Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#21

Post by rui314 » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:22 PM UTC

rquantz wrote: post #2

And 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 country. Japanese leaders had variety of opinions, but once the atmosphere that a war was inevitable was made, no one had authority to stop that.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#22

Post by trynumber9 » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:22 PM UTC

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…

That's ridiculous. Let's take a long view on China from Japan's perspective:

* Han Chinese displaced people in every direction, throughout what is now China and even into Malaya.

* Chinese moved south & west, killing native peoples. (numerous Mongol, Dzungar and Tibetan elimination campaigns)

* China takes land from Tibet (1930-1932).

* "Chinese unity" includes a lot of places that aren't Han Chinese. (routinely interfering in Mongolia)

* China previously demanded tribute from Japan.

* Republic of China oppressed the Manchu, killing hundreds of thousands.

* China wanted to kick Japan out of the mainland.

It was only logical to feel threatened by China. If properly unified it would outclass and defeat Japan. They had a momentary advantage and felt compelled to take action to protect themselves against a hostile China.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#23

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:24 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #19

SolarNet wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you can use history to make an educated guess about what will happen.

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.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#24

Post by knughit » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:24 PM UTC

trynumber9 wrote: post #22

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…

That's ridiculous. Let's take a long view on China from Japan's perspective: * Han Chinese displaced people in every direction, throughout what is now China and even into Malaya. * Chinese moved south & west, killing native peoples. (numerous Mongol, Dzungar and Tibetan elimination campaigns) * China takes land from Tibet (1930-1932). * "Chinese unity" includes a lot of places that aren't Han Chinese. (routinely inte…

Where is the ridiculous part?

Aside from aspect that many national governments were expanding and conquering, as they are wont to do.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#25

Post by chrisfosterelli » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:26 PM UTC

damienkatz wrote: post #18

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…

So if a convicted murderer moves in beside me, it's partially his fault if I attempt to murderer him in his sleep

I think this may be an unfair metaphor, because we have a police force and laws that give us incentive to not murder our neighbours in their sleep and give us assurance that we will be protected while we sleep ourselves.

On the world scale, this doesn't exist. If there was no laws, police, or government and a serial murderer moves in beside you, you may very well try to murder him in his sleep.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#26

Post by krapp » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:33 PM UTC

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.…

I think that's less about perception of time as it is cultural expectations. Plenty of people in Europe would consider a train that's 15 minutes late "late," it just happens often enough that society has to take the slop of inefficiency into account.

But, my point is that even conceding such a long view of history, the US probably didn't look more menacing than Europe. The US was a minor political and economic power, whereas Europe was much more powerful and had its own much longer history of imperialism and territorial expansion by divine right.

The implication seems like a bit of historical revisionism in hindsight, based on how threatening the US seems to a lot of people now.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#27

Post by joshmaker » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:34 PM UTC

Interesting 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.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#28

Post by dctoedt » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:34 PM UTC

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 of oil, rubber, and other resources for their war machine (an alternative they debated was to invade Siberia);

+ felt that for a strike south to succeed, they had to neutralize both the U.S. Pacific Fleet and the American bases in the Philippines, from which the U.S. surface fleet, submarines, and air forces could have caused serious problems for Japan's maritime supply lines from Southeast Asia; and

+ 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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_militarism

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#29

Post by knughit » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:35 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #8

hebdo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for the first time, and perhaps not for the last time, these words are so relevant. A war that need not have been fought was about to be fought because of mutual misunderstanding, language difficulties, and mistranslations. Why did America drop the two bombs? Why did it not drop the first one over the Tokyo bay? Why Japanese leaders hesitated so much to surrender, despite being so much overwhelmed by foreign powe…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu

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 lines. The US leadership had two bombs and wanted to use them.

Re: Why Japanese leaders attacked Pearl Harbor

#30

Post by trynumber9 » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:35 PM UTC

knughit wrote: post #24

trynumber9 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. Let's take a long view on China from Japan's perspective: * Han Chinese displaced people in every direction, throughout what is now China and even into Malaya. * Chinese moved south & west, killing native peoples. (numerous Mongol, Dzungar and Tibetan elimination campaigns) * China takes land from Tibet (1930-1932). * "Chinese unity" includes a lot of places that aren't Han Chinese. (routinely inte…

Where is the ridiculous part? Aside from aspect that many national governments were expanding and conquering, as they are wont to do.

Most nations have many reasons to fear their neighbors if you look far enough back.

The situation dictated policy. Either their war in China ground to a halt or they conquer SEA. I don't think the "Manifest destiny" entered much into IJA/IJN thinking in 1941.