Turn on thread page Beta

What on earth were Japan thinking with Pearl Harbor? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaneCook)
    Yes, I'm extremely disempowered IRL :rolleyes: . You think what I posted was confrontational? Wow, you must be sheltered.

    But nice one jumping to the conclusion that I'm disempowered IRL, that one really tickled me, must be fun being able to jump to such stark conclusions, no matter how far from the truth they might be.
    No, I just wonder why you'd bother? He can defend himself, though all I did was point out a mistake relating to the historical timeline being discussed. I just wonder at the mentality of people who go around on TSR of all places trying to start idiotic little arguments like this? That is what you want isn't it? I can see no other reason why you'd bother? Your first post in this thread was to question me on a meaningless point. You've come into this thread, read through it...and your little mind can get no further than 'Hey, that guy said something that has been said already! I must hold him upon it'.

    You've come into a thread and picked a fight over something so meaningless it is laughable. I have to make certain assumptions about how weak you must feel in real life, because I can see no other rational explanation of the emotions that must lead you into such behaviour.

    Anyways, I block every poster like yourself. I have no time for people that use the internet as a place to vent their frustrations. Take care.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)
    Made up movies? Incase you didn't know, the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanse was a historical event.
    I am not naive enough to think that it happened exactly as it was depicted in the film; but the fact remains Japan attacked a major power capable of nuclear attacks and was firmly put back in its place.


    No, I'm not actually.



    Japan was its equal? America had the atomic bomb, I wouldn't call that equal



    I was yeah! Evelyn :rolleyes:



    Sad truth is America had the militaristic power and resources do launch these invasions without much resistance (or atleast sustain them) whereas Japan didn't have much hope in its aims as was proved fairly quickly.
    I really don't think you know what you are talking about. The reason Japan attacked the Americans at Pearl Harbour was that, if successful, they would have completely destroyed America's capacity to wage war in the Pacific. They intended to deal a decisive blow, and knew that they wouldn't be able to win a protracted engagement.

    Also, America didn't perfect nuclear weapons till late in the war.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)
    I am just watching the film now and I can't understand why Japan did such a thing? Surely it's like an ant attacking an eagle lol. What did they hope to achieve? And how could they be so unrealisitic?
    One of the 'movers' behind the attack had been ,by chance, at Taranto when the Royal Navy destroyed a good part of the Italian fleet with the use of a few ancient torpedo carrying planes.This made such an impression on him that it led to the plan to attack Pearl Harbour. Of course there are lots of conspiracy theories that that the bulk of the fleet put to sea just prior to the attack. The American leaders wanted to enter the war but the people were against it.Pearl Harbour gave them a pretty good reason to declare war on japan.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    No, I just wonder why you'd bother? He can defend himself, though all I did was point out a mistake relating to the historical timeline being discussed. I just wonder at the mentality of people who go around on TSR of all places trying to start idiotic little arguments like this? That is what you want isn't it? I can see no other reason why you'd bother? Your first post in this thread was to question me on a meaningless point. You've come into this thread, read through it...and your little mind can get no further than 'Hey, that guy said something that has been said already! I must hold him upon it'.

    You've come into a thread and picked a fight over something so meaningless it is laughable. I have to make certain assumptions about how weak you must feel in real life, because I can see no other rational explanation of the emotions that must lead you into such behaviour.

    Anyways, I block every poster like yourself. I have no time for people that use the internet as a place to vent their frustrations. Take care.
    Nice essay. Why would I need to instigate any emotions or feelings when replying to a post on the internet? Do you often get emotional when surfing the web? From the length of your post and the fact that you're going through the trouble of blocking me, I'd say you were pretty emotional right about now.

    I'm not starting an argument :lol:, merely calling you out on the fact that you deemed it necessary to tell everyone for the 5th time that there were no nukes in '41. Oh as for your 'disempowerment IRL' theory, mate get a grip, it doesn't apply, saying it over and over again just makes you look foolish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)
    I am just watching the film now and I can't understand why Japan did such a thing? Surely it's like an ant attacking an eagle lol. What did they hope to achieve? And how could they be so unrealisitic?
    US needed a slap!:cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meus)
    The Japanese wanted to bomb the West Coast with chemical and biological weapons. They later decided not to, citing "it was inhumane". Few months later, they get two nuclear bombs dropped on their cities.

