Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 20th, 2011, 11:17 AM   #1

Richard Potato's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 168
The Reason Why [Japan vs US] ?


I haven't used this forum much, and I see there are hundreds of posters and thousands of posts, so if I'm beating a dead horse you'll just have to excuse me.

OK-- The Japanese were going to launch a Great Southern Drive and take Borneo and/or the Dutch East Indies. The top brass of the Japanese Navy decided that if Japan did that, the US would go to war with Japan. Which is why the decision was made to whack out the Philippines and Pearl Harbor, to protect the flank of the Southern Drive.

That, I understand. What I don't understand is why (how?) the Japanese Navy brass came to that decision. What made them think that if Japan attacked the British and/or the Dutch, the US would attack Japan?


[If I've put this in the wrong sub-forum, MOD please move.]
Richard Potato is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 20th, 2011, 11:26 AM   #2

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

The Philippines had to be attacked because Japan was going to attack the British in Malaya and they couldn't leave a British ally untouched on their flank. Isoruku Yamamato demanded the attack on Pearl Harbor to neutralize the United States Fleet (the formal name for the USN forces in Hawaii.

As to why the good admiral thought the attack was needed, he felt that without a serious setback at the beginning of the war the US would make it very difficult for Japan to establish the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" (euphemism for Japanese hegemony). Even with the attack he told the Imperial High Command that "I will run wild for six months to a year. After that I promise nothing."
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 11:30 AM   #3

Isoroku295's Avatar
Priapus
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: In the Past
Posts: 8,392

America had sanctions against the Japanese. Also this drive the Japanese wanted to threaten the Philipines.
Isoroku295 is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 11:43 AM   #4

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoroku295 View Post
America had sanctions against the Japanese. Also this drive the Japanese wanted to threaten the Philipines.
The US refused to provide Japan with the means to kill more Chinese. That was a bad thing?
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 11:59 AM   #5

Isoroku295's Avatar
Priapus
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: In the Past
Posts: 8,392

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
The US refused to provide Japan with the means to kill more Chinese. That was a bad thing?
Ummm..... I never said that.
Isoroku295 is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 12:03 PM   #6

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoroku295 View Post
Ummm..... I never said that.
No, but when I see the situation stated like that I am rarely surprized.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 12:16 PM   #7

Isoroku295's Avatar
Priapus
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: In the Past
Posts: 8,392

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
No, but when I see the situation stated like that I am rarely surprized.
What America did was good and by no means are the Americans wrong for it. I was simply stating the Japanese correct usumptions that the US would not accept an attack into the south.
Isoroku295 is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 12:20 PM   #8

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoroku295 View Post
What America did was good and by no means are the Americans wrong for it. I was simply stating the Japanese correct usumptions that the US would not accept an attack into the south.
You're right.

Okay, at this point I always ask if you'd to read http://ibiblio.org/pha/monos/144/index.html and the other four volumes? It would nice to have someone else who has read them, they're fascinating.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 02:01 PM   #9

Fire_Raven's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Oregon
Posts: 2,776

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
You're right.

Okay, at this point I always ask if you'd to read http://ibiblio.org/pha/monos/144/index.html and the other four volumes? It would nice to have someone else who has read them, they're fascinating.
lol let me catch up on all my other reading and I'll poke through that one.
Fire_Raven is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 03:40 PM   #10
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,005

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoroku295 View Post
What America did was good and by no means are the Americans wrong for it. I was simply stating the Japanese correct usumptions that the US would not accept an attack into the south.
People assume no strategic considerations other than some vague concept of political hegemony. Not so. As usual, economics was a key determinant.

The Japanese were in need of natural resources that they did not sufficiently control....rubber, oil, tin and nickel and manganese, rice and other foodstuffs for their population, etc. Those were available, among other things, in southeast Asia. Adequate supplies of some of those industrial materials for the United States, and for Britain, were also dependent on southeast Asia.

The US had, since at least the 1920s, determined (both the War Dept and the Navy Dept) that the Philippines were not defensible in case of Japanese attack. The Philippines had nothing to do with the strategic considerations. Australia with its mineral deposits; the East Indies with its oil and Malaya with its rubber - those, and other resources, were the strategic considerations. The loss of access to those for long periods of time were a major concern. Japan intended to consolidate control over those natural resources to benefit themselves, and to deny them to competitors.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
japan, reason



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Attitude of Soviet Union towards Japan in WWII as Japan tried to seek Soviet mediation? curiositay History Help 5 April 6th, 2015 12:00 PM
Reason for Philip's animosity Alcibiades Ancient History 14 October 3rd, 2014 11:03 AM
The Source of Human Reason? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 1 October 3rd, 2014 10:26 AM
Hitler's Reason for War? A7X European History 80 March 16th, 2011 04:48 PM
Where does reason come from? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 23 August 4th, 2009 08:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.