Was Japan known to be a potential threat to the USA in the 10 year period prior to 1941
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
In the years leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack did Americans see Japan as a potential threat. From this perspective in how this would have been seen to the "Average Joe" rather than somebody in the military or related service.
united-states world-war-two war
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
In the years leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack did Americans see Japan as a potential threat. From this perspective in how this would have been seen to the "Average Joe" rather than somebody in the military or related service.
united-states world-war-two war
I interviewed of friend of my dad's who was at the attack. From moneybender.com/spike.pdf, "A few days before the historic day of December 7, 1941, Spike and a fellow ensign leaned on the rail of the Blue, reveling in the glory of the collected might of the United States Navy. 'Look at all these ships,' Spike remembered saying, 'Battleships, cruisers, carriers, destroyers. No one would ever dare attack us.'" I don't know about the Average Joe, but it seemed pretty unlikely to these guys.
– Don Branson
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
In the years leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack did Americans see Japan as a potential threat. From this perspective in how this would have been seen to the "Average Joe" rather than somebody in the military or related service.
united-states world-war-two war
In the years leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack did Americans see Japan as a potential threat. From this perspective in how this would have been seen to the "Average Joe" rather than somebody in the military or related service.
united-states world-war-two war
united-states world-war-two war
edited 19 hours ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.2k872111
23.2k872111
asked 21 hours ago
user1605665
19115
19115
I interviewed of friend of my dad's who was at the attack. From moneybender.com/spike.pdf, "A few days before the historic day of December 7, 1941, Spike and a fellow ensign leaned on the rail of the Blue, reveling in the glory of the collected might of the United States Navy. 'Look at all these ships,' Spike remembered saying, 'Battleships, cruisers, carriers, destroyers. No one would ever dare attack us.'" I don't know about the Average Joe, but it seemed pretty unlikely to these guys.
– Don Branson
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I interviewed of friend of my dad's who was at the attack. From moneybender.com/spike.pdf, "A few days before the historic day of December 7, 1941, Spike and a fellow ensign leaned on the rail of the Blue, reveling in the glory of the collected might of the United States Navy. 'Look at all these ships,' Spike remembered saying, 'Battleships, cruisers, carriers, destroyers. No one would ever dare attack us.'" I don't know about the Average Joe, but it seemed pretty unlikely to these guys.
– Don Branson
2 hours ago
I interviewed of friend of my dad's who was at the attack. From moneybender.com/spike.pdf, "A few days before the historic day of December 7, 1941, Spike and a fellow ensign leaned on the rail of the Blue, reveling in the glory of the collected might of the United States Navy. 'Look at all these ships,' Spike remembered saying, 'Battleships, cruisers, carriers, destroyers. No one would ever dare attack us.'" I don't know about the Average Joe, but it seemed pretty unlikely to these guys.
– Don Branson
2 hours ago
I interviewed of friend of my dad's who was at the attack. From moneybender.com/spike.pdf, "A few days before the historic day of December 7, 1941, Spike and a fellow ensign leaned on the rail of the Blue, reveling in the glory of the collected might of the United States Navy. 'Look at all these ships,' Spike remembered saying, 'Battleships, cruisers, carriers, destroyers. No one would ever dare attack us.'" I don't know about the Average Joe, but it seemed pretty unlikely to these guys.
– Don Branson
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
29
down vote
Question:
Was Japan known to be a potential threat to the USA in the 10 year period prior to 1941
Short Answer
Yes some military experts did realize the inevitability of war between the United States and Japan as early as 1912. Most did not up until the late 1930s.
No conventional wisdom in the 1930's would not permit the American public to have viewed agrarian feudalistic Japan 5300 miles from California much of a threat. Aircraft warfare was yet unproven, much less aircraft carrier warfare. The United States Pacific Fleet was conventionally believed to be more than a match for Japans navy right up until Pearl Harbor.
Detailed Answer
Yes
United States General Billy Mitchell, an early visionary of US air power, in March 1912 after touring Russo Japanese War Battle Fields in the Pacific, deemed war between the United States and Japan inevitable. In 1924, General Mitchell delivered a 324-page report, which not only continued to predict war with Japan, but it predicted Japan's surprise attack by air on Pearl Harbor.
No
History remembers Mitchell as a visionary of the use of airpower in the coming decades. But, at the time, Mitchell did not have much support among the US military leadership. His predictions that Japan would threaten the United States were deemed amazingly misguided by the US military leadership.
Mitchell, who reached the rank of Major General and Assistant Chief of the Air Service, was demoted to colonel and court marshaled in 1925 for "accusing senior leaders in the Army and Navy of incompetence" and "almost treasonable administration of the national defense" after a series of avoidable air accidents. Mitchel would be re-advanced to the rank of Major General posthumously and he goes down in history as a visionary and outspoken advocate for airpower decades before war in the Pacific would prove him right.
