Why did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor?

Actually, they had the capability to take Hawaii, but that would have forced the diversion of troops from areas where Japan thought they were needed much more, like in the Philippines.

Just like what Doolittle did, Hawaii was really nothing but a raid, a single attack to do as much damage as possible then get away. Japan never expected to "win the war" with that one attack.

 

Of course. In fact he went to Versailles, in order to see about getting independence for the colonies that were promised it during the war. However you got to remember that Minh was educated. He looked up to the US, and in fact would have thought it was something the US would have wanted to support, seeing as how they were a colony themselves. The reason that it was the US, and not some other country was because the Chinese were busy fighting a civil war, and Mao couldn't risk losing anyone, while Chiang kai shek was slowly building up supplies to fight afterwards. The USSR couldn't even properly field it's own army without help from the US, and even the Murmansk run wasn't able to get all the supplies needed through.

Yeah, when they had recovered somewhat from the Vietnam war. As for the Chinese, they did that all on their own, while a dynasty was starting to lose power.

I know. The reason for the lack of supplies was because the French public was growing disgusted with the costs of maintaining an empire and the notion of racial inequality. Besides, the conflict was spreading everywhere, and pretty soon the French realized they had to do something but in the end, they failed to act quickly enough, and the Vietnamese artillery was able to attack. If you also look at the US's positions before the Tet offensive, we were also looking for another Dien Bien Phu, this time however we would have the air cover needed.

 

And Japan would have accepted the US suing for peace.

 

Myself, I have long thought that President Truman agreeing to allow France to regain her "Empire" was the most boneheaded thing he ever did. If I could go back in time and slap a single President for extreme stupidity, it would be this one for this act. And not just Vietnam, but all of the French Colonies.

This set up decades of bloody wars and conflicts, Vietnam being just one of them. If instead President Truman had told them "It's time to let your colonies go, follow our example in the Philippines and you will likely still have them as strong trading partners after they are independent", a lot of the wars in Asia and Africa would not have happened.

Actually, it is quite a bit more different then that. Dien Bien Phu was a valley surrounded by mountains, and it was cut off from all support other then by a single runway. And this was a time before helicopters had been effectively militarized (short range piston ones). So all supplies and personnel had to be landed and lifted from that runway, or airdropped by parachute.

The Viet Minh were very smart, first taking some of the valleys around the area, then once they massed enough strength taking the hilltops. And once they had the hilltops (many mounted with artillery provided by the US Army - captured in the early days in Korea) they closed the airport and cut off all means of retreat for the French.



Now Khe Sahn was a very different situation. Not only had helicopters improved to the point that they became major air lifters, but it was built on a mountaintop. It was one of the major elevations in this region of the DMZ, and overlooked miles of jungle. The only land nearby that was of higher elevation was on the opposite side of a river canyon, so no assault was possible from that direction.



So while many liked to portray Khe Sanh as the "American Dien Bien Phu", nothing was further from the truth. And this is telling in the casualty reports.

Marines dead: 274
NVA Dead: 2,469-10,000.

In fact, many military strategists believe that Tet was nothing but a diversion, intended to draw off forces that would have been used at Khe Sahn, and allowing them to repeat DPH to the Americans. And in this they completely failed, both with their "Tet Offensive", and in Khe Sahn itself. At the end of this, the Viet Cong was destroyed as an effective organization, and 2 divisions were wrecked in Khe Sahn (and another 5 in the Tet Offensive).

 

Only if it had included turning over the Philippines, and the United States would never have accepted that.

If that had happened, you would simply have seen a shift in how the war progressed. Europe would have been put on the back burner, and the US would have massed larger fleets prior to starting offensive operations. Because of the Panama Canal, ships could be built safely in the Gulf and East Coast, and then moved quickly to the Pacific Theatre.

Japan might have possibly taken Hawaii, but it would have left them dangerously thin in other areas (especially Philippines, Malaysia, Burma, and China). And it was to far from supplies to replenish easily, so a starving army loose in a population of enemies, willing to fight to the last man, and also to take out as many civilians as possible along the way (Nanking).

 

Japan probably would have. IMO it is highly improbable the US would have done so.

