What did Japan attack us?

[Gary4Liberty]

Id like to know what the real reason is why Japan attacked us thus starting WW2 pacific.

[BuddyRey]

Did Japan attack us?

After all, Hawaii wasn't even a state back then.

[crh88]

Same story as usual. We impose "sanctions" and pretend like it's not an act of war. We just keep repeating the same process over and over again: See Iraq and Iran.

[Gary4Liberty]

I know the base was ours and the men and all the hardware, ships etc.

[axiomata]

Because our empire in the pacific was a threat to their empire in the pacific.

[bolil]

Because our empire in the pacific was a threat to their empire in the pacific.
That and we have almond shaped eyes. Evil almonds!

[eduardo89]

No inside job option? This is RPF right?

[RiseAgainst]

Because we told them to.

[acptulsa]

Is this poll necessary? Does it serve a purpose?

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

Because the ruler was evil and wanted to take over the world.


Is the most rational answer when you look at the extent of the Japanese empire and understand their culture. It's a mistake to apply western concepts to non-western people. Japanese largely wanted to brutally take over most of Asia to fulfill their ethnocentric, nationalistic desires. There was nothing the Koreans, Chinese, Indians, Nepalese, etc.. did to the Japanese that would warrant "blowback." And the way the Japanese colonized Asia was especially brutal. Full of rape, slavery, deliberate underage state-backed prostitution rings. They were truly a barbaric people. Thankfully they've become pacified and Western since then, but we can't forget what their mentality was like only a few decades ago. A mentality that many Chinese and North Koreans still have.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html

[Seraphim]

Is the most rational answer when you look at the extent of the Japanese empire and understand their culture. It's a mistake to apply western concepts to non-western people. Japanese largely wanted to brutally take over most of Asia to fulfill their ethnocentric, nationalistic desires. There was nothing the Koreans, Chinese, Indians, Nepalese, etc.. did to the Japanese that would warrant "blowback." And the way the Japanese colonized Asia was especially brutal. Full of rape, slavery, deliberate underage state-backed prostitution rings. They were truly a barbaric people. Thankfully they've become pacified and Western since then, but we can't forget what their mentality was like only a few decades ago. A mentality that many Chinese and North Koreans still have.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html

And yet you rationalize your own form Nationalism.

:rolleyes:

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

And yet you rationalize your own form Nationalism.

:rolleyes:

Moderate forms of nationalism are fine. Japanese were certifiably insane with their nationalism. To the point they wanted to colonize most of Asia with Japanese people. It was going to be the largest genocide ever witnessed. In fact speaking of blowback, we're still dealing with the results of Japanese colonialism today. We see it in North Korea.

[iamse7en]

I know historical documents show the FDR administration was trying to provoke an attack, for a reason to enter WWII, but I wouldn't be surprised if they actually orchestrated it.

[gunnysmith]

Just a short history of Japan from Late 1800s to the beginning of WW II

The Japanese government sent students to Western countries to observe and learn their practices, and also paid "foreign advisors" in a variety of fields to come to Japan to educate the populace. For instance, the judicial system and constitution were largely modeled on those of Germany. The government also outlawed customs linked to Japan's feudal past, such as publicly displaying and wearing katana and the top knot, both of which were characteristic of the samurai class, which was abolished together with the caste system.

The process of modernization was closely monitored and heavily subsidized by the Meiji government, enhancing the power of the great zaibatsu firms such as Mitsui and Mitsubishi. Hand in hand, the zaibatsu and government guided the nation, borrowing technology from the West. Japan gradually took control of much of Asia's market for manufactured goods, beginning with textiles. The economic structure became very mercantilistic, importing raw materials and exporting finished products — a reflection of Japan's relative scarcity of raw materials.

From 1894, Japan built an extensive empire that included Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and parts of northern China. The Japanese regarded this sphere of influence as a political and economic necessity, which prevented foreign states from strangling Japan by blocking its access to raw materials and crucial sea-lanes. Japan's large military force was regarded as essential to the empire's defense and prosperity by obtaining natural resources that the Japanese islands lacked.

