# Question regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 19, 2013, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628 "2013-08-19T10:26:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/21 "2013-08-21T06:30:59Z")
> [@davidmich](#): > > Which serious historians have mounted a solid rebuttal (if any) Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. (wiki “book by Robert Stinnett alleging that the Roosevelt administration deliberately provoked and allowed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in order to bring the United States into World War II.”) > davidmich I could swear there was a website dedicated to the Pearl Harbor attack that had an impressive collection of documentation relating to the attack, hearings about the attack, and among other things debunking CTs that ‘we knew but let it happen’ and other myths and nonsense. I remember it from a good number of years ago, so it’s no longer maintained, my google-fu is failing me, my memory is going, or it’s merged with some other site that I’ve overlooked. However, directly relating to Robert Stinnett’s _Day of Deceit_ I did find this: [A Deceitful Book](http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnett.htm?s=Robert+Stinnett) By Rear Admiral Richard E. Young, USN (Ret) A Review of Robert B. Stinnett’s book “Day of Deceit” which not having read _Day of Deceit_ seems pretty thorough in debunking Stinnett and that > [@](#): > > Long overdue is a close examination of Stinnett’s research and voluminous documentation he himself asserts prove his allegations. When one does, it becomes painfully obvious that the extensive research Stinnett did ends up proving just the opposite of what Stinnett was striving so desperately to prove: Roosevelt did not know of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor; he did not deliberately provoke it. And Stinnett himself has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt through his own painstaking research. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/22 "2013-08-21T08:06:22Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > I could swear there was a website dedicated to the Pearl Harbor attack that had an impressive collection of documentation relating to the attack, hearings about the attack … There certainly is voluminous data available on the 'Web. [This page links to original documents, now declassified, presented to the Hewitt Inquiry](http://ibiblio.org/pha/congress/Hewitt%20Exhibits/Hewitt%20Exhibits%20Index.html); I think you’ll get Google hits for transcripts of the same documents. Even the [Wikipedia summary of conspiracy theories](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory) is TL;DNR. But the debunking just creates more room for doubters. Lt. “Honest John” Leitwiler, a commander of code breakers, wrote on 16 November 1941, “We are reading enough current traffic to keep two translators very busy.” With a nickname like that, no wonder he had to be silenced. And hits at the NSA website are to “[http://www.nsa.gov/public\_info/\_files/](http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/)…”. It’s the _secret\_info/\_files_ we want, for heaven’s sake! ---
**Author:** ![Bremidon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac91a4/32.png) [@Bremidon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bremidon)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/23 "2013-08-21T10:22:34Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Well, the issue is resolvable simply by thought experiment. > > Firstly, FDR did indeed want to get the US involved in the war – _against Germany._ Not Japan. War with Japan would be a huge distraction from his main focus; indeed, when war came, “Germany First” became official policy and there were constant minor struggles between American military branches and civilian agencies to balance the war effort between Germany and Japan. So it seems unlikely that FDR would “allow” an attack on Pearl > > Secondly and more importantly: Assuming an attack on the fleet at Pearl would trigger American involvement in the war, it wouldn’t have to be a totally successful attack on Pearl. Hell, a Japanese fleet in full war formation even appearing within airstrike range of Pearl would itself be an act of war and the American public would have been riled up. > > So _if_ FDR knew about Pearl _and_ wanted to permit the Japanese to attack, there’s _still_ no reason to be caught with one’s pants down. An alerted US Pacific fleet could have had scouting planes out (and let’s be honest, a peacetime fleet should damned well have had scout planes out, given the tensions of the time) and could have at least engaged the _[Kido Butai](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kido_Butai#Kido_Butai)_ and done some damage. A draw, even an American victory, would STILL have aroused the American people to war, and we would have started it _without_ the huge disadvantage of losing most of our fleet _and_ giving our enemies the reputation for invincibility they would carry for the next six months. > > edit: Conclusion: it makes no sense that FDR would have allowed the Pacific Fleet to be surprised and sunk, _even if_ he wanted war with Japan. People who think that the defeat aroused American fury more than a less-total defeat, or simply an attack, would have, are just showing how little they understand the Americans of those times. What pissed us off was _that we were attacked_ during supposedly “good faith” negotiations. Not that they won the battle. According to a documentary I watched last week about the 24 hours after the attacks, President Roosevelt and whoever he could get together on short notice were trying to figure out how to respond to the expected land invasion. The documentary claimed that they were planning on making a stand around Des Moines or Chicago, because we simply did not have enough active troops to prevent a major invasion. Not having enough mainland defenses is bad enough for someone hoping for the best, but would be simply insane for someone actively _hoping_ for an attack. Yet another nail in the coffin for the CT. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/24 "2013-08-21T15:27:46Z")
There were nine official investigations of Pearl Harbor. The Knox Investigation Dec. 9-14, 1941. The Roberts Commission Dec. 18-January-23, 1941 The Hart Investigation Feb. 12-June 15, 1944 The Army Pearl Harbor Board Jul. 20-Oct. 20, 1944 The Navy Court of Inquiry Jul. 24-Oct. 19, 1944. The Clarke Investigation Aug. 4-Sep 20, 1944 The Clausen Investigation Jan. 24-Sep. 12, 1945 The Hewitt Inquiry May 14-July 11, 1945 The Joint Congressional Committee Nov. 15, 1945-May 23, 1946 The records of all nine are available on [this page](http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html). Any decent book on the start of the war will debunk the conspiracy theories. [Pearl Harbor: FDR Leads the Nation Into War by Steven M. Gillon](http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-Leads-Nation-Into/dp/0465021395/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377098419&sr=1-2&keywords=pearl+harbor) looks like it covers the events in detail. In the past couple of weeks you’ve asked for a reading list that would take years to complete. When do you find the time? You read more than I do, and that’s saying a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/25 "2013-08-21T15:47:38Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > …The U.S. simply didn’t have any battleships after Pearl Harbor, and you can only fight with the weapons you have… Well, it did, but not in the Pacific. In commission but not at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 were USS _Texas, Arkansas, New York, Wyoming, Washington, New Mexico, Mississippi, Idaho, Colorado_ and _North Carolina_. Some were transferred from the Atlantic after the outbreak of war. As to the OP, remember also that FDR was a former Asst. Secretary of Navy. He _loved_ the Navy, and I just can’t believe he would’ve purposefully left it unprotected and vulnerable, hoping to lure an attack, not knowing how badly it would be damaged for the subsequent war he’d have to fight. A 2001 Staff Report: [Did Roosevelt know in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor yet say nothing? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-advance-about-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor-yet-say-nothing) Previous threads: > **[Did FDR Will and Allow Pearl Harbor? Srdja Trifkovic's Take on the...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=499597)** > > In this article (forwarded to me by a paleoconservative friend), Srdja Trifkovic argues that FDR crafted US policy and tactical deployments to provoke and fail to prepare for a Japanese attack that would bring the United States into WWII. Trifkovic... > **[Staff Report: Did Roosevelt know?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=191976)** > > I can think of only one reason to drag Nixon into this - the question could be, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” However, the real question would be, “What did the President intend, and what did he do about it?” The Staff... ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/26 "2013-08-21T16:15:44Z")
> [@Bremidon](#): > > According to a documentary I watched last week about the 24 hours after the attacks, President Roosevelt and whoever he could get together on short notice were trying to figure out how to respond to the expected land invasion. The documentary claimed that they were planning on making a stand around Des Moines or Chicago, because we simply did not have enough active troops to prevent a major invasion. Not having enough mainland defenses is bad enough for someone hoping for the best, but would be simply insane for someone actively _hoping_ for an attack. Yet another nail in the coffin for the CT. Umm. I can’t see how anyone in the Army or Navy would have believed that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/27 "2013-08-21T16:24:36Z")
> [@Bremidon](#): > > According to a documentary I watched last week about the 24 hours after the attacks, President Roosevelt and whoever he could get together on short notice were trying to figure out how to respond to the expected land invasion. The documentary claimed that they were planning on making a stand around Des Moines or Chicago, because we simply did not have enough active troops to prevent a major invasion. Not having enough mainland defenses is bad enough for someone hoping for the best, but would be simply insane for someone actively _hoping_ for an attack. Yet another nail in the coffin for the CT. I won’t claim that there wasn’t some panic. But I don’t think any professional military people thought there was any chance of this happening. Japan never had a realistic chance to even capture Oahu, much less plan an invasion of the mainland. So landing troops in California and getting them thousands of miles inland? Absolute nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/28 "2013-08-21T16:43:02Z")
To be fair, when Bremidon said “documentary” I’m pretty he meant History Channel-style Nazi porn. Oooh, thrust those divisions deeper, harder, fill me to my depths with your shiny leather stormtroopers. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/29 "2013-08-21T18:57:15Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > There certainly is voluminous data available on the 'Web. [This page links to original documents, now declassified, presented to the Hewitt Inquiry](http://ibiblio.org/pha/congress/Hewitt%20Exhibits/Hewitt%20Exhibits%20Index.html) > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The records of all nine are available on [this page](http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html). Yeah, I think the site that I was thinking of might have been swallowed up by [New Page 1](http://ibiblio.org/pha); I came a cross a lot of it there while trying to find the site I was thinking of. It’s also entirely possible that my recollection is faulty. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > To be fair, when Bremidon said “documentary” I’m pretty he meant History Channel-style Nazi porn. Oooh, thrust those divisions deeper, harder, fill me to my depths with your shiny leather stormtroopers. Indeed, Japan was hard pressed enough coming up with enough shipping to support the troop movements they made historically and tankers for all of the naval movements, particularly supporting the Pearl Harbor strike force. An attempted landing on Oahu or the mainland would have been a blessing for US morale; it would have ended in complete disaster for the Japanese. There wouldn’t have been the need to manufacture heroic tales such as [Colin Kelly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Kelly) sinking the battleship _Haruna_ by crashing his damaged B-17 into her. ---
