Americans, Never Forget: December 7, 1941

[The Victorian Empire]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

Politicians have also been throwing around the idea of a "preemptive strike" on Iran. America would do something like that and has considered it often.

After everyone complained about how we're "imperialistic" and "warmongers" after invading iraq and Afghanistan? Yeah, no. Doubtful. May I remind you the Bush Administration is no longer in power?

[Saint Kitten]

It's sad but, from Japan's side, I can see why they did it. And I see why it's bad. But war is war I guess

[Sanguinea]

I don't blame Japan for it's acts on December 7th 1941, it was a strategically smart move (especially if they'd achieved all their objectives). Stategy wise it was a beautifully executed strike on our Pacific Fleet and it crippled us for a while in that region. With that being said, it is still terrible that so many died that day.

[Lemanrussland]

I don't blame Japan for it's acts on December 7th 1941, it was a strategically smart move (especially if they'd achieved all their objectives). Stategy wise it was a beautifully executed strike on our Pacific Fleet and it crippled us for a while in that region. With that being said, it is still terrible that so many died that day.

I disagree about it's effectiveness. They failed to destroy the American carriers, which were the real capital ships of the US Navy, rather than the battleships (Japan, despite it's modern fleet of carriers and doctrine, still regarded battleships as being the primary weapon of the navy... their operational doctrine revolved around the concept of the decisive engagement, which would be waged by battleships, hence their obsession with destroying the American ones). The decision to strike the United States was also pretty unwise in general.

The overwhelming economic superiority (especially in manufacturing and industrial output) of the US made such an adventure a bit of a lost cause from the start. The Japanese lost 4 carriers at the battle of Midway, and Japanese shipyard produced another 3 in 1943 and another 4 in 1944. The Americans responded by building 90 aircraft carriers. There's no way they could have won against that, barring a negotiated peace (which would not have happened, even if the American carriers had been destroyed).

[Des-Bal]

When I was a young lad I took a baseball bat, looked at a bee's nest and thought "If I hit that really hard I can kill most of them before they can do anything." It was a strategically brilliant plan with one simple flaw, I overestimated how easy it would be to kill all the bees in the nest, that some bees were probably outside the nest, that if I failed I had no way of defeating the bees, and that I hadn't really thought about how many flaws there were in my strategically brilliant plan.

[Sanguinea]

I don't blame Japan for it's acts on December 7th 1941, it was a strategically smart move (especially if they'd achieved all their objectives). Stategy wise it was a beautifully executed strike on our Pacific Fleet and it crippled us for a while in that region. With that being said, it is still terrible that so many died that day.

I disagree about it's effectiveness. They failed to destroy the American carriers, which were the real capital ships of the US Navy, rather than the battleships (Japan, despite it's modern fleet of carriers and doctrine, still regarded battleships as being the primary weapon of the navy... their operational doctrine revolved around the concept of the decisive engagement, which would be waged by battleships, hence their obsession with destroying the American ones). The decision to strike the United States was also pretty unwise in general.

The overwhelming economic superiority (especially in manufacturing and industrial output) of the US made such an adventure a bit of a lost cause from the start. The Japanese lost 4 carriers at the battle of Midway, and Japanese shipyard produced another 3 in 1943 and another 4 in 1944. The Americans responded by building 90 aircraft carriers. There's no way they could have won against that, barring a negotiated peace (which would not have happened, even if the American carriers had been destroyed).

Materially yes, Japan was looking at a lost cause. But war isn't all about material, your opponent's psyche is a target as well, and you can break it.

[Des-Bal]

Materially yes, Japan was looking at a lost cause. But war isn't all about material, your opponent's psyche is a target as well, and you can break it.

You break someone's psyche by striking repeatedly and in a fashion they cannot retaliate against. One big blow just gets them all stoked to kill you.

[Imperializt Russia]

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

What in the name of Christ makes it "cowardly"?

It was a calculated move to cripple the US carrier fleet. It failed.

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

Not as cowardly as a drone strike.

Which is also not cowardly.

Less observable than an aircraft, less politically dicey and much faster than boots on the ground.

Not as cowardly as a drone strike.

Drones didn't exist in 1941.