Prior to its engagement in World War I, the Empire of Japan fought in two significant wars after its establishment following the Meiji Revolution. The first was the First Sino-Japanese War, fought in 1894 and 1895. The war revolved around the issue of control and influence over Korea under the rule of the Joseon Dynasty. A peasant rebellion led to a request by the Korean government for Qing Dynasty China to send in troops to stabilize the country. The Empire of Japan responded by sending their own force to Korea and installing a puppet government in Seoul. China objected and war ensued. In a brief affair with Japanese ground troops routing Chinese forces on the Liaodong Peninsula, and the near destruction of the Chinese navy in the Battle of the Yalu River. The Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed between Japan and China, which ceded the Liaodong Peninsula and the island of Taiwan to Japan. After the peace treaty, Russia, Germany, and France forced Japan to withdraw from Liaodong Peninsula, soon afterwards Russia occupied the Liaodong Peninsula, built Port Arthur fortress and based the Russian Pacific Fleet in the port. Germany occupied Jiaozhou Bay, built Tsingtao fortress and based the German East Asia Squadron in this port.

Boxer rebellion

In 1900, Japan and many western countries dispatched forces to China to protect their citizens and Chinese Christians from the Boxer Uprising. After the uprising, Japan and the western countries signed the Boxer Protocol with China, which permitted them to station troops on Chinese soil to protect their citizens. After the treaty, Russia continued to occupy all of Manchuria.

The Russo-Japanese War was a conflict for control of Korea and parts of Manchuria between the Russian Empire and Empire of Japan that took place from 1904 to 1905. The war is significant as the first modern war in which an Asian country defeated a European power. The victory greatly raised Japan's stature in the world of global politics. The war is marked by the Japanese opposition of Russian interests in Korea, Manchuria, and China, notably, the Liaodong Peninsula, controlled by the city of Port Arthur.
Originally, in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, Port Arthur had been given to Japan. This part of the treaty was overruled by Western powers, which gave the port to the Russian Empire, furthering Russian interests in the region. These interests came into conflict with Japanese interests.

Through the 1930s, Japan's oil consumption was dependent at 90% on imports, 80% of it coming from the United States. Furthermore, the vast majority of this oil import was oriented towards the Navy and the military. America opposed Tokyo's expansionist policies in China, the East Indies and the Pacific Islands. On July 26, 1940 the U.S. government passed the Export Control Act, cutting oil, iron and steel exports to Japan.[18] This containment policy was seen by Washington as a warning to Japan that any further military expansion would result in further sanctions. However, Tokyo saw it as a blockade to counter Japanese military and economic strength. Accordingly, by the time the United States enforced the Export Act, Japan had stockpiled around 54 million barrels of oil. America exported oil to Japan until 1940, long after the invasion of Manchuria. Sanctions were too weak and not focused enough to stop the Japanese military at an early stage of expansion. By 1940, the American share of export of oil on the Japanese market dropped to 60%.
These various actions taken by Washington were nothing compared to the full embargo imposed on Japan in July 1941. All oil shipments were held back and Japanese assets in the United States were to be frozen. Since only 4.5 million barrels of oil were coming in from the Dutch East Indies, Japan's reaction was to organize an attack of the United States on the Pacific front. The attacks on Pearl Harbor were strongly influenced by the energy insecurity which the embargo created.
Japan attacked the American navy base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941.

[Lishy]

The Japanese despise our freedoms! Just look at their religion! It is the JAPANESE who are chosen by their gods to be the children of Amaterasu! They are jealous we strive while they collapsed!

Now BRB. I gotta go tend to mai waifu~

[fisharmor]

Just a short history of Japan from Late 1800s to the beginning of WW II

You forgot the most important part, which is admittedly in the mid 1850's... when we sailed into Edo harbor, pointed canons at the natives, and forced them, against their will, to open their country.

People who aren't Americans remember things. And I'm pretty sure that Japan remembered this.

[acptulsa]

After WWI, both they and we were determined to be 'The Britain of the Pacific.' When two people this stubborn decide to go after the same thing, basically, an irresistible force meets an immovable object.

[Pericles]

Is this poll necessary? Does it serve a purpose?

To further illustrate the point that libertarians in general and a substantial portion of the members of this forum are out of touch with reality in terms of how the world works.

The answer to the question is that the US was perceived to be an impediment to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and US influence in Asia needed to be negated.

It still amazes me as to how many on this board would see my refusal to sell ammunition to someone intent on using that ammunition to murder someone else as an act of aggression.

