# (Report) The Assault on Pearl Harbor and the Preceeding Events



## Wolfe (Feb 8, 2011)

*A/N: This was written for my Naval Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps class back in December, and I was very enthusiastic about the topic. The first and last paragraphs were required - Stating why I researched this topic, then what I learned from the topic.*

The Assault on Pearl Harbor
_And the Preceeding Events_​
The attack on Pearl Harbor is an event in which I have heard of a lot, but know nearly nothing about. I did not know why Japan attacked the U.S., the details of the attack, or any other information aside from the loss of the USS Arizona. Researching this topic gave me the information I lacked, especially of the events leading up to December 7, 1941.

        On December 7, 1941, a Japanese surprise attack known as Operation Z by the Japanese targeted a United States naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. The purpose of this attack had been to prevent the United States Pacific Fleet from interfering with the Japanese Navy’s movements in Southeast Asia and the overseas territories of the Allies.

        By neutralizing the Pacific Fleet, Japan hoped to protect it’s movements into the Dutch East Indies and Malaya, where they wanted to gain control of natural resources such as oil and rubber. Since the 1920’s, both the U.S. and Japan were aware of the strong possibility of war; Especially after Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931. Between 1931 and 1941, Japan continued to push into China, resulting in full war between the two nations in 1937. Japan focused on isolating China, and in gaining resource independence to assist with the battlefronts on the mainland.

        Attempting to control supplies reaching China, Japan invaded French Indochina in 1940. As a result, the United States halted all shipments of aircraft, parts, tools, and gasoline. Japan viewed this as an unfriendly act. However, the U.S. did not stop oil exports to Japan at that time, as Washington believed that would be a step too far, and would be a provocative act against Japan.

        In 1941, the Pacific Fleet was moved from its old base in San Diego, to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. A military build up was also ordered in the Philippines, planning to deter Japan forces from advancing on the Far East. Because of Japanese certainty that the U.S. would get involved if British Southeast Asian colonies were attacked, they believed a preemptive strike on the United States was necessary to prevent U.S. Pacific Fleet involvement.

        In July of 1941, the United States cut off Japan from oil exports, after an invasion of French Indochina. As a result, Japan also moved to take the Dutch East Indies to claim their oil. Japan began planning an attack on Pearl Harbor, to protect their movements in the ‘Southern Resource Area’ (Japanese term for Southeast Asia). Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of Japan’s Combined Fleet, was also in command of the planning process. The Japanese used the 1940 British air attack on Taranto as a study basis for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

        The attack held several objectives. First, by destroying important fleet ships, the Pacific Fleet was to be crippled to prevent interference with the Japanese conquest of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. Additionally, Japan needed time to consider it’s position and beef up naval strength before shipbuilding reduced a chance of victory to nothing. Finally, American morale was to take a heavy blow, discouraging the United States from committing to the war. In an effort to maximize this final effect, Japan chose battleships as their main targets – The prestige ships of any navy of the time period. Overall, Japan wanted to conquer Southeast Asia without any interference.

        On November 26, 1941, the Japanese sent a task force, aka the ‘Striking Force’, to a position north-northwest of Hawaii, with intent to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor. Six aircraft carriers launched 353 Japanese aircraft at the base in two successive waves. The first wave was the main attack, equipped with weapons designed to take out capital ships.  The second wave was to finish off whatever was left. Fighters were ordered to strafe the docks, destroying grounded aircraft and anti-air emplacements.

The Japanese attack succeeded in sinking four U.S. battleships and damaging the other four. In addition, three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft vessel, and a minelayer were also damaged and sunk. The U.S. lost 188 aircraft and 2,402 men, with another 1,282 men being wounded. Showing the focus of Japanese efforts, the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities were not attacked. Submarine piers and the headquarters building were also left untouched. On the Japanese side, only 29 aircraft and 5 ‘Midget’ submarines were lost, with 65 men killed and 1 man captured by the U.S.

        This attack led directly to the U.S. joining World War II in both the Pacific, and Europe, after U.S. civilian outrage from the attack that resulted in part from a lack of any formal declaration of war or warning from the Japanese. On the following day, the United States had declared war on Japan after the famous ‘Infamy Speech’ from President Roosevelt, as the original policy of neutrality disappeared. In turn, both Germany and Italy, due to U.S. actions and the the Axis alliance, declared war on the United States, whom returned the favor the same day.

        In the end, Japan brought the United States into World War II with their attack on Pearl Harbor. Additionally, Japan’s attack on Hawaii stemmed from a belief that the U.S. was going to join the war and deter their actions if they did not strike first. Japan may have been wrong, but its impossible to tell as things did not go that route.

References

"Attack at Pearl Harbor, 1941." Eyewitness to History. Eyewitness to History, 1997. Web. 7 Jan 2011. <http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pearl.htm>.

"Attack on Pearl Harbor." Wikipedia. Wikimedia, 04 Jan 2011. Web. 7 Jan 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_pearl_harbor>.

"Attack on Pearl Harbor." World War II History Info. World War II History Info, 2010. Web. 7 Jan 2011. <http://www.worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/>.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 8, 2011)

> The attack on Pearl Harbor is an event in which I have heard of a lot, but know nearly nothing about. I did not know why Japan attacked the U.S., the details of the attack, or any other information aside from the loss of the USS Arizona. Researching this topic gave me the information I lacked, especially of the events leading up to December 7, 1941.


