The attack at Pearl Harbor Essay

A significant occasion in American history is the Pearl Harbor assault.

Allen (2015) claims that on December 7, 1941, the Japanese assaulted the US Naval Base in Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor, resulting in the deaths of over 2400 Americans. Numerous American lives were lost as a result of the assault, which prompted President Roosevelt to deliver the infamous “Infamy Speech” and urge Congress to declare war on Japan. Numerous researchers and book authors have given the Pearl Harbor attack a lot of consideration. Similar to that, this essay seeks to thoroughly examine this historical juncture. The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the literature on Pearl Harbor as well as ponder on whether and how it could have been prevented.

Brief Literature of Pearl Harbor

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which is also referred to as the Battle of Pearl Harbor, occurred on December 7, 1941, and forced the then United States’ President to join the Second World War. During the planning phase of the attack, the Japanese referred to it as Operation Z, the Japanese military also used names such as operation AI and Hawaii Operation. On the morning of the attack, hundreds of Japanese fighter planes descended on the base of the harbor destroying and damaging about 20 American naval vessels including more than 300 airplanes and eight enormous battleships. Toland (2014) contends that 1000 people were wounded in the attack and more than 2,400 Americans lost their lives including civilians. After the attack, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared war on Japan.

Analysis of the Literature

The Origin of the Conflict between the Two Nations

The background to the conflict involved various factors such as military diplomatic and objectives of the attack. Concerning diplomatic factors, the conflict between Japan and the United States was a possible occurrence, and both nations were aware of it since 1920. However, the tensions began to grow after Japans invasion of Manchuria in 1931 (Prange, Goldstein & Dillon, 2014). Over the next years, Japan continued to expand in China trying to achieve enough independence of resources with the aim of attaining victory on the mainland. Sarmiento (2017) asserts that events such as the Japanese attack on Nanking Massacre, the Allison incident, and USS Panay (in which Japan indiscriminately massacred about 200,000 Chinese civilians) triggered public opinion in the West against Japan. In fear of expansion of Japanese, nations such as the US assisted in war supply contracts to China. Additionally, President Roosevelt removed the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to the Philippines.

As Japan continued to expand to French colonies, The United States stopped exporting oil to Japan, and the Japanese government reacted by conquering Dutch East Indies (an oil rich territory). The American government warned Japan that it would take strict measures if Japan continued to conquer neighboring nations. Based on this warning, the Japanese had only two options, either to withdraw from China or seize new resources; they offered to withdraw from most concurred territories in China. However, Japanese negotiations with the USA did not solve the conflict after each party refused to accept the terms of either party. When Japan finally proposed to withdraw as long as the U.S stopped offering aid to China, the U.S. was not ready to accept such conditions (Sarmiento, 2017). While the negotiations were going on, the Japanese main attack fleet headed for Pearl Harbor.

Besides the diplomatic background, preliminary military operations also played a role. Preliminary operations for an attack on Pearl Harbor had begun as early as 1941 with the famous Yamamoto Isoroku, the then commander of Japan’s Combined Fleet (Zimm, 2013). He was a trusted planner, and over the next several months, he supervised the acquisition of equipment, training of pilots and collection of intelligence. However, Hirohito only agreed to this proposal after discussing the matter with the third Imperial Conference. Finally, the emperor gave the final authorization on 1 December when most Japanese leaders advised him against the “Hull Note” arguing that it would undermine their control over Korea.

In addition to the diplomatic background and military planning, the Japanese had several objectives for attacking Pearl Harbor (Lee & Clausen, 2015). The first objective of Japan was to destroy vital resources such as battleships that belonged to the United States. Destroying these key resources would render the United States defenseless and prevent the Americans from influencing the expansion of Japan to Southeast Asia. Second, the attack would give the Japanese more time to evaluate its position and enhance the strength of its naval base as quick as before restrictions by the Vinson-Walsh Act that authorized shipbuilding. Additionally, Japan wanted to challenge the ability of the Americans to mobilize forces in the Pacific, and as such, it targeted battleships because they were the most valued ships at that time. Besides, the Japanese hoped that the attack would influence the morale of the U.S and force the Americans to drop demands, accept the interest of Japan, and seek peace at all costs.

However, McDermott & Bar-Joseph (2016) argue that attacking Pearl Harbor had two main cons. The ships that the Japanese were targeting were in shallow water, and as such, even after the attack, it would be easy for the Americans to assess and repair them. In addition, a majority of the crew would survive because many would be on the shores and easily rescued. The main con was that all the three fleet targets (Lexington, Enterprise, and Saratoga) were not present in the harbor. Despite these major cons, Yamamoto, the Japanese Marshal Admiral of the Navy, proceeded with his plan.