[emazur]

Gold: The Once and Future Money (http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Once-Future-Money-Agora/dp/0470047666) p. 235


The tension built between Japan and the Western powers throughout the rest of the 1930s. On January 26, 1940, the United States canceled the 1911 American-Japan Commercial Treaty, which opened the door to sanctions. Despite criticism, Roosevelt at first continued to allow the export of oil. In 1940, 60 percent of Japan's total oil usage came from the United States, and that dependency increased to nearly 100 percent after the Netherlands East Indies cut off oil exports to Japan in June 1941. In mid-July 1941, the Japanese army moved into French Indochina, not Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, seeking raw materials and putting the army in position to take the oilfields of Burma, then a British colony.
On july 26, 1941, Roosevelt ordered a freezing of Japanese assets in the United States, which brought U.S.-Japanese trade to a halt. In September, an oil embargo was laid on Japan, essentially a death sentence for the Japanese economy. In the following months, Japan's ambassador to the United States made numerous concessions to the U.S. government in an effort to have the sanctions lifted. Prince Konoye told Roosevelt that he would offer to meet anywhere in the Pacific, and that if Roosevelt agreed to resume oil exports to Japan, the Japanese army would pull out of Indochina. The Japanese government was shocked when Roosevelt refused - although the United States had apparently broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew that its refusal would provoke the Japanese into military action. After a meeting with Roosevelt on November 25, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that the main question is "how to maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves"
Numerous historians have concluded that Roosevelt's refusal was a deliberate attempt to provoke a Japanese attack on U.S. naval forces in the Phillipines at Subic Bay, which blocked Japan's ability to ship oil from Burma and the Netherlands East Indies. Roosevelt, who had promised in the 1940 election that he would not get involved in the war in Europe, had little interest in Japan but wanted to take advantage of Japan's ill-considered defensive alliance with Germany to allow the United States to save lonely Britain from being overrun by the Third Reich. Roosevelt had already tried to provoke the Germans into shooting first by attacking German submarines with military ships disguised as unarmed merchant freighters. The ploy, however, was exposed in the U.S. press. In the summer of 1941, U.S. public opinion was very strongly against involving the United States in a war in either Asia and Europe.
The Japanese leaders calculated that, under the oil embargo, their economy would crumble and their military strenghth would dwindle to nothing within two years. The resulting act by the Japanese army has been called a "surprise attack," but it was baldly predictable. In December of 1941, well aware of their inferior military strength but seeing no other option, the Japanese military put their empire building plans into action, taking over Western colonies in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Borneo, Guam, and Singapore, clearing a way through East Asia to secure the shipping lands between Japan and the oilfields of the Netherlands East Indies. Japan's military also made a daring long-distance attack on the U.S. naval base in the U.S. territory of Hawaii (like Guam today, it was not a state at the time, merely an outpost of the U.S. empire), where Roosevelt had moved the U.S. Pacific fleet from its base at Subic Bay. The attack on Hawaii was not the first step toward an amphibious invasion on the California coast, but the capstone of a plan to kick meddling Western governments out of Asia once and for all.
As it turned out, Roosevelt's ploy was unnecessary, because Germany, in a totally unexpected move, declared war on the United States only four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This was very good luck for Roosevelt, who faced an uphill struggle convincing Congress that the Pearly Harbor attack justified entering war in Europe

[Mark37snj]

None of the above.

[Bruno]

What? or Why? confused

[PierzStyx]

To further illustrate the point that libertarians in general and a substantial portion of the members of this forum are out of touch with reality in terms of how the world works.

The answer to the question is that the US was perceived to be an impediment to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and US influence in Asia needed to be negated.

It still amazes me as to how many on this board would see my refusal to sell ammunition to someone intent on using that ammunition to murder someone else as an act of aggression.


Best answer! You're right on the money Pericles.

[heavenlyboy34]

To further illustrate the point that libertarians in general and a substantial portion of the members of this forum are out of touch with reality in terms of how the world works.

The answer to the question is that the US was perceived to be an impediment to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and US influence in Asia needed to be negated.

It still amazes me as to how many on this board would see my refusal to sell ammunition to someone intent on using that ammunition to murder someone else as an act of aggression.
I don't think a poll with so few options to a explain complex situation proves a damn thing. I don't know of any war/conflict that had just one reason behind it.

[cindy25]

Did Japan attack us?

After all, Hawaii wasn't even a state back then.

Yes, Alaska, Hawaii and the Philippines and Guam were all US Territories, the people carried US passports. No different than pre-1912 Arizona

[cindy25]

Is this poll necessary? Does it serve a purpose?

because of the similarities with Iran

[youngbuck]

The same reason any country has attacked us or conspired against us: They hate us because we're free.

[anaconda]

FDR was looking for a prequel to 9-11.

