Sons of Liberty Museum: website header
Sons of Liberty Museum: mobile website header

Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941

The Situation

The global situation leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was characterized by complex geopolitical tensions and strategic maneuvering among several major powers. Japan, seeking to expand its influence in the Pacific, faced international isolation due to its aggressive actions in China, including the occupation of Manchuria in 1931 and the subsequent invasion of other Chinese territories.

The conditions were influenced by Japan's desire for natural resources, particularly oil and rubber, which were vital for its military and industrial capabilities. The United States, in response to Japan's expansionist policies and its alliance with Germany and Italy (the Axis Powers), imposed economic sanctions, including an embargo on crucial resources like oil and scrap metal, severely impacting Japan's ability to sustain its military operations.

Strategically, Japan viewed a decisive strike against the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor as a means to incapacitate American naval power in the Pacific and establish its dominance in the region unopposed. The attack aimed to cripple the U.S. naval forces and create enough of a power vacuum to allow Japan to solidify its control over Southeast Asia and access the resources it desperately needed.

This intricate geopolitical landscape, characterized by conflicting territorial ambitions, resource scarcity, and alliances, culminated in Japan's decision to launch a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which thrust the United States into World War II.

Order of Battle

The order of battle for the Pearl Harbor Attack on December 7, 1941, involved a well-coordinated Japanese assault on the United States Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The Japanese strike was carried out by a combination of six aircraft carriers organized into a carrier strike force, supported by various other vessels and aircraft.

The Japanese carrier strike force consisted of six aircraft carriers:

  1. Akagi: Served as the flagship of the strike force.
  2. Kaga: Another aircraft carrier under the command of Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo.
  3. Soryu: Contributed significantly to the aerial assault.
  4. Hiryu: Played a key role in the attack, launching planes against American targets.
  5. Shokaku: Participated in the assault on Pearl Harbor.
  6. Zuikaku: Another carrier involved in the attack, carrying out airstrikes.

These carriers carried a total of approximately 350 aircraft, including bombers, torpedo planes, and fighters. The strike force was divided into two waves for the attack.

Supporting the carriers were several other vessels, including cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. Additionally, the Japanese attack involved midget submarines that attempted to infiltrate the harbor.

The strike aimed to hit key targets within Pearl Harbor, focusing primarily on the U.S. Pacific Fleet's battleships, cruisers, and aircraft stationed there. The primary targets were the battleships moored along "Battleship Row," including USS Arizona, USS Oklahoma, USS California, USS West Virginia, and others.

The attack was swift and devastating, catching the American forces by surprise and inflicting significant damage on the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The success of the assault resulted in the sinking or severe damage of several battleships, cruisers, and aircraft, dealing a heavy blow to the American naval capabilities in the Pacific at the outset of World War II.

Results

The attack on Pearl Harbor can be seen as a tactical victory for the Japanese due to the success of the surprise assault and the significant damage inflicted on the American Pacific Fleet. The element of surprise, combined with the effectiveness of the attack in damaging or destroying a considerable number of battleships, cruisers, and aircraft, showcased the tactical prowess of the Japanese military.

However, in terms of a broader strategic perspective, the attack on Pearl Harbor did not yield the desired long-term outcomes for Japan. While it temporarily incapacitated a significant portion of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, it failed to achieve its ultimate strategic goals. The attack did not destroy crucial infrastructure like repair yards, fuel storage, or the naval base's essential facilities. Furthermore, the carriers, vital assets for naval power projection, were not in the harbor during the attack and thus remained operational.

Strategically, the attack on Pearl Harbor had unintended consequences, rallying the American public behind entering World War II, leading to a unified and determined war effort against the Axis Powers. It prompted the United States to fully commit its industrial, economic, and military might to the war, significantly altering the balance of power in the conflict.

Therefore, while the attack was a tactical success for Japan in the short term, the long-term strategic implications, including the galvanization of American resolve and its entry into the war, undermined its intended strategic objectives.

Lessons

Japanese

Hindsight analysis often reveals alternative strategies or actions that could have been considered. For Japan, several considerations might have altered the outcomes:

  1. Targeting Key Infrastructure: Focusing on the destruction of crucial infrastructure within Pearl Harbor, such as repair yards, fuel storage, and logistical facilities, could have significantly hindered the U.S. ability to quickly recover from the attack.

  2. Targeting Carriers: The absence of U.S. aircraft carriers from Pearl Harbor during the attack was a missed opportunity. Targeting these carriers, the backbone of American naval power projection in the Pacific, could have had far-reaching consequences.

