Americans, Never Forget: December 7, 1941

[The Black Forrest]

As to the op; it's pretty well forgotten.

Didn't see it mentioned on any news channel my way.

Don't think the paper had anything serious on it.

It's been replaced by the many black Fridays and cyber Mondays and the desperate rush to buy more things for Christmas.....

[Arkotania]

The Pearl Harbor attack was part of a pattern of despicable aggression by the Japanese Empire, but none of that justifies the use of nuclear weapons on civilians. After the war, the United States ensured that Hirohito did not face justice for his crimes.

Eh? War requires justification for killing?

We need to remember the fact that the atom bomb wasn't exactly something anyone of the time had experience with. It was pretty much just a bomb that made a bigger boom(well, not that simplistic. I'm sure the scientists working on it understood more of what it was, but to the generals, it was just a very powerful bomb).

I don't think they exactly realized how nasty a weapon it was till after the war.

Plus the alternative was far worse. Invading the Japanese mainland would have probably been the bloodiest conflict in the entire war. The Japanese army was quite experienced in combat, and their zeal(along with all the propaganda) made them pretty resilient foes. Just look at how many Japanese prisoners were actually captured throughout the war.

[God Kefka]

Eh? War requires justification for killing?

We need to remember the fact that the atom bomb wasn't exactly something anyone of the time had experience with. It was pretty much just a bomb that made a bigger boom(well, not that simplistic. I'm sure the scientists working on it understood more of what it was, but to the generals, it was just a very powerful bomb).

I don't think they exactly realized how nasty a weapon it was till after the war.

Plus the alternative was far worse. Invading the Japanese mainland would have probably been the bloodiest conflict in the entire war. The Japanese army was quite experienced in combat, and their zeal(along with all the propaganda) made them pretty resilient foes. Just look at how many Japanese prisoners were actually captured throughout the war.

Dropping the atom bomb on cities = deliberate targeting of civilians (or deliberate targeting of military or infrastructure but with overwhelming civilian collateral damage as inevitable; therefore intention imputed) = war crime

The fact that the alternative would have been worse doesn't revoke the war crime status. The elements of a war crime have been made out (intentional targeting of a primarily civilian target with the intention to kill large number of civilians... or proceeding forward with such an action and not letting the consideration that large numbers of civilians are effectively targeted stop you)...

Therefore, Truman and others = war criminals

[Imperializt Russia]

The last two years of the war was endless war crime on the part of the allies, in that case.

[God Kefka]

The last two years of the war was endless war crime on the part of the allies, in that case.

yeah...

But so what right? They beat the Japanese Empire and stopped them from taking over most of Asia so... good job allies.

The framing of what's going to count as a war crime in the ''official book'' is just a matter of framing by the victors... victor's justice. It doesn't mean they themselves don't commit them...

and also (and this complicates things further)... ''war crimes'' are not always bad. Sometimes, you want people to commit war crimes if it means less of your soldiers die, if it means your boy is more likely to come home etc...

[Arkotania]

We need to remember the fact that the atom bomb wasn't exactly something anyone of the time had experience with. It was pretty much just a bomb that made a bigger boom(well, not that simplistic. I'm sure the scientists working on it understood more of what it was, but to the generals, it was just a very powerful bomb).

I don't think they exactly realized how nasty a weapon it was till after the war.

Plus the alternative was far worse. Invading the Japanese mainland would have probably been the bloodiest conflict in the entire war. The Japanese army was quite experienced in combat, and their zeal(along with all the propaganda) made them pretty resilient foes. Just look at how many Japanese prisoners were actually captured throughout the war.

Dropping the atom bomb on cities = deliberate targeting of civilians (or deliberate targeting of military or infrastructure but with overwhelming civilian collateral damage as inevitable; therefore intention imputed) = war crime

The fact that the alternative would have been worse doesn't revoke the war crime status. The elements of a war crime have been made out (intentional targeting of a primarily civilian target with the intention to kill large number of civilians... or proceeding forward with such an action and not letting the consideration that large numbers of civilians are effectively targeted stop you)...

Therefore, Truman and others = war criminals

To the victor go the spoils. You don't expect the President to go up on VE or VJ day and say "Ok. Now It's time our senior military officials and those in my administration, including me, who were involved in the war to go to court and get tried for war crimes!"

World War 2 was bloody, and it wasn't as if conventional weapons weren't being used on civilian targets. Dresden for example? Or how about London? Stalingrad? Berlin? Tokyo was pretty much burned down.

If the US was within range of any of the enemies, it's likely American civilian targets would also have been struck. If you take into context the situation at the time, you couldn't have possibly said "STOP! We can't kill these people!". It wasn't as if these cities were totally civilian either. Nagasaki and Hiroshima both had various industries that provided supplies to the Japanese military. It wasn't as if the targets were chosen for having civilians for them to kill.

It's one thing to bomb a city to kill civilians, it's another when civilians are just unfortunate collateral damage in a gruesome global conflict. It wasn't the old fashioned meet on a battlefield exchanging fire till one side capitulated. Manpower is as much a resource for war as other supplies, and that's how it was seen during then. It's easy to judge the past with the present.

