This Day In History: Pearl Harbor Bombed And So It Began

[ExiledInIllinois]

Except for in the Phillipines, the Pacific didn't offer a hell of a lot of opportunities for "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say-no-more".

 

The South Pacific, in fact, was one of the few battlefields in history where STDs weren't an issue.

 

Really? Even after martial law was declared in Honolulu:

 

As with every war, where there are military bases, there were also prostitutes. Honolulu's "sporting girls" were an interesting case. After Pearl Harbor, some houses of prostitution -- which were then located near the harbor -- served as temporary hospitals, and many of the "girls" came to wherever they were needed to nurse the injured. Under martial law, 1942-1944, prostitutes enjoyed a fair amount of freedom in the city -- more than they'd had before the war under civilian government.

 

Near many military bases, reputed "victory girls" could be found, willing to engage in sex with military men without charge. Many were younger than 17. Military posters campaigning against venereal disease depicted these "victory girls" as a threat to the Allied military effort -- an example of the old "double standard," blaming the "girls" but not their male partners for the danger.

[Booster4324]

A few, probably fictitious, quotes from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:

 

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

 

Gentlemen, we have just kicked a rabid dog.

 

I can run wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success.

 

And a couple of real quotes and nice reference from Wiki (going from memory too, so going to trust this):

 

Yamamoto, when once asked his opinion on the war, pessimistically said that the only way for Japan to win the war was to dictate terms in the White House, requiring them to eventually invade the United States and march across the country while fighting their way to Washington — i.e., Japan would have to conquer the whole of the United States. Yamamoto's meaning was that military victory, in a protracted war against an opponent with as much of a population and industrial advantage as the United States possessed, was completely impossible — a rebuff to those who thought that winning a major battle against the US Navy would end the war. However, in the US, his words were recast as a jingoistic boast that he would dictate peace terms at the White House.

 

In The Reluctant Admiral, Hiroyuki Agawa, without a citation, does give a quotation from a reply by Admiral Yamamoto to Ogata Taketora on January 9, 1942, which is strikingly similar to the famous version: "A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack."

 

Tom, I understand the economic reasons Japan did it. I am curious as to your take as to why they forged ahead when it seemed their best and brightest had determined it was unlikely they could win. I realize that many thought a naval victory would suffice, but were they really that short sighted? I have read a lot of naval history, but the idea that Japan thought they could win on a morale basis alone seems ludicrous. FDR was looking for an excuse and was provided one. Wonder if Connor thinks FDR let it happen...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Tom, I understand the economic reasons Japan did it. I am curious as to your take as to why they forged ahead when it seemed their best and brightest had determined it was unlikely they could win.

 

I am curious too on Tom's take. Could it have been a military establishment in Japan that had run amok??

[DC Tom]

Really? Even after martial law was declared in Honolulu:

 

As with every war, where there are military bases, there were also prostitutes. Honolulu's "sporting girls" were an interesting case. After Pearl Harbor, some houses of prostitution -- which were then located near the harbor -- served as temporary hospitals, and many of the "girls" came to wherever they were needed to nurse the injured. Under martial law, 1942-1944, prostitutes enjoyed a fair amount of freedom in the city -- more than they'd had before the war under civilian government.

 

Near many military bases, reputed "victory girls" could be found, willing to engage in sex with military men without charge. Many were younger than 17. Military posters campaigning against venereal disease depicted these "victory girls" as a threat to the Allied military effort -- an example of the old "double standard," blaming the "girls" but not their male partners for the danger.

 

Honolulu wasn't a theater of battle, despite the Pearl Harbor raid (which is, in fact, why it was a raid).

 

I probably should have mentioned the Marianas as well as the Philippines...I know of no numbers regarding STDs in the Marianas, but with a fairly large and friendly population (as opposed to, say, New Guinea, where contact with the indigenous population was basically non-existent) I suspect the incidence was not insignificant. I do know STD rates skyrocketed in the Philippines, however. On Okinawa...during and after that battle, the island was such a cesspool (literally - half a million combattants and another half-million non-combattants, and no working plumbing. And 300k dead) that I doubt any significant STD rates existed, nor have I ever heard of any.