 

The carriers were on routine duty and they didn't just let the battleships cruise around the pacific just to be cruising around. Pearl was believed to be safe from attack due to the shallow harbor and air defenses and land based aircraft. We got caught with our pants down.

- - - Updated - - -

With Japan extending it's defense to Midway and the US fleet crippled highly probable a peace agreement would have been met.

 

They didn't need nor want Hawaii, they wanted control of the western pacific and SE Asia.

 

That doesn't answer the question. If FDR knew that Japanese were going to attack Pearl, why would he move the carriers out and not the battleships? If they believed that Pearl was secure there was no reason for him to move out the carriers because of the pending attack.

I disagree. After the surprise attack the US was pissed off and never would have made such an agreement.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why they would want/need Pearl Harbor. It is one of the greatest natural harbors in the Pacific, and as long as the US controlled it, it would serve as a base for the Navy and thus pose a threat to Japanese interests.

 

I don't agree with the premise of your question. Pearl was believed to be safe from torpedo attack therefore it was the safest place for the battleships as they did not expect an attack on Pearl. The carriers were doing routine duties. A few weeks later and the battleships could very well have been out of port.

Not a matter of emotions. The entire west coast would have been open to attack. There were those who wanted FDR to sue for peace after the PH attack because of that fear. The US citizens didn't want a war with Japan and most could have cared less about it's ambitions in the far east. Had Japan destroyed the fleet and captured Midway the Japanese would have had an overwhelming advantage both strategically and tactically and the US would not have had the forces to countermand it and FDR would not have shifted the Atlantic fleet to do so.

Fortunately it never came to that and McCluskey found the Japanese fleet at Midway and they just happened to have made several tactical errors due to indecision and disagreement with the fleet staff. Amazing that a hours difference could have turned the tide of the war.

 

(My bold)

Japan made their maximum effort @ Pearl Harbor. Even with foreknowledge of the date of attack, the most they managed against the US West Coast was a couple of I-submarine aviation attacks & some shelling. Other than that - & sporadic attempts @ long-range balloon fire-bombing the forests of the US Pacific Northwest, they didn't manage anything - except to panic civilians; the military/shipping people who knew logistics & the distances involved in the Pacific weren't worried @ all.

 

It wasn't my premise. It was the premise of the statement in the post to which I responded, which you obviously didn't bother reading before you jumped in on my post.

The premise was that FDR ordered the carriers out to sea because he knew the Japs were going to attack. Based on that premise, I asked him why then he didn't move the battleships out too.

You then jumped in and asked me if the battleship can ferry planes. What the hell difference does it make whether they can ferry planes or not?

Even if they took Pearl, they would be thousands of miles away from the US west coast, which would protected by increasing swarms of aircraft. They could never have mounted an invasion, and at best could have done increasingly risky Pearly Harbor type raids, but this time against an alert and increasingly fortified position.

I completely disagree with your assertion that "US citizens didn't want a war with Japan". After Japs surprise attack US citizens wanted revenge.

The US never would have sued for peace. As someone else pointed out, the US had the industrial capability to rebuild the fleet and could have moved resources from the East Coast and it was just a matter of time before superior numbers won the day.

Fortunately it never came to that and McCluskey found the Japanese fleet at Midway and they just happened to have made several tactical errors due to indecision and disagreement with the fleet staff. Amazing that a hours difference could have turned the tide of the war.[/QUOTE]

 

But that is not what the west coast knew or believed at the time. During those crucial weeks and months following Pearl when Japan seemed unstoppable and with the US PacFleet almost totally wiped out and Japan controlling the central Pacific so that the Philippines were indefensible......................the US would have had almost no choice but to accepts terms for peace. Even with Pearl not being the total success and the defeat at Midway 1942 was a terrible year for the US.

 

It was a question in your post and I disagree with the premise.

Because that is what the carriers were doing and one reason they were out of port.

The attack on Pearl did not include an invasion and the Japanese were hoping for a peace settlement after the attack.

In hindsight yes but the pressure from the west coast to settle for peace would have been far from what FDR could have overcome.

Before the attack we did NOT want to go to war. Had the attack crippled our carriers and then a loss at Midway, inspite of FDR's bold unconditional surrender statement (which many argued he should never have made) the pressure could very well have been insurmountable. With the fleet crippled, the carriers gone, the Philippines fallen, Wake and other strategic islands taken................even Australia would have come under Japanese rule.

