Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pakistan? Their democracy is a joke. The military holds all the power as evidenced by the multiple military coups in their past
Knowing nothing about Pakistan, don't the coups demonstrate the lack of power military holds? If I was a military chief, I'd rather prefer to steer policy from the background assuming I had any real influence. Not saying you're wrong. I'm trying to understand...
Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
111–120 of 133 posts
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#112The 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…
The article and the commenters here vastly underestimate the weakness of the US strategic position and the initial advantage that the IJN had. They institutionally understood and embraced the new reality of carrier and air warfare. The reality is that the Philippines were incredibly vulnerable and run by a General who was not so effective. Ditto the fossils living in WW1 dreadnought world on the Navy side. Had fate t…
The embarrassment and face saving nonsense killed them not in 1941, but in 1943, when they followed through on a fools errand instead of settling for peace. Once the US industrial power was mobilized, the result was pretty certain.
Disagree strongly. The way those battles turned just sped up the destruction of Imperial Japan---and if you expect every battle to go your way, you're a damned fool.
The surprise attack, their brutality in war, plus our memory of how WWI did not end in a lasting peace, made sure settling for a peace was not an option by 1943. By the time we were focusing on the home islands with Operations Starvation and Downfall, plus the fruits of the Manhattan Project, the details of the Bataan Death March unquestionably revealed by the liberation of the Philippines ... well, it really sucked to be Japanese by then. But not hardly so bad as the subject people in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, which they were killing at a rate of 400,000 per month by then.
I'm finishing reading Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/... and it's really sobering. Olympic as planned, the invasion of southern Kyuushu, wasn't going to work, and with Marshall pushing for all nuclear weapons after Nagasaki to be earmarked for it, and liberal use of poison gas, it would have made Okinawa look like a walk in the park. And there's no way Coronet, the planned March invasion of the Kanto plane in Honshu that includes Tokyo would have happened on schedule before the weather made it impractical. Yet we were absolutely determined to see it through, one way or another, with as many as a million of our men dying the process.
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
My understanding is that the Japanese' Bushido code specifically looked down on sneak attacks. I.e., a lower-class Ninja* might kill you in your sleep, whereas a noble Samurai would wake you up and give you a chance to draw. If you've ever noticed the Americans' official reaction to Pearl Harbor often made a curious point about calling it a "despicable sneak attack". While a sneak attack seems like a rather obvious w…
[0]http://www.tofugu.com/2014/12/08/bushido-way-total-bullshit/
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#114Interesting read, but there is something a little odd about an article that describes Emperor Hirohito as "merely a figurehead" but later casually mentions that Hirohito had the power to surprise General Tojo by naming him prime minister and spends a good deal of time talking about how Hirohito could have potentially prevented the war due to how much influence he had.
Fatally flawed in that you couldn't form a government without a member each from the Army and Navy, and the Army abused this. Plus in the 20s or so a culture of acceptable political assassination developed.
In this context, I'm sure Hirohito, who would have much rather focused on marine biology, knew very well something unpleasant would happen to him if he didn't go along with the ultranationalists, there's way too much old and new Japanese history telling him exactly that.
I seriously doubt he could have prevented the war, especially since the genesis was so long in forming, e.g. without their depredations in China stretching back years, and of course the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, it's very unlikely things would have come to a head like they did. And why not go back to their turn of the century war with Russia and occupation of Korea? Not all that many people are upset with the former, even today, although it helped set the stage for the Bolsheviks and most of the bloodletting of the 20th Century.
Repeating a bit about what I've read especially in Hell to Pay (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10685585), while we can debate his being able to influence things earlier, we, the peoples of East Asia, etc. can be very thankful that he was able to throw his weight behind surrender after the two bombs and the Soviet entry in the war, in a situation where the cabinet was still bloody minded enough to stay the course. And I'm not so sure they wouldn't have "won", they were quite willing to sacrifice 20 million of their own people in the process, a mere 1/5-1/4th.
Counterfactuals to that could include Hirohito trying earlier and being replaced by a pliable Emperor who wouldn't have dared try or have had the stature to make that utterly critical move when it most counted.
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article appears to be of the belief that no one in the Japanese government wanted war but they were all bumbling fools who couldn't say they didn't want war.
The anti-war faction weren't bumbling fools, but the decision was made and that was that. Konoye killed himself rather than lie to exonerate the emperor in the post-war kangaroo court.
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the debate of the meaning of ignore vs reject. The US made ultimatum without a specific deadline. The hawkish press spoke in behalf of the government, but without authority. The US continued its plan to attack until surrender was communicated. No doubt powerful in US govt wanted to see what the bomb could do. Dropping two a-bombs in a week wasn't an accidental race condition against communication l…
nobody expected them to surrender at the time, and they needed either to go trough a landings and ugly attrition war or display such force to let the parties surrender while saving face. that's why the bombs and that's why the target were mid sized cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... especially source http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/blood-on-our-hands... ''We of the peace…
The targets were mid-sized cities because by the time the target planning started, Kyoto was the only big one the B-29s hadn't burned to the ground (well, the important parts; I forget when, but we'd given up on Tokyo after destroying 17 square miles or so), and Secretary of War Stimson, who'd visited it and Japan in general, removed it from the list, despite Groves imploring him many times to not. That was wise, if for no other reason that it strengthened the Emperor's hand when he was finally in a position to end the war, for a long time Kyoto was the Emperor's city, Tokyo the military's.
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#117And untold millions died because of Japanese leaders' cautious stupidity. It seems like there are lessons to be learned here? Let's start with, whenever there are positions that are culturally unspeakable, you have a problem. Perhaps another is, whatever idiocy a foreign nation's leaders are spouting, it's a good bet nobody actually wants war ( cough cough Putin )
One thing we could learn is that the pre-war Japanese Constitution had a serious problem. The Constitution gave all powers to the Emperor and let him govern the country through the parliament, cabinet, courts, army and navy. That was interpreted to mean the army and navy did not have to obey the cabinet as long as they obey the Emperor. The Emperor didn't actually govern just like UK, so there was no head of the coun…
And as I noted elsewhere, a culture of acceptable political assassination was well established by then, so e.g. being too strongly anti-war would only get you killed.
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I read somewhere on wikipedia that Japan did some research on nuclear weaponry but concluded it's not feasible.
But sometimes the smallest of things derails you. The scientists' saving throw for a real program failed when the bigwigs Nazis were invited to a seminar, but the secretary sending out the invitations accidentally included in the packets the agenda for a different and very technical seminar they'd have no interest in.
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
18 million was the estimated population for North America alone. So, yes, the population drop has been in the millions. the Trail of Tears alone would cover half the 30k. U of OK did a lot of the research.
90% died from diseases. That's why it was so easy to settle North America. The socities collapsed before settlers even expanded westward. The diseases traveled much faster than European contact. That's why Europeans thought much of North America was wilderness. There were certainly acts of genocide (like Trail of Tears) and Indian Removal was a form of ethnic cleansing. But there was never an attempt or policy to kil…
I see stuff like this and I cannot believe the total ignorance. I guess I'm going spend part of my night grabbing every damn reference to every government and private company policy that was specifically designed to kill Native Americans including some laws still on the books that included clause that you could kill any Native American if you were in a covered wagon or any group of 5 Native Americans that were gathered. Some, including MN's ban on all Dakota Indians, are still on the books.
We'll ignore the whole, give Native Americans disease laden blankets and killing as many buffalo as possible so the plains tribes would starve.
Its as bad as people quoting the US government general on how many Native Americans died during the Trail of Tears. I guess people like that believe other governments when they say how many people they killed.
As to your last line.... that does not account for the loss.
Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
18 million was the estimated population for North America alone. So, yes, the population drop has been in the millions. the Trail of Tears alone would cover half the 30k. U of OK did a lot of the research.
18 million is the max with other estimates being much lower. That's certainly not a fact. And the only source for deaths on the trail of tears is the US government which gives 4000.
"And the only source for deaths on the trail of tears is the US government"
No, they are not the only source. "Cherokee Population Losses during the Trail of Tears: A New Perspective and a New Estimate" gives the loses as double. Not counting the subsequent increase in loses where they ended up.
I doubt we would take German official's word at numbers during WWII, so I'm not sure why the US's word is valid in this instance. The US couldn't even keep the land ownership and payments straight for the tribes and lost a massive lawsuit because of it.