What do you think?
Pearl Harbor: Japan's Greatest Disaster
A detailed re-examination of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Day of Infamy that saw the USA enter World War II.
In this the first comprehensive treatment of Pearl Harbor since the early 1990s. respected Pacific War naval historian Mark E. Stille traces the road to war and the Japanese attack itself. He examines the role of the man behind the operation, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the plan. The American preparations for an attack are also carefully reviewed. The heart of the book is a comprehensive narrative of Pearl Harbor along with an appreciation of its results placed in proper perspective.
In common with many of the major campaigns of the Pacific War, many myths surround the Battle of Pearl Harbor, and, amongst others, Mark explores and dismantle the myth of Yamamoto as a military genius, as well as the myth that the attack was brilliantly planned. Long regarded as brilliant strike, Mark argues in Pearl Harbor that the attack was instead a tactical disappointment, an operational failure and a strategic disaster.
In this the first comprehensive treatment of Pearl Harbor since the early 1990s. respected Pacific War naval historian Mark E. Stille traces the road to war and the Japanese attack itself. He examines the role of the man behind the operation, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the plan. The American preparations for an attack are also carefully reviewed. The heart of the book is a comprehensive narrative of Pearl Harbor along with an appreciation of its results placed in proper perspective.
In common with many of the major campaigns of the Pacific War, many myths surround the Battle of Pearl Harbor, and, amongst others, Mark explores and dismantle the myth of Yamamoto as a military genius, as well as the myth that the attack was brilliantly planned. Long regarded as brilliant strike, Mark argues in Pearl Harbor that the attack was instead a tactical disappointment, an operational failure and a strategic disaster.
436 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 4, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
December 15, 2025
“Just as the Japanese aviators feared, the discovery of one or more of the midget submarines making their way into Pearl Harbor before the arrival of the air attack had the potential to sacrifice surprise…[O]ne of the midgets was spotted at 0342 in the restricted area a mile south of the channel into Pearl Harbor. Duty destroyer Ward was called to the scene but found nothing after searching for an hour. Later, at 0630, another ship spotted a possible small submarine. Ward was summoned again, and this time her crew clearly identified the object as a conning tower with a periscope. The ship’s captain headed for the contact and opened fire at 0645. The second round hit the base of the submarine’s sail and the target was observed to sink…Ward sent a signal at 0651 reporting what had occurred. A second, more direct, message was sent, stating: ‘We have attacked, fired upon, and dropped depth charges upon submarine operating in defense sea area.’ Received at the fleet radio station at 0653, even this development failed to jolt the Americans out of their lethargy. [Admiral Husband] Kimmel had predicted that the Japanese might use submarines to attack his fleet. When it occurred, his command and control system was unable to process developments and respond in a timely manner…”
- Mark E. Stille, Pearl Harbor: Japan’s Greatest Disaster
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 has long been understood to be an act of tactical genius but strategic stupidity. In other words, something incredibly successful in the near-term, though a failure in the long-term. Though it sank some mighty battleships and killed a huge number of sailors, it plunged a resource-starved island nation into a conflict with a wealthy, continental-sized power with enormous industrial capacity. By the time it ended, Japan’s empire was in shambles, its cities destroyed, its pretensions ruined.
In Pearl Harbor: Japan’s Greatest Disaster, Mark E. Stille entirely agrees with the strategic foolhardiness of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s gamble. Contrary to the prevailing view, though, he also sees it as a tactical nothing-burger. With the exception of the lives lost – no small thing, obviously – Pearl Harbor simply did not cause all that much damage. Certainly it did not destroy American morale or force a negotiated peace. Indeed, as Stille shows, it barely caused a delay.
***
Eighty-four years have elapsed since the Second World War arrived in the paradise of Hawaii on a quiet Sunday morning. In the intervening period, many hundreds of books have been produced on the subject, fiction and nonfiction alike. The prodigiousness of this output begs a question at the outset: What – if anything – makes this one stand out?
First and foremost, Stille’s Pearl Harbor is a not a narrative account. Its chapters are thematic, its approach analytical. If you appreciate characterizations, dramatic scenes, and a sense of being on the ground as history explodes around you, this is not the place to look.
Instead, Stille sets out in the introduction a variety of hypothetical questions, and then proceeds to answer them in the text. The qualitative result depends on what you value most, for this is a book full of insights without artistry, and makes it points without panache.
***
As noted above, Stille’s main point is that the attack itself is not the universally brilliant conceived and executed coup de main of legend, but a surprisingly ad hoc enterprise that failed to account for contingencies – such as American aircraft carriers not being in port – and relied heavily on luck and magical thinking.
With that said, Stille begins by reiterating the big-picture myopia that drove Japan in general, and Admiral Yamamoto in particular, to seek war with the United States. In short, Stille contends that Japan operated from a false premise: that America would go to war if they pursued their “southern strategy” of invading Southeast Asia, and so it was best to start the war on their own terms. Rather than opening hostilities with America, Stille argues that Japan would have been better served by either going after the Philippines alone, or avoiding the United States all together, and waiting to see its reaction. The argument here – which has a good deal of merit – is that the American public would not support a war fought solely to protect European colonies.
Admiral Yamamoto disagreed with this view, going so far as to threaten to resign if his Pearl Harbor plan was not adopted. Stille really takes Yamamoto to task for this, pointing out that Yamamoto’s famous reluctance to fight the United States (“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant…”) is not borne out in his obsessive desire to tangle with the Pacific Fleet in its Hawaiian anchorage.