Maybe because it was required you did not do well here. Firstly your tenses are wrong, Pearl harbour was an event and you knew almost nothing about it (You go on to tell us you have learned). Then " in which I have heard of a lot,", "Which I have heard of a lot" maybe?



> The purpose of this attack had been to prevent the United States Pacific Fleet


Having used "attack" in the previous line "Its purpose was to prevent ..." might read easier. Your version does have a certain military flavour to it however, so maybe it is appropriate in the circumstances.



> The Japanese used the 1940 British air attack on Taranto as a study basis for the attack on Pearl Harbor.


I felt this could have been expanded, it is a little known event, which elements did the Japanese draw on?



> The prestige ships of any navy of the time period


Time and period is tautology, one or the other.



> after U.S. civilian outrage from the attack that resulted in part from a lack of any formal declaration of war or warning from the Japanese.


Outrage at the attack. Also the sentence structure makes it possible to read that the attack resulted, in part, from outrage. Keep things together that go together, eg. after U.S. civilian outrage, that resulted in part from a lack of any formal declaration of war or warning from the Japanese before the attack.


> In the end, Japan brought the United States into World War II with their attack


No, in the end the Japanese lost, simply leave off "In the end".

Not a bad essay overall, I hope your class teacher approved it.


----------



## The Backward OX (Feb 9, 2011)

*Events preceeding (sic) Pearl Harbor*

If you want to get into the _real_ background to the Japanese attack on the USA, you need to go back to the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, six months after the end of fighting in World War One.

The Australian delegation to the conference at Versailles insisted there be racist language in the treaty, and that Japan be penalized the same as Germany was, even though Japan was on the winning side. Australia threatened to withdraw from the talks if it didn't get its way, so America’s President Wilson had to give them the race provisions.

This was highly humiliating to the Japanese. Humiliation that Australia alone demanded, and that was the genesis for the war in the Pacific.

It can all be found in Japan Since Perry, Yanaga, here: 

http://www.questia.com/library/book/japan-since-perry-by-chitoshi-yanaga.jsp


----------



## Dudester (Feb 9, 2011)

There are some excellent books out there on Pearl Harbor (i.e.* At Dawn We Slept*). The movie *Tora Tora Tora* is a masterpiece in that it's factual and doesn't surrender to the usual Hollywood pablum of just inventing crap. 

A few years ago I wrote a story (i'm thinking of posting here) that was pooped on by war historians. The premise having to do with the night before the attack. There was a Battle of the Bands (USS Arizona vs. USS Pennsylvania) and it was a much looked forward to event, so much so that the military was asleep the morning of December 7th because of the party/dance the night before. No, this was not a main cause of the attack, but an overlooked factor in the response to the attack.


----------



## garza (Feb 9, 2011)

According to what a friend of mine who was stationed at Pearl in '36 and '37 has told me, it would have been unusual for many people to have been wide awake early on any Sunday morning. Something like the Battle of the Bands was, according to my friend, not such an unusual event for  Saturday night party time. After all, an attack on Pearl Harbour was clearly impossible.


----------



## Wolfe (Feb 9, 2011)

> Maybe because it was required you did not do well here. Firstly your tenses are wrong, Pearl harbour was an event and you knew almost nothing about it (You go on to tell us you have learned). Then " in which I have heard of a lot,", "Which I have heard of a lot" maybe?



Yes, it was in part because of the requirement. I didn't even know about the requirement until after I had finished the essay, and had tossed those in a day before the due date.



> Having used "attack" in the previous line "Its purpose was to prevent ..." might read easier. Your version does have a certain military flavour to it however, so maybe it is appropriate in the circumstances.



I do have to agree that the double-usage of the word Attack was a bit redundant, and that hadn't crossed my mind. Redundancy is an issue I have >.>



> I felt this could have been expanded, it is a little known event, which elements did the Japanese draw on?



I honestly don't remember. I'll have to look that up and get back to you on it.



> Time and period is tautology, one or the other.



I've never heard of the term 'tautology' before now. I've read the phrase 'Time Period' used in so many history books, it's embedded into my brain like that. I suppose it's another one of my redundancy issues.



> Outrage at the attack. Also the sentence structure makes it possible to read that the attack resulted, in part, from outrage. Keep things together that go together, eg. after U.S. civilian outrage, that resulted in part from a lack of any formal declaration of war or warning from the Japanese before the attack.[/quote
> 
> Something else I have to agree with. Rewording that would have definately avoided confusion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 9, 2011)

Sorry when I say something is tautology it is only a fancy way of saying that it is repeating something using other words, you know, saying the same thing more than once but in a different way or going over it again but phrasing it another way ... etc. etc.rofilel: Sorry it's a bit of a thing of mine, sports commentators do it all the time, I actually wrote a piece called "Being taught-a-logical driving system" for the bad writing LM, (Puns are another thing of mine). If you haven't read that bad writing thread it is well worth a look, some hilarious stuff there, a lot of it much cleverer than mine.
http://www.writingforums.com/wf-challenges/111039-new-bad-writing-competition-just-laughs-4.html
Congratulations on your 95%, you must have been very pleased.


----------



## The Backward OX (Feb 10, 2011)

> If you haven't read that bad writing thread it is well worth a look, some hilarious stuff there, a lot of it much cleverer than mine.


Written by a very 'umble man.


----------