  3. Extended Attack: Continuing the assault beyond the initial waves to systematically target more installations and naval assets within the harbor might have inflicted greater damage.

  4. Diplomatic Approach: Exploring more diplomatic avenues to resolve tensions with the United States instead of choosing a military strike might have averted direct conflict and potentially altered the course of events.

  5. Considering Long-Term Strategy: A more comprehensive long-term strategy that factored in potential American retaliation and global repercussions might have prompted Japan to rethink its aggressive expansion in the Pacific.

However, these considerations are based on hindsight and the benefit of knowing the historical outcomes. At the time, Japan's leadership faced complex challenges and believed that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was a necessary step to achieve its objectives in the Pacific. Alternatives may have had their own set of risks and uncertainties.

United States

Several factors contributed to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, but there were potential measures the United States could have taken to mitigate or prevent the assault:

  1. Heightened Intelligence and Surveillance: Improving intelligence gathering and surveillance capabilities to better monitor Japanese military movements and intentions could have provided early warnings about a potential attack.

  2. Strategic Assessments: A more comprehensive assessment of potential threats and vulnerabilities, including considering the possibility of a surprise naval assault, might have prompted better preparedness.

  3. Enhanced Military Readiness: Maintaining a higher state of military readiness, including regular drills and exercises focused on defending against air and naval attacks, could have improved the ability to respond swiftly to any impending threat.

  4. Reinforced Defensive Measures: Strengthening defensive measures at Pearl Harbor, such as increased anti-aircraft defenses, more extensive patrol operations, and dispersing the fleet rather than concentrating it in one location, could have made the attack more challenging for the Japanese.

  5. Diplomatic Efforts: Exploring diplomatic avenues more intensively to ease tensions with Japan and potentially dissuade or delay any aggressive actions.

  6. Better Communication and Coordination: Improving communication and coordination between intelligence agencies and military branches might have facilitated a more coordinated response to potential threats.

However, it's important to note that the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred in a complex geopolitical context, and despite potential preventive measures, the element of surprise and the specific circumstances surrounding the attack made it challenging to entirely forestall.

 Recollections of Betty Keim World War II
 11th Bombardment Group World War II
 580th Signal Aircraft Warning Battalion World War II
 Carlos Wilcox, 5th Bombardment Group, Hickam Field World War II
 Pearl Harbor: History World War II
 Japanese Admiral Yamamoto World War II

Primary Sources & More

Carlos Wilcox, 5th Bombardment Group  Photos of Hawaii in 1940 and 1941.  Photos of the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor Attack.  

Sons of Liberty Museum Historians - History and more details on the Attack plus a new twist in thought on strategy and objectives.

 

December 7 vs. September 11

The attacks on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are two significant events in history that had profound impacts on the United States and the world, despite occurring in vastly different contexts.

Similarities:

  1. Surprise Attacks: Both events were surprise attacks that caught the United States off guard, causing significant destruction and loss of life.
  2. National Trauma and Impact: They resulted in national trauma, shock, and a profound sense of vulnerability among the American people. Both incidents triggered a strong sense of unity and resolve among citizens.
  3. Changed National Policies: Both attacks led to significant shifts in U.S. foreign and domestic policies. Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. into World War II, while 9/11 led to the War on Terror and increased focus on national security.
  4. Military and Security Responses: Both events prompted immediate military and security responses from the U.S., with efforts to track down responsible parties and prevent future attacks.

Differences:

  1. Nature of Attack: Pearl Harbor was a military strike by a foreign nation (Japan) on a naval base, primarily targeting military assets. On the other hand, 9/11 was a series of coordinated terrorist attacks by a non-state actor (Al-Qaeda) targeting civilian infrastructure and symbols of American power.
  2. Scale of Destruction and Loss of Life: While both were devastating, the scale of destruction and loss of life on September 11, 2001, was concentrated on civilian targets and resulted in a higher death toll compared to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
  3. Targets and Impact: Pearl Harbor targeted military installations, particularly the U.S. Pacific Fleet, impacting military capabilities. Conversely, the 9/11 attacks targeted symbolic landmarks, causing widespread fear, economic disruption, and a reshaping of national security priorities.
  4. Response and Global Impact: The aftermath of Pearl Harbor led to U.S. involvement in World War II, reshaping global geopolitics. In contrast, the response to 9/11 involved a global War on Terror, leading to conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and heightened security measures worldwide.

These events, separated by over half a century, have left indelible marks on American history, shaping policies, attitudes toward national security, and the way the U.S. engages with the world.