***
Before the curtain opens, Stille spends some time picking apart the planning. He discusses the mix of aircraft types, their strengths and weaknesses, and how they were to supposed to proceed if surprise was achieved. Despite its perceived flawlessness, Stille shows how things went wrong for the Japanese from the very first minute, with the dive bombers jumping the gun and going in first, before the slower and more vulnerable torpedo bombers.
In addition, Stille spends a lot of time on the scope of the strike. Operational planner Minoru Genda wanted at least two attacks; the more conservative Admiral Chuichi Nagumo refused to linger in the area, and so the Japanese would have to make due with one. Relatedly, Stille engages in the debate about whether Japan missed an opportunity by failing to hit the oil reserves and repair shops. According to Stille, they did not, as they lacked the proper forces to do any severe damage; moreover, with American industrial prowess, it would not have mattered if they had.
***
The attack itself is broken down minutely, with the upshot being poor prioritization. Attributing value to each bomb dropped and torpedo launched, Stille notes that certain targets were oversaturated, others virtually ignored. For example, the target ship Utah was sunk, and the battleship Oklahoma relentlessly pummeled, but the Tennessee only scuffed. Were it not for a fateful bomb that detonated the Arizona’s magazine – causing roughly 50% of the casualties that day – the Japanese foray would have been even less devastating.
Obviously, it’s no great secret that the biggest factor militating against Japan’s total success on December 7 was the absence of American carriers. Thus, Japanese pilots spent much of the day destroying semi-obsolete technology. In that sense, Stille’s main point is pretty inarguable. However, that does not stop him from piling on.
***
Stille closes Pearl Harbor with a balanced look at the responsibility borne by Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short, who shared command of U.S. forces in Hawaii. Both men were relieved of their commands, and spent the balance of their lives seeking acquittal. In Kimmel’s case, his family has continued the crusade, seeking to have him posthumously returned to four-star rank.
No screwup as large as Pearl Harbor can be attributed to a single individual, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Nevertheless, Admiral Kimmel and General Short did the absolute, rock-bottom, bare minimum to be prepared. There were no reconnaissance flights in the air. The radar stations were undermanned, and operational only a couple hours a day. Planes were lined up on runways instead of in revetments. Ammunitions for antiaircraft guns was locked away. Hundreds of sailors were asleep in their bunks, even though their nation had been on a collision course with Japan for months.
***
There is much of value in Pearl Harbor, and I’m always game for a bit of revisionism. The downside, though, is that this is not literature. At best, it is a higher form of technical writing. The prose is functional, dry, and occasionally tedious, with a lot of repetition. It actually pairs well with Walter Lord’s Day of Infamy, which is full of colorful anecdotes, if a bit lacking in rigor.
***
Pearl Harbor does not feel distant, though it has passed out of living memory. It is – and will remain – a huge world-historical event. The first link in a chain of events that reshaped the second half of the twentieth century, and has echoed into the twenty-first.
Stille’s contribution is not the best book on this event. It isn’t even a vital one. Yet a pivot-point like this is always worth another look.
- Mark E. Stille, Pearl Harbor: Japan’s Greatest Disaster
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 has long been understood to be an act of tactical genius but strategic stupidity. In other words, something incredibly successful in the near-term, though a failure in the long-term. Though it sank some mighty battleships and killed a huge number of sailors, it plunged a resource-starved island nation into a conflict with a wealthy, continental-sized power with enormous industrial capacity. By the time it ended, Japan’s empire was in shambles, its cities destroyed, its pretensions ruined.
In Pearl Harbor: Japan’s Greatest Disaster, Mark E. Stille entirely agrees with the strategic foolhardiness of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s gamble. Contrary to the prevailing view, though, he also sees it as a tactical nothing-burger. With the exception of the lives lost – no small thing, obviously – Pearl Harbor simply did not cause all that much damage. Certainly it did not destroy American morale or force a negotiated peace. Indeed, as Stille shows, it barely caused a delay.
***
Eighty-four years have elapsed since the Second World War arrived in the paradise of Hawaii on a quiet Sunday morning. In the intervening period, many hundreds of books have been produced on the subject, fiction and nonfiction alike. The prodigiousness of this output begs a question at the outset: What – if anything – makes this one stand out?
First and foremost, Stille’s Pearl Harbor is a not a narrative account. Its chapters are thematic, its approach analytical. If you appreciate characterizations, dramatic scenes, and a sense of being on the ground as history explodes around you, this is not the place to look.
Instead, Stille sets out in the introduction a variety of hypothetical questions, and then proceeds to answer them in the text. The qualitative result depends on what you value most, for this is a book full of insights without artistry, and makes it points without panache.
***
As noted above, Stille’s main point is that the attack itself is not the universally brilliant conceived and executed coup de main of legend, but a surprisingly ad hoc enterprise that failed to account for contingencies – such as American aircraft carriers not being in port – and relied heavily on luck and magical thinking.
With that said, Stille begins by reiterating the big-picture myopia that drove Japan in general, and Admiral Yamamoto in particular, to seek war with the United States. In short, Stille contends that Japan operated from a false premise: that America would go to war if they pursued their “southern strategy” of invading Southeast Asia, and so it was best to start the war on their own terms. Rather than opening hostilities with America, Stille argues that Japan would have been better served by either going after the Philippines alone, or avoiding the United States all together, and waiting to see its reaction. The argument here – which has a good deal of merit – is that the American public would not support a war fought solely to protect European colonies.
