Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

timeline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 133 posts

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#61

Post by jonnathanson »

mc32 wrote: post #17
krapp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt Japan felt threatened by the US because of manifest destiny or the American revolutionary war. I think you're going a bit too far trying to paint the US as appearing unusually hegemonic or aggressive for the time.

Considering the US was way undermilitarized after wwi compared to European nations, it's hard to think Japan would consider the US as an immediate adversary. Specially considering a growing USSR. Mostly they hoped to take out the US naval fleet and have their way in the pacific while Germany kept the allies busy, and then eventually win in Europe creating a world wide axis.

The US was under-militarized at the beginning of the WW2 years, but its industrial capacity was unrivaled and undeniable. Even before its entry into the war, for instance, it was almost singlehandedly supplying the British and Soviet war efforts. The US was supplying nearly 40% of all the USSR's food, clothing, munitions, and military hardware during Hitler's Barbarossa campaign, in the months prior to Pearl Harbor. It was doing all of this while its economy was roaring back up from the Depression, and its output was just getting started. (The US produced about 2,500 warplanes in 1940; by 1944, it was producing just under 100,000 per year.)

Germany and Japan correctly feared the United States long before its entry into the conflict. They feared it not necessarily as a war machine, but as a relentless and massive industrial machine. They knew that, if war with the US were to drag on for a few years, the US would eventually get its shit together and outproduce and outgun either of them by an order of magnitude.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#62

Post by ctrager »

Prescient New York Times article about Japan and oil, 1935: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9F02E1D6123DE53...

And the US military was busier in China that you might think: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9803E1D6163BE43...

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9D0DE2DF1E38E43...

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#63

Post by novaleaf »

merpnderp wrote: post #60
threefour wrote: post #5

This timeline seems to put all the blame on Japan. No doubt they had over-militaristic tendencies. But let's also take the long view on America from Japan's perspective: * Settlers displace native peoples in the north east of North America and the Caribbean. * The first Americans kick out the British. * Americans move west, killing more native peoples. * Americans take over land from Mexico. * "Manifest Destiny" * Am…

Wikipedia says that the US genocide of Native Americans numbered somewhere between 30-50K people over 120 years, some of those in military conflicts. In comparison in the Rape of Nanking, the Japanese murdered 50-300K. And averaged 300-500K civilians murdered per month between 1937 and 1945. By 1941 Japan had no reason to believe the US was in any way expansionist. There had been 20 years of isolationist rhetoric fro…

The Manifest Destiny doers didn't know it, but most of the Americas had been cleared a hundred years earlier by disease. Some estimate 95% fatality rates.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#64

Post by PhasmaFelis »

dctoedt wrote: post #28

The headline doesn't square with everything I've ever read about the attack. Embarrassment was at best a minor factor in the Japanese thinking. The major factor, IIRC, was that certain military officers -- many of them belonging to (or fearful of) a murderous ultranationalist faction -- had come to dominate the Japanese government [1]. These military men: + wanted to strike south to secure desperately-needed sources…

> + perhaps most importantly, were out of their depth when it came to assessing a political risk, namely the extent to which a surprise attack would bring down on them the implacable fury of an enraged and industrially-powerful United States.

By "out of their depth" do we mean "dumber than six pounds of gravel"? I admit that the fantasy that slapping someone in the face will instantly cow them, instead of provoking angry retaliation, is a common one in history, but I don't think that makes it any less stupid given the historical evidence.

(See also Every Terrorist Ever, with the exception of the ones who want to provoke angry retaliation.)

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#65

Post by PhasmaFelis »

jkyle wrote: post #13
krapp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt Japan felt threatened by the US because of manifest destiny or the American revolutionary war. I think you're going a bit too far trying to paint the US as appearing unusually hegemonic or aggressive for the time.

Japanese culture perceives time differently than western culture. For example, a train in London is considered "on time" as long as it's within 14 minutes. In Japan, a train is considered late if it's not within 1 minute of schedule. Those perceptions of "lateness" permeate throughout the culture. I don't claim any authority, but it's important not to project our own views of cultural permanence onto other cultures.…

> For example, a train in London is considered "on time" as long as it's within 14 minutes.

That may be true in London, for all I know, but it's definitely not true in western culture as a whole.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#66

Post by DanBC »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #65
jkyle wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japanese culture perceives time differently than western culture. For example, a train in London is considered "on time" as long as it's within 14 minutes. In Japan, a train is considered late if it's not within 1 minute of schedule. Those perceptions of "lateness" permeate throughout the culture. I don't claim any authority, but it's important not to project our own views of cultural permanence onto other cultures.…

> For example, a train in London is considered "on time" as long as it's within 14 minutes. That may be true in London, for all I know, but it's definitely not true in western culture as a whole.

