Americans, Never Forget: December 7, 1941

[Benuty]

Two imperialist powers run into each other with the Japanese doing a strategy-driven strike on the US. Gave Japan about a year of rampaging throughout the Pacific unchecked.

Well they might have had more had they not lost at Midway (in a rather stupid move as well).

[Capital Zealand]

Ever heard of diplomacy and treaties? Let's end the war on terrorism the same way! Oh, and the war on drugs! How about that?

Aw you are so cute!

Are you perhaps illiterate for still making fun of me after I said this?

Sorry. My feelings got me. Go on.

[Chinese Regions]

I voted "Imperialistic yet strategically intelligent." since there's no "It was a dick move but nobody deserves to be nuked" option.

[Vamtrl]

Aw you are so cute!

Are you perhaps illiterate for still making fun of me after I said this?

Sorry. My feelings got me. Go on.

So defensive, name calling is uncalled for when you could have just posted the apology.

[Capital Zealand]

Are you perhaps illiterate for still making fun of me after I said this?

So defensive, name calling is uncalled for when you could have just posted the apology.

I am not posting it twice in a row just for you.

[Vamtrl]

So defensive, name calling is uncalled for when you could have just posted the apology.

I am not posting it twice in a row just for you.

But you did post it...

Are you perhaps illiterate for still making fun of me after I said this?

Sorry. My feelings got me. Go on.

[Vareiln]

Well, Japan's tactic was to draw the US into a war, then later surrender, with the hope that Japan would still hold on to some of it's conquered territories.
Given that, attacking Pearl Harbor was a wise move. That is, it would have been if they destroyed most of the Pacific Fleet.

[Capital Zealand]

I am not posting it twice in a row just for you.

But you did post it...

Are you perhaps illiterate for still making fun of me after I said this?

I meant to say: I am not just posting it twice in a row just for you. Of course, you're entitled to not having to believe me, but that's what I meant. Having to just repeat stuff various amount of times a row like a drone annoys me greatly. I cannot even fucking speak the things I mean to speak. Fuck.

[Nervium]

America should have defended Pearl Harbour better.

[Benuty]

America should have defended Pearl Harbour better.

How about not placing the entirety of your pacific fleet on a relatively undefended island along with much of your pacific air force & recruits?

[Nervium]

America should have defended Pearl Harbour better.

How about not placing the entirety of your pacific fleet on a relatively undefended island along with much of your pacific air force & recruits?

That sounds pretty accurate, regardless, they have/should have seen it coming.

[The Victorian Empire]

So striking a country you're not at war with a sneak attack while most of them are sleeping isn't cowardly to you?

Extremely less compared to the dropping of the little boy and fat man to Japan.

I voted "Imperialistic yet strategically intelligent." since there's no "It was a dick move but nobody deserves to be nuked" option.

I take it you both aren't aware that invading the Japanese mainland would've resulted in more death and destruction? And that before the bombings, the Japanese still had a "Fuck you, we'll die before we surrender!" attitude?

Figured there was going to be a thread like this.

Thread like what? To remember those who died at Pearl Harbor and to commemorate it's 72nd Anniversary?

[Hurdegaryp]

How about not placing the entirety of your pacific fleet on a relatively undefended island along with much of your pacific air force & recruits?

That sounds pretty accurate, regardless, they have/should have seen it coming.

The funny (sad?) thing is that brigadier general Billy Mitchell already predicted a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1921. Yes, you've read that right. Of course nobody took him serious, he even got punished for it. Nobody likes a visionary, after all.

[The Victorian Empire]

That sounds pretty accurate, regardless, they have/should have seen it coming.

The funny (sad?) thing is that brigadier general Billy Mitchell already predicted a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1921. Yes, you've read that right. Of course nobody took him serious, he even got punished for it. Nobody likes a visionary, after all.

People don't like people who can predict the future.

*nods*

[Condunum]

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

Perhaps the lack of a follow-up attack of our west coast. Japan didn't go nearly far enough to reach their goal of knocking us out of the war.

[Capital Zealand]

Extremely less compared to the dropping of the little boy and fat man to Japan.

I voted "Imperialistic yet strategically intelligent." since there's no "It was a dick move but nobody deserves to be nuked" option.

I take it you both aren't aware that invading the Japanese mainland would've resulted in more death and destruction? And that before the bombings, the Japanese still had a "Fuck you, we'll die before we surrender!" attitude?

Figured there was going to be a thread like this.

Thread like what? To remember those who died at Pearl Harbor and to commemorate it's 72nd Anniversary?

I take it you aren't aware of my later comment.

Sorry. My feelings got me. Go on.

[Nervium]

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

Perhaps the lack of a follow-up attack of our west coast. Japan didn't go nearly far enough to reach their goal of knocking us out of the war.

Not that they could, oil shortages and all.

[Imperializt Russia]

Didn't the US engineer a boycott of the oil shipments of Japan, thereby inflaming the Japanese?

According to an article from Salon, FDR kept the oil shipments moving to try and prevent war.

He went... somewhere, left a committee in charge, and they suspended the oil shipments. When he got back, FDR didn't overrule them because he didn't want to be seen as weak.

Japan then tries to destroy the US carrier fleet to prevent them from interfering with expansionist policy. The carriers survive, and the war intensifies.

The actions came with lovely repercussions of people still dying unnatural deaths related to radiation.

Because it wasn't a brand new weapon, and because everyone knew EXACTLY what the consequences would be.

