to what extent was the december 7th 1941 attack by japan on pearl
harbour militarily justified

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 22 Apr 2003 09:35 PDT

From whose perspective?

tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Question by aow66-ga on 22 Apr 2003 11:29 PDT

did the japanese have no other option than to pre-emptivley attack
america to stand any chance in winning thewar

Hello aow66! I leave this as a comment because I believe this is what
you are looking for, but I am not entirely certain.

Many people believe that Japan was justified militarily in attacking
Pearl Harbor.

For example, one article on Golgotha claims:
"Japan did the only the only thing that was reasonable. The US embargo
of raw materials posed a clear threat to the Japanese nation and
economy. Japan decided to rid East Asia of the non-Asian imperial
powers and to remove the economic and national security "threat" from
Japan.

So the Japanese decided to strike at the most dangerous threat to it,
the only imperial power that was not currently engaged in a war, the
United States. A sneak attack -- or George Bush's more politically
correct term, a pre-emptive strike -- against the US would quickly
knock out the US Navy and cause the US to seek peace, and it would
free Japan to then attack the other already-weak European imperial
powers and to secure abundant resources for Japan's economy."

[ http://www.golgotha.net/article-pearlharbor.php ]

On the official Pearl Harbor website there are several reasons listed
that led to the attack.
[ http://www.pearlharbor.org/History.htm ]

Finally, on The American Cause website, there is a very revealing
paragraph which states:
"Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life,
Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only
force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had
conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

And so Japan attacked..."

[ http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htm ]

The sites listed provide in-depth analysis, and it would be redundant
to copy the entire article into this answer.

I hope this helps!

-molszewski-ga

Good job molszewski, claim the money!!!

This doesn't necessarily apply to the original question, but I find it
interesting that modern politics are involved in one of the comments.
Interesting, because (as far as I am aware) the U.S. did not threaten
Japan with military or terrorist action. Also interesting because the
United State's recent military action was anything but a "sneak"
attack...Iraq was repeatedly warned (even before Bush Jr. became
president).

Just stuff to chew on.

kriswrite

Prior to the attack, Japan and the U.S. were in dispute over Japan's
occupation of China and Indochina. Japan would not compromise and was
concurrently planning to expand its empire. Japan felt the U.S.
pacific fleet was the only major threat to its expansion into the
Southeast Pacific. They presumed a decisive attack would cause the
U.S. to declare war, however they thought that the U.S. would not put
up much of a fight and would eventually sue for peace.

Source:
Microsoft Encarta '95