Admiral Yamamoto disagreed with this view, going so far as to threaten to resign if his Pearl Harbor plan was not adopted. Stille really takes Yamamoto to task for this, pointing out that Yamamoto’s famous reluctance to fight the United States (“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant…”) is not borne out in his obsessive desire to tangle with the Pacific Fleet in its Hawaiian anchorage.
***
Before the curtain opens, Stille spends some time picking apart the planning. He discusses the mix of aircraft types, their strengths and weaknesses, and how they were to supposed to proceed if surprise was achieved. Despite its perceived flawlessness, Stille shows how things went wrong for the Japanese from the very first minute, with the dive bombers jumping the gun and going in first, before the slower and more vulnerable torpedo bombers.
In addition, Stille spends a lot of time on the scope of the strike. Operational planner Minoru Genda wanted at least two attacks; the more conservative Admiral Chuichi Nagumo refused to linger in the area, and so the Japanese would have to make due with one. Relatedly, Stille engages in the debate about whether Japan missed an opportunity by failing to hit the oil reserves and repair shops. According to Stille, they did not, as they lacked the proper forces to do any severe damage; moreover, with American industrial prowess, it would not have mattered if they had.
***
The attack itself is broken down minutely, with the upshot being poor prioritization. Attributing value to each bomb dropped and torpedo launched, Stille notes that certain targets were oversaturated, others virtually ignored. For example, the target ship Utah was sunk, and the battleship Oklahoma relentlessly pummeled, but the Tennessee only scuffed. Were it not for a fateful bomb that detonated the Arizona’s magazine – causing roughly 50% of the casualties that day – the Japanese foray would have been even less devastating.
Obviously, it’s no great secret that the biggest factor militating against Japan’s total success on December 7 was the absence of American carriers. Thus, Japanese pilots spent much of the day destroying semi-obsolete technology. In that sense, Stille’s main point is pretty inarguable. However, that does not stop him from piling on.
***
Stille closes Pearl Harbor with a balanced look at the responsibility borne by Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short, who shared command of U.S. forces in Hawaii. Both men were relieved of their commands, and spent the balance of their lives seeking acquittal. In Kimmel’s case, his family has continued the crusade, seeking to have him posthumously returned to four-star rank.
No screwup as large as Pearl Harbor can be attributed to a single individual, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Nevertheless, Admiral Kimmel and General Short did the absolute, rock-bottom, bare minimum to be prepared. There were no reconnaissance flights in the air. The radar stations were undermanned, and operational only a couple hours a day. Planes were lined up on runways instead of in revetments. Ammunitions for antiaircraft guns was locked away. Hundreds of sailors were asleep in their bunks, even though their nation had been on a collision course with Japan for months.
***
There is much of value in Pearl Harbor, and I’m always game for a bit of revisionism. The downside, though, is that this is not literature. At best, it is a higher form of technical writing. The prose is functional, dry, and occasionally tedious, with a lot of repetition. It actually pairs well with Walter Lord’s Day of Infamy, which is full of colorful anecdotes, if a bit lacking in rigor.
***
Pearl Harbor does not feel distant, though it has passed out of living memory. It is – and will remain – a huge world-historical event. The first link in a chain of events that reshaped the second half of the twentieth century, and has echoed into the twenty-first.
Stille’s contribution is not the best book on this event. It isn’t even a vital one. Yet a pivot-point like this is always worth another look.
May 16, 2026
Yamamoto — I always thought the guy was a solid B tier commander, not great but competent. I would probably rate him an E now. His entire strategy falls apart under clear analysis. Yes, the Philippines holds a dagger to Japan's throat if they move south, and yes, on paper crippling the Pacific fleet for six months to buy time for southern gains before forcing a decisive battle makes sense.
But Yamamoto should have accounted for American industrial output. As Stille points out, the United States fought on two fronts and provided massive aid to its allies simultaneously — and all Japan got out of Pearl Harbor was a few ships, most of which were not permanently out of action, and zero carrier losses. This was suicide. And the maddening part is the Japanese navy top leadership seems to have known it was suicide and went ahead anyway.
What baffled me even more was the planning. The Japanese appear to have expected everything to go exactly according to plan with no contingency if something went wrong. It was sheer luck and the incompetence of Kimmel and Short that they were not found out. If they had been — losing six carriers at the very start of the war remains one of the most tantalizing what-ifs for me.
Also worth noting — Yamamoto was not even a carrier man. It was Genda and Fushida who understood where naval warfare was heading and grasped the real power of carriers.
Stille makes a shrewd about the southern operation. Had Japan moved into the DEI without touching the Americans, the isolationist mood at home might have kept the US out long enough anyway. The Pacific fleet only reached the Solomons by 1943 regardless.
On Kimmel and Short — I think Stille is too harsh on them. I have a soft spot for Kimmel mostly from Tora Tora Tora ('Would have been merciful had it killed me')— Kimmel admitted after the war he simply did not believe the Japanese were capable of pulling something like this off.
So did Japan achieve its objectives?
Destroying battleships for propaganda — yes.
Crippling the Pacific fleet for six months — technically yes, but that is the cruel irony at the heart of this whole thing. The attack did not delay the Pacific fleet. Their own logistics did. It would have been the same had they never attacked at all.
What a tragedy. But I suppose that's what draws me to the Pacific war above everything else — it was suicide from the very first day.
But Yamamoto should have accounted for American industrial output. As Stille points out, the United States fought on two fronts and provided massive aid to its allies simultaneously — and all Japan got out of Pearl Harbor was a few ships, most of which were not permanently out of action, and zero carrier losses. This was suicide. And the maddening part is the Japanese navy top leadership seems to have known it was suicide and went ahead anyway.