 

Most other Pacific theaters or battlefields - New Guinea, the Solomons, Pelileu, Iwo - there just weren't any women around.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Honolulu wasn't a theater of battle, despite the Pearl Harbor raid (which is, in fact, why it was a raid).

 

I probably should have mentioned the Marianas as well as the Philippines...I know of no numbers regarding STDs in the Marianas, but with a fairly large and friendly population (as opposed to, say, New Guinea, where contact with the indigenous population was basically non-existent) I suspect the incidence was not insignificant. I do know STD rates skyrocketed in the Philippines, however. On Okinawa...during and after that battle, the island was such a cesspool (literally - half a million combattants and another half-million non-combattants, and no working plumbing. And 300k dead) that I doubt any significant STD rates existed, nor have I ever heard of any.

 

Most other Pacific theaters or battlefields - New Guinea, the Solomons, Pelileu, Iwo - there just weren't any women around.

 

Interesting... Thanks!!

[DC Tom]

A few, probably fictitious, quotes from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:

 

And a couple of real quotes and nice reference from Wiki (going from memory too, so going to trust this):

 

Actually, when Yamamoto made the statement about peace being dictated in the White House, he supposedly meant that peace would be dictated in the White House by the US government, not by Japan. Yamamoto was the naval attache in Washington at one point in his career, and was well-informed on the American Navy, and America in general.

 

 

 

Tom, I understand the economic reasons Japan did it. I am curious as to your take as to why they forged ahead when it seemed their best and brightest had determined it was unlikely they could win. I realize that many thought a naval victory would suffice, but were they really that short sighted? I have read a lot of naval history, but the idea that Japan thought they could win on a morale basis alone seems ludicrous. FDR was looking for an excuse and was provided one. Wonder if Connor thinks FDR let it happen...

 

 

I am curious too on Tom's take. Could it have been a military establishment in Japan that run amok??

 

It's complicated. Really. The simple version is EII's statement...but it's FAR more complex than that. Japan had an odd parlimentary government with a strange relation to the "living God" emperor that allowed a military takeover of the government, and an imperialistic attitude inherited from European influences, and a paucity of resources that hindered imperialistic designs, and a bunch of other strange little facts of history (like: British policy in the Pacific for a long time was to support Japan's naval ambitions as a counter-balance to American naval power, to protect their Pacific imperial holdings, which is how Japan came to be a naval power to begin with ).

 

It's far to much to explain on a message board...but I can recommend some good books. Wilmott and van der Vat (not exactly a rigorous history, but a very good read), and Bergerud for starters. I also recommend avoiding Toland's book on Pearl Harbor like the plague - Toland is a first-class, grade-A hack who makes Stephen Ambrose look credible.

[Frit0 Bandit0]

The effectiveness of strategic bombing used directly against production capacity is at best questionable. In both Europe and the Pacific, bombing was far more effective against transportation means (i.e. railroads and shipping), thus starving factories of resources, than it was against factories directly.

 

It also ignores the fact that the Japanese produced quite a bit of military equipment before and early in the way (and even later in the war), but the deficiency in industrial methods meant that equipment was of generally low quality and/or simple design. The Japanese never managed to produce a truly useful and reliable inline or advanced radial aircraft engine not because of a lack of capacity or American bombing, but because they simply didn't have the precision industrial methods to manufacture it (they could design it - as a prototype, with all hand-machined parts.) Ditto for a lot of other stuff - airframes (the Zero was basically a 1936-era fighter, because anything more advanced was beyond Japan's capacity to manufacture), turbine blades, artillery, etc.

 

Bombing didn't help, but Japan's economic insufficiency for fighting a world war had nothing to do with Allied measures - Japan's economic base was insufficient for fighting China, well before they ever decided to take on the rest of the world. In fact, their insufficient economic base for fighting China was why they took on the rest of the world.

