Japanese attacks against Malaya took place on the 8th of December, shortly before the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor on the 7th.

IDL ftw.

Japan of course had been fighting since July 7, 1937.

Peter Brown wrote:Japan of course had been fighting since July 7, 1937.

Yeah, in China, not across the Pacific, hence Pacific War.

But what I am suggesting was it was all part of the same Japanese war. It was just because America officially got involve militarily instead of just politically along with a few volunteers in China that front started.

The attack on America by the japs was a act of murder. It was an attempt to say all Americans deserve to die.
Killing people without first talking over matters is the sign of the bad guys.
They were trying to assert their identity against European and american peoples. The Japs were trying to say they were no longer inferior to us and attacking us all was to teach us this.
they also were trying to show greatness by murdering their asian neighbours.
For the generation of Japaness of those times who in heart consented to all this evil they are guilty of murder and being evil people. Those who came later are innocent and its my impression they are today one of the finest peoples on earth.
They seem to practice decency or kindness and industriness and intelligence that is worthy of the Anglo American civilization to note.
Those japs of those war years are rightly to be denouced by the japanese of these years in Japan.
they reaped sadly what they sowed. Death and destruction and humiliation in morality and intellectual and practical ability.
The past is past and let it stay there save for these occasional rememberences.
God bless America

Robert Byers wrote:The attack on America by the japs was a act of murder. It was an attempt to say all Americans deserve to die.
Killing people without first talking over matters is the sign of the bad guys.
They were trying to assert their identity against European and american peoples. The Japs were trying to say they were no longer inferior to us and attacking us all was to teach us this.
they also were trying to show greatness by murdering their asian neighbours.
For the generation of Japaness of those times who in heart consented to all this evil they are guilty of murder and being evil people. Those who came later are innocent and its my impression they are today one of the finest peoples on earth.
They seem to practice decency or kindness and industriness and intelligence that is worthy of the Anglo American civilization to note.
Those japs of those war years are rightly to be denouced by the japanese of these years in Japan.
they reaped sadly what they sowed. Death and destruction and humiliation in morality and intellectual and practical ability.
The past is past and let it stay there save for these occasional rememberences.
God bless America

In purely military terms, it was actually a very shrewd move, a pre-emptive strike aimed at destroying the American carrier fleet for very little cost. It failed largely because the American carriers weren't where they had expected them to be, at anchor in Pearl Harbour. I'm not going to go as far as suggesting that the Japanese might have been victorious in the pacific had the attack succeeded as planned but it would have seriously hindered the American response, probably allowing the Japanese to gain much more territory before America had replaced the carriers and were in a position to respond.

You might well call it murder but to go as far as labelling that generation as evil is bit harsh. You might well remember that America is currently engaged in a war where they aren't beyond assassination attempts with smart bombs, including attacks inside Pakistan, neighbours to the area of conflict.

In the first Gulf War, the Americans anhilated a large portion of the Iraqi army in retreat on the road to Basra after they had left Kuwait and were clearly inside Iraq, completely routed.

Would that count as murder? Are the Americans of this generation evil? Maybe a little less "first stone" casting Robert. War isn't pretty, people die. At least they tend to be over territory and resources these days which is a tad more honest than those wars over whose imaginary friend is the one being worshipped in the right way!!

Robert, it seems your grasp of history is tenuous as your grasp of science.

The Japanese intended to provide proper notification of the attack at Pearl Harbor. That it ended up as a surprise attack is due to a series of unfortunate errors, not design.

The Japanese did not feel inferior to European or American peoples.

Byers wrote:They seem to practice decency or kindness and industriness and intelligence that is worthy of the Anglo American civilization to note.

This phrase, and your repetitive use of the pejorative abbreviation "Japs", is racist. You know better, having had this sort of thing pointed out to you multiple times in past years. Post reported.

Weaver wrote:The Japanese intended to provide proper notification of the attack at Pearl Harbor. That it ended up as a surprise attack is due to a series of unfortunate errors, not design.

That matter is up to debate, there were official documents discovered about ten years ago that put this version in some doubt, showing that the military were debating what notice to give, and even if they should give notice at all. Certainly there was never any question of giving notification for the actual attack, but rather that the peace had ended between the two countries.