What baffled me even more was the planning. The Japanese appear to have expected everything to go exactly according to plan with no contingency if something went wrong. It was sheer luck and the incompetence of Kimmel and Short that they were not found out. If they had been — losing six carriers at the very start of the war remains one of the most tantalizing what-ifs for me.
Also worth noting — Yamamoto was not even a carrier man. It was Genda and Fushida who understood where naval warfare was heading and grasped the real power of carriers.
Stille makes a shrewd about the southern operation. Had Japan moved into the DEI without touching the Americans, the isolationist mood at home might have kept the US out long enough anyway. The Pacific fleet only reached the Solomons by 1943 regardless.
On Kimmel and Short — I think Stille is too harsh on them. I have a soft spot for Kimmel mostly from Tora Tora Tora ('Would have been merciful had it killed me')— Kimmel admitted after the war he simply did not believe the Japanese were capable of pulling something like this off.
So did Japan achieve its objectives?
Destroying battleships for propaganda — yes.
Crippling the Pacific fleet for six months — technically yes, but that is the cruel irony at the heart of this whole thing. The attack did not delay the Pacific fleet. Their own logistics did. It would have been the same had they never attacked at all.
What a tragedy. But I suppose that's what draws me to the Pacific war above everything else — it was suicide from the very first day.
April 24, 2026
Jonathan Parshall’s blurb on the back cover describes Stille’s efforts as yeoman’s work. I think that is fair.
Narrative
I do not doubt that Stille read and considered every text listed in the bibliography, however the citations are heavily weighted to a few popular works (At Dawn We Slept, Tower of Skulls, Japan 1941 to name a few). In terms of the narrative you are reading a reshuffled version of well-regarded books so that, if you have read them (or even extracts of them from other books), Pearl Harbor is going to seem very familiar. Because the recounting of the attack is subsidiary to the main goal of the book – analysing Japan’s performance at the strategic, operational and tactical level, I am willing to give it a pass in terms of it not being the most thrilling or novel stuff.
However, the narrow reliance on secondary sources for telling the story is still something worth diving a little deeper into, particularly in terms of the lead up to the war. By repeating the particular narrative of US-Japanese diplomatic efforts up to Pearl Harbor, it becomes entrenched in the reader’s mind and might mistakenly convey that these subjects are not as hotly debated as they often are. In his introduction, Stille makes clear that he includes the pre-war chapter primarily to demonstrate how Japan got itself in its position, so he is just extracting from more detailed books as appropriate.
The flow on is to the strength of the analysis – it rests on Stille’s view of the prevailing narrative. Contrast this with Shattered Sword where the analysis rested on the author’s own work on the underlying details (e.g. the search path of the famous floatplane of the Tone.
Now, there is always the issue of the time and resources available to the author. Stille is not approaching the subject from wildly outside of the mainstream and has explicitly communicated with at least one previous author (Zimm). So the risk that the analysis rest on a weak basis is alleviated – but do get comfortable (or not) with the books Stille relies upon.
Analysis
This is Stille’s strength, and provides a plausible set of conclusions and overviews. The strategic issues of Pearl Harbor are reasonably well known, with the logistical constraints on the Pacific Fleet being the freshest point as to why the Japanese attack was not worthwhile. At the lower levels, Stille’s analysis of the incorporation of the submarine elements, the inability to switch targets causing over-concentration and missed attacks, and the poor performance of certain elements/weapons do feel as a deeper dive.
Certainly that elevates Pearl Harbor over even contemporaries – while newer books are willing to be opinionated beyond merely giving a narrative, Stille’s well organised style is much better than the snide asides that others can fall into, with it not being clear as to where the overall opinion of the author lies. There is something to be said for structure.
Stille does also sift through the material to clear up the occasional myth, such as a midget submarine attacking Battleship Row or whether a second strike was even plausible. Some of these myths had been debunked… …then rebunked, so I guess it is good to have it debunked again, for the record.
So this a book that does not push a massive amount on the historiography but is an excellent Naval War College style explanation of the drivers and results of the attack, which turned out to be very bad for Japan.
Narrative
I do not doubt that Stille read and considered every text listed in the bibliography, however the citations are heavily weighted to a few popular works (At Dawn We Slept, Tower of Skulls, Japan 1941 to name a few). In terms of the narrative you are reading a reshuffled version of well-regarded books so that, if you have read them (or even extracts of them from other books), Pearl Harbor is going to seem very familiar. Because the recounting of the attack is subsidiary to the main goal of the book – analysing Japan’s performance at the strategic, operational and tactical level, I am willing to give it a pass in terms of it not being the most thrilling or novel stuff.
However, the narrow reliance on secondary sources for telling the story is still something worth diving a little deeper into, particularly in terms of the lead up to the war. By repeating the particular narrative of US-Japanese diplomatic efforts up to Pearl Harbor, it becomes entrenched in the reader’s mind and might mistakenly convey that these subjects are not as hotly debated as they often are. In his introduction, Stille makes clear that he includes the pre-war chapter primarily to demonstrate how Japan got itself in its position, so he is just extracting from more detailed books as appropriate.
The flow on is to the strength of the analysis – it rests on Stille’s view of the prevailing narrative. Contrast this with Shattered Sword where the analysis rested on the author’s own work on the underlying details (e.g. the search path of the famous floatplane of the Tone.
Now, there is always the issue of the time and resources available to the author. Stille is not approaching the subject from wildly outside of the mainstream and has explicitly communicated with at least one previous author (Zimm). So the risk that the analysis rest on a weak basis is alleviated – but do get comfortable (or not) with the books Stille relies upon.