 

 

I don't understand where the economic gain would have come from by raiding Pearl Harbor. I thought Japan's goal was to cripple the Pacific fleet hoping America would opt out of a long range war with Japan in the pacific. I didn't know the Japanese were having that difficult of a time in China. I thought their main goals were China's raw material and of course expanding into China or establishing a hegemony over China and East Asia....Unless they figured without America's intervention they could invade most of Eastern Asia and save China for last. My knowledge on this is very limited

[DC Tom]

I don't understand where the economic gain would have come from by raiding Pearl Harbor. I thought Japan's goal was to cripple the Pacific fleet hoping America would opt out of a long range war with Japan in the pacific. I didn't know the Japanese were having that difficult of a time in China. I thought their main goals were China's raw material and of course expanding into China or establishing a hegemony over China and East Asia....Unless they figured without America's intervention they could invade most of Eastern Asia and save China for last. My knowledge on this is very limited

 

The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to isolate the Philippines, which they realistically had to attack to secure the shipping routes through the South China Sea to Borneo and the Dutch East Indies. It's really that simple: they decided they need to capture the Dutch East Indies for the resources (oil, tin, rubber), which meant they had to secure the flanks of their attack (Malaya and the Philippines), which meant they had to do something about the American Navy - and they decided to attack it in port.

 

As for your economic question...I'm too damn tired right now (it's been an 18-hour work day already).

[Frit0 Bandit0]

The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to isolate the Philippines, which they realistically had to attack to secure the shipping routes through the South China Sea to Borneo and the Dutch East Indies. It's really that simple: they decided they need to capture the Dutch East Indies for the resources (oil, tin, rubber), which meant they had to secure the flanks of their attack (Malaya and the Philippines), which meant they had to do something about the American Navy - and they decided to attack it in port.

 

As for your economic question...I'm too damn tired right now (it's been an 18-hour work day already).

 

I appreciate your comment.'ll look up one or two of those books you mentioned now that you've tapped my interest into this.

[tennesseeboy]

i always enjoy DC-Tom's analysis on history of warfare. Obviously a well read student. I'm going on a plane trip tomorrow and was looking for a good book to read, and might see if I can get the Wilmott and Van der vat book.

[DC Tom]

i always enjoy DC-Tom's analysis on history of warfare. Obviously a well read student. I'm going on a plane trip tomorrow and was looking for a good book to read, and might see if I can get the Wilmott and Van der vat book.

 

Willmott: http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Balance-Japa...ntt_at_ep_dpi_4. Recently reprinted, so it should be available.

 

Van der Vat: http://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Campaign-U-S...757&sr=1-11. Like I said, easy read. Not exactly rigorous, but a good book nonetheless. Van der Vat's a pretty competent historian.

 

I also highly recommend Bergerud's "Fire in the Sky" and "Touched with Fire" (http://www.amazon.com/Eric-M.-Bergerud/e/B000AP9AEM/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_8?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1260373757&sr=1-9), about the air and land wars, respectively, in the South Pacific. Excellent, well-researched, well-balanced books, and very entertaining reads. The latter in particular I think should be read by anybody who wishes to hold an informed opinion on combat in ANY war - that's one of my few history books I own that I encourage my wife to read, it's that good.

[TheMadCap]

I am curious too on Tom's take. Could it have been a military establishment in Japan that had run amok??

 

You also have to keep in mind the mental make-up of the Japanese at that time. They believed that they were destined to rule, that all other races were inferior and that no one could defeat them with thier "living God" at the head. Even those in power smart enough (Yamomoto) to realize that this way of thinking was going to turn out badly could not really openly say anything that would give the appearance of being anything other than completely confident.

 

To a Japanese, losing face or honor is the worst fate imaginable. To a man, most of them would rather die in a hopeless battle against impossible odds than give up, or be captured. The Miliatry leaders of Japan FULLY expected to have to fight down to the last living citizen in an Allied invasion of the homelands. They gave peasants instructions on the best way to kill an enemy soldier with pitchforks or rocks, in order that they should do thier duty for the Emperor.

