I know I should know this and maybe I do, but I can’t seem to remember the long term goal of the Japanese military. I mean, were they looking for a shortcut to England? Were they seriously in a Doctor Evil funk and considering world domination? Or were they asshole buddies with Germany? Or…
It seems as tho I should know more about that incident/time considering all the TV WWII stuff they show, but lamentably, I don’t. What’s the standard 6th/9th grade answer?
Take out the US as an opponent to Imperial Expansion to all of Asia (or most of it).
Yamamoto had (correctly) predicted that, at best, it could take the US out of the war for 6 months - not, in his estimation, a good idea of changing the US position from reluctant engagement to active enemy for out for serious vengeance.
I’ll let the real WW II experts expound at length.
In short: a badly flawed bet on securing enough time to secure their expansion.
I’m definitely no WW2 expert but I believe the thinking was basically that they would hit the US hard and prove how superior they were quickly to get us to agree to submit to their whims in the Pacific and let them do whatever the hell they wanted without any interference. I believe it was their belief that the US did not have an appetite for war at all and would give in quickly if even putting up a fight at all.
They wanted more land and wanted to take it without interference.
The Japanese were committed to war in the Far East. With the Royal Navy committed to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, the only other major Naval power in the Pacific was the USN. The attack on Pearl Harbour was aimed to cripple the Pacific Fleet so it could not interfere in the Far Eastern operations. It was a strategic and tactical success. The USN was crippled in theater and was unable to do anything really to stop the Japanese advance. That is why they attack Pearl. why they chose to go to war…that us a different issue.
Pretty complex question and I think you need to put it into some context.
Basically, Japan had very few resources and was trying to switch to an industrial nation. They needed resources available in the areas down to at least Indonesia. However, aside from that, they were also a colonial power (they had made substantial gains in China and Manchuria in the previous decade, and had territory from Russia, China and Germany from previous conflicts.) and certainly were not going to return those gains and intended to add to them in places as far afield as Australia and New Zealand.
Just to make things a little more complex, Tojo Hideki was not a dictator- Japan was authoritarian -not a totalitarian state. He did work within a framework but he was not the only one setting the agenda.
So, they had substantial territories and wanted more. They had two dangerous neighbours- the Soviet Union, who they tried to maintain good relations with (after Zhukov had given them a bloody nose earlier) and the other standing in the way was the USA- who was becoming more belicose and cutting off needed materials.
They had a long standing plan to make a sneak attack (this was not new to them) and Taranto had confirmed that a carrier attack would work. Hence, they hoped to cripple their main rival and grab enough ground to hope that the USA would lack the will to continue. However, the Pearl Harbor attack was not in isolation. At the same time numerous other attacks by Japanese forces were taking place in places such as the Phillippines and SE Asia.
Sorry to be so long winded, but the Japanese wanted resources and territory. With the Soviet Union fully occupied, Britain having her hands full, the USA was the only obstacle. Take out the USA and the field was theirs. In the end they destroyed a few obsolete battleships- took out the means of waging an immediate war but not the basis for being able to do so.
(That the attack succeeded is in itself a miracle- it is quoted as totally organised and precise- it really was a series of blunders and poor planning. That however, is for a different thread).
No and yes. Tactical success - hard to disagree on that one. They crippled the USN in the Pacific for awhile. Strategic - turning your worst enemy from an isolationist to someone out to erase you from the face of the earth isn’t a very strategic move at all.
They wanted to cripple the US fleet as a first step in taking over large parts of the Pacific rim. The Pacific is a vast ocean and the US had the only fleet that could threaten Japanese power there. It takes years to build a navy, years that Japan would have command of the seas. If they had caught the two carrier groups the US had in the area it might have been a different story, maybe, but all they got at Pearl Harbor was a bunch of old battleships that had very little use in the modern navy and they pissed off the largest industry in the world.
The decision to go to war was a strategic blunder. The decision to attack Pearl Harbour was anything but. The managed to complete the conquest of SE Asia with the USN being irrelevant, which would not have been the case if the had not arrived and attacked Ohau.
Secondly, war was inevitable. Everybody knew it, from policy makers in Washington to Commanders at Pearl and in the Phillipines. Pearl Harbour was a symptom of that, not a cause.
The Japanese plan was basically this:
Attack the Americans at Pearl Harbor and other bases. Knock the American Navy down so they can’t fight for several months.
Capture a bunch of islands in the Pacific and create a strong defensive zone.
Capture Southeast Asia and secure the oil fields there.