Beyond Billy Mitchell, what really soured relatively good relations between the United States and Japan was 1937 and the Second Sino-Japanese War. This "caused the United States to impose harsh sanctions against Japan, ultimately leading to the Japanese surprise attack against the US naval base at Pearl Harbor." (as put by Japan-United States relations on Wikipedia)
As for Conventional wisdom
Pearl Harbor the Advanced base for the US Navy was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor right up until the Japanese did it on Dec 7th 1941. The United States enjoyed superiority over Japan in Battle ships and other capital ships, believed to be the measure of a navy up until Pearl Harbor and early WWII. Japan was just too far removed from America's shores to be conventionally considered a real threat. Japan was also shacked by treaties like the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which kept the Japanese Navy numerically inferior to the US.
Sources
- Billy Mitchell
- Russo-Japanese War
- Japan United States Relations
- Japan, China, the United States and the Road to Pearl Harbor, 1937–41
- Washington Naval Treaty of 1922
2
To be fair, Mitchel was not actually demoted; he lost temporary rank as did many officers in the years after WW1.. But it would also be fair to say that situations under which Mitchel reverted in rank caused the reversion to seem punishment. Also in fairness, Mitchel had used Japan as an example of a power that might threaten. In later minds he seemed to be predicting, but what he was actually doing was articulating the potential of air power, Japan projecting its power by air..Almost all of Mitchel's intellectual and emotional energy was focused on the U S air arsenal vs any threat..
– J. Taylor
8 hours ago
4
"Pearl Harbor ... was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor" Could you please expand on this?
– Juggerbot
8 hours ago
5
@Juggerbot Specifically, it was considered impossible for aircraft to launch torpedoes in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. An air-launched torpedo is dropped into the water and typically sinks a fair distance before leveling out. There were therefore no torpedo nets in place, because they would have been cumbersome. A study of US Fleet Problems in the pre-WWII period suggests that air strikes at Pearl were expected when the fleet was away, to damage base facilities, but not at the fleet itself.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
Nitpick: The term is "court martial" (or "court-martial", "courtmartial"), the "martial" being an adjective meaning military: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial
– jamesqf
5 hours ago
Past participle is "court-martialled" in BrEng, AmEng seems to spell it "court-martialed"
– Law29
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
Some people did, most didn't. Billy Mitchell, among others, warned. But most people didn't see those funny little yellow men with thick glasses and hilarious swords (stereotype of the day) as really dangerous. Not for America, anyway.
Yes, the massacre of Nanking was widely known, but that was somewhere far, far away. In 1937 there had been an incident in which the USS Panay was sunk with loss of life. But the Japanese government apologized and paid for damages.
Look especially at the America First movement. That movement was politically very strong and extreme (certainly by our standards) isolationist. It was their influence that kept America out of the war against Germany. Until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First movement was not aligned with the democrats or the republicans. It was a kind of popular movement, and voiced what the 'Average Joe' thought.
The movement collapsed almost overnight after the attack on Pearl Harbor. They folded (voluntary) on 11 December 1941.
Yes, this was back in the halcyon days of yore, when respectable political parties in the US couldn't be seen as fully embracing bigotry-fueled nativists, so the far-right nationalist populists had to run their own separate movements and political parties
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
@T.E.D I guess the irony of FDR's administration putting Japanese American's in Concentration camps was lost on you, eh? Let's not fall into a rose tinted glasses trap here; there has always been a strong reflexive, nativistic strain in America. "Respectable" political parties have always embraced some degree of nativism in the right context. The modern Democratic party has not been "nativist" for generations, but you don't have to go far back to find Chuck Shumer and Bernie Sanders condemning illegal immigration.
– VivaLebowski
59 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
A Gallup poll conducted just prior to the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941 found that:
- 52% of Americans expected war with Japan.
- 27% did not.
- 21% had no opinion.
So there's that.
New contributor
1
Any examples or references to support the first statement ("since the 1920's")?
– Steve Bird
14 hours ago
The stoppage of oil exports was a response to the Japanese occupation of southern Indochina, which did not further the war against China and was the beginning of the expansion of the war into the Pacific and Indian oceans.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
This is the only answer that directly answers the question, by providing (sourced) evidence of public levels of knowledge, rather than largely being concerned with the beliefs of one individual (Billy Mitchell) or anecdotal interpretations of "conventional wisdom".
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
Where there any public surveys prior like 1935 or so? It would be interesting to see if there was a change of attitude over that period
– user1605665
2 hours ago
No idea, that's the only one I could find; Coincidentally I was reading "Attack on Pearl Harbor" Wikipedia page just yesterday and was kinda stunned that it really wasn't such a big surprise after all.
– Nik Kyriakides
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
29
down vote
Question:
Was Japan known to be a potential threat to the USA in the 10 year period prior to 1941
Short Answer
Yes some military experts did realize the inevitability of war between the United States and Japan as early as 1912. Most did not up until the late 1930s.
No conventional wisdom in the 1930's would not permit the American public to have viewed agrarian feudalistic Japan 5300 miles from California much of a threat. Aircraft warfare was yet unproven, much less aircraft carrier warfare. The United States Pacific Fleet was conventionally believed to be more than a match for Japans navy right up until Pearl Harbor.
Detailed Answer
Yes
United States General Billy Mitchell, an early visionary of US air power, in March 1912 after touring Russo Japanese War Battle Fields in the Pacific, deemed war between the United States and Japan inevitable. In 1924, General Mitchell delivered a 324-page report, which not only continued to predict war with Japan, but it predicted Japan's surprise attack by air on Pearl Harbor.
