Americans, Never Forget: December 7, 1941

[Reddogkeno101]

Don't see why I should be feeling any worse for the American's that died then the Japanese we nuked to smithereens.

I honestly do not see why we feel so sorry for the Japanese when all sides of the war used strategic bombing. Seriously, the atomic bombings were just another example of strategic bombing that was part of the idea of total war and the simple fact that only the British had bombers that were good at accurate bombing that could be done at day rather than night-time shotgun-approaches to bombing. Everyone laments Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet I have never heard anybody lament the firebombings of Dresden of Tokyo or other cities despite their aims being just the same in terms of what they entailed, just with a different bomb.

Thank god that the de Havilland Mosquito was a success and strategic bombing was agreed upon as being bad.

Well the fire-bombings were far more effective than the Atomic Bombs in Japan at causing civilian casualties. It think the real losers of WW2 were the civilians, because it became total war. The entire country mobilised behind the war effort and they were targeted because of that.

[Altruistic Paladins]

I honestly do not see why we feel so sorry for the Japanese when all sides of the war used strategic bombing. Seriously, the atomic bombings were just another example of strategic bombing that was part of the idea of total war and the simple fact that only the British had bombers that were good at accurate bombing that could be done at day rather than night-time shotgun-approaches to bombing. Everyone laments Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet I have never heard anybody lament the firebombings of Dresden of Tokyo or other cities despite their aims being just the same in terms of what they entailed, just with a different bomb

Wasn't firebombing worst then both nukes combined? Or something along those lines

I am not denigrating the horror of the atomic bombings, but I refuse to place them on a pedestal as somehow worse than what every side did for the majority of the war, which was bombings done according to the principles of strategic bombing out of a combination of only the Mosquito being good at bombing that was not strategic bombing and total war's principles that everybody is involved in the war effort. The atomic bombings were about as bad as firebombings, particularly due to both frequently causing firestorms that were so hot as to melt pavement.

[Tekania]

Wasn't firebombing worst then both nukes combined? Or something along those lines

I am not denigrating the horror of the atomic bombings, but I refuse to place them on a pedestal as somehow worse than what every side did for the majority of the war, which was bombings done according to the principles of strategic bombing that total war entails. The atomic bombings were about as bad as firebombings, particularly due to both frequently causing firestorms that were so hot as to melt pavement.

Indeed, we engaged in saturation bombings in Europe that killed more people,civilians especially. And yet it's these two which get the special treatment. I mean, the power display was horrendous in that one bomber could carrier the entire destructive capacity of entire bomber wings.... but still. It really was no different that what we already we re doing. So you're right.

[Corrian]

I feel bad for the men who had to die on both sides over some stupid war. The innocents especially, but even the men who were just fighting for their country.

I don't know the cause of all of this, but I almost guarantee it was something completely stupid, because it was war. So I feel bad for the people who had to get caught up in all the bullshit between governments or whatever.

[Altruistic Paladins]

I honestly do not see why we feel so sorry for the Japanese when all sides of the war used strategic bombing. Seriously, the atomic bombings were just another example of strategic bombing that was part of the idea of total war and the simple fact that only the British had bombers that were good at accurate bombing that could be done at day rather than night-time shotgun-approaches to bombing. Everyone laments Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet I have never heard anybody lament the firebombings of Dresden of Tokyo or other cities despite their aims being just the same in terms of what they entailed, just with a different bomb.

Thank god that the de Havilland Mosquito was a success and strategic bombing was agreed upon as being bad.

Well the fire-bombings were far more effective than the Atomic Bombs in Japan at causing civilian casualties. It think the real losers of WW2 were the civilians, because it became total war. The entire country mobilised behind the war effort and they were targeted because of that.

Yeah, I agree with that. I generally hold that what made the atomic bombings so horrible to people now was less due to circumstances understandable by people of the day but hindsight about the precipitation of the Cold War that developed alongside the atomic bombs. This focus on the fact that the weapons dropped were atomic bombs seems to be rather insulting to all of the civilians killed during other strategic bombings of the war, including the probably just as bad firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo.