**Author:** ![DeptfordX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DeptfordX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeptfordX)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/30 "2013-08-21T23:00:16Z")
If the Battleships had been available, would they have been much use anyway? Wasn’t the American fleet so strapped for tankers initially, they had to decide between supporting the carriers or the surviving Battlships (who were real fuel hogs) in the opening months of the Pacific theatre, and quite understandably chose the carriers. I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/31 "2013-08-22T01:49:25Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > …Likewise, any navy which requires the president to sort through miscellaneous conjectures isn’t worth its salt. It was well known that a war was coming. The Army and the Navy had the responsibility to be ready and to take steps to defend itself and they failed in that duty. They are not alone, and in fact, it was all too common for all of the participants of that and other wars. > > Trying to find a conspiracy is unnecessary when human nature better explains the results. Yeah, it was known there was a Japanese threat. It does seem the naval & military (including Army Air Corps) guys on the scene were just not paying attention. It wasn’t up to FDR back in DC to remind them to do their jobs… Still, no conspiracy. Let’s remember there were people back them–and years later–who hated FDR & wanted to blame him. ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/32 "2013-08-22T02:06:02Z")
People who believe this are generally the same ones who believe that his “cerebral hemorrhage” was actually a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I don’t believe that either. ---
**Author:** ![Bartman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@Bartman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bartman)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/33 "2013-08-22T02:29:07Z")
> [@DeptfordX](#): > > If the Battleships had been available, would they have been much use anyway? Wasn’t the American fleet so strapped for tankers initially, they had to decide between supporting the carriers or the surviving Battlships (who were real fuel hogs) in the opening months of the Pacific theatre, and quite understandably chose the carriers. I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere. Partially. The real problem is that with most of the Pacific fleet battle line knocked out it would have been suicidal for the US to attempt a main fleet action against the Japanese. So Nimitz organized task forces around carriers. These were intended to be almost a fast striking raider force. The intent was to run from any force it couldn’t outfight. And the old battleships were too slow to sail with them. What Nimitz didn’t have was enough escorts to create a smaller battle line and the task forces at the same time. So the battleships were assigned to duties that would require fewer destroyers and cruisers to screen them. Mainly convoy duties. There were theoretically enough oil tankers to support the fleet… but in wartime usage they eventually proved inadequate. But for most of the first year of the war the battleships were sailing, just not to battle. The only exception I can think of is prior to Midway where Nimitz just ran out of gas and ordered the battleships to protect harbors so he wouldn’t have to worry about them that week. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/34 "2013-08-22T02:31:35Z")
> [@DeptfordX](#): > > If the Battleships had been available, would they have been much use anyway? Wasn’t the American fleet so strapped for tankers initially, they had to decide between supporting the carriers or the surviving Battlships (who were real fuel hogs) in the opening months of the Pacific theatre, and quite understandably chose the carriers. I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere. Actually, battleships were often used as unofficial tankers. They were big and had a good-sized fuel carrying capacity. Plus unlike regular tankers, they were heavily armored and able to defend themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/35 "2013-08-22T04:10:27Z")
> [@davidmich](#): > > Which serious historians have mounted a solid rebuttal (if any) Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. (wiki “book by Robert Stinnett alleging that the Roosevelt administration deliberately provoked and allowed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in order to bring the United States into World War II.”) > davidmich Dunno if he’s considered a “serious” historian but Stephen Ambrose devoted a chapter on it in his [Americans at War](http://www.amazon.com/Americans-at-War-Stephen-Ambrose/dp/0425165108/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377144412&sr=8-1&keywords=americans+at+war). He basically says what’s already been said here. ---