Analysis
This is Stille’s strength, and provides a plausible set of conclusions and overviews. The strategic issues of Pearl Harbor are reasonably well known, with the logistical constraints on the Pacific Fleet being the freshest point as to why the Japanese attack was not worthwhile. At the lower levels, Stille’s analysis of the incorporation of the submarine elements, the inability to switch targets causing over-concentration and missed attacks, and the poor performance of certain elements/weapons do feel as a deeper dive.
Certainly that elevates Pearl Harbor over even contemporaries – while newer books are willing to be opinionated beyond merely giving a narrative, Stille’s well organised style is much better than the snide asides that others can fall into, with it not being clear as to where the overall opinion of the author lies. There is something to be said for structure.
Stille does also sift through the material to clear up the occasional myth, such as a midget submarine attacking Battleship Row or whether a second strike was even plausible. Some of these myths had been debunked… …then rebunked, so I guess it is good to have it debunked again, for the record.
So this a book that does not push a massive amount on the historiography but is an excellent Naval War College style explanation of the drivers and results of the attack, which turned out to be very bad for Japan.
January 11, 2026
A small library could easily be filled with books written about the attack on Pearl Harbour, some better than others. You may question the value of having another one. But this has the merit that its author is not only a historian, but also has a military and intelligence background. As a result, his analysis is pragmatic, technical, and very detailed: This is a sober, down-to-earth review of a historic military operation with an almost mythical status. Something is gained in the process.
Stille critically examines the Japanese attack plan, the reasons behind it, its planning and execution. He shows that despite achieving strategic and tactical surprise, the Japanese plan went awry on a number of levels. At the tactical level, the attack by midget submarines was an unwarranted risk and a disastrous failure, the target assignment to the dive bombers was flawed, and the planning for the torpedo attack too optimistic. At a strategic level, Stille condemns Yamamoto’s insistence on this operation as starkly misguided. The assessment rings true even if it is perhaps a little harsh. Because Yamamoto was trying to find a solution to an impossible problem, and the men who planned and executed the attack had only experience of such operations in training exercises.
Of course the American side is not spared from his critical eye. Complacency and prejudice found the US Army and Navy totally unprepared for an attack. General Short was responsible for protecting the fleet base, but degraded his own capacity to do so to such an extent that during the attack the airmen had to scramble to install machine guns in their fighters and find ammunition. Admiral Kimmel, convinced that his naval and air assets were insufficient to search for the potential enemy in all directions, complacently decided not to look for the Japanese at all. Despite the dismal failure of their commanders, US sailors and soldiers were quick to mount an improvised defence, and inflicted moderate damage on the second wave of attackers.
Stille goes far in arguing that ultimately, the attack on Pearl Harbour brought no benefit to the Japanese. I don’t find the argument entirely convincing. To be sure, in light of the US capacity to repair ships and build new ones, the damage done was not decisive and could never be. But on the other hand, Japanese operations in the South were highly successful without the six carriers of the Kido Butai, so it is not that a real opportunity was lost by using them for this operation, and it certainly contributed to the momentum that carried the conquest forward. The political argument that Pearl Harbour united the Americans is valid, but only goes so far: War was probably inevitable and would have engendered a patriotic response no matter what.
At times, I find Stille’s writing style a bit tiring - he insist too much. But otherwise, this is a well-written book, professionally produced.
Stille critically examines the Japanese attack plan, the reasons behind it, its planning and execution. He shows that despite achieving strategic and tactical surprise, the Japanese plan went awry on a number of levels. At the tactical level, the attack by midget submarines was an unwarranted risk and a disastrous failure, the target assignment to the dive bombers was flawed, and the planning for the torpedo attack too optimistic. At a strategic level, Stille condemns Yamamoto’s insistence on this operation as starkly misguided. The assessment rings true even if it is perhaps a little harsh. Because Yamamoto was trying to find a solution to an impossible problem, and the men who planned and executed the attack had only experience of such operations in training exercises.
Of course the American side is not spared from his critical eye. Complacency and prejudice found the US Army and Navy totally unprepared for an attack. General Short was responsible for protecting the fleet base, but degraded his own capacity to do so to such an extent that during the attack the airmen had to scramble to install machine guns in their fighters and find ammunition. Admiral Kimmel, convinced that his naval and air assets were insufficient to search for the potential enemy in all directions, complacently decided not to look for the Japanese at all. Despite the dismal failure of their commanders, US sailors and soldiers were quick to mount an improvised defence, and inflicted moderate damage on the second wave of attackers.
Stille goes far in arguing that ultimately, the attack on Pearl Harbour brought no benefit to the Japanese. I don’t find the argument entirely convincing. To be sure, in light of the US capacity to repair ships and build new ones, the damage done was not decisive and could never be. But on the other hand, Japanese operations in the South were highly successful without the six carriers of the Kido Butai, so it is not that a real opportunity was lost by using them for this operation, and it certainly contributed to the momentum that carried the conquest forward. The political argument that Pearl Harbour united the Americans is valid, but only goes so far: War was probably inevitable and would have engendered a patriotic response no matter what.
At times, I find Stille’s writing style a bit tiring - he insist too much. But otherwise, this is a well-written book, professionally produced.
