Question for the Japanese people here: In hindsight, was the attack on pearl harbor a mistake? Why or why not?

Question for the Japanese people here: In hindsight, was the attack on pearl harbor a mistake? Why or why not?

There are many things to consider.
Firstly, the attack itself was a bad idea.
It should have been postponed. Of course, United States had oil embargo, but we were conquering Asia just fine, and a war with America was dumb.

Secondly, it was not very well executed. What we were looking for were the carriers and we did not find any. We should have waited for the carriers and sank them as well.

Thirdly, we did not bomb your repair stations and fuel stations, which would be critical for your logistics. many historians agree that if admiral nagumo had authorized a third wave of bombers to attack the fuel and repair stations of pearl harbor, the damage inflicted by the attack would be 10x worse.

Fourthly, I would have ordered an attack and occupation order of Midway at the same time of the attack of pearl harbor. and some other islands. It was dumb not to orchestrate a simultaneous attack on midway and palmyra.

>but we were conquering Asia just fine
No, Japan was caught in a stalemate against China in a war that was going on for years.

>What we were looking for were the carriers and we did not find any.
No, the order given to the KB was to destroy warships in the following order of priority:
1. Carriers and battleships
2. cruisers
3. other small ships

>We should have waited for the carriers and sank them as well.
No that would have been extremely dumb, as the KB has now lost the element of surprise and is open to counterattack. It took only about 4 divebomber squadrons to sink 4 carriers at Midway. KB was less experienced and even shittier at this point.

>we did not bomb your repair stations and fuel stations, which would be critical for your logistics.
No, that was not in the order and there were not enough bombers to go around.

>many historians agree
No, it's mostly dirty uninformed mass of internet forum wankers and youtube commenters who believe in muh 3rd wave.

> would have ordered an attack and occupation order of Midway at the same time of the attack of pearl harbor. and some other islands. It was dumb not to orchestrate a simultaneous attack on midway and palmyra.
Japan had simultaneously ordered attacks all over the Pacific and NEI/ Malaya, there were not enough troops and boats to go around.
Note that Japs did launch a simultaneous attack of Philippines, Guam, and Wake, and failed hilariously at Wake the first time and had to wait for 2 fleet carriers to help them out.

You are a baka, English teacher-san.

Wasn't the problem mainly that Japan had a shortage of oil due to the embargo, and was afraid the Americans would retaliate if they conquered the Philippines?
As far as I understand, that was the idea by trying to destroy as much as possible of the fleet. I also understood that the US threatened to retaliate if the Japanese took the Philippines well enough, but had no good plans to defend it and would not have gotten much support within the country for causing a war to take them back.
In hindsight the attack definitely was a mistake, but with the intel the Japanese had it might very well have been one of the better choices they had.
It was certainly one the US did not expect.

>Wasn't the problem mainly that Japan had a shortage of oil due to the embargo, and was afraid the Americans would retaliate if they conquered the Philippines?
The Philippines were an American colony and the US had been heavily fortifying it with aircraft and subs, so yeah, there was good reason to think conquering it would've caused the US to react badly.

>I also understood that the US threatened to retaliate if the Japanese took the Philippines well enough, but had no good plans to defend it and would not have gotten much support within the country for causing a war to take them back.
You understand wrong. US plan was always to build up force and retaliate en masse, which I think is a good plan seeing as it worked just fine.
Muh isolationism is a meme. US would've gotten its war one way or another. Japs merely simplified the matter and hastened the process.

>, but with the intel the Japanese had it might very well have been one of the better choices they had.
It was certainly one the US did not expect.
The problem with the attack was rooted in the technology of the time, not in its execution. It was simply impossible to cause significant damage to ships at harbor, let alone infrastructure, with some 200 single-engine bombers. As it was, all but a couple of the battleships were raised and brought back into service. If the carriers were there, the results would've been the same.
Bombing facilities would've been less than worthless. Brits couldn't shut down German sub pens despite bombing them continuously with heavy 4-engine bombers. The KB was incapable of delivering a crippling attack because even six fleet carriers did not have that kind of firepower in 1941.