**Author:** ![Battle\_Pope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Battle\_Pope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Battle_Pope)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/36 "2013-08-22T05:12:27Z")
IIRC naval doctrine for most navies at the time was built around the concept of the ‘big gun’: two lines of battleships slugging it out [Jutland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_jutland) style with carriers being used as fast scouts to find the enemy fleet and, at the most, harass the lighter units with airstrikes. It wasn’t until after Pearl Harbor that aircraft carriers were really seen as capital units that could be used as the nucleus of major offensive fleets. Even then, it was as much the carriers being the only capital ships available (combined with the object lesson of Pearl Harbor) that brought them to prominence. Towards the later years of the war there were still some engagements (Leyte Gulf for example) where both the UNS and IJN tried to get one last big battleship fight. If FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and wanted a justifiable reason to bring the US into the war, he should have, by the thinking of the time, actually have kept the carriers in port as sacrificial lambs and kept his strongest surface units (the battleships) out of harms way. I’m sure losing two carriers plus other units and the associated casualties would have been enough to get the population behind a declaration of war. The fact that the opposite occured has always seemed to be a good general indicator the attack was a suprise. While I’m sure FDR had a lot of positive traits I doubt the ability to see even a few years into the future and predict the dominace of the aircraft carrier as a naval unit was one of them 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/37 "2013-08-22T05:52:40Z")
> [@Battle\_Pope](#): > > If FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and wanted a justifiable reason to bring the US into the war, he should have, by the thinking of the time, actually have kept the carriers in port as sacrificial lambs and kept his strongest surface units (the battleships) out of harms way. I’m sure losing two carriers plus other units and the associated casualties would have been enough to get the population behind a declaration of war. Or have the battleships and the carriers out at sea. It’s not like Americans would have said the attack was no big deal if the Japanese had only sunk some cruisers and destroyers. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/38 "2013-08-22T16:34:56Z")
> [@Battle\_Pope](#): > > IIRC naval doctrine for most navies at the time was built around the concept of the ‘big gun’: two lines of battleships slugging it out [Jutland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_jutland) style with carriers being used as fast scouts to find the enemy fleet and, at the most, harass the lighter units with airstrikes. In 1939 yes. But by December 1941, there was enough war experience to show otherwise. In the major fleet actions in the Mediterranean, , it was the Royal Navy aircraft carriers which were decisive. By the way, in response to what someone said about Force Z (HMS POW and Repulse) they were supposed to be escorted by a CV, but it was unavailable for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/39 "2013-08-22T16:56:52Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > By the way, in response to what someone said about Force Z (HMS POW and Repulse) they were supposed to be escorted by a CV, but it was unavailable for some reason. Apparently “bad driving:” [QUOTE=Wikipedia] Initially a new aircraft carrier, HMS Indomitable, was to be included, but was unable to join after running aground in the Caribbean during working up trials. HMS Hermes was considered as a replacement, but this idea was dismissed as Hermes was too slow.[2] [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Bremidon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac91a4/32.png) [@Bremidon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bremidon)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628/40 "2013-08-24T13:10:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I won’t claim that there wasn’t some panic. But I don’t think any professional military people thought there was any chance of this happening. > > Japan never had a realistic chance to even capture Oahu, much less plan an invasion of the mainland. So landing troops in California and getting them thousands of miles inland? Absolute nonsense. I guess I am on your side Nemo, but I have to admit that the documentary made a pretty convincing case that our top leaders were pretty much in freefall with no idea what to believe. Also, I think that you are maybe coming off a little strong with “Absolute nonsense”. We’re talking about the fog of war here. First Pearl Harbor gets raped, and then MacArthur, even with a warning, gets crushed in the Philippines. They had to be thinking: “What’s Next?” Overestimating the abilities of the enemy during a war is practically a military tradition. The documentary also mentioned that there was a 20 to 1 difference in battle-ready troops between Japan and the U.S. at the time. I’ve been trying to find something that would confirm or deny this, but so far I just find all sorts of trivia about Pearl Harbor itself. If true about the personell, then why not be panicked about an invasion? There was no Navy to prevent a landing. If Japan would have followed up immediately with a ground invasion, what would have stopped them? I think they would have gotten pretty far before enough defenses could be ramped up. That they would be eventually doomed by a _huge_ supply line, and that most of the industrial might of the U.S. would have remained intact is fairly obvious and is probably one reason that they did not bother with an invasion. Still, it might have motivated the U.S. to go with some sort of truce where the U.S. would promise not to mess around in Asia and in return Japan would pull its troops back out. I doubt that this is what the U.S. would have done, but the war calculations of Imperial Japan were a little screwy anyway. I suppose that most of the Japanese troops would have been tied up in Asian Campaigns, although I don’t know for sure that this is the case. Anyone know how many troops that Japan could have landed had they wanted to go with the invasion route? And how many battle-ready troops _did_ the U.S. have on the mainland? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/666628.md?page=3)