No, but by the end of the war, there were developments such as the Fritz X guided glide bomb, then the Henschel 293 guided missile, the Ohka manned rocket bomb, the Mistel and a series of US and British bombers were actually converted into guided flying bombs.

Mistel was around and in service by 1943. Had Nazi high command been more organised, Mistel could have been a crippling blow to the entire Soviet home front by destroying their manufacturing capability, according to wikipedia.

No. It's called a pre-emptive strike. It would have been how the Cold War went hot.
Besides, the strike was well after dawn and lasted for several hours. This is the time at which air defence troops should have been most alert. In fact, there were a series of points at which an attack could have been predicted and prepared for. All were either missed or outright ignored.

And, had Japanese intelligence correctly pinpointed the American carrier location, then it would have been a successful one.

Besides, assault is not the action of the coward.

Not just air defense all troops.

It is called stand to, because dawn attacks are very common.

Indeed.
But the air defence troops are probably the most vital defensive contingent of an island base in the pre-OTH warfare era.

Japan's preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor was a dumb move. They essentially fucked themselves when they decided to attack America.

Common misconception.
They fucked themselves by mistiming the raid and failing to hit the US carrier fleet.

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.

Admittedly, the primary reason the firebombings were more effective was because the cities chosen for those were more densely populated, and were bombed repeatedly, and had thousands of tons of incendiary ordnance dropped on them per night (per some estimates, 90% of the bombload in the Pacific theatre when bombing cities may have been incendiary rather than explosive).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki each received, one bomb.

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.

"Hmm. We don't have the capacity to fight you anymore. Let's nuke you instead."

How no part of the war would have gone.

I disagree about it's effectiveness. They failed to destroy the American carriers, which were the real capital ships of the US Navy, rather than the battleships (Japan, despite it's modern fleet of carriers and doctrine, still regarded battleships as being the primary weapon of the navy... their operational doctrine revolved around the concept of the decisive engagement, which would be waged by battleships, hence their obsession with destroying the American ones). The decision to strike the United States was also pretty unwise in general.

The overwhelming economic superiority (especially in manufacturing and industrial output) of the US made such an adventure a bit of a lost cause from the start. The Japanese lost 4 carriers at the battle of Midway, and Japanese shipyard produced another 3 in 1943 and another 4 in 1944. The Americans responded by building 90 aircraft carriers. There's no way they could have won against that, barring a negotiated peace (which would not have happened, even if the American carriers had been destroyed).

Materially yes, Japan was looking at a lost cause. But war isn't all about material, your opponent's psyche is a target as well, and you can break it.

The key target of the strike was the US carrier fleet. It failed.

Battleships aren't worth much in a carrier war.

[The Victorian Empire]

When I was a young lad I took a baseball bat, looked at a bee's nest and thought "If I hit that really hard I can kill most of them before they can do anything." It was a strategically brilliant plan with one simple flaw, I overestimated how easy it would be to kill all the bees in the nest, that some bees were probably outside the nest, that if I failed I had no way of defeating the bees, and that I hadn't really thought about how many flaws there were in my strategically brilliant plan.

That's an... interesting comparison...

[Charellia]

Not as cowardly as a drone strike.

Which is also not cowardly.

Less observable than an aircraft, less politically dicey and much faster than boots on the ground.

You are explaining why it is practical not why it is courageous.

[Estado Paulista]

When I was a young lad I took a baseball bat, looked at a bee's nest and thought "If I hit that really hard I can kill most of them before they can do anything." It was a strategically brilliant plan with one simple flaw, I overestimated how easy it would be to kill all the bees in the nest, that some bees were probably outside the nest, that if I failed I had no way of defeating the bees, and that I hadn't really thought about how many flaws there were in my strategically brilliant plan.

This in a nutshell.

[Nazis in Space]

Climb mount Niitaka!

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Which is also not cowardly.

Less observable than an aircraft, less politically dicey and much faster than boots on the ground.

You are explaining why it is practical not why it is courageous.

Drone Strikes lesson the amount of men being sent away from their families into the war.

