do you think it was a good decisision for Yamamoto to bomb pearl harbor?

Question

i dont think it was, because he could of done something else and bombing would kill people

Answer 1

It was a very bad decision. It led to the conquest of Japan and the subordination of its people for decades.

Answer 2

Greetings!

Admiral Yamamoto made a bold statement before he sent his planes to destroy Pearl Harbor.

Loosely phrased, he said, "Once we start, I can promise we will run wild for six months. After that, I make no promises."

Yamamoto was in the US and had studied at Harvard for a short time. He learned about American culture and knew in his heart that if the entire navy were not destroyed quickly, the US could quickly manufacture ships, aircraft and weaponry and give Japan the worst thrashing it ever received....and that is exactly what happened.

When his planes returned, and his pilots informed Yamamoto there were no aircraft carriers or subs at the harbor, he knew right then and there that Japan was in trouble.

BTW, while in the US, Yamamoto stopped at Pearl Harbor and watched an Air Raid drill. It was this drill that taught him how to conduct his mission to destroy the harbor.

To answer your question, his plan was the very best strategy for attacking Pearl Harbor that the Japanese Admiralty could produce. But in the end, it became fatal for Japan.

Take care.

Answer 3

Yamamoto was responsible for creating the strategy of the Japanese War in the Pacific until he was shot down by American pilots.

Despite his influence in the creation of the attack on Pearl Harbor he knew it was a mistake and that eventually Japan would lose the war. But being a member of Bushido class he had to carry out the order of the Japanese High Command. But he also knew that if the Japanese were to win the Pacific something had to be done with the Americans. So the attack was made and everything that he had forseen came about.

Answer 4

The arguments for a surprise attack on the American fleet were strong ones, for basically there was a disparity in numbers of modern battleships between the United States and the Japanese Navies. To Admiral Yamamoto a reduction in American strength wasessential to put the two surface fleets on an equal footing. The clinching argument was for the need to keep the war short, thus preventing the United States from mobilizing her industrial might.

Nor had the successful British attack by torpedo bombers on the Italian fleet in Taranto harbour gone unnoticed to the Japanese planners. In fact it put the finishing touches to the long maturing plans for dealing with the American Pacific Fleet.

As everyone now knows the attack on the United States Fleet based at Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941 was a devastating success. Ninety Japanese Carrier-Bornne 'Kate' bombers of the first wave caught the Americans completely by surprise, and the US Battleships were rapidly put out of action. The USS Arizona blew up, the Oklahoma capsized, and the California and West Virginia sunk in shallow water. The USS Nevada, Maryland, Tennessee and Pennsylvania were all damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

A second strike by eighty-one Aichi Dive-bombers fell on the nearby airstrips destroying numerous aircraft on the ground and causing a considerable number of casualties. A third air strike might have inflicted further damage on the ships and instalations but the Japanese commander, Vice Admiral Nagumo, was satisfied with the damage already caused to the American Base and decided to cancel the planned third strike. The Japanese had lost just twenty-nine aircraft.

Without a Battleship fleet the Americans would, for the time being, be forced to rely on their aircraft carriers for any operations against the Japanese Navy. An arm in which numerically the Japanese held the advantage.

The idea of utilising the Aircraft Carrier as the basis for offensive action was one that had been considered by the US Navy but had never been implemented as an official doctrine. It is to their credit that, within a few months, the US Navy had learnt the new form of warfare and had suceeded in turning it against their treacherous enemy.

Answer 5

I think you have a utopian view of humanity that is totally unsupportable and unrealistic.

Bombing was bad because it would kill people? Well, NO KIDDING, what do you think happens in war?? People die.

His national command authority(his Prime Minister and his Emperor) had decided to go to war with the USA, to disobey would have been unthinkable in his eyes.

His govt decided upon war, he carried out their orders and came up with a brilliant plan, both strategically and tactically.

Could things have worked out better? Of course, the 3rd strike could have been carried out, the destruction of the fuel dumps, the destruction of the drydocks and other infrastructure, the us aircraft carriers could have been there and been destroyed as well, the Japanese ultimatum could have been delivered on time before the attack, but he still pulled off a brilliant success and then rampaged throughout the pacific.

Isis1037-

The enigma machine was a german cipher machine to transmit orders and messages privately. The allies were able to decipher the German code from enigma by using the MAGIC code.

The US broke the Japanese codes using the ULTRA machine.

As to the conspiracy theory nutcases, the reason the military doesn't answer his accusations is because they are so ridiculous as not to merit an answer.

whale

Answer 6

For what the Japanese knew about the United States, yes, it was a good move. However, in my opinion, Yamamoto underestimated America's resolve to fight back when wounded, hence his statement "I'm afraid we have awoken a sleeping Giant."

Had he gotten the aircraft carriers that were providentially out to sea on maneuvers, then it would have been an even bigger catastrophe for the United States.

Cheers!!

Answer 7

Here's a telling fact that you will never come across in any history book or movie about the attack on Pearl Harbor. My former teacher was there, on the ground, during the attack, and he told his students that the attack was staged with the full cooperation of the United States military. That particular Sunday morning (Dec. 7, 1941) was the only time the entire air fleet had been stripped of all its guns for "cleaning." The cleaning facility was all the way across the airfield from where all the planes had been tightly grouped together---another telling fact! The aircrews were forced to run to the cleaning sheds, grab whatever guns they could find, then run across the entire airfield to their planes, while under heavy air attack.

The U.S. military has never answered the question why were all the planes unarmed at that precise time?

Answer 8

Short term? Sure. A telling blow that hampered early conduct of the war by the US.

Medium term? Japan probably underestimated the industrial and potential military power of the US. The attack on Pearl Harbor did not damage this.

Long term? Nope. They rolled the dice and lost.

Answer 9

while europe was having their own misunderstandings and China was down, Japan thought that having the whole of Asia could give him raw materials, an uplift of its almost decaying economy, and a larger sphere of influence..
but America wanted China (most likely for commerce) and he was able to set a foothold in the Philippines.. so there, Japan's dreams were shunned by the presence of America. thus, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was detrimental because Japan really had no choice anyway.. what with their state of economy then..?

Answer 10

Well, since the US had imposed an embargo on Japan and was cutting off their oil supplies, I don't know that they had a choice. I think they would have been wiser to attack the Dutch and British territories in the Pacific and bypass America. I don't know that the US would have entered the war if they were not directly attacked.