[Conkerials]

I am not denigrating the horror of the atomic bombings, but I refuse to place them on a pedestal as somehow worse than what every side did for the majority of the war, which was bombings done according to the principles of strategic bombing that total war entails. The atomic bombings were about as bad as firebombings, particularly due to both frequently causing firestorms that were so hot as to melt pavement.

Indeed, we engaged in saturation bombings in Europe that killed more people,civilians especially. And yet it's these two which get the special treatment. I mean, the power display was horrendous in that one bomber could carrier the entire destructive capacity of entire bomber wings.... but still. It really was no different that what we already we re doing. So you're right.

Well, they kinda do deserve special treatment. First ever use of nuclear war heads in a war, and only use, at that. Single-handedly killed more people in a single bomb than any other single event in any war I can think of, and did indeed end the war sooner. So while it was not the most horrific thing to ever happen, it does deserve special recognition.

[ControlHQ]

I feel bad for the men who had to die on both sides over some stupid war. The innocents especially, but even the men who were just fighting for their country.

I don't know the cause of all of this, but I almost guarantee it was something completely stupid, because it was war. So I feel bad for the people who had to get caught up in all the bullshit between governments or whatever.

Actually, in the case of WWII, I believe it was the most just war in human history. One of the few, anyway.

But I agree. I abhor war nonetheless and it is sad that tens of millions had to perish because of humanity's inability to live in peace.

[Tekania]

Indeed, we engaged in saturation bombings in Europe that killed more people,civilians especially. And yet it's these two which get the special treatment. I mean, the power display was horrendous in that one bomber could carrier the entire destructive capacity of entire bomber wings.... but still. It really was no different that what we already we re doing. So you're right.

Well, they kinda do deserve special treatment. First ever use of nuclear war heads in a war, and only use, at that. Single-handedly killed more people in a single bomb than any other single event in any war I can think of, and did indeed end the war sooner. So while it was not the most horrific thing to ever happen, it does deserve special recognition.

I mean special treatment in causalities. Almost like their deaths become more significant merely because they were killed by an atomic bomb rather than a conventional one.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

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.

not really, the Spanish American war and ww1 already proven what happens when you are even perceived to have attacked us. hit us with a beer bottle and we'll deck you with a bar stool, then throw you out a window.

[ControlHQ]

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.

Um Japan's tactic was never to surrender. It took a couple of atomic bombs to bring about the actualization of that eventuality. There's was a strategy of quick victory on a geostrategic level, counting that the United States would be unable or unwilling to muster a significant counteroffensive effort before Japan had solidified her foothold in the Pacific.

And they did destroy most of the Pacific Fleet. Just not the most important components (the carriers and shore facilities).

[Dracoria]

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.

Um Japan's tactic was never to surrender. It took a couple of atomic bombs to bring about the actualization of that eventuality. There's was a strategy of quick victory on a geostrategic level, counting that the United States would be unable or unwilling to muster a significant counteroffensive effort before Japan had solidified her foothold in the Pacific.

And they did destroy most of the Pacific Fleet. Just not the most important components (the carriers and shore facilities).

I think he meant the overall plan was to force the US into negotiations to save face; the US could proclaim a peace treaty where it ended the war, while Japan got to keep what they took. Of course, FDR would have never stood for this. He didn't stand for a lot of things, come to think of it.

As for destroying most of the Pacific Fleet, certainly not. The antique battle line was ruined, with 7 of the 8 battleships present unfit for service following the attack, but only three cruisers and three destroyers, no carriers, and no submarines were damaged. The US was left with its carriers, submarines and escorts to fight the war until replacements and refurbishments trickled in, but it turned out these were really all it needed.

[ControlHQ]

Um Japan's tactic was never to surrender. It took a couple of atomic bombs to bring about the actualization of that eventuality. There's was a strategy of quick victory on a geostrategic level, counting that the United States would be unable or unwilling to muster a significant counteroffensive effort before Japan had solidified her foothold in the Pacific.

And they did destroy most of the Pacific Fleet. Just not the most important components (the carriers and shore facilities).