By the time the United States recovers from the initial attack and is ready to fight, we’ll have a strong and secure position to defend.
With our strong defensive position, we’ll be able to defeat any American attacks.
Eventually, the United States will realize it’s futile to try to attack us and will be willing to negotiate an end to the war that lets us keep all the territory we’ve got.
Yeah, even the most optimistic of the Japanese didn’t believe Pearl Harbor alone would beat the United States. They hoped that their overall offensive, which involved a large and devastating attack against Pearl Harbor that they hoped would keep us from immediate counteroffensives, would capture enough land and territory that the United States would feel they could not easily beat the Japanese and capitulate. Even the most optimistic of the Japanese knew that industrially and militarily the United States could win in theory, they just hoped that if they bloodied our nose and took a lot of land we’d lack the backbone or fortitude to engage in a grind out invasion of various island chains throughout the Pacific.
Which just goes to show what “cultural blindness” can lead to. You’d think that every country with a foreign policy would devote quite a bit of effort to a) learn, really learn everybody else’s viewpoint and b) divorce themselves from their own, at least for perspective. But they never do.
I’m with silenus here. The goal is to achieve your objective. (Heh. ‘The goal is to achieve your goal.’ 
) Strategy is how you reach your goal. Japan’s objective was to secure control over the Western and South Pacific region. Going to war, in and of itself, was not a strategic blunder. You could argue that going to war with the United States was a blunder – and it was – but warring against Southeast Asian and (some) South Pacific nations was not.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a tactical success, but it was strategically unsound. Had the Japanese not attacked the U.S., Congress may have been content with the embargo, and the U.S. would not have gone to war with Japan. At least, the U.S. would have sat out the war for several months or longer. The strategy of taking out a potential (likely) military opponent early in the game was a blunder. Japan jumped too soon.
What amount of expansion into SE Asia would the U.S. have tolerated permanently? If the answer is “Pretty damn much”, then Pearl Harbor was a mistake: better to take whatever they could without raising hackles, consolidate for a generation, and then expand again. If the answer is 'Not much, really: certainly not enough to meaningfully expand their empire", then Pearl Harbor may have been their best play, if you accept the given that expansion had to happen.
And, of course, striking the USN while it was in a shallow-water base was completely counterproductive, since many of the ships were raised and/or restored to service in short order. Had they lured the fleet out to some ocean point - say, Midway - they likely would have destroyed the Pacific Fleet and crippled our ability to respond until their conquest of eastern Asia was complete. They would indeed have become too powerful and too well-entrenched to tackle, at least in the same way we did tackle them - beginning just months later by dealing them heavy losses at Midway.
I don’t know that anyone fully knows the answer to that. We’d already seen a lot of territorial expansion from both Germany and Japan and the U.S. public was still firmly against U.S. involvement in overseas wars. Pearl Harbor was a watershed moment in terms of American public opinion.
I do think we were on an inevitable collision course with both Germany and Japan, but it’s very difficult to say what happens without Pearl Harbor. We had been engaged in quasi-war activities against both Japan and Germany for some time, so some sort of outright attack by them against us in some form was inevitable. If not Pearl Harbor, eventually Japan would have invaded the Philippines anyway which was under U.S. control and would be seen as an outright declaration of war against the United States in any case.
That the Japanese didn’t destroy the fuel storage facilities on Hawaii had to be a major blunder. With that fuel gone, the carrier groups would not have been able to move around as much. In fact destroying the battleships freed up even more fuel for the carriers.
The Japanese strategy worked perfectly. Realizing that Japan had limited resources and their ability to take over and control other lands to gain those resources was doomed to eventual failure they enacted a plan to goad the US into crushing them in a protracted war after which we would rebuild the country into a modern industrial giant as part of our defense against the growing threat of communism. In the culmination of their success, Japan ended up buying Pearl Harbor. We rarely consider these things because we just never take the long view on political strategy.
Actually, Japan’s objective was to conquer China. The United States was opposed to this and was putting economic and diplomatic pressure on Japan to withdraw from China. So Japan decided it had to go to war with America in order to defend its occupation of China.
On a less strategic plane, there were also internal political issues. There was a huge rivalry between the Japanese Army and Navy. The land war in China was obviously an Army operation. The Navy began to worry that the Army was overshadowing the Navy. So the Navy pushed for a war against America because that would be a naval war and give the Navy a chance to restore its prestige.
OTOH, the US was then filled with Philippine War veterans in their late 50s who would have probably agitated to let the worthless place go, as not being worth further US involvement. But it’s all smoke and mirrors to try to revamp this stretch of history.