It's all history now. The American government at the time was arguing with japan, Japan was invading the Southeastern islands for it's oil and rubber revenues. The U.S. and friendly allies put an embargo on Japan and was strangling it, the Japanese government.
The Japanese had no natural resources and had to have the resources of these islands that were rich in rubber and oil.
Finally in an effort to both scare and to cripple the American government the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Most Japanese were against this act, the Japanese admiral himself stated they were "waking the American Tiger"
He knew better but followed his orders.
There may have been a better way but, our government was ignoring the Japanese and their plight for natural resources. They pushed the Japanese against a wall and they had to take an action or slowly strangle.
This is all a matter of record and part of history now.
2007-08-17 22:40:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by cowboydoc 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
The Unites States policy in the Far East, along with Japanese expansionist policy made it almost inevitable that these two face off. There would have been no need to delay from the American side, and if Japan ever had a chance for success (which it did not) it was as early as possible.
The reason the war occured involved more complex issues that you might imagine. From the Japanese perspective, their decision to use China as the German equivilant of Lebensraum with Russia made them take aggressive stance to begin with. There continued need to dominate the Korean peninsula also did not give them any peace points. It had a very militaristic government and the home islands could only be used for so much. Expansion was state policy. America for its part since it's meddling in the Phillipines had geared up for an interventist policy in the Far east, where the objective was not to allow anyone to gain outright dominance there and protect the sea lanes. (Especially the British ones).
As the Japanese invaded and pushed through China in the late 30's, the speed and brutality, such as that in Nanking, brought international attention and concern to Japanese actions in that part of the world. The straffing and shelling of western civilians along the way after the first uproar by the west resulted in Japan taking the role of the aggressor. In exchange the U.S decided to launch an oil embargo on Japan. This hurt Japan severely and without oil, the war in China would grind to an end. Japan was to make a decision to either invade the rich lands of the Dutch indies (Southern strategy) or invade Siberia instead. (Northern Strategy). The navy gots the blessing for the south, and the northern approach was dropped. This was very much because the Japanese had suffered terrible defeats at the battle of khalkin Gol years earlier. WW2 would have taken a very different turn had Japan chosen to invade northwards.
Their decision to go south would mean confrontation with the U.S. sooner or later but they simply hoped that the U.S. policy would not take the Pacific too seriously and just drop it. America did no such thing.
It is true however, that Roosevelt wanted to enter the war against the Nazis but his people did not wish to go fight a European war again. Wither or not he pushed some extra buttons to instigate and accelerate the point of conlfict with Japan is a good possibility, considering it would have meant entry into the war.
In the end, the only thing America could have done to avoid the war would have been to return to Isolationist mentality and surrender claims on the Pacific. Instead it held onto them, imposed sanctions on vital resources to Japan and voluntarily or not pushed Japan into a corner. For Japan, as a pacific Island nation, giving up the Pacific made less sence however had they known the complete seriousness of American intentions to maintain their own claims, it may have been a very worthy idea to focus on the Northern Strategy. America would have hardly cared if Japan expanded into Siberia at the USSR's expense. Was it avoidable, yes, but both sides refused to give up an inch of the pacific to the other. Japan was too militaristic and the US was too interventionist.
2007-08-18 00:56:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by casimir2121 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
There was not much America could do to prevent Japan from launching one of the dumbest least effective attacks in history. Japan was a lot like a drunk in a bar itching for a fight. True America was condescending and rude, at least that was Japan's take on things, but America was truly sick of Japanese aggression, committed to China, and in truth not worried, confident they could defeat Japan.
And the truly weird thing is that Japan did not 'need' to attack America especially not at Pearl Harbor. For conspiracy buffs nothing is more tantalizing than realizing that Japan had a perfectly sound strategic plan in place before Harvard educated Admiral Yamato convinced his fellow officers to abandon a sound concept for a truly stupid idea. As another answerer noted Japan's goal was Indochina and the resource rich islands of Malaysia and Indonesia plus a few British Colonies. They knew that this would antagonize America, attacking & seizing Guam and Wake Island alone would guarantee America would eventually declare war.