    The Japenese were in no position to consider what was humane or not.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The usa had stopped selling oil to Japan
    This stopped 90% of oil imports to Japan so they needed more oil. Therefore they needed to cripple the US naval forces in order to take oil from other countries without the USA stopping them
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The attack on Pearl Harbor was a bluff. Well, to understand what happened at Pearl Harbor you have to look at what happened during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5).

    During the Russo-Japanese War, Japan made a surprise attack in Port Arthur and torpedoed three Russian battleships, which included two of the most impressive battleships of the Russian fleet. Without going into too much detail, this was a massive gamble, since Japan was aware that in a conventional war on land, it would probably be defeated by Russia. The Russian did not call the Japanese bluff, and Japan won the war.

    It is easy to make parallels with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Pearl Harbor is not on mainland US, like Port Arthur wasn't on mainland Russia (or at least its very very far from Moscow). In a conventional war on either land, sea or sky, the Japanese would most certainly be defeated by the US. Therefore, the best alternative was to make a Port Arthur-like bluff, which would make Japan look much stronger than it is. However, the US called the bluff, since unlike Russia it was both economically and politically stable and therefore was not overly impressed by Japan's tactic, and so began the war in the Pacific....
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Nukes can be used for genocide, but the point is that MAD is a sound theory. Without them, the USSR would have probably invaded Western Europe and conquered it. The existence of nukes kept a large percentage of the world free for all the cold war and if that's the price we pay for these weapons being in existence, I'm glad to pay it.

    Also, nuclear weapons were developed by both sides to attack not just cities but also large military formations. In the event of the war, the theory of escalation said that NATO would use nukes to stem the tide of the Soviet Army, and then the Russians would respond, and then we'd start launching bigger nukes which would result in nuclear war. This threat was why there was no conventional fighting in Europe 1950-1990.
    Ah I see, I was rather hoping you'd reply as I can't be bothered reading through the masses of writing on wikipedia.

    One thing though, yes nuclear weapons were used to be a deterrent against the USSR invading because of the threat of MAD, however the only time there WERE used is against civilian cities (H & N). Why were they not used against the military assets of Japan?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Strange counter-factual: Japan allies with the UK, as it had done in WWI, and gets its oil from the Mid East. UK and USSR divide Europe. We enter the 1950s with the British Empire still intact, a Japanese Empire rapidly sprawling across China, and a Soviet Union with a border resting on the Rhine. Possibly followed by a UK and Japan vs US and USSR war, with both US and UK developing nuclear weapons mid-way through...
    That presumes the UK would have been able to do anything about invading and retaking continental Europe without US support and that Stalin would have taken Germany but stopped on the Rhine. The logistics make the latter possible, but the former is complete fantasy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    That presumes the UK would have been able to do anything about invading and retaking continental Europe without US support and that Stalin would have taken Germany but stopped on the Rhine. The logistics make the latter possible, but the former is complete fantasy.
    Why so? No Far East campaign means more Indian and ANZAC divisions in North Africa, and less resources needed to be spent manufacturing ships and aircraft to fight Japan. I don't assume that the USSR would stop at the Rhine simply for no reason, but rather the longer time the Commonwealth alone would need to prepare an invasion, and the worse off Germany would need to get to make it viable would mean the USSR pushes further.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    What some of the above said.

    The idea was that although the Americans are never going to go to war over saving the British, Dutch and French Far East empires, a combination of the oil embargo and the American position in the Philippines, right in the middle of the planned Japanese empire, makes war with the US inevitable.

    A surprise attack enables the Japanese to avoid the risky mid-Pacific clash of battleships that 1930s planners expected would decide such a war. With the US navy temporarily out of the equation, Japan can conquer the bits of the Pacific they wanted to at minimal cost, then set up a ring of fortress islands to protect it. The morally inferior Americans, already awed by a demonstration of Japanese military power, would never accept the costs of taking all of those, and would thus be forced to accept Japanese domination of the Far East. What could possibly go wrong?

