Americans, Never Forget: December 7, 1941

[Rio Cana]

Japan lost the war but many of there companies that were involved in war production have made a fortune selling to the US.

Mitsubishi which makes autos and other things were the ones which manufactured the famous Japanese Zero Fighter Airplanes.

Matsushita (Panasonic) use to make airplane propellers and some electrical equipment for the Imperial military of Japan.

Toyota, Nissan, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Mitsubishi use to make regular trucks, amphibious trucks and autos for the Japanese Imperial military.

Toyota really took market share in the US away from US auto manufacturers.
Jump to 2013 watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwSNRlNUNEI

Read somewhere about a US citizen that would not buy Mitsubishi since his Uncle during WW II was attacked by a Japanese Zero. He did not make it. He would also not buy any of the other Japanese autos.

Nintendo no problem since they originally started making playing cards in 1889 which is what they were still manufacturing during WW II. In modern times they went into video game but they never stopped manufacturing playing cards.

Sony no problem since they came into being in 1946 after the war.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Read somewhere about a US citizen that would not buy Mitsubishi since his Uncle during WW II was attacked by a Japanese Zero. He did not make it. He would also not buy any of the other Japanese autos.

I never understood those people. I mean, my grandmother grew up during the war, dealt with all the wartime events as they happened. Her being as anti-Japanese as she is I can understand, it's still not very logical but humans aren't logical all the time so OK. But someone's nephew? That just seems like such an empty gesture from someone who didn't grow up in the period.

[Camelza]

Who cares. The past is the past ..If my people were to hold a grudge against the US and British governments for what they did to my people we should hate them for some 50 years.

Governments change, people too. Grow up.

[Vistany]

Pearl Harbor was a recklessly brave assault against the most powerful country in the word.

[Charellia]

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.

That is certainly true. I have never said that drones were a bad tactic. I have never said that courage is necessary. I have only said that drone warfare is not courageous. My original point was that the attack on Pearl Harbour took more courage than the use of drones and thus it is unfair to call it cowardly.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Read somewhere about a US citizen that would not buy Mitsubishi since his Uncle during WW II was attacked by a Japanese Zero. He did not make it. He would also not buy any of the other Japanese autos.

I never understood those people. I mean, my grandmother grew up during the war, dealt with all the wartime events as they happened. Her being as anti-Japanese as she is I can understand, it's still not very logical but humans aren't logical all the time so OK. But someone's nephew? That just seems like such an empty gesture from someone who didn't grow up in the period.

They are Mitsubishis, though - outside the nigh-unpronounceable name and the Lancer, he isn't missing much.

[Rio Cana]

Pearl Harbor was a recklessly brave assault against the most powerful country in the word.

Germany, Japan and the UK. were the most powerful nations at the start of WW II. WW II made the US the most powerful nation on the planet. It was not all military but more important economically. The majority of the industrialized world and there financial markets were destroyed after World War II. Only the US of the major nations was left intact. Its like being the only bank and store for hundreds of miles. You know financially you will clean up and have more say over what happens in the world.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Then why the sod are you bitching on the internet how it is "cowardly" and "not courageous", as though you believe a more "courageous" tact should be used?

Japan lost the war but many of there companies that were involved in war production have made a fortune selling to the US.

Mitsubishi which makes autos and other things were the ones which manufactured the famous Japanese Zero Fighter Airplanes.

Matsushita (Panasonic) use to make airplane propellers and some electrical equipment for the Imperial military of Japan.

Toyota, Nissan, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Mitsubishi use to make regular trucks, amphibious trucks and autos for the Japanese Imperial military.

Toyota really took market share in the US away from US auto manufacturers.
Jump to 2013 watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwSNRlNUNEI

Read somewhere about a US citizen that would not buy Mitsubishi since his Uncle during WW II was attacked by a Japanese Zero. He did not make it. He would also not buy any of the other Japanese autos.

Nintendo no problem since they originally started making playing cards in 1889 which is what they were still manufacturing during WW II. In modern times they went into video game but they never stopped manufacturing playing cards.