No
History remembers Mitchell as a visionary of the use of airpower in the coming decades. But, at the time, Mitchell did not have much support among the US military leadership. His predictions that Japan would threaten the United States were deemed amazingly misguided by the US military leadership.
Mitchell, who reached the rank of Major General and Assistant Chief of the Air Service, was demoted to colonel and court marshaled in 1925 for "accusing senior leaders in the Army and Navy of incompetence" and "almost treasonable administration of the national defense" after a series of avoidable air accidents. Mitchel would be re-advanced to the rank of Major General posthumously and he goes down in history as a visionary and outspoken advocate for airpower decades before war in the Pacific would prove him right.
Beyond Billy Mitchell, what really soured relatively good relations between the United States and Japan was 1937 and the Second Sino-Japanese War. This "caused the United States to impose harsh sanctions against Japan, ultimately leading to the Japanese surprise attack against the US naval base at Pearl Harbor." (as put by Japan-United States relations on Wikipedia)
As for Conventional wisdom
Pearl Harbor the Advanced base for the US Navy was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor right up until the Japanese did it on Dec 7th 1941. The United States enjoyed superiority over Japan in Battle ships and other capital ships, believed to be the measure of a navy up until Pearl Harbor and early WWII. Japan was just too far removed from America's shores to be conventionally considered a real threat. Japan was also shacked by treaties like the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which kept the Japanese Navy numerically inferior to the US.
Sources
- Billy Mitchell
- Russo-Japanese War
- Japan United States Relations
- Japan, China, the United States and the Road to Pearl Harbor, 1937–41
- Washington Naval Treaty of 1922
2
To be fair, Mitchel was not actually demoted; he lost temporary rank as did many officers in the years after WW1.. But it would also be fair to say that situations under which Mitchel reverted in rank caused the reversion to seem punishment. Also in fairness, Mitchel had used Japan as an example of a power that might threaten. In later minds he seemed to be predicting, but what he was actually doing was articulating the potential of air power, Japan projecting its power by air..Almost all of Mitchel's intellectual and emotional energy was focused on the U S air arsenal vs any threat..
– J. Taylor
8 hours ago
4
"Pearl Harbor ... was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor" Could you please expand on this?
– Juggerbot
8 hours ago
5
@Juggerbot Specifically, it was considered impossible for aircraft to launch torpedoes in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. An air-launched torpedo is dropped into the water and typically sinks a fair distance before leveling out. There were therefore no torpedo nets in place, because they would have been cumbersome. A study of US Fleet Problems in the pre-WWII period suggests that air strikes at Pearl were expected when the fleet was away, to damage base facilities, but not at the fleet itself.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
Nitpick: The term is "court martial" (or "court-martial", "courtmartial"), the "martial" being an adjective meaning military: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial
– jamesqf
5 hours ago
Past participle is "court-martialled" in BrEng, AmEng seems to spell it "court-martialed"
– Law29
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
Question:
Was Japan known to be a potential threat to the USA in the 10 year period prior to 1941
Short Answer
Yes some military experts did realize the inevitability of war between the United States and Japan as early as 1912. Most did not up until the late 1930s.
No conventional wisdom in the 1930's would not permit the American public to have viewed agrarian feudalistic Japan 5300 miles from California much of a threat. Aircraft warfare was yet unproven, much less aircraft carrier warfare. The United States Pacific Fleet was conventionally believed to be more than a match for Japans navy right up until Pearl Harbor.
Detailed Answer
Yes
United States General Billy Mitchell, an early visionary of US air power, in March 1912 after touring Russo Japanese War Battle Fields in the Pacific, deemed war between the United States and Japan inevitable. In 1924, General Mitchell delivered a 324-page report, which not only continued to predict war with Japan, but it predicted Japan's surprise attack by air on Pearl Harbor.
No
History remembers Mitchell as a visionary of the use of airpower in the coming decades. But, at the time, Mitchell did not have much support among the US military leadership. His predictions that Japan would threaten the United States were deemed amazingly misguided by the US military leadership.
Mitchell, who reached the rank of Major General and Assistant Chief of the Air Service, was demoted to colonel and court marshaled in 1925 for "accusing senior leaders in the Army and Navy of incompetence" and "almost treasonable administration of the national defense" after a series of avoidable air accidents. Mitchel would be re-advanced to the rank of Major General posthumously and he goes down in history as a visionary and outspoken advocate for airpower decades before war in the Pacific would prove him right.
Beyond Billy Mitchell, what really soured relatively good relations between the United States and Japan was 1937 and the Second Sino-Japanese War. This "caused the United States to impose harsh sanctions against Japan, ultimately leading to the Japanese surprise attack against the US naval base at Pearl Harbor." (as put by Japan-United States relations on Wikipedia)
As for Conventional wisdom
Pearl Harbor the Advanced base for the US Navy was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor right up until the Japanese did it on Dec 7th 1941. The United States enjoyed superiority over Japan in Battle ships and other capital ships, believed to be the measure of a navy up until Pearl Harbor and early WWII. Japan was just too far removed from America's shores to be conventionally considered a real threat. Japan was also shacked by treaties like the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which kept the Japanese Navy numerically inferior to the US.
