Why did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor?

What about those ships that President Obama referred too that go under water ?

Almost as bad as "navy corpse man."

Obama has to be the most incompetent Cn'C in America's history. Next we'll be seeing Marines carrying umbrellas.

 

all that and Japan didn't think it was fair the US, England, France and other euro countries had their imperialist colonial empires while Japan was restricted from doing so...

 

as to Pearl Harbour the japanese IMO made an error in not occupying the islands following the attack ...

from what I've read Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto who planned the Pearl attack believed it was an error to attack USA/Pearl Harbour but did so when ordered...

 

Japan did not have the capability of taking Hawaii. They simply lacked the supply lines and amphibious capability to do so and meet their other deadlines (specifically the Philippines) at the same time. And even if they did take them, they would have been unable to hold them.

 

Submarines are boats..........always have been referred that way - See if you can guess why

 

Because calling them a moped is just plain wrong.

 

Heck, should have heard some of the hassles I got when I was in the Corps. Whenever I would be leading the platoon in a run, I normally modified the cadence just slightly:

My corpse, your corpse, hard corpse, Marine Corpse!

Of course, we were also grunts, so a bit of dark humor is the norm.

 

It was fairyphile Clinton who ordered the Marines to stop wearing dress blues and start wearing blue dresses.

 

It was more than that. In the 19th Century, Japan felt that it would be the next to be colonized if it didn't militarize and take a few colonies itself, starting with Korea and Taiwan around 1900.

 

Yes a carrier task force would be under the command of an Admiral and I'm sure Kimmel wished he had had more to send them and no they were not piloted by Generals.

 

Submarines carry boats, inflatable ones. They can also carry deep submersibles and rescue craft. It's all more a matter a tradition not etched in stone criteria. For instance the navy also describes ships as vessels capable of operating independently over large areas of open seas. Well that certainly applies to submarines. Or a ship has more than one deck, again that applies to submarines too.

 

And fortunately the US Navy is the font of all things nautical in description.....not

 

This was concerning the US Navy classifications and usage.

 

Wow, you are only missing a great many things between the isolationism of Feudal Japan and WWII. Like the Russian-Japanese War, the Meiji Restoration, the Great White Fleet, the fall of the Shogunate, and I could go on and on but I know it would make no difference. Your mind is made up and something as insignificant as the understanding of the Japanese people and culture will not change that.

 

Whatever floats your boat.

An intelligent analysis would be that FDR didn't believe the Japs would attack, but would instead that they would boldly invade SE Asia, knowing that he couldn't ask the American people for a war to defend French Indochina, Dutch Indonesia, and British Singapore. He also knew they would attack an American fleet provoking an attack by shadowing the Jap fleet.

 

Actually, FDR and the rest of the military expected an attack. That is why the remaining Marines were evacuated from China (where they could not be supplied or defended) and moved to the Philippines. And reinforcements were being routed to the Philippines as well as our other island territories.

Pearl Harbor was unexpected, but the war was not. The US has already brought back the draft and was expanding it's military well before it happened.

And what do you mean, "Invade SE Asia"? They already held SE Asia, and they did not invade Indochina until 1945. That was territory controlled by the Vichy French, their nominal ally.

The main reason for attacking Pearl was to try and destroy ships that would be used to try and defend the Philippines. And for this they actually hit the right targets. Carriers are nowhere near as effective as Battleships when it comes to attacking or defending an island. That is Amphibious Warfare 101 my friend.

 

The US knew that it would have a war with Japan in the 1920s. Once the Depression hit we were too poor to fully arm up for the war. We did develop the long range B29 specifically for use against Japan as well as some new fighter planes. When the war started the B29 was already to go. Japan never had a comparable plane nor did it develop any major weapon systems. They were doomed as soon as they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Japan teamed up with Germany because they had similar objectives. But neither one ever had what it took to fight a modern war. They would have been better off waiting another 20 years.

 

Wow, 2 small paragraphs, so many mistakes.

But the war they expected in the 1920's was not against Japan, it was against Japan and the UK. The most detailed, complete war plan, and considered by most in the higher areas of the US War Department was known as "Red-Orange". This assumed an attack by both Great Brittan (Red) and the Empire of Japan (Orange) upon the United States.

So that statement was half-right, but you left out they expected Japan to be the ally of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance

None of the Axis Powers appreciated the power of Heavy Bombers. Neither Japan, Germany or Italy put in the effort to design aircraft like the Lancaster, B-17 or B-29. This was a difference in military priority and concepts, not that they were unable to build similar aircraft.

