Was Yamamoto Right to Attack Pearl Harbor: An Unjustified Military Decision

The attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan on December 7, 1941, remains one of the most iconic events in history. However, despite its significant impact on the course of World War II, the decision to launch the attack was ultimately unjustified. This article explores the rationale behind the attack, the context surrounding it, and evaluates whether it can be considered a justified military action.

The Context of Japan's Decision to Attack

Japan's strategy was driven by the desire to control the Pacific and secure an uninterrupted supply of oil, which was crucial for their naval operations. They believed that by neutralizing the U.S. Pacific fleet, particularly the aircraft carriers, they could gain a temporary advantage. However, the absence of the carriers and several other critical errors significantly weakened this strategy.

According to historical records, the six Japanese carriers were not present at Pearl Harbor during the attack, as they were out for training. Additionally, four of these carriers were later sent to Midway, while the remaining two were directly targeted by American forces. The Japanese naval strategy was fraught with mistakes, as the U.S. had already broken Japan's codes and knew the whereabouts of their carriers. Consequently, American forces were deployed to intercept and subsequently sink all four carriers.

The Outcomes and Repercussions

The aftermath of the attack had far-reaching consequences, with the United States declaring war on Japan shortly thereafter. Many argue that the outcome of the war makes no case for the initial attack's justification. An unjustified act of war cannot be rectified by its subsequent outcomes.

From the perspective of the affected individuals, the decision to attack was clearly unethical. The relatives of the author, who were amongst those living in California at the time, would vehemently oppose the notion that the attack was justified.

The International Legal and Moral Implications

The attack violated several international treaties on war, signaling a breach of global norms and agreements. These treaties mandate that a country must declare war before engaging in hostilities. The silence of the Japanese military leadership regarding the declaration of war further complicates the narrative. Reports suggest that the officers involved, including those responsible for the attack, were embarrassed by the lack of a formal declaration.

Furthermore, the Japanese decision to leave the Washington Accords in 1936, an international treaty that aimed to limit naval expansion, sets a troubling precedent. Their actions were not only against international norms but also contrary to their own obligations.

Precedents and US Policies

The American Volunteer Group (AVG), also known as the "Flying Tigers," engaged in battles with Japanese forces prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. These actions can be seen as a direct response to American policies and actions, particularly those initiated by Theodore Roosevelt. His decision to send a fleet of dreadnoughts on a world voyage during the early 20th century was an early display of American naval might.

The "Monroe Doctrine," extended to the 20th century and beyond, underscores the U.S. commitment to influencing global politics through naval power and economic influence. Given the Monroe Doctrine's broader implications, it is not surprising that the United States would assert itself in the Pacific region.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Yamamoto's decision to attack Pearl Harbor was an unjustified military action that violated international law and moral principles. The absence of a formal declaration of war, the mistimed attacks, and the subsequent flawed naval strategy all contributed to the failure of the Japanese objectives.

While the outcome of the Second World War may have confirmed the global reach of American might, the ethics of the initial attack remain questionable. History should remind us that no matter the result, unprovoked and unjustified attacks against sovereign nations are morally reprehensible and against the principles of civilized warfare.