I think he meant the overall plan was to force the US into negotiations to save face; the US could proclaim a peace treaty where it ended the war, while Japan got to keep what they took. Of course, FDR would have never stood for this. He didn't stand for a lot of things, come to think of it.

As for destroying most of the Pacific Fleet, certainly not. The antique battle line was ruined, with 7 of the 8 battleships present unfit for service following the attack, but only three cruisers and three destroyers, no carriers, and no submarines were damaged. The US was left with its carriers, submarines and escorts to fight the war until replacements and refurbishments trickled in, but it turned out these were really all it needed.

Oh now that wasn't nice. Please apologize to FDR.

And I got the gist of what he meant but he worded his argument poorly. As did I. I meant the majority of battleships which were put out of action (which were thought to be the dominant front line warships until the carriers proved their worth).

[Occupied Deutschland]

I think he meant the overall plan was to force the US into negotiations to save face; the US could proclaim a peace treaty where it ended the war, while Japan got to keep what they took. Of course, FDR would have never stood for this. He didn't stand for a lot of things, come to think of it.

Of course he didn't. In fact, that overmanaging namby-pamby didn't stand for much of anything.

I'd call him one of our lamest Presidents. They should've just put me in charge. We would'a got that shit straightened out a lot faster.

[Dracoria]

I think he meant the overall plan was to force the US into negotiations to save face; the US could proclaim a peace treaty where it ended the war, while Japan got to keep what they took. Of course, FDR would have never stood for this. He didn't stand for a lot of things, come to think of it.

As for destroying most of the Pacific Fleet, certainly not. The antique battle line was ruined, with 7 of the 8 battleships present unfit for service following the attack, but only three cruisers and three destroyers, no carriers, and no submarines were damaged. The US was left with its carriers, submarines and escorts to fight the war until replacements and refurbishments trickled in, but it turned out these were really all it needed.

Oh now that wasn't nice. Please apologize to FDR.

And I got the gist of what he meant but he worded his argument poorly. As did I. I meant the majority of battleships which were put out of action (which were thought to be the dominant front line warships until the carriers proved their worth).

Thing is, at that time carriers were already understood by the latest generation of admirals to be a major threat. Look at the Japanese carrier admirals like Yamomoto, or American admirals who prefered to be stationed with the carriers like Halsey ("The naval officer in the next war had better know his aviation, and good."); it was the old guard who steadfastly clung to Mahan's writings that still thought the battleships would rule, that and perhaps popular perception by the civilians who hadn't been involved with fleet exercises that had already shown the aircraft carrier's potential. There is some argument that even FDR was aware of the shift in power to the new classes before the war began, with the conspiracy theories about why the carriers were absent but the battleships tied up, or how quickly the administration was prepared to shift so much capital into carrier and plane production while trimming back on any battleship that couldn't serve as an escort.

[Libertarian California]

A day that shall live in infamy. Fucking Japs got us on that one. But I'd say we did more than our fair share of retaliation, so I'm going to call it even.

[ControlHQ]

Oh now that wasn't nice. Please apologize to FDR.

And I got the gist of what he meant but he worded his argument poorly. As did I. I meant the majority of battleships which were put out of action (which were thought to be the dominant front line warships until the carriers proved their worth).

Thing is, at that time carriers were already understood by the latest generation of admirals to be a major threat. Look at the Japanese carrier admirals like Yamomoto, or American admirals who prefered to be stationed with the carriers like Halsey ("The naval officer in the next war had better know his aviation, and good."); it was the old guard who steadfastly clung to Mahan's writings that still thought the battleships would rule, that and perhaps popular perception by the civilians who hadn't been involved with fleet exercises that had already shown the aircraft carrier's potential. There is some argument that even FDR was aware of the shift in power to the new classes before the war began, with the conspiracy theories about why the carriers were absent but the battleships tied up, or how quickly the administration was prepared to shift so much capital into carrier and plane production while trimming back on any battleship that couldn't serve as an escort.