Japan’s Approach and Attack

The attack at Pearl Harbor occurred before Japan formally declared war. However, Yamamoto intended to inform the U.S. of the end of the peace negotiations and that the attack was to begin thirty minutes after the declaration. Despite Yamamoto’s intention to notify the United States of the war, the attack began earlier. Although the Japanese newspaper printed a declaration of war on its front page, the news reached the U.S in the evening of December 8. A Japanese Striking Force with six aircraft carriers (Kaga, Akagi, , Hiryū, Sōryū, Zuikaku and Shōkaku) left Hittokapu bay on November 1941 to Hawaii with the intention of launching its 408 aircraft to strike Pearl Harbour (Allen, 2015). Of the 408 plains, 360 were meant for two attack waves and the rest plus nine fighters from the first wave on defensive combat air patrol (CAP).

Anthony & Gardner (2014) contend that the attack was well planned. Even before it began, the commander sent two aircraft to scout over Maui and Oahu and report on the location and composition of the U.S. fleet. Additionally, other four scout planes patrolled between Nihau and the Japanese carrier force to check any possible counterattack. However, Toland (2014) argues that this scouting was not necessary because it could have altered the US. Besides, the Japanese already had a spy, Yoshikawa Takeo and as such, were already aware of the location and composition of U.S. fleets. The second wave, on the other hand, consisted of three groups, one was supposed to strike Kāneʻohe and the other two the rest of Pearl Harbor.

At 8 am that morning, Japanese planes flew to Pearl Harbor and rained bullets and bombs onto the vessels. After ten minutes, the deck of the battleship USS Arizona was hit by a bomb, and it sank with more than 1,000 men trapped inside. Prange, Goldstein & Dillon (2014) assert that as the Americans detected the first wave as it approached the harbor, and this led to confrontations with the Japanese who shot most of the American planes. Although the U.S. tried to warn its forces, it is unclear, whether they acted promptly and correctly because the attack came as a surprise to the U.S. Navy. Men on the ships woke up to sounds of alarms, gunfire and exploding bombs as they attempted to run to General Quarters stations. A warning message was sent from the control station, but the defenders were not prepared. The ammunition lockers were locked and guns were not manned. Despite the lack of preparation, Sarmiento (2017) argues that most Americans responded effectively to the attack.

The attack lasted ninety minutes, resulted in the death of 2008 sailors, and wounded 710 others. According to Sarmiento (2017), Japan lost 55 pilots, nine submariners, 29 planes and another 74 destroyed by antiaircraft fire. Sarmiento (2017) further argues that there was a possible third wave, which would have wiped out Pearl Harbor completely and prolonged the war for another two years. Japan had incurred two-thirds losses during the second wave and had with a third strike, the aircraft losses would be higher. Besides, the location of the American carriers was unknown, and a third wave would require a lot of preparation. Moreover, the second wave had met the main aim of the operation, which was to neutralize the Pacific Fleet, and undertaking the third wave would mean further losses. Lee & Clausen (2015) further posits that it was the nature of the Japanese Navy to conserve its strength instead of destroying the enemy.

Possibility of Prevention

There has been a growing debate among historians and various researchers as to why and how the Japanese attacked the United States, and the degree to which the American Intelligence knew the tactics and plans of Japan. Based on the perspective of prevention, it is vital to assess how this attack could have been prevented. According to Zimm (2013), many military officials such as Gen Bily Mitchell had shed light on the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor to attack by air based on such previous attacks including two naval wat games in 1932 and 1936. This ignorance by the political and military leaders led to the growth of conspiracy theory. One of these theories was that high level officials in the U.S. and British government were aware of the attack and did not alert the government in order to force the U.S. into war. McDermott & Bar-Joseph (2016), however, state that most historians rejected this conspiracy theory.

Despite the success of the U.S. in WWII, the Americans could have prevented the attack at Pearl Harbor in various ways. First, the Americans had several clues that an attack from Japan was imminent because of the poor relations between the two countries (Allen, 2015). Japan was spreading propaganda about the Americans with the sole aim of forcing the Americans into war. Besides, after the attack, the U.S. discovered documents belonging to the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Mr. Grew Joseph that showed that he had received intelligence from Peruvian regarding the planning of the attack. Allen (2015) notes that Grew received this information a year before the attack took place. Although Grew passed this information to the US government, he was convinced that it was unlikely for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. After receiving news on the imminent attack from the Peruvian Ambassador, Grew prepared a cable to dispatch the message. However, Schuler Olive contended that the message sent by Grew was meant to tone down the information with his added comment of “no credence”.