It became immediately apparent in the days following the bombing, to the point that media were prohibited from visiting the bomb sites.

Pretty much. The new technology had been tested - the Americans knew its potential. They dropped two, and were planning to drop more.

They could have gone with Operation Downfall. It would have been even bloodier, though.

Not so much bloodier as burnier, mind.

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

Perhaps the lack of a follow-up attack of our west coast. Japan didn't go nearly far enough to reach their goal of knocking us out of the war.

They didn't need to attack the US mainland.

If they'd succeeded in their goal of killing the US carrier fleet, the US would have been unable to oppose Japanese expansionism.

This would have been what's known as a "counterforce" operation. Your carriers have killed their carriers. They have no pacific carriers and you have all of them. The calculated move is that the enemy surrenders the Pacific.

[Taoju]

Oh look things are getting clusterfucky already.

Anyways. Japan used a strategically sound way to destroy much of the navy in Pearl Harbor, much to the dismay of the Americans who lost many lives in that event, may they now rest in peace. Of course, they could've went further to fully incapacitate the USA from intervening, but that was logistically impossible.

Now on the same effect, the nukes that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were key in Japan's surrender. It was either commit collateral damage instantly or commit suicidal mission with collateral damage. Here it becoms many shades of grey concerning the morality of Pearl Harbor and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whilst Japan needed to take the USA out, why didn't they go for the West Coast as well? As for the bombing. Were there other methods unthought of to make Japan surrender? After all, the firebombings combined still totaled more deaths than the nuclear weaponry used on the two cities.

I see the nuclear bombing of the two cities as a potential vengance shot as a lesser evil, but taking into account the amount of lives lost in the firebombings make me a bit more uneasy on the matter.

While the attack on Pearl Harbor was innevitable and justified, I'm not quite sure similar judgement was put into play for the retaliations on Japanese soil.

That being said, may all those that have long passed during those terrible years rest in peace.

[Shofercia]

While I agree that Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack by an imperialistic enemy, I highly doubt that Japanese deserved Nagasaki in the end.

[Occupied Deutschland]

While I agree that Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack by an imperialistic enemy, I highly doubt that Japanese deserved Nagasaki in the end.

I'd actually even take issue with the 'unprovoked' portion. The US oil embargo and freezing of Japanese assets is a pretty major provocation towards Japan taking some form of action (its use as a bludgeon following Japan's occupation of French Indochina sidelined for a moment), problem being it pushed the military-dominated government towards a military solution, rather than push them into backing down.

In an interesting way, it's the opposite lesson that everyone in the West tends to draw from Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. The US took a very hardline approach towards Japanese actions in the Pacific (or, at the very least, took a much more hardline than anyone else would/could) and that same hardline approach is very clearly connected with the attack's occurrence. Is this the USs "fault" as some would say? I wouldn't say so and would glare pretty hard at the folks who suggested it, but it was very much a provocation. One I'd say that was overreacted to, and reacted incorrectly to because of the Japanese government's domination by very war-inclined imperialists, but reacted to it was as it was intended to be. It just wasn't reacted to in the way the US expected/desired.

Edit: Combine the use of that diplomatic bludgeon with Japanese anti-Western/racist sentiment and American/European/Western racism, not to mention heaping helpings of diplomatic misunderstandings in general and radically different cultures in a time when that tended to mean Very Big Problems, and you have yourself a recipe for disaster.

[Gallup]

It was a cowardly act. America would never do something like that.

[The High Guardians]

You have to remember that the U.S had created a private company, made up of U.S.A.F pilots who fought against the Japanese on the side of the Chinese.This majorly annoyed the Japanese so when they had the chance, they got revenge for U.S intervention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Volunteer_Group

[Occupied Deutschland]

You have to remember that the U.S had created a private company, made up of U.S.A.F pilots who fought against the Japanese on the side of the Chinese.This majorly annoyed the Japanese so when they had the chance, they got revenge for U.S intervention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Volunteer_Group

...
They didn't perform combat roles against Japanese forces until after Pearl Harbor though. In fact, I seem to recall their first actual combat sortie taking place near the very end of the year on December 29. Am I all wet on that? My expertise does lie more with the European theater, but I could have sworn I remember that...

Unless you mean their mere presence provoked Japan? Which is possible I suppose but I don't know if their presence was known about prior to their actually beginning operations against Japanese forces in China and Burma?

Edit: Ahh, wiki confirms me (some). The Flying Tigers didn't begin combat operations until December 20 (not 29 as I thought, not sure where that came from).

[The High Guardians]

You have to remember that the U.S had created a private company, made up of U.S.A.F pilots who fought against the Japanese on the side of the Chinese.This majorly annoyed the Japanese so when they had the chance, they got revenge for U.S intervention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Volunteer_Group

...
They didn't perform combat roles against Japanese forces until after Pearl Harbor though. In fact, I seem to recall their first actual combat sortie taking place near the very end of the year on December 29. Am I all wet on that? My expertise does lie more with the European theater, but I could have sworn I remember that...

Unless you mean their mere presence provoked Japan? Which is possible I suppose but I don't know if their presence was known about prior to their actually beginning operations against Japanese forces in China and Burma?

I think it was their presence because they also allowed the Chinese to use their superior equipment and trained them in air combat, which changed the situations in the sky. However, I remember watching several documentaries about them and I'm sure they engaged before Pearl Harbour, unofficially. I'm not 100% sure though.