Sony no problem since they came into being in 1946 after the war.

And Porsche, Messerschmitt, VW, Rheinmetall et al all contributed to the German war effort.
The NATO 120mm tank gun is built under licence by its users, and is a Rheinmetall design. Messerschmitt still produces today, albeit two name changes later.
The company that originally synthesised Zyklon B is still in some manner of production.

[Charellia]

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.

Then why the sod are you bitching on the internet how it is "cowardly" and "not courageous", as though you believe a more "courageous" tact should be used?

You misunderstand me. I simply meant that we cannot use these kinds of tactics and then call others cowards.

[Imperializt Russia]

Then why the sod are you bitching on the internet how it is "cowardly" and "not courageous", as though you believe a more "courageous" tact should be used?

You misunderstand me. I simply meant that we cannot use these kinds of tactics and then call others cowards.

I'm not understanding your logic here at all.

You say that drone strikes are more cowardly than the Pearl Harbour attack, yet fully acknowledge the tactical value of using drones offensively whilst still espousing an apparent difference between tactics considered "cowardly" and "courageous"?

[Charellia]

You misunderstand me. I simply meant that we cannot use these kinds of tactics and then call others cowards.

I'm not understanding your logic here at all.

You say that drone strikes are more cowardly than the Pearl Harbour attack, yet fully acknowledge the tactical value of using drones offensively whilst still espousing an apparent difference between tactics considered "cowardly" and "courageous"?

The value of a tactic is in no way tied to the amount of courage involved. Courage and cowardice are not synonyms for good and bad. A tactical retreat is also cowardly in a way, but it is still a sound plan.

[Imperializt Russia]

Then why are you bothering to use the terms if you fully accept their non-value?

[Charellia]

Then why are you bothering to use the terms if you fully accept their non-value?

Because other people called the Pearl Harbour attack cowardly and I was trying to make the point that cowardly tactics are commonplace and valid in warfare and that it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

[Cyyro]

I wore a shirt that I got from The Pearl Harbor memorial yesterday. Sad day indeed. Absolutely devastated the US navy. Thank goodness those carriers were in San Francisco.

[Bentrada]

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they thought such an audacious attack would frighten the United States into staying neutral, which was a pretty stupid gamble because one the U.S. was already giving massive aid to the Allies and was hardly neutral and two, the United States is not exactly famed for its pacifism or political neutrality.

[South East Europe]

If the the US Government didn't know about the "attack" on Pearl Harbor before it happened, why were all ships worth anything moved out of port three days before a day they were scheduled to be at port. So, yes I will not forget the treason that the US Government committed against Her own citizens. But, I will forget about this claim that the Japanese were entirely at fault for the deaths at Pearl Harbor.

[Cyyro]

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they thought such an audacious attack would frighten the United States into staying neutral, which was a pretty stupid gamble because one the U.S. was already giving massive aid to the Allies and was hardly neutral and two, the United States is not exactly famed for its pacifism or political neutrality.

Gosh no. They desperately needed oil. And the only way to get Oil in their situation was to invade the countries that have it. Japan under normal circumstances would simply just do that. The US though was not about to let that happen. The attack was meant to stall the US so Japan could invade those countries and get the oil they needed.

[Cyyro]

If the the US Government didn't know about the "attack" on Pearl Harbor before it happened, why were all ships worth anything moved out of port three days before a day they were scheduled to be at port. So, yes I will not forget the treason that the US Government committed against Her own citizens. But, I will forget about this claim that the Japanese were entirely at fault for the deaths at Pearl Harbor.

Who in their right mind would let a large portion of their fleet get destroyed? Pearl Harbor was devastating to the US fleet, they lost a hell of a ton of ships, and those ships were capable of fighting, not some "worthless" battleships that were just sitting around.

[South East Europe]

they lost a hell of a ton of ships, and those ships were capable of fighting

And who told you this information? US History Books? US Media? Thought so. Don't believe all that you see and hear.