[Nazis in Space]

Never forget
When the few stood up
To fight for their place in the world
Against the white man who
Encroached upon them
When
Sickened by centuries of relentless imperialism
And the eradication of cultures
The yellow man choose to fight back
To strike against those who tried to rule them
To make their own fate
A hopeless cause
A glorious last stand
To give honour its due
Before the hordes of barbarians overran the last remnants of civilisation in the far east

[Charellia]

You are explaining why it is practical not why it is courageous.

Drone Strikes lesson the amount of men being sent away from their families into the war.

That still doesn't explain how it is not a cowardly tactic.

[The Tundra]

neither were right, neither were wrong. the horrible atrocity that modern war is.

reality laughs at us, as we dance around its tragedies.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Drone Strikes lesson the amount of men being sent away from their families into the war.

That still doesn't explain how it is not a cowardly tactic.

It isn't a cowardly tactic though.

Its just an advancement in warfare.

Please do tell, was the trebuchet cowardly? The Crossbow? The first firearms?

Hell, lets go back to the age when man decided to say fuck it to running up to the prey an made the bow, were those hunters cowardly?

Or do you have some sick twisted idea that bravery and such can only come from fighting the enemy and risking your life, even in a war were your life is just as a waste as theirs.

Nope, but sorry, this whole Drones are bad idea is entirely stupid to keep to heart, it is a new era of technology that will further act on lessening the amount of lives taken in a conflict, at least hopefully in the long term, at least on the side using them.

[Nervium]

neither were right, neither were wrong. the horrible atrocity that modern war is.

reality laughs at us, as we dance around its tragedies.

Well, they were both wrong, for both different and similar reasons.

[Charellia]

That still doesn't explain how it is not a cowardly tactic.

It isn't a cowardly tactic though.

Its just an advancement in warfare.

Please do tell, was the trebuchet cowardly? The Crossbow? The first firearms?

Hell, lets go back to the age when man decided to say fuck it to running up to the prey an made the bow, were those hunters cowardly?

Or do you have some sick twisted idea that bravery and such can only come from fighting the enemy and risking your life, even in a war were your life is just as a waste as theirs.

Nope, but sorry, this whole Drones are bad idea is entirely stupid to keep to heart, it is a new era of technology that will further act on lessening the amount of lives taken in a conflict, at least hopefully in the long term, at least on the side using them.

I am in no way suggesting that drones are a bad tactic. They are a very good tactic, but tactically effective is not the same as courageous. I am not sure where courage comes in when wars are fought at a computer console. I have no romantic notions about valour or bravery in war. Using drones is practical and effective, but that does not automatically make it courageous.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

It isn't a cowardly tactic though.

Its just an advancement in warfare.

Please do tell, was the trebuchet cowardly? The Crossbow? The first firearms?

Hell, lets go back to the age when man decided to say fuck it to running up to the prey an made the bow, were those hunters cowardly?

Or do you have some sick twisted idea that bravery and such can only come from fighting the enemy and risking your life, even in a war were your life is just as a waste as theirs.

Nope, but sorry, this whole Drones are bad idea is entirely stupid to keep to heart, it is a new era of technology that will further act on lessening the amount of lives taken in a conflict, at least hopefully in the long term, at least on the side using them.

I am in no way suggesting that drones are a bad tactic. They are a very good tactic, but tactically effective is not the same as courageous. I am not sure where courage comes in when wars are fought at a computer console. I have no romantic notions about valour or bravery in war. Using drones is practical and effective, but that does not automatically make it courageous.

Courage is not a mandate that has to happen in every conflict.

Simple, if you seek for courage for everything, then it looses its specialty.

[Geilinor]

I disagree about it's effectiveness. They failed to destroy the American carriers, which were the real capital ships of the US Navy, rather than the battleships (Japan, despite it's modern fleet of carriers and doctrine, still regarded battleships as being the primary weapon of the navy... their operational doctrine revolved around the concept of the decisive engagement, which would be waged by battleships, hence their obsession with destroying the American ones). The decision to strike the United States was also pretty unwise in general.

The overwhelming economic superiority (especially in manufacturing and industrial output) of the US made such an adventure a bit of a lost cause from the start. The Japanese lost 4 carriers at the battle of Midway, and Japanese shipyard produced another 3 in 1943 and another 4 in 1944. The Americans responded by building 90 aircraft carriers. There's no way they could have won against that, barring a negotiated peace (which would not have happened, even if the American carriers had been destroyed).