[Cutlerzzz]

What did Japan attack us?

Yes. 71 years ago.

[SkarnkaiLW]

To further illustrate the point that libertarians in general and a substantial portion of the members of this forum are out of touch with reality in terms of how the world works.

The answer to the question is that the US was perceived to be an impediment to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and US influence in Asia needed to be negated.

It still amazes me as to how many on this board would see my refusal to sell ammunition to someone intent on using that ammunition to murder someone else as an act of aggression.

Your quote relies on the US Federal Gov't essentially OWNING all Steel, Oil, etc in the US. I don't buy into said collectivism.

[Pericles]

Your quote relies on the US Federal Gov't essentially OWNING all Steel, Oil, etc in the US. I don't buy into said collectivism.

Do you stop your car at STOP signs and red lights?

[Pisces]

Why did Japan attack China in 1936 or 1937 (can't remember the exact year)? Were American sanctions put on Japan before or after their invasion of China? I can't remember myself so I'll probably look it up.

[Varin]

Sanctions were put upon Japan for engaging in war of aggression. Refusing to trade with someone is not an act of war. Japan attacked the us pacific fleet to get free reign in occupying resource rich areas in the pacific i.e. Indonesia, Borneo, Burma. The U.S. was not the aggressor.

[The Gold Standard]

because of the similarities with Iran

How similar are the two? We decided to stop sending our own oil to Japan because they were it using to slaughter millions of people. We decided to stop everyone from sending anything to Iran because...why? They will take gold for their oil? They are Muslim? They haven't invaded a foreign land in the last 1,000 years? The two are really not comparable.

[Acala]

The answer to the question is that the US was perceived to be an impediment to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and US influence in Asia needed to be negated.
.

Yes, but, more specifically, it was not the US per se that was an impediment. It was US military presence in Asia, especially its occupation of the Phillipines, that caused the Japanese to conclude that conflict with the US was inevitable if they were to control the South Pacific and Asia.

So it was our nascent global military adventurism that made us a target. If we had stayed at home, minding our own business, keeping our forces strong but confined to guarding our own borders, Japan would not have attacked us.

[Varin]

Iran is not blockaded only sanctioned and that for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They can still trade with countries who do not sanction them like China and India.

[Acala]

It still amazes me as to how many on this board would see my refusal to sell ammunition to someone intent on using that ammunition to murder someone else as an act of aggression.

Your refusal, as a private person, to sell anything to anyone for any reason you choose, is not an act of aggression. Your GOVERNMENT forcing you at gunpoint to not sell whatever you choose to whomever you choose IS an act of aggression. As is intercepting or blockading trade on the high seas.

[Varin]

Yes, but, more specifically, it was not the US per se that was an impediment. It was US military presence in Asia, especially its occupation of the Phillipines, that caused the Japanese to conclude that conflict with the US was inevitable if they were to control the South Pacific and Asia.

So it was our nascent global military adventurism that made us a target. If we had stayed at home, minding our own business, keeping our forces strong but confined to guarding our own borders, Japan would not have attacked us.

Hardly a valid reason for war.

[Varin]

Your refusal, as a private person, to sell anything to anyone for any reason you choose, is not an act of aggression. Your GOVERNMENT forcing you at gunpoint to not sell whatever you choose to whomever you choose IS an act of aggression. As is intercepting or blockading trade on the high seas.

A good argument in the conflict between you and your government and I would be inclined to agree. It is however not an act of war against the third party the foreign government no force are directly used against them.

[Acala]

It is also worth noting that in subduing Imperial Japan, we made the world safe for the rise of Mao Tse Tung and we saved the Soviet Union from an inevitable two front war with Germany and Japan. WWII was the war to make the world safe for brutal, totalitarian communism. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but if WWII is the best example people can conjur about how the world benefits from US intervention, I remain unconvinced. Of course I rarely make this argument to anyone who lived through WWII. They have too much invested to ever see the sham. You will only infuriate them.

[Acala]

Hardly a valid reason for war.

Didn't say it was. But it IS a valid reason for minding our own business in the future.

[Acala]

A good argument in the conflict between you and your government and I would be inclined to agree. It is however not an act of war against the third party the foreign government no force are directly used against them.

Agreed with respect to the internal matter, not with respect to the blockade. Blockading trade in international waters is an act of war.

[Carson]

Did Japan attack us?

After all, Hawaii wasn't even a state back then.

Ha Ha Ha! Good point.

