Japanese surprise attack is successful in knocking out some carriers, the meaning is obvious. We're talking about how much of a deviation we need to catch the carriers at Pearl and have a chance of sinking them. Lexington left 2 days prior; the Enterprise, 10 days. They also both left to help reinforce outlying outposts further to the Japanese because the Americans thought Wake and Midway were more likely targets. Both are in a window where it wouldn't take that much tweaking of the historical timeline, either in terms of U.S. intelligence, or just striking a bit earlier or a bit later, to have those 2 present. Getting the Saratoga to Pearl in time for a surprise Japanese attack takes a lot more alteration.
I believe a flight of Douglas from the Enterprise reached Pearl Harbor right after 8:00 a.m. Maybe 12 or so, and engaged the Jap planes after realizing what was going on. The pilots initial reaction was that this was the most realistic drill they had ever seen, but I might be thinking of the B-17 pilots.
That's Leo III.
en.wikipedia.org
>As the siege drew into winter, negotiations opened between the two sides, extensively reported by Arab sources but ignored by Byzantine historians. According to the Arab accounts, Leo continued to play a double game with the Arabs. One version claims that he tricked Maslama into handing over most of his grain supplies, while another claims that the Arab general was persuaded to burn them altogether, so as to show the inhabitants of the city that they faced an imminent assault and induce them to surrender. The winter of 718 was extremely harsh; snow covered the ground for over three months. As the supplies in the Arab camp ran out, a terrible famine broke out: the soldiers ate their horses, camels, and other livestock, and the bark, leaves and roots of trees. They swept the snow of the fields they had sown to eat the green shoots, and reportedly resorted to cannibalism and eating their own excrement. Consequently, the Arab army was ravaged by epidemics; with great exaggeration, the Lombard historian Paul the Deacon put the number of their dead of hunger and disease at 300,000.
She was a woman, therefore she wasn't qualified to fight in war. She felt it was morally wrong for her to call on others to fight on her behalf, when she could not do the same for them.
Maybe he burned the grain because it was blighted?
You think already-harvested grain can be blighted?
Not him, but it can mold.
>If the US attacked first, they would be the aggressor.
So what? You honestly think that would have even mattered in this particular scenario? As someone already pointed out the japanese were already a political pariah at the time. As if that wasn't enough are you really saying that not being the aggressor is more worth than having a fighting chance in a war?
>Also, there could have been an anti-war movement like there was during Vietnam, if the American people believed it to be a war of aggression
I sincerely doubt that. The media wasn't as developed as it was during the vietnam war where they had, if I'm not mistaken, reporters reporting and filming live from the war.
And it actually was an anti-war movement happening in the USA which is the partial reason for why the americans came late to both WWI and WWII. However it's existance wasn't some immovable force. It was pretty much inevitable that the USA entered into WWII.
It was just Mexico attacking the US that’s all.
Being able to claim the moral high ground is critical to morale in war. That is why every country that goes to war claims it is defending itself against aggression. No one ever claims to be an aggressor.
>It had very poor sea keeping and could barely operate in the Atlantic in good weather.
No, it had fine seakeeping, and operated in Far North Atlantic waters regularly, so the Pacific posed no problems for it.
>It wasn't sent there because it wouldn't have been good for anything except ferrying aircrafts to bases.
Ranger was involved in at least 3 major combat operations, so clearly it had far more use than as a ferry. If the US had needed it in the Pacific, it would have been sent there. The Wasp was sent to the Pacific, and it was considered a much abridged version of a Yorktown-class ship, very vulnerable to combat damage, and it was sent out there. So would have Ranger been sent, if required.
>It was pretty much inevitable that the USA entered into WWII.
Not really, it required the Axis to attack, and there was little possibility of a US offensive role in that war absent such an attack. Most recognized that the US had been illegitimately sucked into the Great War, and were wary. Pearl Harbor changed all that, and that idiot Hitler declared war following.
At least she took a stand and kept it. And while i cant really say i agree with her, at least i can understand it.
This graph is total fucking horse shit. USA fucking dwarfed Nips in Oil production alone. (US was producing 3/4 of WORLDS Oil in 1941) And manufacturing.
USA was superior in every fucking way, including GDP, to nips.
No, Japs would have been slaughtered by superior Slavic soliders, just like they did in 1939.
Russo japanese war. The japs were pretty smart they just didn't have the manpower to overwhelm the US in reality pearl harbour was an excellent move its just that the japanese didn't have the capability to overwhelm the americans.
Japan was aware of its inability to defeat the US Pacific Fleet in a stand up fight so they elected to fuck its shit up in port, it didn't go to plan because they were scared of US subs killing their carriers after the 2nd wave, they didn't tke out the sub pens which would be their biggest problem in the war, they also missed the carriers which would have been a huge advantage at Midway. On paper the plan is very sound as it wipes out the Pacific Fleet giving them a free run to cut off Australia, get oil and rubber from Indonesia and occupy all the Pacific atolls to turn them into unsinkable carriers but the reality doesn't quite live up to the expectation to say the least