But not in time and the East Coast resources were devoted the Europe, the Pacific was the second front.

 

So what are you arguing with me about it for?

What the hell difference does it make whether battleships can ferry planes or not?

So what?

Disagree for reasons stated.

What people felt before the attack is irrelevant to what they felt after the attack.

Not in time for what?

 

So why didn't the US sue for peace if bleak short term prospects would have caused that to happen?

 

(My bold)

As I recall, it was WWII that made the West Coast. CA was a sleepy ag community mostly, with the exception of Hollywood & the late Gold Rush. WWII & the run-up to WWII brought aircraft manufacturing, other heavy industrial manufacturing, nuke fuel processing sites, huge increases to personnel @ military bases/depots/training areas. That also brought full employment & hordes of internal immigration from other states, as the demand for labor @ all the industrial sites always outran the supply.

It was the ingathering of industry, the energy/food/labor/housing/government boom that transformed CA & to a lesser extent - WA & OR into political powerhouses. The blush is since off CA.

FDR's political backing was more based on the East Coast, the Midwest, & the South, as I recall. He could have easily conceded CA & its miniscule (@ the time) Electoral College votes to the also-rans who tried conclusions with him in the domestic political tourneys.

 

I know. What I was saying was they were looking another Dien Bien Phu in the sense that they were going to force the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong to have a pitched battle, this time they made sure they didn't make the same mistake as the french did.

 

I remember reading in the 1990's that in almost 50 years of war gaming this at the Naval Staff College, only once was the group playing the US team playing the US side been able to win at Midway. Every other time that it had been gamed since 1943 the Japanese won the engagement 80% of the time, and in the other 20% it was a draw with a Japanese strategic victory.

Invariably, the one mistake that Admiral Nagumo made that was never repeated was rearming his reserve aircraft on deck.

 

Actually, it was the reverse.

This was entirely an North Vietnamese campaign. They planned it, executed it, and carried it forward. Khe Sahn and the Tet Offensive was not an "attempt by the US to force the NVA into battle", it was an attempt by the NVA to recreate the victory of Dien Bien Phu. And it failed.

And the Viet Cong were not at Khe Sahn, they were scattered everywhere, but massed in Hue. And in Hue they were virtually destroyed.

 

I thought that the US were making the first move, then waiting for Tet to pass, and instead were attacked.

 

Actually the US had no major campaigns planned at that time. They were doing their attrition policy at that time, engaging in small scale operations throughout South Vietnam "winning hearts and minds" and trying to root out the VC from their remote strongholds. No major battles, no major operations, simply trying to work them out of the region.

So I have no idea what you are talking about there. It is completely contrary to the US plans of the time.

 

No idea then what I'm talking about either.

 

The battleships didn't accompany the carriers for two reasons. One: the older BB's burned an enormous amount of fuel, and the US lacked the tanker capacity to keep both BB's and carriers at sea. (That's one reason they weren't used in the fight for Guadalcanal.) And more to the point: the battleships could not keep up with the fast-carrier fleet! The CV's could touch 32 knots, the battleships topped out about 26.

Not after Pearl Harbor. Midway would have been an albatross to Japan...a flyspeck in the middle of nowhere, totally dependent on outside shipping for ALL supply needs, well within heavy bomber range of Hawaii, constantly under siege by aircraft and submarines. Note: the Japanese could not reliably supply Guadalcanal, and that was a stone's throw from their huge base at Rabaul!

 

Pablum.

One: when they war-gamed it, the JAPANESE LOST! They basically covered it up, re-did it, and rigged the results.
Two: the Japanese carriers were not caught with planes on the flight decks! (It might have been better if they had been.) The evidence is conclusive, unambiguous, and crystal-clear: photos from the attacking aircraft show NO bombers on deck...one deck (I recall Akagi) is completely empty, the other two have only a couple of Zeros (they were attacked as they were preparing to launch more CAP fighters). They were caught with fully-fueled and armed planes in the HANGERS.

Suggested reading: Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway by Jonathan Parshall & Anthony Tully.