April 11, 2026
A superb history and analysis of the Pearl Harbor attack, looking at the capabilities, planning, tactics, ships, planes and preparations. The several chapters detailing the attack itself are gripping, compelling, comprehensively detailed and satisfyingly elucidating. Stille provides a comprehensive and knowledgeable dispassionate examination of all aspects of the attack, convincingly disputing many of the long held conventional views of the ramifications and successes attributed to it. The endemic flaws in Japanese strategic thinking and operational rigidity were all manifested in the lead-up to, and execution of, the Pearl Harbor attack. Stille makes the argument that the attack was neither brilliant, nor effective, serving only to insure Japan's ultimate defeat. It is a solid, thorough and well presented argument.
October 1, 2026
I have finished reading “Pearl Harbour: Japan’s Greatest Disaster” by Mark Stille.
“Tora (Tiger)! Tora (Tiger)! Tora (Tiger)!”
The radio signal initiating the first wave of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on 7th December 1941.
This is essentially a thorough historical assessment and myth buster concerning the Empire of Japan’s surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet docked in Pearl Harbour Hawaii on 7th December 1941. The main purpose of this book is to compare the attack to it’s aims and objectives. As the subtitle suggests, the author’s verdict on this is not favourable.
Even though the Japanese Military had outline plans for an attack on Pearl Harbour, this was only a concept plan until one Admiral became a major advocate of it. This was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Yamamoto, a natural reckless gambler rejected Japan’s default defensive naval strategy to lure the US Pacific Fleet in a climatic battle within the Empire’s newly conquered island chains.
In summary Yamamoto, who saw war with the US as inevitable under the Empire’s current trajectory (as it was then), intended the attack on Pearl Harbour as a shattering psychological blow that would strategically put the US off balance and divide the US public. Unfortunately for him and the Empire he miscalculated on both counts.
I was interested to be informed by the author that, contrary to WW2 legend, neither Yamamoto or any of Japanese Military got the inspiration for an aerial torpedo attack on Pearl Harbour from the British raid on the Italian port of Taranto. This legend runs that this is what convinced the Japanese attack that a torpedo attack would be technically feasible and potentially devastating in it’s results.
The truth is that Yamamoto had not considered most of the logistical hurdles for how to execute the attack, never mind worry about depths for successful torpedo drops from attacking planes under fire (though new torpedoes and bombs had to be made especially for the operation). An even bigger hurdle to navigate was how to fuel the Task Force for it’s covert deployment crossing much of the Pacific Ocean.
The author stresses what an upset to the Japanese Naval Command that Yamamoto caused by relentlessly pushing for his Pearl Harbour operation to become a reality. He even went so far as to threaten his resignation unless his plan was accepted, which is an extraordinary move to pull during the countdown to a near imminent war
While the author makes clear that while Yamamoto’s false assumptions and lack of concern with certain logistics and organization, the US on the political and military level let down the defence of Pearl Harbour too. The US Navy and Army had joint responsibility for defending Hawaii and the fleet docked in it’s harbour, yet the commanders of both services on the grounds dismissed out of hand the possibility that the Japanese had the capability or willingness to surprise attack Peal Harbour, particularly by an air-driven assault. Despite a “war message” sent out by the Department of War to warn about the deterioration in relations with the Empire of Japan, both commanders displayed breathtaking complacency. For instance, since the US Naval Commander Kimmel could not find the resources to do a constant 360 degree sweep air patrol around the islands, he chose to not bother patrolling anywhere as oppose to making his own judgement where an assault would come from.
This is a book that focuses on the facts and frank military assessments, not as much narrative history. This doesn’t always mean it is a dry read, but the reader must be prepared to be hit with some pretty forensic analysis of different aspects of the assault. One can’t blame the author for lack of research. On the contrary, this is a well- informed account and the author is not afraid to back up his judgements with evidence. I feel that readers of military history who would prefer something they could drop in and drop out of should consider carefully before embarking on this read, because it demands and rewards one’s full attention.
In conclusion, this is an incredibly well-informed account of an infamous episode in history, a day that will “live in infamy” no less. This account largely sidesteps flowing historical narrative to give the reader a solid account of what the interest of the different players were. The Empire of Japan was locked in a war with China, with resistance from the latter gently encouraged by the US to weaken a potential adversary (much as previous US policy was with Ukraine). The Empire’s interest was for the US to ignore it’s conduct in China and not interfere in it’s expansionist policy. The US Oil Embargo on Japan arguably started the countdown to war. The US engaged in faltering diplomacy with Japan to stop it’s aggression in China, not knowing that a surprise attack was being planned against them. Yamamoto bet his country’s future on the Pearl Harbour operation but was confused in his thinking. While he advocated Naval Air Power, he was convinced that sinking a number of battleships would demoralize the US enough for it to stay out of the war. Similar reckless thinking, according to the author made the Battle of Midway inevitable, which had an even worse outcome for the Japanese.
The author’s overall assessment is that only a minor and very temporary tactical advantage was gained by the Japanese by Pearl Harbour. Politically, it was terribly judged, uniting a divided US into a resolute course to fight the Empire until it was defeated. However, as the author points out, legislation passed by the US Congress after the Fall of France in 1940 arguably annulled the results of the Pearl Harbour operation before the attack happened. The legislation to turn the US Navy into a 2 ocean force condemned the Japanese Navy to be outnumbered whatever it’s outcome. It could be concluded that the game was rigged from the start.
“Tora (Tiger)! Tora (Tiger)! Tora (Tiger)!”
The radio signal initiating the first wave of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on 7th December 1941.
This is essentially a thorough historical assessment and myth buster concerning the Empire of Japan’s surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet docked in Pearl Harbour Hawaii on 7th December 1941. The main purpose of this book is to compare the attack to it’s aims and objectives. As the subtitle suggests, the author’s verdict on this is not favourable.