Still...

[Varin]

Agreed with respect to the internal matter, not with respect to the blockade. Blockading trade in international waters is an act of war.

I agree on blockades being an act of war or a valid reason for war, sanctions however are not. with that said sanctions can lead to war and still be bad FP.

[aclove]

The poll does not contain the full correct answer, although it gets close.

The U.S. under Roosevelt imposed oil sanctions on Japan because we opposed their aggressive war of conquest against China. Japan's home islands are resource-poor, and their ability to prosecute their war with China would have been severely restricted if they were unable to purchase oil from the U.S. Japan's leadership determined that it had to secure another source of oil, and fast. They decided that their best bet was to invade the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia), which are oil-rich.

Japan's leaders knew that the U.S. Navy would intervene to prevent the invasion and conquest of what was then a Dutch colonial possession. In order to prevent this, Japan's leaders determined that in order for their seizure of the East Indies to succeed, it would have to be carried out simultaneously with a surgical strike that would destroy the U.S. Navy's battleships and aircraft carriers in the Pacific, which were (of course) based at Pearl Harbor. This would enable Japan to complete the conquest of the East Indies and get the oil flowing again, while forcing the U.S. to choose between a long, protracted war against Japanese troops dug in and waiting, or negotiate some sort of settlement. The thinking was that by destroying the U.S. Navy's ability to engage in offensive operations of any kind in the Pacific in one mammoth strike, the U.S. government could be intimidated into negotiation.

Fleet Admiral Yamamoto, who had studied in the U.S., opposed the attack, as he believed that Japan's leaders were seriously misreading American psychology and the likely response the attack would bring. However, once the decision was made, he felt his duty and honor required him to plan and carry out the attack with as much force and coordination as he could.

[Danke]

The poll does not contain the full correct answer, although it gets close.

The U.S. under Roosevelt imposed oil sanctions on Japan because we opposed their aggressive war of conquest against China. Japan's home islands are resource-poor, and their ability to prosecute their war with China would have been severely restricted if they were unable to purchase oil from the U.S. Japan's leadership determined that it had to secure another source of oil, and fast. They decided that their best bet was to invade the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia), which are oil-rich.

Japan's leaders knew that the U.S. Navy would intervene to prevent the invasion and conquest of what was then a Dutch colonial possession. In order to prevent this, Japan's leaders determined that in order for their seizure of the East Indies to succeed, it would have to be carried out simultaneously with a surgical strike that would destroy the U.S. Navy's battleships and aircraft carriers in the Pacific, which were (of course) based at Pearl Harbor. This would enable Japan to complete the conquest of the East Indies and get the oil flowing again, while forcing the U.S. to choose between a long, protracted war against Japanese troops dug in and waiting, or negotiate some sort of settlement. The thinking was that by destroying the U.S. Navy's ability to engage in offensive operations of any kind in the Pacific in one mammoth strike, the U.S. government could be intimidated into negotiation.

Fleet Admiral Yamamoto, who had studied in the U.S., opposed the attack, as he believed that Japan's leaders were seriously misreading American psychology and the likely response the attack would bring. However, once the decision was made, he felt his duty and honor required him to plan and carry out the attack with as much force and coordination as he could.

This.

[Varin]

Agreeing with "aclove".

[Pericles]

The poll does not contain the full correct answer, although it gets close.

The U.S. under Roosevelt imposed oil sanctions on Japan because we opposed their aggressive war of conquest against China. Japan's home islands are resource-poor, and their ability to prosecute their war with China would have been severely restricted if they were unable to purchase oil from the U.S. Japan's leadership determined that it had to secure another source of oil, and fast. They decided that their best bet was to invade the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia), which are oil-rich.

Japan's leaders knew that the U.S. Navy would intervene to prevent the invasion and conquest of what was then a Dutch colonial possession. In order to prevent this, Japan's leaders determined that in order for their seizure of the East Indies to succeed, it would have to be carried out simultaneously with a surgical strike that would destroy the U.S. Navy's battleships and aircraft carriers in the Pacific, which were (of course) based at Pearl Harbor. This would enable Japan to complete the conquest of the East Indies and get the oil flowing again, while forcing the U.S. to choose between a long, protracted war against Japanese troops dug in and waiting, or negotiate some sort of settlement. The thinking was that by destroying the U.S. Navy's ability to engage in offensive operations of any kind in the Pacific in one mammoth strike, the U.S. government could be intimidated into negotiation.