The United States’ government placed a ban on iron ore and oil trade with the Japanese and requested the Japanese to withdraw troops from China. The event occurred six months after the first warning was given on Pearl Harbor. Although Japan’s Prime Minister, Konoye Prince arranged for a meeting with the U.S., it never happened. President Roosevelt first changed the place of the meeting to Alaska and postponed meeting with Hirohito. According to Tucker (2015), Joseph Grew had close relations with Emperor Hirohito, and he was convinced that American’s negotiations with Japan would have prevented the war. Therefore, if President Roosevelt had agreed to meet with Hirohito and settle the outstanding issue personally, maybe the strike could have never happened. Moreover, the Americans were ignorant and did not believe the Japanese would begin the war. If the American government heeded the warnings and seen the validity of the threat of war with Japan, they could have been in a better position to defend the harbor.

The other way that the attack could have been prevented is if the United States agreed to lift its embargo against China. The Japanese made naval bases in Japan territories, and Roosevelt saw this as a threat to the Americans, so he cut the supply of oil and iron to Japan. When the Americans tried to come to an agreement with Japan in 1941, the Japanese wanted the Americans to withdraw the embargo on oil and let Japan continue to conquer China. However, the United States would not agree to withdraw the embargo unless Japan agreed to leave China. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that Japan would have left China and that the United States would have accepted to lift the embargo. Japan was only interested in the withdrawal of the embargo so that they had no reason to maintain peace with the Americans. It is for these reasons that Anthony & Gardner (2014) contend that the attack on Pearl Harbor was unavoidable because both parties were not willing to consider the interests of each other.

In Dahl’s study on Pearl Harbor, he argues that the attack on Pearl Harbor was avoidable and many lives would have been saved (Dahl, 2013). Dahl (2013) further states that if the Americans tracked Japanese intelligence and if Roosevelt warned Pearl Harbor of his knowledge of an imminent attack, then the naval defense force at Hawaii would have prepared for an attack. Many people in the United States knew about the possible attack on Pearl Harbor, but nobody in Hawaii had information of the planned attack. At the time of the bombing, most of the people at Pearl Harbor were relaxed and had no clue that the Japanese were plotting a bomb. If the Americans warned the naval force at Pearl Harbor, the naval officers would have prepared for a possible attack. As earlier stated, during the attack, the ammunition lockers were locked, and guns were not manned. An earlier warning would have changed the turn of events and helped the American navy to defend the Harbor.

Conclusion

To conclude, the Battle at Pearl Harbor was unavoidable because both parties were not ready to consider the interests of each other. The United States wanted Japan to withdraw from China under no conditions while Japan was not ready to comply, yet the Japanese wanted the U.S. government to lift its embargo against them. The main aim of Japan was to prevent United States’ interference and force them to war. The outcome of the war shows that they achieved their mission because President Roosevelt declared war on Japan. Although the attack was unavoidable, maybe it would have turned out differently had Roosevelt agreed to meet with Hirohito.

References

Allen, T. B. (2015). Remember Pearl Harbor: American and Japanese survivors tell their stories. National Geographic Books.

Anthony, N., & Gardner, R. (2014). The Attack on Pearl Harbor in United States History. Enslow Publishers, Inc., an imprint of Enslow Publishers, Inc.

Dahl, E. J. (2013). Intelligence and surprise attack: Failure and success from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 and beyond. Georgetown University Press.

Lee, B., & Clausen, H. C. (2015). Pearl Harbor: Final Judgement: The Shocking True Story of the Military Intelligence Failure at Pearl Harbor and the Fourteen Men Responsible for the Disaster. Open Road Media.

McDermott, R., & Bar-Joseph, U. (2016). Pearl Harbor and Midway: the decisive influence of two men on the outcomes. Intelligence and National Security, 31(7), 949-962.

Morgenstern, G. (2017). Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War. Pickle Partners Publishing.

Prange, G., Goldstein, D. M., & Dillon, K. V. (2014). Pearl Harbor: the verdict of history. Open Road Media.

Sarmiento, K. (2017). Events that Changed the Course of History: The Story of the Attack on Pearl Harbor 75 Years Later. Atlantic Publishing Company.

Toland, J. (2014). Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath. Anchor.

Tucker, S. C. (Ed.). (2015). Pearl Harbor: The Essential Reference Guide: The Essential Reference Guide. ABC-CLIO.

Zimm, A. D. (2013). Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, combat, myths, deceptions. Casemate.