Sources
- Billy Mitchell
- Russo-Japanese War
- Japan United States Relations
- Japan, China, the United States and the Road to Pearl Harbor, 1937–41
- Washington Naval Treaty of 1922
2
To be fair, Mitchel was not actually demoted; he lost temporary rank as did many officers in the years after WW1.. But it would also be fair to say that situations under which Mitchel reverted in rank caused the reversion to seem punishment. Also in fairness, Mitchel had used Japan as an example of a power that might threaten. In later minds he seemed to be predicting, but what he was actually doing was articulating the potential of air power, Japan projecting its power by air..Almost all of Mitchel's intellectual and emotional energy was focused on the U S air arsenal vs any threat..
– J. Taylor
8 hours ago
4
"Pearl Harbor ... was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor" Could you please expand on this?
– Juggerbot
8 hours ago
5
@Juggerbot Specifically, it was considered impossible for aircraft to launch torpedoes in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. An air-launched torpedo is dropped into the water and typically sinks a fair distance before leveling out. There were therefore no torpedo nets in place, because they would have been cumbersome. A study of US Fleet Problems in the pre-WWII period suggests that air strikes at Pearl were expected when the fleet was away, to damage base facilities, but not at the fleet itself.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
Nitpick: The term is "court martial" (or "court-martial", "courtmartial"), the "martial" being an adjective meaning military: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial
– jamesqf
5 hours ago
Past participle is "court-martialled" in BrEng, AmEng seems to spell it "court-martialed"
– Law29
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
up vote
29
down vote
Question:
Was Japan known to be a potential threat to the USA in the 10 year period prior to 1941
Short Answer
Yes some military experts did realize the inevitability of war between the United States and Japan as early as 1912. Most did not up until the late 1930s.
No conventional wisdom in the 1930's would not permit the American public to have viewed agrarian feudalistic Japan 5300 miles from California much of a threat. Aircraft warfare was yet unproven, much less aircraft carrier warfare. The United States Pacific Fleet was conventionally believed to be more than a match for Japans navy right up until Pearl Harbor.
Detailed Answer
Yes
United States General Billy Mitchell, an early visionary of US air power, in March 1912 after touring Russo Japanese War Battle Fields in the Pacific, deemed war between the United States and Japan inevitable. In 1924, General Mitchell delivered a 324-page report, which not only continued to predict war with Japan, but it predicted Japan's surprise attack by air on Pearl Harbor.
No
History remembers Mitchell as a visionary of the use of airpower in the coming decades. But, at the time, Mitchell did not have much support among the US military leadership. His predictions that Japan would threaten the United States were deemed amazingly misguided by the US military leadership.
Mitchell, who reached the rank of Major General and Assistant Chief of the Air Service, was demoted to colonel and court marshaled in 1925 for "accusing senior leaders in the Army and Navy of incompetence" and "almost treasonable administration of the national defense" after a series of avoidable air accidents. Mitchel would be re-advanced to the rank of Major General posthumously and he goes down in history as a visionary and outspoken advocate for airpower decades before war in the Pacific would prove him right.
Beyond Billy Mitchell, what really soured relatively good relations between the United States and Japan was 1937 and the Second Sino-Japanese War. This "caused the United States to impose harsh sanctions against Japan, ultimately leading to the Japanese surprise attack against the US naval base at Pearl Harbor." (as put by Japan-United States relations on Wikipedia)
As for Conventional wisdom
Pearl Harbor the Advanced base for the US Navy was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor right up until the Japanese did it on Dec 7th 1941. The United States enjoyed superiority over Japan in Battle ships and other capital ships, believed to be the measure of a navy up until Pearl Harbor and early WWII. Japan was just too far removed from America's shores to be conventionally considered a real threat. Japan was also shacked by treaties like the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which kept the Japanese Navy numerically inferior to the US.
Sources
- Billy Mitchell
- Russo-Japanese War
- Japan United States Relations
- Japan, China, the United States and the Road to Pearl Harbor, 1937–41
- Washington Naval Treaty of 1922
Question:
Was Japan known to be a potential threat to the USA in the 10 year period prior to 1941
Short Answer
Yes some military experts did realize the inevitability of war between the United States and Japan as early as 1912. Most did not up until the late 1930s.
No conventional wisdom in the 1930's would not permit the American public to have viewed agrarian feudalistic Japan 5300 miles from California much of a threat. Aircraft warfare was yet unproven, much less aircraft carrier warfare. The United States Pacific Fleet was conventionally believed to be more than a match for Japans navy right up until Pearl Harbor.
Detailed Answer
Yes
United States General Billy Mitchell, an early visionary of US air power, in March 1912 after touring Russo Japanese War Battle Fields in the Pacific, deemed war between the United States and Japan inevitable. In 1924, General Mitchell delivered a 324-page report, which not only continued to predict war with Japan, but it predicted Japan's surprise attack by air on Pearl Harbor.