Yeah, very true. Especially in Yomototo's case. The man was a masterful innovator. Though I'm unsure of how aware FDR was of the necessity of aircraft carriers over conventional battleships or how involved he was in the allocation of resources to the construction of a particular class of warship. Before Pearl Harbor, he was, after all, more focused on Hitler's advance across Europe and ferrying supplies across the Atlantic which, during the early lend lease years, did not involve American carriers.

[JuNii]

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

I believe what happened was that the Japanese prime minister was supposed to deliver the letter announcing Japan's declaration of was on the U.S. minutes before the attack... However, due to problems like a broken typewriter or something as well as a mis-calculation on the time difference, the letter was delivered after the attack making what was supposed to be a decisive first strike into a sneak attack. Hence the attack on Pearl Harbor became a cowardly attack.

[Altruistic Paladins]

Oh now that wasn't nice. Please apologize to FDR.

And I got the gist of what he meant but he worded his argument poorly. As did I. I meant the majority of battleships which were put out of action (which were thought to be the dominant front line warships until the carriers proved their worth).

Thing is, at that time carriers were already understood by the latest generation of admirals to be a major threat. Look at the Japanese carrier admirals like Yamomoto, or American admirals who prefered to be stationed with the carriers like Halsey ("The naval officer in the next war had better know his aviation, and good."); it was the old guard who steadfastly clung to Mahan's writings that still thought the battleships would rule, that and perhaps popular perception by the civilians who hadn't been involved with fleet exercises that had already shown the aircraft carrier's potential. There is some argument that even FDR was aware of the shift in power to the new classes before the war began, with the conspiracy theories about why the carriers were absent but the battleships tied up, or how quickly the administration was prepared to shift so much capital into carrier and plane production while trimming back on any battleship that couldn't serve as an escort.

Of course, those conspiracies tend to fall flat if their expectation is that FDR goaded Japan to declare war so that the US would be at war with Nazi Germany, this being thought due to conspiracy theorists "forgetting" that the Axis alliance was a defense pact and the resulting confusion that is conspiracy theorists "forgetting" the absence of any declared war between the Soviet Union and Japan with declarations of war only happening in August of 1945 in spite of their claims that the Axis was a comprehensive alliance and not just defensive pact and also "forgetting" to mention the severe lack of any mention of Japan attacking the United States as a reason to go to war in Germany's declaration of war on the United States while it focused on such things as Lend-Lease and Cash and Carry (which is a fantastic name for a liquor store).

[The Corparation]

Complete Failure. They struck when one of their main targets, the Carrier fleet was out at sea, they also failed to destroy the subs there and ignored the fuel depot. Had they struck any of those, the war in the Pacific would have lasted a lot longer, and may have turned out a bit different.

[Libertarian California]

Complete Failure. They struck when one of their main targets, the Carrier fleet was out at sea, they also failed to destroy the subs there and ignored the fuel depot. Had they struck any of those, the war in the Pacific would have lasted a lot longer, and may have turned out a bit different.

Probably would have ended with Tokyo getting nuked. Our anger would have been intensified.

[Souseiseki]

Complete Failure. They struck when one of their main targets, the Carrier fleet was out at sea, they also failed to destroy the subs there and ignored the fuel depot. Had they struck any of those, the war in the Pacific would have lasted a lot longer, and may have turned out a bit different.

Probably would have ended with Tokyo getting nuked. Our anger would have been intensified.

nah

e: for content what i'm saying is that just because the japanese guy said ragh ragh angry giant oh no kamisama sukuiteeeeeeee doesn't actually mean that america is a big rampaging angry giant and that getting their naval shit kicked in more makes nuking tokyo because america is just that mad reasonable in anyway. also while im here can you not say japs like seriously.

[Altruistic Paladins]

Fucking Japs

Uh, is not the word "Jap" an ethnic slur?

[The Corparation]

Complete Failure. They struck when one of their main targets, the Carrier fleet was out at sea, they also failed to destroy the subs there and ignored the fuel depot. Had they struck any of those, the war in the Pacific would have lasted a lot longer, and may have turned out a bit different.

Probably would have ended with Tokyo getting nuked. Our anger would have been intensified.