You seem to know a lot about the matter. Do you think there would have been a way for the Japanese to continue their conquest of China despite the embargo without ending up in a war with the US?

No, on top of oil, there was a sanction on them, their foreign funds were frozen, they couldn't buy scrap metal or rubber or other crucial war materials.
Meanwhile lend-lease to china started in early 1941 (although most of the first shipments got diverted to Britain once the nip chimpout began).
The china was also highly unpopular politically, on top of going nowhere and bleeding Japan dry.

So perhaps the best they could have gotten out of it would have been a one-sided but internationally just about acceptable peace accord with the KMT, and then lobbied to lift the sanctions.
They could probably still have had large parts of China.

No, Chinese wouldn't let them keep any part of China, why would they? They have the homefield and manpower advantage. Japanese hold on the areas it "conquered" was extremely weak. Japan's economy, which was already in shambles, would absolutely come crashing down from the sanctions. Meanwhile China was getting western international support for the first time after holding Japan off for 4 years. They were holding all the cards, and they have nothing to lose, and everyone knew it. Kind of hard to cut a deal at that point.

I guess that would depend on at which point the Japanese cut their deal.
The Chinese were in an internal conflict as well, and the KMT wasn't too motivated to fight the Japanese. Also looking how much of China the Japanese eventually managed to conquer and how long they held off the US, their situation couldn't have been quite as bleak as you describe it.

>their situation couldn't have been quite as bleak as you describe it.
No it was precisely as bleak. European powers couldn't hold their colonies. What makes you think Japan would've been able to despite being much weaker and being up against a far more formidable foe that's being actively armed by the international community? China was japan's Vietnam, except they were losing hundreds of thousands of men while spending 40-50% of their national budget on armaments.
Also if you are Japan, you have to think at this point the west is setting up to attack. US has moved 100 B-17 bombers to Philippines, a squadron of cruisers and subs, Britain is sending fighters and a battleship task force, meanwhile they are sending pilots, advisors, and weapons to China. US placed its fleet at Pearl Harbor, which can really have only one purpose namely to hop across and project force on Japan.

The European powers would have been perfectly able to hold their colonies if not for WWII.
The Chinese were absolute crap at warfare. Even with armaments, they completely lacked the training of the Japanese army.

What I am saying is that the Japanese empire reached such a size that it seems logical to assume they could have made a show of power significant enough to convince the KMT to relinquish part of their territory in exchange for support against the communists for example.
It was well known that the KMT were only convinced by the international community to divert more resources to the Japanese front. I'd think it wouldn't be too unreasonable to assume that they would have signed an agreement with the Japanese.

>The European powers would have been perfectly able to hold their colonies if not for WWII.
European powers would not have been able to hold their colonies if they were losing hundreds of thousands of men and also were banned from importing oil, rubber, tin, and scrap metal, and had all their foreign funds frozen.

>The Chinese were absolute crap at warfare. Even with armaments, they completely lacked the training of the Japanese army.
Japanese army was 90% crap. Yes, Jap crap would've been better than chink crap, but that was not enough to let them defeat China in 4 years. What makes you think they would fare better when Chinese army has grown 3 fold and were being armed with new western weapons?

> the Japanese empire reached such a size that it seems logical to assume they could have made a show of power significant enough to convince the KMT to relinquish part of their territory in exchange for support against the communists for example.
Why would anyone in his right mind think such a conclusion is logical? First off, it literally did not happen. Second, Japanese position was extremely weak. Third, KMT had already settled a truce with the chicoms.

>It was well known that the KMT were only convinced by the international community to divert more resources to the Japanese front.
No, that's not well known at all.

> I'd think it wouldn't be too unreasonable to assume that they would have signed an agreement with the Japanese.
It's very unreasonable. They did not sign any agreement despite having many opportunities to do so for four years. Why would they sign an agreement signing away big parts of the lands that japan only nominally controlled after massacres and atrocities, exactly when they were gaining the upperhand?