No
History remembers Mitchell as a visionary of the use of airpower in the coming decades. But, at the time, Mitchell did not have much support among the US military leadership. His predictions that Japan would threaten the United States were deemed amazingly misguided by the US military leadership.
Mitchell, who reached the rank of Major General and Assistant Chief of the Air Service, was demoted to colonel and court marshaled in 1925 for "accusing senior leaders in the Army and Navy of incompetence" and "almost treasonable administration of the national defense" after a series of avoidable air accidents. Mitchel would be re-advanced to the rank of Major General posthumously and he goes down in history as a visionary and outspoken advocate for airpower decades before war in the Pacific would prove him right.
Beyond Billy Mitchell, what really soured relatively good relations between the United States and Japan was 1937 and the Second Sino-Japanese War. This "caused the United States to impose harsh sanctions against Japan, ultimately leading to the Japanese surprise attack against the US naval base at Pearl Harbor." (as put by Japan-United States relations on Wikipedia)
As for Conventional wisdom
Pearl Harbor the Advanced base for the US Navy was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor right up until the Japanese did it on Dec 7th 1941. The United States enjoyed superiority over Japan in Battle ships and other capital ships, believed to be the measure of a navy up until Pearl Harbor and early WWII. Japan was just too far removed from America's shores to be conventionally considered a real threat. Japan was also shacked by treaties like the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which kept the Japanese Navy numerically inferior to the US.
Sources
- Billy Mitchell
- Russo-Japanese War
- Japan United States Relations
- Japan, China, the United States and the Road to Pearl Harbor, 1937–41
- Washington Naval Treaty of 1922
edited 8 hours ago
Kerry L
3,53011250
3,53011250
answered 18 hours ago
JMS
12k231101
12k231101
2
To be fair, Mitchel was not actually demoted; he lost temporary rank as did many officers in the years after WW1.. But it would also be fair to say that situations under which Mitchel reverted in rank caused the reversion to seem punishment. Also in fairness, Mitchel had used Japan as an example of a power that might threaten. In later minds he seemed to be predicting, but what he was actually doing was articulating the potential of air power, Japan projecting its power by air..Almost all of Mitchel's intellectual and emotional energy was focused on the U S air arsenal vs any threat..
– J. Taylor
8 hours ago
4
"Pearl Harbor ... was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor" Could you please expand on this?
– Juggerbot
8 hours ago
5
@Juggerbot Specifically, it was considered impossible for aircraft to launch torpedoes in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. An air-launched torpedo is dropped into the water and typically sinks a fair distance before leveling out. There were therefore no torpedo nets in place, because they would have been cumbersome. A study of US Fleet Problems in the pre-WWII period suggests that air strikes at Pearl were expected when the fleet was away, to damage base facilities, but not at the fleet itself.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
Nitpick: The term is "court martial" (or "court-martial", "courtmartial"), the "martial" being an adjective meaning military: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial
– jamesqf
5 hours ago
Past participle is "court-martialled" in BrEng, AmEng seems to spell it "court-martialed"
– Law29
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
2
To be fair, Mitchel was not actually demoted; he lost temporary rank as did many officers in the years after WW1.. But it would also be fair to say that situations under which Mitchel reverted in rank caused the reversion to seem punishment. Also in fairness, Mitchel had used Japan as an example of a power that might threaten. In later minds he seemed to be predicting, but what he was actually doing was articulating the potential of air power, Japan projecting its power by air..Almost all of Mitchel's intellectual and emotional energy was focused on the U S air arsenal vs any threat..
– J. Taylor
8 hours ago
4
"Pearl Harbor ... was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor" Could you please expand on this?
– Juggerbot
8 hours ago
5
@Juggerbot Specifically, it was considered impossible for aircraft to launch torpedoes in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. An air-launched torpedo is dropped into the water and typically sinks a fair distance before leveling out. There were therefore no torpedo nets in place, because they would have been cumbersome. A study of US Fleet Problems in the pre-WWII period suggests that air strikes at Pearl were expected when the fleet was away, to damage base facilities, but not at the fleet itself.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
Nitpick: The term is "court martial" (or "court-martial", "courtmartial"), the "martial" being an adjective meaning military: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial
– jamesqf
5 hours ago
Past participle is "court-martialled" in BrEng, AmEng seems to spell it "court-martialed"
– Law29
5 hours ago
2
2
To be fair, Mitchel was not actually demoted; he lost temporary rank as did many officers in the years after WW1.. But it would also be fair to say that situations under which Mitchel reverted in rank caused the reversion to seem punishment. Also in fairness, Mitchel had used Japan as an example of a power that might threaten. In later minds he seemed to be predicting, but what he was actually doing was articulating the potential of air power, Japan projecting its power by air..Almost all of Mitchel's intellectual and emotional energy was focused on the U S air arsenal vs any threat..
– J. Taylor
8 hours ago
To be fair, Mitchel was not actually demoted; he lost temporary rank as did many officers in the years after WW1.. But it would also be fair to say that situations under which Mitchel reverted in rank caused the reversion to seem punishment. Also in fairness, Mitchel had used Japan as an example of a power that might threaten. In later minds he seemed to be predicting, but what he was actually doing was articulating the potential of air power, Japan projecting its power by air..Almost all of Mitchel's intellectual and emotional energy was focused on the U S air arsenal vs any threat..