I doubt it. Besides, nuking Tokyo would have accomplished jack shit because starting with the introduction of the B-29 and the capture of airbases within range of the main islands the US was dropping firebombs on a nearly nightly basis. And then there was Meetinghouse. 1 night. 300 or so B-29s. 1/4 of one of the most densely populated cities on the planet burned to the ground. Over 100k dead and 2 million displaced. This is more than either of the atomic bombings. And its also important to keep in mind that the 100k dead figure is probably low, both sides had a motive to understate the casualties from the raid.

[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.

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.

Fair enough, I respect that viewpoint, but from my perspective, it was two Imperialist Powers fighting over the Pacific. It was entirely reasonable for the US to deny Japan resources that were being used in a manner that's potentially detrimental to the US. Japan's escalation was largely unprovoked.

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

It's not about if they deserved it or not, it's not about if it was the right thing to do or not, it was the only thing to do. The Japanese refused to surrender. They would've preferred having their country turned into a heaping rubble of corpses, fire, smoke, ash, and ruins than surrender. Invading the country would've resulted in even more death and destruction than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was either wipe out two whole cities, or prolong an already tiring war by launching a campaign that would result in more cons than pros, and that's what makes it justified, even if it wasn't the most moral choice, it was the most logical choice.

Before Nagasaki, Japan agreed to surrender with one condition: keeping their emperor. Negotiations were continuing. The Soviets cut off Japan from Asia. US Navy was moving in for the kill. Japanese would've surrendered eventually, Nagasaki or no Nagasaki.

It's not about if they deserved it or not, it's not about if it was the right thing to do or not, it was the only thing to do. The Japanese refused to surrender. They would've preferred having their country turned into a heaping rubble of corpses, fire, smoke, ash, and ruins than surrender. Invading the country would've resulted in even more death and destruction than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was either wipe out two whole cities, or prolong an already tiring war by launching a campaign that would result in more cons than pros, and that's what makes it justified, even if it wasn't the most moral choice, it was the most logical choice.

That was part of Truman's political calculation, yes, but he also wanted to intimidate the Soviets by displaying the capabilities of the weapon. He had actually boasted about the nuclear program to Stalin during the Yalta conference, who, much to Truman's chagrin, was not that impressed. He had already known about it, since Soviet intelligence had infiltrated the Manhattan project since at least 1942.

It should also be said that another huge (even bigger than the atomic bombings, in the estimation of the Japanese government) contributor to the Japanese surrender was the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Korea in April 1945. The atomic bombings themselves, though impressive, actually didn't kill that many people compared to many of the other air raids conducted during the war (the famous March 9/10 1945 firebombing raid on Tokyo killed something like 80,000-100,000 people, and displaced over 1,000,000 others, making it comparable to each of the atomic bombings).

Would the Japanese have surrendered without the use of the atomic bombs? There was no way to tell at that point, and it's still debatable today (really, the only thing which pushed the Japanese cabinet into accepting surrender was the intervention of Hirohito, which probably wouldn't have happened without the atomic attacks).

I agree with you in that Truman used both, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to intimidate Stalin, especially after the Soviets used a tank army to blitz Japan, making such a rapid advance that tanks had to be supplied from airplanes. Kravchenko had to relegate the Fourth Air Army (I think it was the fourth,) to supply and recon roles, to keep up the tank army's advance, actually managing to be ahead of schedule, and Soviet schedules almost never worked out, so being ahead... it's like completing a five year plan in four years. As for Hirohito, I doubt he'd have much of a choice without Nagasaki. Alternatively, Truman could've dropped the atomic bomb on a more or less depopulated area of Japan, or at least given the citizens of Nagasaki fair warning, like GTFO, you have 24 hours.

[Tekania]

Oh now that wasn't nice. Please apologize to FDR.

And I got the gist of what he meant but he worded his argument poorly. As did I. I meant the majority of battleships which were put out of action (which were thought to be the dominant front line warships until the carriers proved their worth).

Yep, WW2 was the beginning of the end of the Battleship as the flagship of the fleet.