But when? Attacking Pearl Harbor, which few Americans had heard of, Attacking Hawai'i which lots of Americans cared about, attacking on a Sunday, all that propelled Congress into the swiftest Declaration of War ever.
And that is all that Pearl Harbor accomplished. Ships sunk in a shallow harbor, a harbor eqipped with the finest shipyard in the Pacific (sorry, San Diego and Bremerton). AN attack that failed to target the repair facilities - - - the Pennsylvania was damaged in dry dock when destruction of the drydock would have been far worse . No effort made to destroy a petroleum storage 'farm' that is still a technological marvel. Yes lkives were lost and two ships in particular destroyed, but over all the actual damage was slight.
As for delaying Japan - - - well, Admiral Husband E Kimmel had plans to ring Hawai'i with long range patrol planes & ships, he was especially keen on sending ships NORTH iof Hawai'i into the area from which the attack was launched. Washington DC said No. Nio funds availible. If Kimmel's plans had been adopted and Japan's fleet spotted, well truth is they most likely would have aborted their attack and concentrated on their true war ain. WIthout Pearl Harbor how soon wuld Congress have authorized a fight to take back Guam or Wake Island or the Philipines?
Oh, and Japans original intention was to concentrate on taking Indochina, Indonesia, Etc - - - ignore America as long as possible and when not longer possible manuevar America into a battle in the deep waters of the Mid Pacific. Nine Japanese Carriers against Four American carriers. Battle tested Japanese aircrews against 'green' Americans. The outcome would have been quite different.
Peace---------------
2007-08-17 23:25:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by JVHawai'i 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Blame Vietnam. he he Just kidding.
No, it was not the fault of the Vietnamese, but one of the
keys to your question is the invasion of Indochina by Japan in 1941. America's response was to hurt Japan economically.
Here the crucial ingredients were iron/steel and especially oil. Japan did not have these resources, and they were essential (along with rubber) for their military machine. Their powerful navy was hampered all during the war by the need to stay relatively close to sources of oil in the Dutch East Indies. Remember Japan was essentially ruled by their military at that time. Japanese thinking would not accept being cut off from resources they needed. The military mentality is to take what you need. I suspect we (Americans) failed to understand the thinking of Japanese leaders. Trying to take away access to steel and oil was like waving a red flag at a testosterone charged bull. One of the troubles with spending so much of a nation's resources to build a military machine is the itching desire to use it IF the soldiers are the ones in charge. I think the Japan/America war was inevitable in '41.
2007-08-17 22:36:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Spreedog 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's always been my opinion that the aggressive Japanese Empire building in the Pacific and it's ever growing threat to American interests (namely the Hawaiian Islands) was the most overt reason for the war.
Do I think it could have been prevented? Probably not. It may have been avoided for a time longer but probably not prevented outright.
2007-08-17 22:23:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lethal Dose Of American Hatred 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
How can you "delay" something that was clearly "provoked". The Japanese sided with the Italians and the Germans. The Americans with the Britih and the French. These were two different sides on opposing fronts. A clash is the inevitable outcome.
1941 happened to provoke the US into action. And 1945 happened to end it. To put it in the garb of diplomacy or economy sounds ill-informed and meaningless - both factually and historically.
2007-08-17 22:38:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Gatlin 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
My darling, the war between US and Japan is no more..because their war is in CHINA!!!! many us and japan investors invest lots of money in china....although you see many goods made in china, but actually mostly come from foreign investors....china booming, us and japan earn great profits too....BUT this is only refer to profits earned from overseas...not country within us and japan!!!!!
2007-08-17 22:56:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by harijanti 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
They Got The @ss Whipping They Deserved ..So Be Gone With You...
2007-08-17 22:26:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