– J. Taylor
8 hours ago
4
4
"Pearl Harbor ... was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor" Could you please expand on this?
– Juggerbot
8 hours ago
"Pearl Harbor ... was seen as impervious to air attack due to its shallow harbor" Could you please expand on this?
– Juggerbot
8 hours ago
5
5
@Juggerbot Specifically, it was considered impossible for aircraft to launch torpedoes in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. An air-launched torpedo is dropped into the water and typically sinks a fair distance before leveling out. There were therefore no torpedo nets in place, because they would have been cumbersome. A study of US Fleet Problems in the pre-WWII period suggests that air strikes at Pearl were expected when the fleet was away, to damage base facilities, but not at the fleet itself.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
@Juggerbot Specifically, it was considered impossible for aircraft to launch torpedoes in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. An air-launched torpedo is dropped into the water and typically sinks a fair distance before leveling out. There were therefore no torpedo nets in place, because they would have been cumbersome. A study of US Fleet Problems in the pre-WWII period suggests that air strikes at Pearl were expected when the fleet was away, to damage base facilities, but not at the fleet itself.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
1
Nitpick: The term is "court martial" (or "court-martial", "courtmartial"), the "martial" being an adjective meaning military: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial
– jamesqf
5 hours ago
Nitpick: The term is "court martial" (or "court-martial", "courtmartial"), the "martial" being an adjective meaning military: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial
– jamesqf
5 hours ago
Past participle is "court-martialled" in BrEng, AmEng seems to spell it "court-martialed"
– Law29
5 hours ago
Past participle is "court-martialled" in BrEng, AmEng seems to spell it "court-martialed"
– Law29
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
Some people did, most didn't. Billy Mitchell, among others, warned. But most people didn't see those funny little yellow men with thick glasses and hilarious swords (stereotype of the day) as really dangerous. Not for America, anyway.
Yes, the massacre of Nanking was widely known, but that was somewhere far, far away. In 1937 there had been an incident in which the USS Panay was sunk with loss of life. But the Japanese government apologized and paid for damages.
Look especially at the America First movement. That movement was politically very strong and extreme (certainly by our standards) isolationist. It was their influence that kept America out of the war against Germany. Until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First movement was not aligned with the democrats or the republicans. It was a kind of popular movement, and voiced what the 'Average Joe' thought.
The movement collapsed almost overnight after the attack on Pearl Harbor. They folded (voluntary) on 11 December 1941.
Yes, this was back in the halcyon days of yore, when respectable political parties in the US couldn't be seen as fully embracing bigotry-fueled nativists, so the far-right nationalist populists had to run their own separate movements and political parties
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
@T.E.D I guess the irony of FDR's administration putting Japanese American's in Concentration camps was lost on you, eh? Let's not fall into a rose tinted glasses trap here; there has always been a strong reflexive, nativistic strain in America. "Respectable" political parties have always embraced some degree of nativism in the right context. The modern Democratic party has not been "nativist" for generations, but you don't have to go far back to find Chuck Shumer and Bernie Sanders condemning illegal immigration.
– VivaLebowski
59 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Some people did, most didn't. Billy Mitchell, among others, warned. But most people didn't see those funny little yellow men with thick glasses and hilarious swords (stereotype of the day) as really dangerous. Not for America, anyway.
Yes, the massacre of Nanking was widely known, but that was somewhere far, far away. In 1937 there had been an incident in which the USS Panay was sunk with loss of life. But the Japanese government apologized and paid for damages.
Look especially at the America First movement. That movement was politically very strong and extreme (certainly by our standards) isolationist. It was their influence that kept America out of the war against Germany. Until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First movement was not aligned with the democrats or the republicans. It was a kind of popular movement, and voiced what the 'Average Joe' thought.
The movement collapsed almost overnight after the attack on Pearl Harbor. They folded (voluntary) on 11 December 1941.
Yes, this was back in the halcyon days of yore, when respectable political parties in the US couldn't be seen as fully embracing bigotry-fueled nativists, so the far-right nationalist populists had to run their own separate movements and political parties
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
@T.E.D I guess the irony of FDR's administration putting Japanese American's in Concentration camps was lost on you, eh? Let's not fall into a rose tinted glasses trap here; there has always been a strong reflexive, nativistic strain in America. "Respectable" political parties have always embraced some degree of nativism in the right context. The modern Democratic party has not been "nativist" for generations, but you don't have to go far back to find Chuck Shumer and Bernie Sanders condemning illegal immigration.
– VivaLebowski
59 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Some people did, most didn't. Billy Mitchell, among others, warned. But most people didn't see those funny little yellow men with thick glasses and hilarious swords (stereotype of the day) as really dangerous. Not for America, anyway.
Yes, the massacre of Nanking was widely known, but that was somewhere far, far away. In 1937 there had been an incident in which the USS Panay was sunk with loss of life. But the Japanese government apologized and paid for damages.
Look especially at the America First movement. That movement was politically very strong and extreme (certainly by our standards) isolationist. It was their influence that kept America out of the war against Germany. Until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First movement was not aligned with the democrats or the republicans. It was a kind of popular movement, and voiced what the 'Average Joe' thought.