[Arkotania]

A brilliant yet incomplete sneak attack(one more wave targeting the fuel reserves would have totally crippled the US Navy in the Pacific). People who complain of the cloak-dagger of the attack must be forgetting all the deception used in the Atlantic by the Allied forces. The Normandy Invasion being one example. In war, honorable combat is like tying your hands together. If you win, you're celebrated for winning handicapped. If you lose, you are forgotten. Not many people can realistically survive a fight with their hands tied however, and when the stakes are high(as in a world war of such proportion), honor is simply another word for suicide.

I'm also not a fan of the group who claim it to be an unprovoked and unexpected attack. The US did embargo Japan, and this embargo was nearly a death blow the Japanese economy. In fact, I think the US embargo only furthered their zeal and strengthened their fierce nationalistic beliefs as a nation. What better propaganda than how an "outsider" nearly destroyed a "great empire" and this was enough a reason to prove Japan should be for the Japanese? There is also the fact that evidence was available that an attack would occur, yet they were not followed up or were dismissed.

Combined with factors that can be considered highly improbable to ever occur consecutively actually happening, it was quite the stroke of luck for the Japanese and a very unfortunate event for the US.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

If the the US Government didn't know about the "attack" on Pearl Harbor before it happened, why were all ships worth anything moved out of port three days before a day they were scheduled to be at port. So, yes I will not forget the treason that the US Government committed against Her own citizens. But, I will forget about this claim that the Japanese were entirely at fault for the deaths at Pearl Harbor.

except that most of the head of the military still believed that the Battleship was superior to the AC. so any other ideas you have that we can shoot down.

[Arkotania]

If the the US Government didn't know about the "attack" on Pearl Harbor before it happened, why were all ships worth anything moved out of port three days before a day they were scheduled to be at port. So, yes I will not forget the treason that the US Government committed against Her own citizens. But, I will forget about this claim that the Japanese were entirely at fault for the deaths at Pearl Harbor.

except that most of the head of the military still believed that the Battleship was superior to the AC. so any other ideas you have that we can shoot down.

I wouldn't go that far. The superiority of the carrier is evident by the fact it can carry aircraft, and thus bring the capability of ensuring air superiority in naval combat, and also serve as a mobile base for aircraft. Even the most traditionalist admiral would be hard-pressed to explain just how an aircraft carrier was at least not as equally important as a battleship.

However, the one stroke of luck the US did have was with the three carriers that were supposed to be at Pearl Harbor. One was enroute but delayed, and thus arrived later than expected(Dec 5th was the expected arrival). The other two were doing what naval ships in general do, patrol. There is usually a reason a ship sits in a harbor doing nothing when the world slowly nears war. Otherwise the ships are out doing their jobs.

[Cyyro]

they lost a hell of a ton of ships, and those ships were capable of fighting

And who told you this information? US History Books? US Media? Thought so. Don't believe all that you see and hear.

If anything, us history books and Media underexaggerate the losses.

[Imperializt Russia]

they lost a hell of a ton of ships, and those ships were capable of fighting

And who told you this information? US History Books? US Media? Thought so. Don't believe all that you see and hear.

Source, post it, blah blah blah.

[The Corparation]

However, the one stroke of luck the US did have was with the three carriers that were supposed to be at Pearl Harbor. One was enroute but delayed, and thus arrived later than expected(Dec 5th was the expected arrival). The other two were doing what naval ships in general do, patrol. There is usually a reason a ship sits in a harbor doing nothing when the world slowly nears war. Otherwise the ships are out doing their jobs.

You left out what in my view is the bigger stroke of luck. The Japanese were originally going to launch a third wave against the fuel depot and submarine docks, but the commander decided against it. That third wave, while it would have resulted in heavy losses for the Japanese, would have crippled the US fleet.

And who told you this information? US History Books? US Media? Thought so. Don't believe all that you see and hear.

If anything, us history books and Media underexaggerate the losses.

Mostly because US losses weren't all that bad. The majority of ships that were damaged or sunk were returned to service.