Compare and contrast Pearl harbor Intelligence failure with Battle of Essay

Compare and contrast Pearl harbor Intelligence failure with Battle of midway intelligence success - Essay Example riority conflict between the battleship service and the carrier service departments in the US navy with each trying to reserve its independent identity. The carrier service, which had always been a subordinate to the battleship administration, was considered not very vital in naval strategy and there was a perception that an attack on Pearl Harbor was impossible. Unlike the Pearl Harbor attack, the Battle of Midway between Japanese and U.S found the United States prepared. However, the battle remained unpredictable until towards the end. In the attack that started on June 4 1942, the Japanese sought to capture the central pacific island of Midway, which was being used by the US as an airfield. The Japanese aimed to destroy the American fleet and use the island as their base. However due to Communications intelligence success, the United states Pacific fleet made a surprise attack on the Japanese sinking four of their carriers and losing one. This paper compares and contrasts the caus es of failure and success in the two battles. Prior to these attacks, there were clear signs of mistrust and suspicions by both Americans and Japanese. In addition, both Tokyo and Washington had been engaged in negotiations aimed preventing any event of war, but these later turned out as the strategies merely used to buy time as the military of the two nations put strategies in place. A clear sign of the inevitable war with Japan became evident when the American intelligence intercepted some sections of the Japanese diplomatic communications. Six messages wired from Tokyo to the Japanese embassy in Washington which communicated the deadline for the bilateral negotiations, and the consequences in case of the failure of the talks, should the US refuse to accept the terms so offered by Japan. For instance, â€Å"†¦and the messages illustrated the Tokyo’s fear or threat of rupture of the negotiations† (Lundstrom & John 2004). The other aspect of similarity is that during both the