It's not true in London. Trains delayed by 4 minutes count as late.

There are different times for when you can actually do anything about it - mostly if a train is delayed by an hour you can get a refund (if you chose not to travel) or compensation (if you were already travelling before the delay happened), but it's a bit complicated.

For London tube trains you can get some refunds if the train is 15 minutes late.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/dec/18/how-claim-train...

> Transport for London (TFL) offers refunds if a passenger's journey is delayed by more than 15 minutes. For tube passengers, this amounts to the fare for the single journey you were making, whether you have a season ticket, or have purchased a single fare. London Overground users get the same, but only when their train is delayed by more than 30 minutes

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#67

Post by vlehto »

jacquesm wrote: post #23
pixl97 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History does not tell you about new things. For example, how will technology affect the outcome of war. Evolution is another such thing. You're poisonous caterpillar that no one can eat, you prosper, then suddenly you get decimated by a bird that can stomach your poison.

> For example, how will technology affect the outcome of war. That's one thing you do learn from history. You'll win this one if you have the technology and your opponent does not. Otherwise you lose. The next war, you'll both have the technology.

Catch here is to know what is relevant technology.

In 1935 USSR was pioneer in monoplane fighters with retractable undercarriage. They we're two or three years ahead of anybody else, and the Russians had them in relatively large quantity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_I-16

Problem was that they didn't know it was relevant. When war started they still mostly relied on biplanes. And only got the development rolling again in 1940 with MIGs and they could not compete with Nazis in the sky on even terms until 1943.

Japanese had total miss with Yamamoto class ships. Germany didn't invest enough in submarines and their tanks we're way too fancy for field repairs. Nobody understood how important submachine guns would be. Brits had some major naval defects, exposed by explosion of HMS Hood and problems with guns of King George V battleships. France and U.S. fucked up tank development. U.S. made thuderbolts, which we're about twice as costly and difficult to built than what was necessary.

It's complete hit and miss. Currently U.S. has global military hegemony because they can afford to miss more than anybody else. Also logistics. If you are committed to get more stuff to the front than the enemy, you can compensate quite lot.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#68

Post by dctoedt »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #64
dctoedt wrote: post #28

The headline doesn't square with everything I've ever read about the attack. Embarrassment was at best a minor factor in the Japanese thinking. The major factor, IIRC, was that certain military officers -- many of them belonging to (or fearful of) a murderous ultranationalist faction -- had come to dominate the Japanese government [1]. These military men: + wanted to strike south to secure desperately-needed sources…

> + perhaps most importantly, were out of their depth when it came to assessing a political risk, namely the extent to which a surprise attack would bring down on them the implacable fury of an enraged and industrially-powerful United States. By "out of their depth" do we mean "dumber than six pounds of gravel"? I admit that the fantasy that slapping someone in the face will instantly cow them, instead of provoking a…

> By "out of their depth" do we mean "dumber than six pounds of gravel"?

There's no excuse for the Japanese militarists' infliction of millions of deaths and untold suffering, but please keep in mind that they were doing the best they knew how at the time with the hand they were dealt (genetics, education, training, experience, social pressures, etc.), in a situation with enormous risks for their nation, which they believed to be on their shoulders. I'm curious what if anything you know of such pressures.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#69

Post by mikeash »

powera wrote: post #40
rntz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the claim that "Japan had planned to declare war shortly before its planes bombed the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, but a series of errors by typists and translators prevented the Japanese embassy from giving Washington the declaration in time." is beyond absurd. It appears to be the truth, or pretty close to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Japanes...

I think it's far far far more likely that they intended for the declaration to arrive after the attacks, but with some amount of plausible deniability.

Why is that? What advantage would that provide? It seems like they would have been a lot better off if the declaration had arrived before, but maybe I'm missing something.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#70

Post by qbrass »

JackFr wrote: post #50
threefour wrote: post #5

This timeline seems to put all the blame on Japan. No doubt they had over-militaristic tendencies. But let's also take the long view on America from Japan's perspective: * Settlers displace native peoples in the north east of North America and the Caribbean. * The first Americans kick out the British. * Americans move west, killing more native peoples. * Americans take over land from Mexico. * "Manifest Destiny" * Am…

> * The first Americans kick out the British. That really doesn't capture the flavor of it. In a very real sense, the first Americans were British -- they just refused to pay taxes to a government thousand of miles away.

It also skips over the part where they failed to kick the British out of Canada.
Post reply on HN