No doubt, I know they were pushed into it, but just like the Confederates at Ft Sumter, they still fired the first shot. Furthermore, they didn't think strategically when it came to target selection at Pearl Harbor, they left the fuel oil tanks alone, and completely ignored all shipyard facilities. They should have sent a third wave to hit those targets, but Nagumo was too timid.
What they should have done was not attack America at all and just gone for the Dutch East Indies and maybe British Malaya. Then pray to God America not get involved. Then if America gets involved their strategy of making it a bloody slog to the point Americans can accept a negotiated peace, instead of unconditional surrender is much more plausible. Getting revenge for Pearl Harbor is a huge motivator. Fighting for some Dutch colonies isn't. The whole time making it clear they don't/didn't want war with America and only want peace.
I also think Japan could have done far more harm to America's Navy early on. Most of the ships at Pear Harbor were recovered do to the shallow waters and the Carriers weren't present. Yamamoto understood the importance of Carriers early on and the Japanese sailors and pilots were more experienced. Japan could have sunk a lot of those ships in much deeper waters like they did to the British during the Indian Ocean Raids.
'Revenge for Pearl Harbor' was just what 'fighting for democracy' is to the current war. It's the, no disrespect, motivation for the stupid people. In both cases, maintaining American hegemony is the motivation for the ruling class, which would have existed with or without Pearl Harbor.
And the motivation of those "stupid people" is what drives recruitment and morale of the actual soldiers. That motivation is required for victory in a near peer conflict.
There's a slight, but I believe important difference between the two situations. fort Sumter was indeed a union fort, but it was deep within Confederate territory and the CSA just declared itself an independent nation. It could be argued that the Union was illegally occupying the CSA and were expelled with force.
Pearl harbor was US territory amongst US held space. Unlike fort Sumter, you cannot claim that the attack on Pearl harbor was defensive.
No doubt, I know they were pushed into it, but just like the Confederates at Ft Sumter, they still fired the first shot. Furthermore, they didn't think strategically when it came to target selection at Pearl Harbor, they left the fuel oil tanks alone, and completely ignored all shipyard facilities. They should have sent a third wave to hit those targets, but Nagumo was too timid.
What they should have done was not attack America at all and just gone for the Dutch East Indies and maybe British Malaya. Then pray to God America not get involved. Then if America gets involved their strategy of making it a bloody slog to the point Americans can accept a negotiated peace, instead of unconditional surrender is much more plausible. Getting revenge for Pearl Harbor is a huge motivator. Fighting for some Dutch colonies isn't. The whole time making it clear they don't/didn't want war with America and only want peace.
I also think Japan could have done far more harm to America's Navy early on. Most of the ships at Pear Harbor were recovered do to the shallow waters and the Carriers weren't present. Yamamoto understood the importance of Carriers early on and the Japanese sailors and pilots were more experienced. Japan could have sunk a lot of those ships in much deeper waters like they did to the British during the Indian Ocean Raids.
'Revenge for Pearl Harbor' was just what 'fighting for democracy' is to the current war. It's the, no disrespect, motivation for the stupid people. In both cases, maintaining American hegemony is the motivation for the ruling class, which would have existed with or without Pearl Harbor.
And the motivation of those "stupid people" is what drives recruitment and morale of the actual soldiers. That motivation is required for victory in a near peer conflict.
Correct. The ruling classes could have gotten America into a war with Japan sooner, but with lower morale.
There's a slight, but I believe important difference between the two situations. fort Sumter was indeed a union fort, but it was deep within Confederate territory and the CSA just declared itself an independent nation. It could be argued that the Union was illegally occupying the CSA and were expelled with force.
Pearl harbor was US territory amongst US held space. Unlike fort Sumter, you cannot claim that the attack on Pearl harbor was defensive.