We do know that it's not a very good tactical move at all to attack Pearl Harbour, considering that it only do little damages at all (like most/all of the new and good ships were already evacuated out of Pearl Harbour), a waste of resources (Japan was already quite low in resources at that time), and gives the U.S.A. a legitimate reason to attack Japan.

If Japan really has a grudge on the U.S.A., the good tactical decision would be to gather enough resources and allies, then make the U.S.A. surrender without any fight at all.

IF Japan didn't attack the U.S.A. , what reason do the U.S.A. got to participate in the Pacific War? Let alone participate in the European war, since the U.S.A. got involved in the European war because German and Italy vow to protect their Japanese ally.

It as if the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour was to create a REASON for the U.S.A. to go into war, in both Europe and the Pacific.


And the interesting thing is that, the Japanese government did indeed was trying to make the South East Asian areas to be independent countries.

While this can be argued as the Japanese government trying to make puppet countries, this too makes no sense. Considering the amount of work and resources put into these effort. This is like when the U.S.A. invade Iraq and then make a new independent country, instead of just making it its 51th state (which actually would be better that way).

Why did they do that? It's a waste of resources, it's a waste of time, it's a waste of effort. Why bother to do that?

Then also, why use battles at all?

Those who know on how to do battles (or at least read Sun Tzu's Art of War) knows that it's better to gain a territory not through battles, but through cunning and diplomacy. Make them give their territory to you without any battle at all.

One of those people that do exactly just that in recent time is the former Indonesian president Suharto, when he devise the creation of A.S.E.A.N. (Association of South East Asian Nations), which is essentially can be considered as Indonesia+. He as a military general is quite well versed in the art of war, his prefered method of conquering other countries is actually more into as corporate merger or corporate take over (a.k.a. A.S.E.A.N.) instead of military of invasion (makes no mistake though, he has no qualm of using military forces if needed). If he indeed make a military invasion, chances are that he was ORDERED to do so, and not his own personal actions. For example, the invasion to East Timor (that was done exactly after he met with Henry Kissinger) doesn't has his signature moves, even if he participated in it. Some says that Kissinger give his approval, what if it's more like an order?


As things unravel. It seems that the so called Japanese invasion of other countries during World War II seems isn't actually 'Japanese' at all, but more like a foreign invasion done under the name of the Japanese and using Japanese.

9/11 had many the same signatures as Pearl Harbour (both are non life threatning slaps intended to make people mad and angry), chances are... the people responsible for both events seems to be the same people. While some people argued on how the U.S.A. is behind all of these, it's very unlikely that it was really the U.S.A., it's more likely that in the end, the U.S.A. too is just another mere 'tool'. This thing seems to go so far as the Roman empire, and even way beyond that.

The question, who is the 'tool user'?

Once people know that, I'm sure that the conflicts around the world will end, and what's left are only low level conflicts.