The movement collapsed almost overnight after the attack on Pearl Harbor. They folded (voluntary) on 11 December 1941.
Some people did, most didn't. Billy Mitchell, among others, warned. But most people didn't see those funny little yellow men with thick glasses and hilarious swords (stereotype of the day) as really dangerous. Not for America, anyway.
Yes, the massacre of Nanking was widely known, but that was somewhere far, far away. In 1937 there had been an incident in which the USS Panay was sunk with loss of life. But the Japanese government apologized and paid for damages.
Look especially at the America First movement. That movement was politically very strong and extreme (certainly by our standards) isolationist. It was their influence that kept America out of the war against Germany. Until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First movement was not aligned with the democrats or the republicans. It was a kind of popular movement, and voiced what the 'Average Joe' thought.
The movement collapsed almost overnight after the attack on Pearl Harbor. They folded (voluntary) on 11 December 1941.
edited 15 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
Jos
7,94311842
7,94311842
Yes, this was back in the halcyon days of yore, when respectable political parties in the US couldn't be seen as fully embracing bigotry-fueled nativists, so the far-right nationalist populists had to run their own separate movements and political parties
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
@T.E.D I guess the irony of FDR's administration putting Japanese American's in Concentration camps was lost on you, eh? Let's not fall into a rose tinted glasses trap here; there has always been a strong reflexive, nativistic strain in America. "Respectable" political parties have always embraced some degree of nativism in the right context. The modern Democratic party has not been "nativist" for generations, but you don't have to go far back to find Chuck Shumer and Bernie Sanders condemning illegal immigration.
– VivaLebowski
59 mins ago
add a comment |
Yes, this was back in the halcyon days of yore, when respectable political parties in the US couldn't be seen as fully embracing bigotry-fueled nativists, so the far-right nationalist populists had to run their own separate movements and political parties
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
@T.E.D I guess the irony of FDR's administration putting Japanese American's in Concentration camps was lost on you, eh? Let's not fall into a rose tinted glasses trap here; there has always been a strong reflexive, nativistic strain in America. "Respectable" political parties have always embraced some degree of nativism in the right context. The modern Democratic party has not been "nativist" for generations, but you don't have to go far back to find Chuck Shumer and Bernie Sanders condemning illegal immigration.
– VivaLebowski
59 mins ago
Yes, this was back in the halcyon days of yore, when respectable political parties in the US couldn't be seen as fully embracing bigotry-fueled nativists, so the far-right nationalist populists had to run their own separate movements and political parties
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
Yes, this was back in the halcyon days of yore, when respectable political parties in the US couldn't be seen as fully embracing bigotry-fueled nativists, so the far-right nationalist populists had to run their own separate movements and political parties
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
1
@T.E.D I guess the irony of FDR's administration putting Japanese American's in Concentration camps was lost on you, eh? Let's not fall into a rose tinted glasses trap here; there has always been a strong reflexive, nativistic strain in America. "Respectable" political parties have always embraced some degree of nativism in the right context. The modern Democratic party has not been "nativist" for generations, but you don't have to go far back to find Chuck Shumer and Bernie Sanders condemning illegal immigration.
– VivaLebowski
59 mins ago
@T.E.D I guess the irony of FDR's administration putting Japanese American's in Concentration camps was lost on you, eh? Let's not fall into a rose tinted glasses trap here; there has always been a strong reflexive, nativistic strain in America. "Respectable" political parties have always embraced some degree of nativism in the right context. The modern Democratic party has not been "nativist" for generations, but you don't have to go far back to find Chuck Shumer and Bernie Sanders condemning illegal immigration.
– VivaLebowski
59 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
A Gallup poll conducted just prior to the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941 found that:
- 52% of Americans expected war with Japan.
- 27% did not.
- 21% had no opinion.
So there's that.
New contributor
1
Any examples or references to support the first statement ("since the 1920's")?
– Steve Bird
14 hours ago
The stoppage of oil exports was a response to the Japanese occupation of southern Indochina, which did not further the war against China and was the beginning of the expansion of the war into the Pacific and Indian oceans.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
This is the only answer that directly answers the question, by providing (sourced) evidence of public levels of knowledge, rather than largely being concerned with the beliefs of one individual (Billy Mitchell) or anecdotal interpretations of "conventional wisdom".
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
Where there any public surveys prior like 1935 or so? It would be interesting to see if there was a change of attitude over that period
– user1605665
2 hours ago
No idea, that's the only one I could find; Coincidentally I was reading "Attack on Pearl Harbor" Wikipedia page just yesterday and was kinda stunned that it really wasn't such a big surprise after all.
– Nik Kyriakides
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
A Gallup poll conducted just prior to the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941 found that:
- 52% of Americans expected war with Japan.
- 27% did not.
- 21% had no opinion.
So there's that.
New contributor
1
Any examples or references to support the first statement ("since the 1920's")?