>European powers would not have been able to hold their colonies if they were losing hundreds of thousands of men and also were banned from importing oil, rubber, tin, and scrap metal, and had all their foreign funds frozen.
That is not the situation you were talking about earlier. You said the European powers couldn't hold their colonies, no need to suddenly change the conditions now.
>Why would they sign an agreement signing away big parts of the lands that japan only nominally controlled after massacres and atrocities, exactly when they were gaining the upperhand?
That again would depend on at which moment you're speaking. At 1937 the Japanese army still seemed in full control and not close to losing the upper hand, and this was way before and back when they had way less territory and were far less spread thin than in 1942 at the maximum extent of their empire.

>No, that's not well known at all.
Half of the KMT supported peace talks before the Xi'an incident

>You understand wrong. US plan was always to build up force and retaliate en masse, which I think is a good plan seeing as it worked just fine.
From wikipedia:
>Because the Japanese high command was (mistakenly) certain that any attack on the UK's Southeast Asian colonies would bring the U.S. into war, a devastating preventive strike appeared to be the only way to avoid U.S. naval interference. An invasion of the Philippines was also considered necessary by Japanese war planners. The U.S. War Plan Orange had envisioned defending the Philippines with a 40,000-man elite force. This was opposed by Douglas MacArthur, who felt that he would need a force ten times that size, and was never implemented. By 1941, U.S. planners anticipated abandonment of the Philippines at the outbreak of war and orders to that effect were given in late 1941 to Admiral Thomas Hart, commander of the Asiatic Fleet.
You're full of shit, m9

If you are just looking into Wikipedia now, just stop posting.

I'm sure you have better sources to substantiate your earlier remark then

>You said the European powers couldn't hold their colonies, no need to suddenly change the conditions now.
No one's changing the conditions. Those were the conditions japan was under.

>At 1937 the Japanese army still seemed in full control and not close to losing the upper hand,
No, in 1937 the war just started. In 1942, Japan was already in a war with the US and by June they would have lost 80% of their carrier fleet.

>Half of the KMT supported peace talks before the Xi'an incident
Which took pace before the China war. Are you ok?

Are you seriously arguing that the US plan was to meekly give up Philippines if Japan attacked? Because that's very different from what actually happened.
US did not plan to abandon philippines permanently. Philippines could not be defended without an unrealistically large force and could not be relieved immediately. Therefore the plan was to abandon it strategically and come back later.

>No one's changing the conditions. Those were the conditions japan was under.
Do you need me to spell it out for you? You're twisting two things. You were saying the European powers couldn't hold their colonies so Japan wouldn't be able to under the conditions they were under, and then you twisted it into that the European powers wouldn't have been able to keep their colonies under the conditions Japan was under.
>No, in 1937 the war just started. In 1942, Japan was already in a war with the US and by June they would have lost 80% of their carrier fleet.
The war just started, but they already controlled a large part of inner Mongolia, Shansi, Kiangsu, and they controlled Beijing.
>Which took pace before the China war. Are you ok?
It took place before the actual war, but when Japan had already gradually taken over large parts of what had belonged to Qing dynasty China before. They had signed both the Chin–Doihara and He–Umezu agreements, it is not unreasonable to assume that they would have signed another one if not pressured into resisting the Japanese.
>Are you seriously arguing that the US plan was to meekly give up Philippines if Japan attacked? Because that's very different from what actually happened.
>US did not plan to abandon philippines permanently. Philippines could not be defended without an unrealistically large force and could not be relieved immediately.
It may be different from what actually happened because the attack on Pearl Harbour was a decisive act of war. If the US had abandoned the Philippines on the Japanese arrival, there would practically have been no act of war, and the US would not have liked being drawn into another war at the same time unless absolutely necessary.

I was talking about a theoretical instance in which the Japanese had negotiated a peace with the KMT in other to prevent sanctions and widespread international opposition, but it seems you're in no mood to speak theoretically.

attacking military base itself? if so, that's nothing special. A bad thing was to have war against the US back then and lost the game. that's it.