the attack on pearl harbor was the turning point of the pacific war towards the defeat of japan?

Question

the defeat of japan was caused by the battle of midway and not the attack on pearl harbor?

Answer 1

And the question is?

Answer 2

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the catalyst for the US to join the war. Though Japan had been involved in the Pacific since WW I, the attack was the beginning of the end for them. The Japanese were defeated in a series of great naval battles, at the Battle of the Philippine Sea and the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 in which the Allies further advanced towards the Japanese homeland by invading the Marianas and then the Philippines, setting up bases from which Japan could be bombed by strategic bombers like the B-29. 1945 saw invasions of key islands such as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. In the meantime, Allied submarines gradually cut off the supply of oil and other raw materials to Japan. In the last year of the war US air forces conducted a strategic firebombing campaign against the Japanese homeland. On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and on August 9 another was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945.

FDR's response to Germany was slower. The Lend-Lease Act was passed in 1940 that allowed the US to lend ships to England who agreed to return them after the war. Both the President and Congress felt that the public would accept this better than giving financial loans or actually entering the war. Two more important events occurred before the US entered the war. First, the USSR and Japan signed a non-aggression treaty. This allowed Japan to focus on southeast Asia and the Pacific. Second, Hitler decided to attack the USSR.
The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor made war unavoidable. The next day, FDR asked Congress for a declaration of war in his famous speech.

Answer 3

I think I understand your question.

In a way yes Pearl harbor was the beginning of the end for japan.

Had they not attacked they could have continued to run rough shod over the pacific, once the US was engaged however all resources were required to hold back the American Tide.

Yamamoto knew this and he warned that he could only hold the Americans for at most 6 months, and he was exactly right. besides a few rough patches it was almost always a one sided war against the Japanese fleet.

Japan was not able to produce enough, keep their ships supplied or repaid damage fast enough once the US was machine was in full swing.

Midway it's self was vital as it proved to japan that the war was never going to be won, however even with a defeat of US forces at Midway, eventually The US would have had ultimate victory if only at a later date.

Pearl was the turning point of the over all pacific war which had been raging for several years. But it was only the beginning of the US involvement in to the war it's self.

People need t remember the pacific war started in the 1930's not in 1941.

Answer 4

The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of the plan of world conquest by the alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan. That attack was what caused the US to join the allies and fight against Japan and Germany (Italy had been taken over by Germany) The Battle of Midway took place after Pearl Harbor. It took place on an island Japan was using as a sort of checkpoint to attack the US.

Answer 5

Not hardly--we declared war on Japan because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. They attacked without warning, and even when their ambassadors were in Washington, supposedly negotiating to keep the peace. They were prepared, and most of our Pacific fleet was destroyed in the attack, except for our carriers, so it took a while for us to catch up. We finally started to turn the tide at the Battle of Midway.

Answer 6

One may argue that the Japanese, by attacking Pearl Harbor bite more that they could chew.After all that was the view of none other than the instigator of that operation, Admiral Yamamoto.Given the vast U.S. superiority over Japan in industial production, somehow Midway (or something of that kind) was bound to happen sooner or later. In other words the siruation is reminiscent those of the Early Roman Republic versus its adversairies, namely Cartage, Macedon and the Greec Leagues of city states, that is that U.S.A. like Rome could affrond to suffer huge losses whereas Japan just like Rome's opponents have rather replacent capablities. Moreover the Japanese by attacking the U.S. without having subbded China willingly violated one rule of strategy, namely not to take too many enemies at the same time because they could not gather sufficient forces to overcome them. In conclusion one may use a Dickensian image (from Christmas Carrols) to say that by attacking at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese crafted a chain to chain themselves

Answer 7

Through Pearl harbor... The Japanese learned that in their over zealous pride (which is common), and over extended self confidence that they were not as great a Country as far as War was concerned as they had hoped. They gave it one hell of a try though... Not to mention the fact that by our ignoring and disreguarding them as a power. They took offence and did what they did as a result.

They surrendered and succumb immediately after and have behaved themselves ever since...

I think they needed to find out first hand, so they tried it and the end result of Pearl Harbor put them in their place. In the long run it created a copecetic bond with the West which I believe was the point in the first place...

"...However, the view promoted by both the Japanese Imperial Palace and the American occupation forces immediately after World War II had Emperor Shōwa as a powerless figurehead behaving strictly according to protocol, while remaining at a distance from the decision-making processes."

Japan's entire political history seems to be based on bad decisions made due to the greed, desire to possess power or control over (or forced cohabitation with) the Western world through the Emperor, via his council and confidants who were all corrupt.

Same reasons the Samurai were killed and dismantled.

I think that if Japan was left alone... She would have been much better off less any Western influence either by force through war or agreement on her own.

Answer 8

Though it was actually the STARTING point for the U.S. in WWII (as stated above), it COULD be technically considered a turning point.

From what I understand, if the Japanese had sent their third wave of bombers (they were going to, but the Admiral decided against it), they would have pretty much destroyed every ship in Pearl Harbor, along with any aircraft that wasn''t destroyed during the first two attacks. This would come back to hurt them later, as the Japanese Navy faced several of the ships that survived Pearl Harbor later on in the Pacific theater.

Answer 9

Whoa buddy. Pearl Harbor was the STARTING POINT. When Ameica learned the peaceful face of Japan was a false one! And America joined the war in the Pacific. 'This is a day that will live in infamy'. FDR.
Perhaps a turning point was the battle of Midway, or the taking of IWO JIMA, supply island.

Answer 10

yes, if Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbour, they will have one less country which is of a signifant size to attack them. The Japanese forces were already very thin by the time they hit Singapore, the british didn't know the japs were outnumbered by the british then, else this could also be a turnaround point for the defeat of japan too.

Answer 11

No...the attack on Pearl Harbor was the turning point for the US to join the Allied Forces during WW2