    Amongst the things that did go wrong were a) missing the carriers that turned out - to most people's surprise - to be more powerful than the battleship fleet, b) uniting the previously neutralist American people into a 'whatever it takes' attitude against Japan (this is the basis of the claim that the US leadership knew it was coming and let it be a 'surprise' "day of infamy" ), c) the way that the Americans simply ignored the islands they were not interested in, and d) the Japanese failure to have a sufficiently large merchant fleet, and to protect what fleet it did have against submarine and other attack.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Why so? No Far East campaign means more Indian and ANZAC divisions in North Africa, and less resources needed to be spent manufacturing ships and aircraft to fight Japan. I don't assume that the USSR would stop at the Rhine simply for no reason, but rather the longer time the Commonwealth alone would need to prepare an invasion, and the worse off Germany would need to get to make it viable would mean the USSR pushes further.
    Until very late in 1941, British Empire forces were devoted to the war with Germany. At best, we were holding on.

    Being allied with Japan against US interests in the Pacific would have made it much less likely that the US gave what support via lend-lease and other schemes that it did. It would be interesting to know if Britain could have survived without it. Possibly not, just because of the financial cost.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    Until very late in 1941, British Empire forces were devoted to the war with Germany. At best, we were holding on.

    Being allied with Japan against US interests in the Pacific would have made it much less likely that the US gave what support via lend-lease and other schemes that it did. It would be interesting to know if Britain could have survived without it. Possibly not, just because of the financial cost.
    The Commonwealth was, in principle, more powerful than Germany. The problem was that re-armament started about 4 years later, hence the early defeats. US involvement made the disparity even larger and victory a lot quicker, but I don't think it changed the outcome fundamentally.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)

    Japan was its equal? America had the atomic bomb, I wouldn't call that equal



    Sad truth is America had the militaristic power and resources do launch these invasions without much resistance (or atleast sustain them) whereas Japan didn't have much hope in its aims as was proved fairly quickly.
    The Japanese didn't know about nuclear weapons before the attack. They had been developed during the war and there use was to deter the soviets, test the bombs (why they used the A bomb on one city and the H bomb on the other) as much, if not more than it was to win the war. And even with the atomic bomb if the American air craft carriers had been destroyed at pearl harbour there is still a good chance the Japanese would of won the war.

    In regards to America having the military power to launch those attacks with little resistance, your wrong. I'll use the three I'm most familiar with; Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to demonstrate. They are all invasions and as a consequence conventional warfare isn't used. In all three the US were not fighting another military but the people themselves. When you are fighting the people you can not win. If you don't know who your enemy is you can't kill them. In Vietnam the Americans were defeated as they could not identify and kill the Vietcong. Afghanistan is the same, they keep fighting but more 'terrorist' will keep appearing and they will never achieve total control. I put terrorist in inverted commas as those fighting in Afghanistan are fighting to defend their country and their freedom and aren't terrorists despite how they are portrayed. Iraq is the same as Afghanistan. When the people of a country have guns you can't occupy it successfully. There will always be groups shooting at you and waiting for you to reduce your forces so they can retake their independence.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by ChaoticMaster)
    (why they used the A bomb on one city and the H bomb on the other)
    Wrong. Two different types - enriched uranium and plutonium - but both very definitely fission ('atomic bomb') rather than fusion ('hydrogen bomb') weapons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't blame Japan, the USA and Russian tried to starve and freeze us to death with trade embargo.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ishii Shiro)
    Don't blame Japan, the USA and Russian tried to starve and freeze us to death with trade embargo.
    What a shame they failed :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In order to wipe out the entire pacific fleet in one blow and stop the American Oil Embargo.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The Japanese army always knew that they were fighting a losing battle even when they attacked Pearl Harbour, the entire concept of the war with the West was to attack when the west was off guard and take as much as possible. Then once the Japanese were in control, they'd grind down any Western attacks and make them lose so many casualties that public opinion would collapse and the Western powers would sue for some kind of negotiated peace, leaving Japan with more than it had initially.

    Even as late as 1945 the Japanese strategic thinking was still to bleed the Allies white, collapse public opinion and try to come out with some kind of favourable peace agreement. They failed to realise that the Allies would not stop until they reached Tokyo.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.