Even though the Japanese Military had outline plans for an attack on Pearl Harbour, this was only a concept plan until one Admiral became a major advocate of it. This was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Yamamoto, a natural reckless gambler rejected Japan’s default defensive naval strategy to lure the US Pacific Fleet in a climatic battle within the Empire’s newly conquered island chains.
In summary Yamamoto, who saw war with the US as inevitable under the Empire’s current trajectory (as it was then), intended the attack on Pearl Harbour as a shattering psychological blow that would strategically put the US off balance and divide the US public. Unfortunately for him and the Empire he miscalculated on both counts.
I was interested to be informed by the author that, contrary to WW2 legend, neither Yamamoto or any of Japanese Military got the inspiration for an aerial torpedo attack on Pearl Harbour from the British raid on the Italian port of Taranto. This legend runs that this is what convinced the Japanese attack that a torpedo attack would be technically feasible and potentially devastating in it’s results.
The truth is that Yamamoto had not considered most of the logistical hurdles for how to execute the attack, never mind worry about depths for successful torpedo drops from attacking planes under fire (though new torpedoes and bombs had to be made especially for the operation). An even bigger hurdle to navigate was how to fuel the Task Force for it’s covert deployment crossing much of the Pacific Ocean.
The author stresses what an upset to the Japanese Naval Command that Yamamoto caused by relentlessly pushing for his Pearl Harbour operation to become a reality. He even went so far as to threaten his resignation unless his plan was accepted, which is an extraordinary move to pull during the countdown to a near imminent war
While the author makes clear that while Yamamoto’s false assumptions and lack of concern with certain logistics and organization, the US on the political and military level let down the defence of Pearl Harbour too. The US Navy and Army had joint responsibility for defending Hawaii and the fleet docked in it’s harbour, yet the commanders of both services on the grounds dismissed out of hand the possibility that the Japanese had the capability or willingness to surprise attack Peal Harbour, particularly by an air-driven assault. Despite a “war message” sent out by the Department of War to warn about the deterioration in relations with the Empire of Japan, both commanders displayed breathtaking complacency. For instance, since the US Naval Commander Kimmel could not find the resources to do a constant 360 degree sweep air patrol around the islands, he chose to not bother patrolling anywhere as oppose to making his own judgement where an assault would come from.
This is a book that focuses on the facts and frank military assessments, not as much narrative history. This doesn’t always mean it is a dry read, but the reader must be prepared to be hit with some pretty forensic analysis of different aspects of the assault. One can’t blame the author for lack of research. On the contrary, this is a well- informed account and the author is not afraid to back up his judgements with evidence. I feel that readers of military history who would prefer something they could drop in and drop out of should consider carefully before embarking on this read, because it demands and rewards one’s full attention.
In conclusion, this is an incredibly well-informed account of an infamous episode in history, a day that will “live in infamy” no less. This account largely sidesteps flowing historical narrative to give the reader a solid account of what the interest of the different players were. The Empire of Japan was locked in a war with China, with resistance from the latter gently encouraged by the US to weaken a potential adversary (much as previous US policy was with Ukraine). The Empire’s interest was for the US to ignore it’s conduct in China and not interfere in it’s expansionist policy. The US Oil Embargo on Japan arguably started the countdown to war. The US engaged in faltering diplomacy with Japan to stop it’s aggression in China, not knowing that a surprise attack was being planned against them. Yamamoto bet his country’s future on the Pearl Harbour operation but was confused in his thinking. While he advocated Naval Air Power, he was convinced that sinking a number of battleships would demoralize the US enough for it to stay out of the war. Similar reckless thinking, according to the author made the Battle of Midway inevitable, which had an even worse outcome for the Japanese.
The author’s overall assessment is that only a minor and very temporary tactical advantage was gained by the Japanese by Pearl Harbour. Politically, it was terribly judged, uniting a divided US into a resolute course to fight the Empire until it was defeated. However, as the author points out, legislation passed by the US Congress after the Fall of France in 1940 arguably annulled the results of the Pearl Harbour operation before the attack happened. The legislation to turn the US Navy into a 2 ocean force condemned the Japanese Navy to be outnumbered whatever it’s outcome. It could be concluded that the game was rigged from the start.
August 3, 2025
I am delighted to report that I have just completed "Pearl Harbor: Japan's Greatest Disaster" from author Mark Stille, published by Osprey Publishing (who were kind enough to provide me an ARC for this review). It is every bit as good as I have come to expect from him! The particular strength in this volume is found in Stille's willingness to look past a simple retelling in the interests of offering a new and somewhat iconoclastic perspective on the "Day that will live in Infamy." The subtitle rather gives the game away. Stille contends, as his central thesis, that the Pearl Harbor attack was far from the smashing victory that everyone made it out to be at the time and largely since. Instead, he sees stubborn military leadership refusing to back down from their imperial vision on the Asian mainland and instead taking an outrageous gamble by hurling their forces at an enemy manifestly superior in material resources. Everyone is familiar with Yamamoto's observation that he would run wild in the Pacific for six months but that he could guarantee nothing beyond that except a chimerical vision of a grinding war of attrition which everyone knew Japan could not hope to win unless the American spirit collapsed in the face of massive losses and a terrible "Butchers Bill." Without downplaying the brilliant (but fundamentally flawed) planning that went into the attack and the many innovations and revolutions it introduced into warfare, Stille is clear that the foundations of the attack were based on little more than wishful thinking. What is more, in relating events the author offers an unparalleled analysis of the weapons and doctrines employed by both sides, with a clear eyed view of strengths and weaknesses. It is a riveting read, as much for this solid look at war at the operational level as for his meticulous discussion of the actual events of that day, and the many ways in which the attack failed as the Japanese, for all of their visionary use of airpower, remained fixated on the traditional battle line as the real target. I strongly recommend this book as required reading for those interested in what happened and why.. Well done!