And no, the B-29 was just a supersized B-17, and it was not designed for use against Japan but for use in North America and in Europe. It was years before any kind of bombers could really be used against Japan (other then the symbolic Doolittle Raid). Before bombers could be used against Japan, first a great many islands had to be cleared to either provide the required air strips, and also to clear defending bases of enemy fighters.

This is so absolutely wrong it is amazing. If Hitler had not gotten greedy and attacked the Soviet Union, the majority of Europe might still be controlled by the Nazis. They unquestionably had the best aircraft and tanks in Europe, as well as the best military doctrine. And they were far ahead of any other country when it came to the uses of liquid fueled rockets as well as rocket and jet powered aircraft.

And Japan at the start of the war had what was probably the finest fighter aircraft, the A6M5. And some superb ships and optics. Their solders were among the fiercest in the world, and able to withstand things that would have destroyed most other armies even without combat.

The Japanese Empire was at it's height during WWII the largest empire the world had ever seen. Germany effectively controlled 85% of Europe. So where you get the idea that they could not "fight a modern war", I have absolutely no idea. Most of the concepts we now use ourselves to fight "modern wars" we ourselves learned from Germany and Japan (the hard way).

 

According to historians that read their old letters that the leadership wrote each other . . .

The Japanese thought that America was going to attack Japan. First America applied economic sanctions. That hurt Japan because they were dependent on raw materials and oil from America. Then the US moved the Pacific fleet to Hawaii.

The Japanese thought that the US would wait for the Japanese economy to grind to a halt and then attack. So the Japanese used what was left for the resources to launch a preventive strike and hope that they can land a knock out blow. Then from a position of strength dictate a favorable peace treaty.

 

It was primarily to destroy the carriers, that was what they were looking for and they weren't there which is why the attack was failure, along with the fact they did not destroy the dry docks or fuel tanks. The IJN knew that if the carriers were destroyed the other capital ships would be penned at Pearl or the west coast under land based air cover. That is why they had to try the Midway gambit, to lure the carriers back out in a second attempt to destroy them which would have left the Pacific wide open for the Japanese fleet. By this time the Japanese had already been convinced that it would be the carriers that would dominate the Pacific and the carriers would be defending the Philippines from invasion by attacking any fleet from long range.

 

The first flight of a B-29 did not occur until late 1942.

 

And the devastation Germany was able to do with it's medium bombers and particularly the Stuka was amazing but were primarily used as ground attack for advancing armies.

No doubt that Germany had many and more advanced weapons systems, we were just able to knock out their production so they were never able to bring them bear of any consequence. Their tanks were the best in the field at the beginning with the Soviets taking over at the end. The Messies and FW's were superb for their time until we came out with P-52 and of course the Zero in the hands of a capable pilot was devastating to our naval and land based aircraft in the Pacific early on.

Especially in night time engagements. Until radar gave us the edge.

Exactly. We won the war because we could out-produce them and the several strategic mistakes made by Hitler and the Japanese military.

 

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during Nugamo's debrief after the attack. The cancelling of the third wave verged on cowadice

 

The funny thing, the Japanese didn't really seem to have confidence in their own ability. At times it was almost like talking the talk, and not walking the walk. The battle of Savo Island the Japanese had every possible advantage, they moved in caused a bit of havoc and called it good. Conversely the story of Taffy 3. Seven destroyers and escorts see a whole Japanese battle fleet coming at them and their reaction is.......lets go get them boys

 

(My bold)

I disagree. Ho Chi Minh tried (from WWI on) & tried to enlist Western (including US) help to free Vietnam of the French. He fought the Japanese because they left him no choice. He would have gotten guerrilla/military training from Mao, from the USSR - from wherever he could get it. The US is not the indispensable country - someone with a grudge or in need of allies against the French - Algeria while rebelling? - would have come to Minh's aid. There were Japanese soldiers who joined the Viet Minh - to keep fighting WWII. There were guerrilla models available among the Huk in the Philippines, the rebellion in Malaysia, & the PRC itself.

The Vietnamese had fought off the Chinese centuries ago - & in fact Vietnam fought a brief campaign against PRC in the '80's, along with their incursion into Cambodia.

If you look @ Dien Bien Phu on a map, you'll see that the French were suicidally gunning for a large set-piece land battle that would - in their minds - end the Communist threat in Indochina. That was a French pipedream - just as Japan's IJN longed for a naval set-piece battleship engagement that would sink the US Pacific fleet in WWII. Further, the French were logistically (air supply & transport) & operationally (money, intelligence, political support, air strikes, fleet artillery) dependent upon US support by that point, & even stripped-down US air transports could barely get to Dien Bien Phu.