Materially yes, Japan was looking at a lost cause. But war isn't all about material, your opponent's psyche is a target as well, and you can break it.

The only way to break the opponent's psyche in World War II would be to attack the opponent's soil. Japan would have had to carry out bombing campaigns on American cities.

[Geilinor]

I am in no way suggesting that drones are a bad tactic. They are a very good tactic, but tactically effective is not the same as courageous. I am not sure where courage comes in when wars are fought at a computer console. I have no romantic notions about valour or bravery in war. Using drones is practical and effective, but that does not automatically make it courageous.

Courage is not a mandate that has to happen in every conflict.

Simple, if you seek for courage for everything, then it looses its specialty.

This^. War isn't about courage or valor, it's about staying alive.

[Monkey with a Grenade]

I didn't see a thread on this, so...

Fellow Americans, let us never forget that dreadful 7th day of December, when... "...the United States of America, was suddenly and deliberately attacked, by naval and air forces, of the Empire of Japan..." ...and how that date... "...will live in infamy..." ...in the minds of Americans for years to come. We were cowardly attacked, at the beginning of dawn, by an imperialistic power seeking to acquire resources to sustain itself by whatever means necessary, and for the next 4 years we hoped island after island in order to drive this warmongering menace back to where it came from, many of our soldiers going to hell and back. Finally, in those last few hours, when Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki, and the Japanese Emperor Hirohito decided to end the war before more damage could be done. Let us never forget the men who died at Pearl Harbor.

Feel free to discuss the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but I know that threads about death tend to draw out trolls, flamers, and baiters. So I will say that if you get all warm and fuzzy about American servicemen dying at Pearl Harbor, you might as well keep those feelings to yourself. Nobody likes a douchebag.

My dad served in the Pacific theater. We were able to go to the 70th anniversary ceremony in 2011. He was given special seating up front with the other vets who attended. One of the most moving events I've ever attended.

I replayed FDR's speech from December 8, 1941 last night. It was the only proper response. It would be the only proper response to any similar incident.

I will never forget Pearl Harbor.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I disagree about it's effectiveness. They failed to destroy the American carriers, which were the real capital ships of the US Navy, rather than the battleships (Japan, despite it's modern fleet of carriers and doctrine, still regarded battleships as being the primary weapon of the navy... their operational doctrine revolved around the concept of the decisive engagement, which would be waged by battleships, hence their obsession with destroying the American ones). The decision to strike the United States was also pretty unwise in general.

The overwhelming economic superiority (especially in manufacturing and industrial output) of the US made such an adventure a bit of a lost cause from the start. The Japanese lost 4 carriers at the battle of Midway, and Japanese shipyard produced another 3 in 1943 and another 4 in 1944. The Americans responded by building 90 aircraft carriers. There's no way they could have won against that, barring a negotiated peace (which would not have happened, even if the American carriers had been destroyed).

Materially yes, Japan was looking at a lost cause. But war isn't all about material, your opponent's psyche is a target as well, and you can break it.

Unfortunately for Japan, Tojo and the heads of their war department (with the exception of Yamamoto, ironically enough) horribly misread the American reaction to a devastating attack such as the one on Pearl Harbor.
I do think Leman underestimates the draw of a negotiated settlement if the attack had panned out more successfully or been prosecuted more heavily. Perhaps not immediately (public sentiment will be wildly in favor of getting back at the Japanese either way) but if the US was forced to focus on maintaining shipping lanes to Australia, losing men and ships for gains which cannot be seen by the public, and then had to begin the island-hopping campaign a year or more later, it seems possible that we'd settle for a negotiated peace (presumably a possible time for such being after Germany's fall).

[Occupied Deutschland]

Materially yes, Japan was looking at a lost cause. But war isn't all about material, your opponent's psyche is a target as well, and you can break it.

The only way to break the opponent's psyche in World War II would be to attack the opponent's soil. Japan would have had to carry out bombing campaigns on American cities.

Hell, Yamamoto himself thought even more than that:
"Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it would not be enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians (who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war) have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices."