Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#121

Post by mirimir » Sun, Dec 06, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #96

mirimir wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the goals are to provoke overreaction and sharpen the conflict. And so to radicalize supporters, and build support among potential allies. Except for the violence aspect, the strategy is not all that different from nonviolent resistance.

I think that nonviolent resistance is different because the nonviolent resistor is saying, essentially "give me what I want or I will put myself in a position where you have to hurt me." - which only works if the authority in question has some problem with hurting the nonviolent resistor. Terror, on the other hand, seems to be saying something more like "no matter how powerful you are, you can't prevent us from comin…

I agree that the initial primary goal of terrorism is fear. There's also anger, because fear and anger are connected. But I'm not so sure that nonviolent resistance is all about fostering guilt/shame/empathy. I think that guilt etc and anger are also connected. And so both can lead to overreaction. And once you've goaded an opponent into overreacting, they will be hurting innocents. And that will foster sympathy, and build general support for your cause.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#122

Post by cam- » Sun, Dec 06, 2015, 7:23 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #75

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…

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 US would have been able to replace their aircraft carrier losses pretty quickly, far quicker than the Japanese. By the end of the war the US had close to thirty carriers IIRC.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#123

Post by lsc » Sun, Dec 06, 2015, 7:46 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #121

lsc wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that nonviolent resistance is different because the nonviolent resistor is saying, essentially "give me what I want or I will put myself in a position where you have to hurt me." - which only works if the authority in question has some problem with hurting the nonviolent resistor. Terror, on the other hand, seems to be saying something more like "no matter how powerful you are, you can't prevent us from comin…

I agree that the initial primary goal of terrorism is fear. There's also anger, because fear and anger are connected. But I'm not so sure that nonviolent resistance is all about fostering guilt/shame/empathy. I think that guilt etc and anger are also connected. And so both can lead to overreaction. And once you've goaded an opponent into overreacting, they will be hurting innocents. And that will foster sympathy, and…

Sure, I'm just saying that nonviolent resistance only works at all if the enemy is unwilling to just kill you and your supporters.

I'm saying that nonviolence operates on your enemies willingness to harm others, rather than focusing on harming the enemy, and that makes it fundamentally different from other forms of warfare.

Now, there is a connection in that both terror and nonviolence are fundamentally psychological warfare; both rely on giving the enemy feelings rather than just killing the enemy in the most efficient way possible, but I think that nonviolence is interesting and different because it is a new form of warfare that only works against modern societies that are able but not willing to just kill a bunch of the opposing group.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#124

Post by marshray » Sun, Dec 06, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #113

marshray wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Bushido" and the culture of the samurai as most people understand it was more or less invented whole cloth as a romanticized, retroactive mythology[0], well after the cultural relevance of the samurai had passed on. It was embraced by the wartime Imperial government for its propaganda value, but that doesn't mean the government necessarily bought into it. [0] http://www.tofugu.com/2014/12/08/bushido-way-total-bullsh…

That was a really interesting read and I think it supports the concept that "Bushido" was in full swing by the 1940's:

Bushido would find its ultimate embodiment in kamikaze pilots and foot-soldiers who “honorably” sacrificed themselves for their country. “Although some Japanese were taken prisoner,” David Powers of BBC writes, “most fought until they were killed or committed suicide.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#125

Post by jkyle » Sun, Dec 06, 2015, 8:32 PM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #59

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.…

How long have they held that perception of time? I'm under the impression that in the Anglosphere it is only as old as railroads.

The paper on cultural time perceptions I found, which I'll have to dig up again, attributed the difference to a deep cultural value placed on timeliness in Japanese society. e.g. the value predated the specific train result.

edit

Though I've read papers that also trace a shortening of the window of timeliness to the appearance of public clocks. Like Big Ben.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#126

Post by mirimir » Sun, Dec 06, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #123

mirimir wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the initial primary goal of terrorism is fear. There's also anger, because fear and anger are connected. But I'm not so sure that nonviolent resistance is all about fostering guilt/shame/empathy. I think that guilt etc and anger are also connected. And so both can lead to overreaction. And once you've goaded an opponent into overreacting, they will be hurting innocents. And that will foster sympathy, and…

Sure, I'm just saying that nonviolent resistance only works at all if the enemy is unwilling to just kill you and your supporters. I'm saying that nonviolence operates on your enemies willingness to harm others, rather than focusing on harming the enemy, and that makes it fundamentally different from other forms of warfare. Now, there is a connection in that both terror and nonviolence are fundamentally psychological…

Yes. And yet, I think it useful to distinguish the immediate enemy that you're facing from the group that they're acting for. Consider Ghandi. I'm guessing that many of the British his people were facing in India would rather have killed him and his followers. They certainly did hurt a lot of protesters. But they knew that the British public would have been outraged. And eventually, it was public support in Britain that led to Indian independence. It's not that the colonial managers were converted. Maybe some were. But mostly they were overruled.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#127

Post by lsc » Sun, Dec 06, 2015, 9:20 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #126

lsc wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I'm just saying that nonviolent resistance only works at all if the enemy is unwilling to just kill you and your supporters. I'm saying that nonviolence operates on your enemies willingness to harm others, rather than focusing on harming the enemy, and that makes it fundamentally different from other forms of warfare. Now, there is a connection in that both terror and nonviolence are fundamentally psychological…

Yes. And yet, I think it useful to distinguish the immediate enemy that you're facing from the group that they're acting for. Consider Ghandi. I'm guessing that many of the British his people were facing in India would rather have killed him and his followers. They certainly did hurt a lot of protesters. But they knew that the British public would have been outraged. And eventually, it was public support in Britain t…

Certainly. and I agree that terror and nonviolence both target the civilian population's feelings on the matter. Also note, that has a direct effect on how front line soldiers act; if the boss says he'll demote me if I do X, well, I'm a lot less likely to want to do X, regardless of my feelings on the matter. (And while I've never been in such a position myself, I read that killing people who are not fighting back is harder for most people than it sounds.)

but I think that the genius of Gandhi was that he saw that he couldn't win through conventional military means, so he found another way; ethics aside, I think he should be remembered as a great general; a great strategic thinker who won a war that seemed impossible to win because he considered options that were not obvious to the military leaders who tried for Indian independence before him. (and may not have been available to those leaders... but still, it was a great innovation in strategy and tactics, really, that you could fight a war by.. not fighting.)

That's the thing that seems weird about the current wave of middle-eastern terror; if the goal is to get the US out of the middle east, terror has been woefully ineffective. It's possible that there is some deep game, someone trying to get the US to attack some countries and not others... but it's also just as likely that this current wave of terror has no real strategic planning, that it's just a howl of undirected, incoherent rage; like a man putting his fist through the drywall in his own house.

The latter explanation of terror actually seems more plausible to me than any grand strategic plan.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#128

Post by mirimir » Sun, Dec 06, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #127

mirimir wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And yet, I think it useful to distinguish the immediate enemy that you're facing from the group that they're acting for. Consider Ghandi. I'm guessing that many of the British his people were facing in India would rather have killed him and his followers. They certainly did hurt a lot of protesters. But they knew that the British public would have been outraged. And eventually, it was public support in Britain t…

Certainly. and I agree that terror and nonviolence both target the civilian population's feelings on the matter. Also note, that has a direct effect on how front line soldiers act; if the boss says he'll demote me if I do X, well, I'm a lot less likely to want to do X, regardless of my feelings on the matter. (And while I've never been in such a position myself, I read that killing people who are not fighting back is…

I totally agree about Ghandi. It was an amazing strategy. And nonviolent resistance has been so successful for so many.

Maybe you're right about radical Wahhabi terrorism. There is a lot of incoherent rage. But I do think that, at least for the rational planners, the goal is to draw the Christians into battle in the Middle East. Look at how they played the US into attacking Iraq, ruled by their former pocket anti-Communist strongman, and creating chaos that ISIS could later exploit. It's beyond amusing how both the radical Christian new right and the radical Wahhabis see conflict in the Middle East in the context of Armageddon. They just disagree about which side Christ will favor.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#129

Post by merpnderp » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #120

merpnderp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You quote a government source on the deaths cause by said government? "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 numbe…

You are missing my point. I'm not saying the US government is correct, I'm saying no one else was counting the dead. And at the time, the US government had no reason to downplay the numbers since the voting population mostly didn't care.

And I don't have time to read your book, but I'm going to guess that the book relies upon the official government numbers and their extrapolates additional deaths based on some criteria. I doubt someone just magically found a new as yet undiscovered accurate death list.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#130

Post by protomyth » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #129

protomyth wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You quote a government source on the deaths cause by said government? "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 numbe…

You are missing my point. I'm not saying the US government is correct, I'm saying no one else was counting the dead. And at the time, the US government had no reason to downplay the numbers since the voting population mostly didn't care. And I don't have time to read your book, but I'm going to guess that the book relies upon the official government numbers and their extrapolates additional deaths based on some crite…

A lot of work has gone into ancestry by the tribes and finding old records along with tribal sites not destroyed, but quoting old numbers without current research is just wrong.