December 8, 2025
"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." These words, spoken by Japanese Admiral Yamamoto were more prophetic than he could imagine.
While Japan had high hopes for their raid on Pearl Harbor, it would not turn out as they wanted. On the surface, the Japanese were victorious at Pearl. The Americans were caught, almost unaware, and the loss of life and vessel were astounding. But what seemed to be a victory turned out to be the undoing of the Japanese, bringing several costly mistakes that would become evident as time marched forward.
This was one of the BEST books that I have read this year. Mark Stille does a great job of breaking down not only what led to the attack, but the ramifications that the Japanese were going to deal with due to it.
The tactical analysis is top notch, so if you enjoy a good detailed read, this is one of the best that you can pick up. I read this one twice before writing my review, and am currently on the third going through with notes.
While Japan had high hopes for their raid on Pearl Harbor, it would not turn out as they wanted. On the surface, the Japanese were victorious at Pearl. The Americans were caught, almost unaware, and the loss of life and vessel were astounding. But what seemed to be a victory turned out to be the undoing of the Japanese, bringing several costly mistakes that would become evident as time marched forward.
This was one of the BEST books that I have read this year. Mark Stille does a great job of breaking down not only what led to the attack, but the ramifications that the Japanese were going to deal with due to it.
The tactical analysis is top notch, so if you enjoy a good detailed read, this is one of the best that you can pick up. I read this one twice before writing my review, and am currently on the third going through with notes.
August 17, 2025
This is a VERY detailed look at the battle of Pearl Harbor, including the planning on both sides beforehand, exactly which ships, airplanes and submarines were involved and why, the mentalities of leaders on both sides, eaxactly what bombs were used and the ultimate fate of the Japanese ships which were involved in Pearl Harbor. At times, I found the detail overwhelming so I skimmed various shunks but the author does a good job of summing up the sections so I was able to follow the overall argument - essentially, whilst the US were asleep at the wheel, the Japanese made a flawed plan based on wishful thinking and faulty assumptions - their "knock-out" blow to demoralise the Americans only succeeded in angering and uniting them which made Japanese defeat utterly inevitable. If you'd like to improve your knowledge on this iconic moment of WW2, this is a good book with which to do so. I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.
April 4, 2026
A truly unique and overdue book. I was very skeptical that this book would bring any new thought process about the events but I was very wrong. I have read a lot of books on WW2 in the pacific theatre and it seems like there is always an overriding theme that the Japanese should have attacked again to destroy the fuel storage and facilities. This author does a fantastic job outlying how such a strike would have had doubtful success and how without the replenishment oilers that the US fleet lacked the American fleet was limited in mobility anyway.
The author is also very unbiased and does a fantastic job outlying the wrong assumptions made by both sides.
The author is also very unbiased and does a fantastic job outlying the wrong assumptions made by both sides.
May 29, 2026
An informative look at Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The author does a great job of weaving into first-hand accounts to provide a look at not only the battle and the aftermath, but also the political maneuverings that led to the attack. The author also makes a good case that the attack was not the success that history sometimes will point at. In fact, in the author's opinion, Japan would have been better off never to have attacked Pearl Harbor. Overall, a good read, with an excellent review of the real ramifications of the attack for both sides.
Thank you to #NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for my honest opinion
Thank you to #NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for my honest opinion
December 20, 2025
one of the best WWII books I’ve ever read.
While a lot has been written on the December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor, and two Hollywood movies (4) if you add the movies that cover Midway, none of them lay out the chronological details that fully explain the impact of this “day that lives in infamy”. I highly recommend this book.
While a lot has been written on the December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor, and two Hollywood movies (4) if you add the movies that cover Midway, none of them lay out the chronological details that fully explain the impact of this “day that lives in infamy”. I highly recommend this book.
Read
July 2, 202611/09/2025
This book is informative, well written and a detailed look at Pearl Harbor and the wider events surrounding it. That said for now I have stopped reading this at 23% in because I’m just not feeling this right now and I’m not in the right headspace to take all this information in.
This book is informative, well written and a detailed look at Pearl Harbor and the wider events surrounding it. That said for now I have stopped reading this at 23% in because I’m just not feeling this right now and I’m not in the right headspace to take all this information in.
November 15, 2025
An excellent military history, full of detail. Great maps!
Read
January 1, 2026I have read a lot of books on Pearl Harbor this covers everything in a different way, very good!
June 3, 2026
An excellent account making a compelling argument challenging many of the myths about Pearl Harbor,
July 2, 2026
An amazingly researched and detailed examination of the plan, tactics, response, and result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Incredibly insightful analysis of the events.
July 6, 2026
Another superbly written book with a fresh look at the disaster at Pearl Harbor. I recommend to all students of WWII in the Pacific.
August 22, 2026
Great book, well documented. I especially like the list at the end of what happened to each Japanese vessel involved with the attack (spoiler - only one vessel survived the war).
March 11, 2026
A true masterpiece.I have actually visited Pearl Harbour with its imposing monument to those that died.I have seen films and read books about the attack but non as all encompassing and thorough in its explanation of what happened.One of the great war books.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews