Revisiting the Day of Infamy: The Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor
December 13, 2021
1:15pm
Presented by Dan Breen via Zoom seminar
The program is free and open to the public, but you will need to sign up in advance here.
1:15pm
Presented by Dan Breen via Zoom seminar
The program is free and open to the public, but you will need to sign up in advance here.

Revisiting the Day of Infamy: The Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor
Historian Dan Breen considers the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, one of the most important events of the 20th century. To commemorate the 80th Anniversary of this attack, Breen weighs in on several controversies that still linger about Pearl Harbor.
Breen weighs in on several controversies that still linger about Pearl Harbor. Did Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill know about the attack in advance? Breen declares, “There is no evidence whatsoever, plus it makes no sense at all.” Should the Japanese have maximized their advantage by trying for a third attack wave? Breen thinks that Admiral Nagumo, commander of the Japanese fleet, made the right decision by declining this move. How much of a setback to Japanese prospects resulted from the failure to damage the nearby oil storage facilities? “It’s often considered a major Japanese mistake,” Breen says, “but the effect on the war was minimal at best.”
The only thing that would have made the attack worthwhile for the Japanese, in Breen’s view, was to have trapped and destroyed the three US aircraft carriers normally berthed at Pearl Harbor. At the time of the attack, however, the three carriers were away, one of them delivering aircraft to Wake Island.
If the attack had gone according to plan, and the carriers had been destroyed, the Japanese might have extended their defense perimeter to include all of New Guinea and the area to the southeast of the Solomons. This may have prolonged the war, according to Breen, but would have made no difference in the long run. “American industrial production capacities were just too far superior.” Breen says.
The Japanese governmental system, where both the Army and Navy shared policy making decisions, was inherently dysfunctional and ill equipped to conduct a war. “They could not arrive at a rational decision,” explains Breen. “There were too many rival factions with competing agendas.”
Before the raid on Pearl Harbor, America was still starkly divided on joining the war. After the raid, support for the declaration of war was nearly 100%. “Pearl Harbor unified the American people like nothing else could have done,” says Breen.
Dan Breen grew up in Atlanta, where he developed a passion for history and for the Civil War in particular. He earned a BA in history from the University of Wisconsin and a law degree from the University of Georgia. After briefly practicing law, he earned a master’s degree in history from the University of Georgia and a Ph.D. from Boston College, and began his teaching career at Framingham State College. He taught history at Newbury College in Brookline before joining the faculty of Brandeis University, where he is Senior Lecturer, Legal Studies.
Historian Dan Breen considers the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, one of the most important events of the 20th century. To commemorate the 80th Anniversary of this attack, Breen weighs in on several controversies that still linger about Pearl Harbor.
Breen weighs in on several controversies that still linger about Pearl Harbor. Did Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill know about the attack in advance? Breen declares, “There is no evidence whatsoever, plus it makes no sense at all.” Should the Japanese have maximized their advantage by trying for a third attack wave? Breen thinks that Admiral Nagumo, commander of the Japanese fleet, made the right decision by declining this move. How much of a setback to Japanese prospects resulted from the failure to damage the nearby oil storage facilities? “It’s often considered a major Japanese mistake,” Breen says, “but the effect on the war was minimal at best.”
The only thing that would have made the attack worthwhile for the Japanese, in Breen’s view, was to have trapped and destroyed the three US aircraft carriers normally berthed at Pearl Harbor. At the time of the attack, however, the three carriers were away, one of them delivering aircraft to Wake Island.
If the attack had gone according to plan, and the carriers had been destroyed, the Japanese might have extended their defense perimeter to include all of New Guinea and the area to the southeast of the Solomons. This may have prolonged the war, according to Breen, but would have made no difference in the long run. “American industrial production capacities were just too far superior.” Breen says.
The Japanese governmental system, where both the Army and Navy shared policy making decisions, was inherently dysfunctional and ill equipped to conduct a war. “They could not arrive at a rational decision,” explains Breen. “There were too many rival factions with competing agendas.”
Before the raid on Pearl Harbor, America was still starkly divided on joining the war. After the raid, support for the declaration of war was nearly 100%. “Pearl Harbor unified the American people like nothing else could have done,” says Breen.
Dan Breen grew up in Atlanta, where he developed a passion for history and for the Civil War in particular. He earned a BA in history from the University of Wisconsin and a law degree from the University of Georgia. After briefly practicing law, he earned a master’s degree in history from the University of Georgia and a Ph.D. from Boston College, and began his teaching career at Framingham State College. He taught history at Newbury College in Brookline before joining the faculty of Brandeis University, where he is Senior Lecturer, Legal Studies.