 

Those who say that it was unneccessary to use nuclear weapons against the people of Japan do not fully understand thier mindsets. It have been suggested that the number of casulties of an Allied invasion of the Japanese homelands are in excess of one million. Even AFTER the bombs fell there were those that wanted to fight on...

[DC Tom]

Those who say that it was unneccessary to use nuclear weapons against the people of Japan do not fully understand thier mindsets. Casulaty estimates of an Allied invasion of the Japanese homelands are in excess of one million. Even AFTER the bombs fell there were those that wanted to fight on...

 

One million Americans. Estimates on Japanese casualties were in the ten million range.

 

People - Westerners, at least - overestimate the morale effect of the atomic bombs, though. The Soviets invaded Manchuria days after Hiroshima and shredded Japan's last and biggest field army in a week (<<insert my standard complaint about Western-centric interpretations of WWII history here>>). That really scared the piss out of the Japanese leadership.

[TheMadCap]

One million Americans. Estimates on Japanese casualties were in the ten million range.

 

People - Westerners, at least - overestimate the morale effect of the atomic bombs, though. The Soviets invaded Manchuria days after Hiroshima and shredded Japan's last and biggest field army in a week (<<insert my standard complaint about Western-centric interpretations of WWII history here>>). That really scared the piss out of the Japanese leadership.

 

Absolutely correct, nearly the entire population of Japan would have to ahve been essentially exterminated. Still, even after the declaration of war by Russia and the A-bombs, some wanted to fight on, even trying an ill-concieved cout to prevent the surrender...

[dib]

I also highly recommend Bergerud's "Fire in the Sky" and "Touched with Fire" (http://www.amazon.com/Eric-M.-Bergerud/e/B000AP9AEM/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_8?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1260373757&sr=1-9), about the air and land wars, respectively, in the South Pacific.

 

At Dawn We Slept.

 

Midway

 

Sea of Thunder

 

I still say the U.S knew what was coming at Pearl.

[erynthered]

Speaking of WW ll

[DC Tom]

I also highly recommend Bergerud's "Fire in the Sky" and "Touched with Fire" (http://www.amazon.com/Eric-M.-Bergerud/e/B000AP9AEM/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_8?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1260373757&sr=1-9), about the air and land wars, respectively, in the South Pacific.

 

At Dawn We Slept.

 

Midway

 

Sea of Thunder

 

I still say the U.S knew what was coming at Pearl.

 

There's a good, recent work on Midway, called "Shattered Sword". Quite a bit of technical detail (Contains details on the mechanics of Japanese carrier operations that would only be of interest to someone like me), and not the easiest read, but a spectacular work of research.

[TheMadCap]

I can recommend the book, "Downfall-The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B Frank which deals primarily with the US plans and background related to Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands in late 1945...

[TheMadCap]

There's a good, recent work on Midway, called "Shattered Sword". Quite a bit of technical detail (Contains details on the mechanics of Japanese carrier operations that would only be of interest to someone like me), and not the easiest read, but a spectacular work of research.

 

 

Parshall, Jonathan; Tully, Anthony (2005). Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway. Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books. ISBN 1-57488-923-0.

[Dante]

Went too Pearl a couple days ago. Like Ruben, I noticed half the people were Japanese, although it must be said, half the people in Hawaii itself seem to be from Japan. One thing I was pleasantly surprised by was how subdued Pearl Harbor was. They have not turned it into a tacky touristy money grubbing place. One gift shop where I bought three hard covered Pearl Harbor books. The author was there and also a vet who was at Pearl at the time was there to also sign the books. Nice guy who witnessed the attack. One book for me and two for gifts for my brother and dad. Was glad I visited. Got lots of nice pics and video as well. A nice touch that the USS Arizona is still seeping oil but they will not stop the leak in honor of the dead.