Questions we explore

• Could a direct confrontation with between the US and Japan been possibly avoided in the Pacific?

• What conditions were needed for surrender? Why didn’t it happen sooner?

  
  

Summary of the podcast

Would a direct confrontation with the US in the Pacific been avoidable had it not been for Pearl Harbor? (Min 2-9)

• It was a power struggle for spheres of influence, so probably not avoidable

• It was politically difficult for the US to enter the war, but from a policy perspective, they almost needed to enter, and Roosevelt was looking for the opportunity to do so

What was needed for surrender and why did it take so long? What was the calculus? (Min 10-19)

• Japan was defending really strong, and willing to fight at all costs. The US wanted the war to be over, while mounting losses

• Japan had quite a lot of victories and had gained new territories that it wanted to keep

• Sunk cost fallacy - they were winning territories while also losing many fathers and sons over the last 15 years

Timeless lessons, Conclusion (Min 20-29)

• We should try to understand history from different perspectives; often without choice we hear a singular narrative

• History is complex, and it needs to be considered from broad brush strokes, all the way down to the specific factors of the individuals who have contributed to it