Fleet Admiral Yamamoto, who had studied in the U.S., opposed the attack, as he believed that Japan's leaders were seriously misreading American psychology and the likely response the attack would bring. However, once the decision was made, he felt his duty and honor required him to plan and carry out the attack with as much force and coordination as he could.

That ^ +rep

[Liberty4life]

I usually don't read the replies before I post, after reading aclove's response, I agree with that.

[Hitman83]

In a slight twist of scenarios, what if Japan was not a factor in WWII for us? By that I mean, would any action short of a direct attack on the US have ever pulled us into WWII against Germany? Britain was an ally, but that didn't seem like enough to bring us into the war in Europe. At what point would we stop diplomacy type measures for Nazi Germany and recognize the greater threat they posed, assuming that Germany doesn't attack us?

I may be missing something major, so feel free to point that out.

[QuickZ06]

In a slight twist of scenarios, what if Japan was not a factor in WWII for us? By that I mean, would any action short of a direct attack on the US have ever pulled us into WWII against Germany? Britain was an ally, but that didn't seem like enough to bring us into the war in Europe. At what point would we stop diplomacy type measures for Nazi Germany and recognize the greater threat they posed, assuming that Germany doesn't attack us?

I may be missing something major, so feel free to point that out.

I'm not sure, our banks and investors were making good money from the Nazi's and we were supplying GB and making $$$ from that. I believe Germany was fighting with 80% of its force on the western front and only 20% on the eastern, when we got involved. But we did have a huge fear of the spread of communism from Russia, which was the biggest threat in our governments eyes.

[DamianTV]

The poll does not contain the full correct answer, although it gets close.

The U.S. under Roosevelt imposed oil sanctions on Japan because we opposed their aggressive war of conquest against China. Japan's home islands are resource-poor, and their ability to prosecute their war with China would have been severely restricted if they were unable to purchase oil from the U.S. Japan's leadership determined that it had to secure another source of oil, and fast. They decided that their best bet was to invade the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia), which are oil-rich.

Japan's leaders knew that the U.S. Navy would intervene to prevent the invasion and conquest of what was then a Dutch colonial possession. In order to prevent this, Japan's leaders determined that in order for their seizure of the East Indies to succeed, it would have to be carried out simultaneously with a surgical strike that would destroy the U.S. Navy's battleships and aircraft carriers in the Pacific, which were (of course) based at Pearl Harbor. This would enable Japan to complete the conquest of the East Indies and get the oil flowing again, while forcing the U.S. to choose between a long, protracted war against Japanese troops dug in and waiting, or negotiate some sort of settlement. The thinking was that by destroying the U.S. Navy's ability to engage in offensive operations of any kind in the Pacific in one mammoth strike, the U.S. government could be intimidated into negotiation.

Fleet Admiral Yamamoto, who had studied in the U.S., opposed the attack, as he believed that Japan's leaders were seriously misreading American psychology and the likely response the attack would bring. However, once the decision was made, he felt his duty and honor required him to plan and carry out the attack with as much force and coordination as he could.

+Rep

Plain and simple, we provoked them until they felt it was necessary. It was "necessary" to do it this way so that it would be know to all "who struck who first" and bring the US into WWII for the benefit of the Warmongering Banking Cartels. Nothing is more profitable to a Central Bank than a country that needs to "finance" its war.

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

Guys, you shouldn't even joke about being sympathetic to Imperial Japan. They did nothing but invade innocent nations, rape underage women, torture men/women/children brutally, and ethnically cleanse areas of Korea & China. It was literally an empire built on rape, torture, slavery, racism, and ethnic-genocide. Hence why North Koreans to this day are more friendly with Americans than they are to their East Asian neighbors the Japanese. Goddamn, what the fuck is wrong with some of you?

[otherone]

Goddamn, what the fuck is wrong with some of you?

The New American Anthem!
Mr. trouble never hangs around,
when he hears this Mighty sound,

Here I come to save the day!
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way!

Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right,
Mighty Mouse will join the fight!

On the sea or on the land,
He's got the situation well in hand!

We know that when there's danger, we'll never dispair;
Because we know that when there's danger he is there...
On the land on the sea in the air.

We're not worrying at all
We just listen for his call
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way.

When there is a wrong to right,
Mighty Mouse will joint the fight
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way!

[Elwar]

The evil mooslims in Japan did it.

[asurfaholic]

I picked the last option " they hate us for our freedom."

Because, obviously they hate us for our freedoms.