Weaver wrote:The Japanese did not feel inferior to European or American peoples.

True and that is why the Japanese wanted a statement of racial equality added to the Covenant of the League of Nations in 1919, which was accepted but quickly vetoed by Britain, the US and Australia due to racist attitudes of the time.

Robert Byers wrote:The attack on America by the japs was a act of murder. It was an attempt to say all Americans deserve to die.

It was an act of murder sure, but it was born in large part from economic needs stemming directly from western trade tariff 'wars' and economic sanctions, to say it was a simply a statement by them that 'all Americans deserve to die' is histrionics.

monkeyboy wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:The attack on America by the japs was a act of murder. It was an attempt to say all Americans deserve to die.
Killing people without first talking over matters is the sign of the bad guys.
They were trying to assert their identity against European and american peoples. The Japs were trying to say they were no longer inferior to us and attacking us all was to teach us this.
they also were trying to show greatness by murdering their asian neighbours.
For the generation of Japaness of those times who in heart consented to all this evil they are guilty of murder and being evil people. Those who came later are innocent and its my impression they are today one of the finest peoples on earth.
They seem to practice decency or kindness and industriness and intelligence that is worthy of the Anglo American civilization to note.
Those japs of those war years are rightly to be denouced by the japanese of these years in Japan.
they reaped sadly what they sowed. Death and destruction and humiliation in morality and intellectual and practical ability.
The past is past and let it stay there save for these occasional rememberences.
God bless America

In purely military terms, it was actually a very shrewd move, a pre-emptive strike aimed at destroying the American carrier fleet for very little cost. It failed largely because the American carriers weren't where they had expected them to be, at anchor in Pearl Harbour. I'm not going to go as far as suggesting that the Japanese might have been victorious in the pacific had the attack succeeded as planned but it would have seriously hindered the American response, probably allowing the Japanese to gain much more territory before America had replaced the carriers and were in a position to respond.

You might well call it murder but to go as far as labelling that generation as evil is bit harsh. You might well remember that America is currently engaged in a war where they aren't beyond assassination attempts with smart bombs, including attacks inside Pakistan, neighbours to the area of conflict.

In the first Gulf War, the Americans anhilated a large portion of the Iraqi army in retreat on the road to Basra after they had left Kuwait and were clearly inside Iraq, completely routed.

Would that count as murder? Are the Americans of this generation evil? Maybe a little less "first stone" casting Robert. War isn't pretty, people die. At least they tend to be over territory and resources these days which is a tad more honest than those wars over whose imaginary friend is the one being worshipped in the right way!!

Actually it was a pretty dumb attack. It's almost impossible to destroy a ship in port since ships are normally destroyed through sinking and ships don't sink very far in port, hence many of the ships the Japanese claimed were destroyed at Pearl were able to later fight in a number of battles.

I think many in authority in Japan knew it was a desperate gamble. There was a huge disparity between the industrial capacities of the two nations. Despite the fact that the US was a reluctant player on the world stage at the time, Japan knew that the US could come up to speed if attacked. They made the very large assumption that by then they could be in a strong bargaining position, in control of much of Asia and its strategic resources, and they could make a deal that left them with that hegemony.

It didn’t come off at all in a strategic sense, because they enraged Americans and kick-started war production. And it was a military failure because most of the damage affected battleships, vessels already passing into obsolescence.

Their main reason for success after Pearl Harbor was due to the weakness of the European colonies at the time, a situation seen as a one-time opportunity not to be missed by the Japanese hierarchy.

It is of course also stupid to have your grand plan revolve around the hope that the enemy will not want to fight.

Father O Rielly:
I think many in authority in Japan knew it was a desperate gamble. There was a huge disparity between the industrial capacities of the two nations. Despite the fact that the US was a reluctant player on the world stage at the time, Japan knew that the US could come up to speed if attacked. They made the very large assumption that by then they could be in a strong bargaining position, in control of much of Asia and its strategic resources, and they could make a deal that left them with that hegemony.

It didn’t come off at all in a strategic sense, because they enraged Americans and kick-started war production. And it was a military failure because most of the damage affected battleships, vessels already passing into obsolescence.