– Steve Bird
14 hours ago
The stoppage of oil exports was a response to the Japanese occupation of southern Indochina, which did not further the war against China and was the beginning of the expansion of the war into the Pacific and Indian oceans.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
This is the only answer that directly answers the question, by providing (sourced) evidence of public levels of knowledge, rather than largely being concerned with the beliefs of one individual (Billy Mitchell) or anecdotal interpretations of "conventional wisdom".
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
Where there any public surveys prior like 1935 or so? It would be interesting to see if there was a change of attitude over that period
– user1605665
2 hours ago
No idea, that's the only one I could find; Coincidentally I was reading "Attack on Pearl Harbor" Wikipedia page just yesterday and was kinda stunned that it really wasn't such a big surprise after all.
– Nik Kyriakides
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
A Gallup poll conducted just prior to the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941 found that:
- 52% of Americans expected war with Japan.
- 27% did not.
- 21% had no opinion.
So there's that.
New contributor
A Gallup poll conducted just prior to the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941 found that:
- 52% of Americans expected war with Japan.
- 27% did not.
- 21% had no opinion.
So there's that.
New contributor
edited 55 mins ago
New contributor
answered 14 hours ago
Nik Kyriakides
1313
1313
New contributor
New contributor
1
Any examples or references to support the first statement ("since the 1920's")?
– Steve Bird
14 hours ago
The stoppage of oil exports was a response to the Japanese occupation of southern Indochina, which did not further the war against China and was the beginning of the expansion of the war into the Pacific and Indian oceans.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
This is the only answer that directly answers the question, by providing (sourced) evidence of public levels of knowledge, rather than largely being concerned with the beliefs of one individual (Billy Mitchell) or anecdotal interpretations of "conventional wisdom".
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
Where there any public surveys prior like 1935 or so? It would be interesting to see if there was a change of attitude over that period
– user1605665
2 hours ago
No idea, that's the only one I could find; Coincidentally I was reading "Attack on Pearl Harbor" Wikipedia page just yesterday and was kinda stunned that it really wasn't such a big surprise after all.
– Nik Kyriakides
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
Any examples or references to support the first statement ("since the 1920's")?
– Steve Bird
14 hours ago
The stoppage of oil exports was a response to the Japanese occupation of southern Indochina, which did not further the war against China and was the beginning of the expansion of the war into the Pacific and Indian oceans.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
This is the only answer that directly answers the question, by providing (sourced) evidence of public levels of knowledge, rather than largely being concerned with the beliefs of one individual (Billy Mitchell) or anecdotal interpretations of "conventional wisdom".
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
Where there any public surveys prior like 1935 or so? It would be interesting to see if there was a change of attitude over that period
– user1605665
2 hours ago
No idea, that's the only one I could find; Coincidentally I was reading "Attack on Pearl Harbor" Wikipedia page just yesterday and was kinda stunned that it really wasn't such a big surprise after all.
– Nik Kyriakides
1 hour ago
1
1
Any examples or references to support the first statement ("since the 1920's")?
– Steve Bird
14 hours ago
Any examples or references to support the first statement ("since the 1920's")?
– Steve Bird
14 hours ago
The stoppage of oil exports was a response to the Japanese occupation of southern Indochina, which did not further the war against China and was the beginning of the expansion of the war into the Pacific and Indian oceans.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
The stoppage of oil exports was a response to the Japanese occupation of southern Indochina, which did not further the war against China and was the beginning of the expansion of the war into the Pacific and Indian oceans.
– David Thornley
8 hours ago
1
1
This is the only answer that directly answers the question, by providing (sourced) evidence of public levels of knowledge, rather than largely being concerned with the beliefs of one individual (Billy Mitchell) or anecdotal interpretations of "conventional wisdom".
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
This is the only answer that directly answers the question, by providing (sourced) evidence of public levels of knowledge, rather than largely being concerned with the beliefs of one individual (Billy Mitchell) or anecdotal interpretations of "conventional wisdom".
– Michael MacAskill
2 hours ago
Where there any public surveys prior like 1935 or so? It would be interesting to see if there was a change of attitude over that period
– user1605665
2 hours ago
Where there any public surveys prior like 1935 or so? It would be interesting to see if there was a change of attitude over that period
– user1605665
2 hours ago
No idea, that's the only one I could find; Coincidentally I was reading "Attack on Pearl Harbor" Wikipedia page just yesterday and was kinda stunned that it really wasn't such a big surprise after all.
– Nik Kyriakides
1 hour ago
No idea, that's the only one I could find; Coincidentally I was reading "Attack on Pearl Harbor" Wikipedia page just yesterday and was kinda stunned that it really wasn't such a big surprise after all.
– Nik Kyriakides
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49894%2fwas-japan-known-to-be-a-potential-threat-to-the-usa-in-the-10-year-period-prior%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I interviewed of friend of my dad's who was at the attack. From moneybender.com/spike.pdf, "A few days before the historic day of December 7, 1941, Spike and a fellow ensign leaned on the rail of the Blue, reveling in the glory of the collected might of the United States Navy. 'Look at all these ships,' Spike remembered saying, 'Battleships, cruisers, carriers, destroyers. No one would ever dare attack us.'" I don't know about the Average Joe, but it seemed pretty unlikely to these guys.
– Don Branson
2 hours ago