Their main reason for success after Pearl Harbor was due to the weakness of the European colonies at the time, a situation seen as a one-time opportunity not to be missed by the Japanese hierarchy.

I doubt your notion that Japanese authorities viewed it as “a desperate gamble”, Father O Rielly, though definitely as a remarkable opportunity.

Throughout 1941 the German High Command were supremely confident of success, the more in that they thought it highly probable that Japan would attack the Soviets from the East, having already invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China six years later.

Japanese leaders likewise realized they had a marvelous opportunity to beat their old enemy (the Soviets were also moving their forces from eastern Siberia westward in order to defend Moscow), having fought the Russians victoriously in 1904/1905 and again briefly, albeit indecisively, in Mongolia in 1939.

Yet the Japanese were equally enticed by the weakened European colonies from Hong Kong to Burma/Malay Peninsula (tin and rubber) and the Dutch East Indies with its oil, if not more so, orchestrating numerous secret meetings in order to determine the best strategy.

In the end the West practically made the decision for them by way its of increasing hostility over Japan’s war versus the Chinese and occupation of French Indo-China, whereas the US also abruptly terminated its Japanese oil shipments around the middle of 1941 (Siberian winter was nigh as well).

Most military experts might well consider Pearl Harbour a triumph, even if the Japanese did fail to destroy the three US aircraft carriers out at sea. Masters at aerial torpedo attacks, they simultaneously launched attacks against a number of other British, French and other military bases, crippling MacArthur’s Philippines’ air force in one fell swoop.

I doubt your notion that Japanese authorities viewed it as “a desperate gamble”, Father O Rielly, though definitely as a remarkable opportunity.

Throughout 1941 the German High Command were supremely confident of success, the more in that they thought it highly probable that Japan would attack the Soviets from the East, having already invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China six years later.

Japanese leaders likewise realized they had a marvelous opportunity to beat their old enemy (the Soviets were also moving their forces from eastern Siberia westward in order to defend Moscow), having fought the Russians victoriously in 1904/1905 and again briefly, albeit indecisively, in Mongolia in 1939.

Yet the Japanese were equally enticed by the weakened European colonies from Hong Kong to Burma/Malay Peninsula (tin and rubber) and the Dutch East Indies with its oil, if not more so, orchestrating numerous secret meetings in order to determine the best strategy.

In the end the West practically made the decision for them by way its of increasing hostility over Japan’s war versus the Chinese and occupation of French Indo-China, whereas the US also abruptly terminated its Japanese oil shipments around the middle of 1941 (Siberian winter was nigh as well).

Most military experts might well consider Pearl Harbour a triumph, even if the Japanese did fail to destroy the three US aircraft carriers out at sea. Masters at aerial torpedo attacks, they simultaneously launched attacks against a number of other British, French and other military bases, crippling MacArthur’s Philippines’ air force in one fell swoop.


No doubt, incredible opportunities where there. But the Japanese were not stupid, and some in the military hierarchy have since written about the worry of simply “waking up the sleeping giant” with the attack on Pearl Harbour. Japan was a country with a smaller population, and much smaller industrial capacity, and no capability of dominating the eastern Pacific. Taking out a few battleships and aircraft carriers would no doubt buy time, but their own experience told them that these type of assets could be relatively easily replaced, given a couple of years. When that happened, Japan would have to face a unified, industrial behemoth in North America. Their “gamble” was that the Germans would subdue the Soviet Union, giving them a share of the spoils, and that they would also take South East Asia from the Europeans without too much of a struggle. Eventually, utilization of the resources of these regions would give them a strong bargaining position with the Americans, and the British Empire. But it was a stretch.

The Second World War, perhaps more so than any other, was a war of production. Incredible amounts of weapons were produced in that short time frame. Those that produced the most, eventually won. Ships and planes may be lost, but they were soon replaced by others coming off the assembly line, in the thousands. Here the US (and to a smaller extent commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia) were in a unique position, with a huge underutilizes industrial capacity, and isolation from battle theaters provided by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Japan did not have this advantage. The losses from 1941 were soon replaced. By the time of the battle of Midway, the Japanese probably knew they were in a very tight spot.

Father O Rielly:
The Second World War, perhaps more so than any other, was a war of production. Incredible amounts of weapons were produced in that short time frame. Those that produced the most, eventually won. Ships and planes may be lost, but they were soon replaced by others coming off the assembly line, in the thousands. Here the US (and to a smaller extent commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia) were in a unique position, with a huge underutilizes industrial capacity, and isolation from battle theaters provided by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Japan did not have this advantage. The losses from 1941 were soon replaced. By the time of the battle of Midway, the Japanese probably knew they were in a very tight spot.

I’d never dispute the crucial role played by industry in modern warfare, Father O Rielly. The Germans would have won WWI but for the US keeping Britain and France supplied with extra materials (battlefield casualties would also have been far higher except for the fact that both sides occasionally (regularly?) simply ran out of munitions). Not to note how the South in the US Civil War could of course never even come close to matching the North’s industrial prowess (with Montgomery Meigs proving his worth as well), possibly doomed to lose from the start.

The Pacific covers a vast region though and the key to success here depended almost wholly on those valuable aircraft carriers (with the Japanese less than enthralled on not finding those three at Pearl).

The Japanese probably won the Battle of the Coral Sea, destroying the most ships (and losing the most planes), but losing in another way insofar they failed to inflict that vital knockout blow, essential from their perspective.

By the time of the Battle of Midway the US had broken Japan’s secret codes and with it the element of surprise, the very thing that delivered earlier successes. The Japanese brought a massive naval force (including five aircraft carriers from memory - but don’t take this as gospel), yet at a crucial point four of their carriers were hit at the same time with decks awash in planes refueling/rearming (a repeat of what happened at Pearl and Manila but now with the shoe on the other foot). Anyhow, Japan lost her most valuable aircraft carriers, and probably the war right there.

Father O Rielly
Their “gamble” was that the Germans would subdue the Soviet Union, giving them a share of the spoils, and that they would also take South East Asia from the Europeans without too much of a struggle. Eventually, utilization of the resources of these regions would give them a strong bargaining position with the Americans, and the British Empire. But it was a stretch.

I haven’t struck anything on this ‘gamble’ or way of thinking before.
You have some link explaining it more fully?

Lewis and Father O'Reilly - can you guys start using the QUOTE function and tags instead of italics for your quotes? It's the board standard for a reason - readability.

Sorry Lewis, my aging neurons are no longer efficient at keeping a close track of these things. There is the famous saying from Yamamoto that he lamented waking up a sleeping giant, or words to that effect. I believe he is also quoted as saying that it was impossible to completely subdue the US, in the sense of invasion and conquest. Therefore, even in a good case scenario, Japan would have ended up with East Asia, but with an angry (and now industrially and militarily competent) North America to the east, the manpower reserves of India to the west, probably a British navy presence in the Indian Ocean and Australia, and who knows what in Siberia? If the German advance in Russia slowed down and was less than successful (it was already showing signs of slowing down), then Japan may have also had another competitor just to the north. And, or course there was the ongoing war with China. And this is a good case- assuming a roll over of the SE Asia European colonies, the Philippines, and perhaps Hawaii and a small chunk of Alaska.

How would they negociate from there? Asia at the time was much less developed industrially than the US or Britain. It would have taken a lot of time to come to a position of superior strength in relation to the west. Would they have had that time?

Some of the more rabid militarists in the Japanese command may have thought nothing of this, but my guess is that the Pearl Harbor plan was indeed seen as a gamble by most in the government and the military.

That famous quote is a movie line from Tora! Tora! Tora! which sadly has been picked up by some rather lazy historians as a real quote.

Lewis wrote:Japanese leaders likewise realized they had a marvelous opportunity to beat their old enemy (the Soviets were also moving their forces from eastern Siberia westward in order to defend Moscow), having fought the Russians victoriously in 1904/1905 and again briefly, albeit indecisively, in Mongolia in 1939.

I wouldn't call the outcome of the Battle of Khalkhyn Gol indecisive in any sense, Japan was firmly defeated by the Russians, and the Japanese militaries' after action report on what when wrong changed their whole attitude to invading Siberia, ie they were much more wary of going up against the Russian forces after that.