[Swedish Realm]

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

The Japs attacked the Americans for no reason, really. Completely attacked a non war base.

[Arkotania]

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

The Japs attacked the Americans for no reason, really. Completely attacked a non war base.

Serious or not? I'm confused.

[God Kefka]

Dropping the atom bomb on cities = deliberate targeting of civilians (or deliberate targeting of military or infrastructure but with overwhelming civilian collateral damage as inevitable; therefore intention imputed) = war crime

The fact that the alternative would have been worse doesn't revoke the war crime status. The elements of a war crime have been made out (intentional targeting of a primarily civilian target with the intention to kill large number of civilians... or proceeding forward with such an action and not letting the consideration that large numbers of civilians are effectively targeted stop you)...

Therefore, Truman and others = war criminals

To the victor go the spoils. You don't expect the President to go up on VE or VJ day and say "Ok. Now It's time our senior military officials and those in my administration, including me, who were involved in the war to go to court and get tried for war crimes!"

World War 2 was bloody, and it wasn't as if conventional weapons weren't being used on civilian targets. Dresden for example? Or how about London? Stalingrad? Berlin? Tokyo was pretty much burned down.

If the US was within range of any of the enemies, it's likely American civilian targets would also have been struck. If you take into context the situation at the time, you couldn't have possibly said "STOP! We can't kill these people!". It wasn't as if these cities were totally civilian either. Nagasaki and Hiroshima both had various industries that provided supplies to the Japanese military. It wasn't as if the targets were chosen for having civilians for them to kill.

It's one thing to bomb a city to kill civilians, it's another when civilians are just unfortunate collateral damage in a gruesome global conflict. It wasn't the old fashioned meet on a battlefield exchanging fire till one side capitulated. Manpower is as much a resource for war as other supplies, and that's how it was seen during then. It's easy to judge the past with the present.

I'm not judging it...

I'm just saying we may need to rethink the whole concept of ''war crimes''

1. Allies committed war crimes too

2. Sometimes war crimes are necessary/good/justified things.

Two very anti-commonsensical notions... because the words ''war crimes'' instantly conjure up images of bad guys doing horrible, unforgivable, never justifiable things.

[Imperializt Russia]

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

The Japs attacked the Americans for no reason, really. Completely attacked a non war base.

Pearl Harbour was the home of the Pacific Fleet. The strike crippled the Battleship fleets.
The strike was supposed to kill the carrier fleets, which had left the port some days earlier. It was also home to the Pacific Fleet's major fuel storage.

Prior to the strike, American lawmakers, in FDR's absence, had initiated an oil embargo on the Japanese Empire, which FDR had not wanted to impose because he feared this exact scenario. A state of war.

The Japanese intended to kill the carrier fleet and fuel storage, which would have made the US completely unable to oppose the expansion of the Japanese Empire.
They failed, and lost.

[Lianhua (Ancient)]

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

The Japs attacked the Americans for no reason, really. Completely attacked a non war base.

Last time I checked, the US Pacific fleet called Pearl Harbor home base. It was an attempt to knock them down and out of the Pacific and thus Asia.

[Me-lek]

bias poll is bias.
it was a attack on americans in hopes to knock them out of the war before they can fight, but the japs clearly failed.

[Yugoshima]

What makes the Pearl Harbour attack "cowardly"?

Indeed. A coward wouldn't think about attacking a major world power.

Though to argue that point, the US wasn't exactly considered a world power then [before WW2]. Their military was actually really small compared to the rest of the world, not to mention that after WW1, the US kinda laid back and went to sleep.

[Tuthina]

Indeed. A coward wouldn't think about attacking a major world power.

Though to argue that point, the US wasn't exactly considered a world power then [before WW2]. Their military was actually really small compared to the rest of the world, not to mention that after WW1, the US kinda laid back and went to sleep.

Apart from the Navy, at least from the Japanese perspective: since before the naval treaties slowed down the arms race, Japan and USA has been building up their navies almost precisely targeting each other, as when one side builds a bigger class of ships, the other side work on a bigger class to one-up things. Even if it was small back then (and it was not), the competitive mentality itself was more than enough to lead to such attack. In a sense, it is like facing against a destined enemy.

[Dracoria]

Though to argue that point, the US wasn't exactly considered a world power then [before WW2]. Their military was actually really small compared to the rest of the world, not to mention that after WW1, the US kinda laid back and went to sleep.

Apart from the Navy, at least from the Japanese perspective: since before the naval treaties slowed down the arms race, Japan and USA has been building up their navies almost precisely targeting each other, as when one side builds a bigger class of ships, the other side work on a bigger class to one-up things. Even if it was small back then (and it was not), the competitive mentality itself was more than enough to lead to such attack. In a sense, it is like facing against a destined enemy.

Only at the dawn of WWII was the US Navy beginning to modernize to a serious extent. Until the North Carolinas finished their initial shakedowns (literally), the battle line was based on pre-WWI designs (all of the Standards were designed to be exactly as fast and maneuverable as the Nevadas and Pennsylvanias, just larger with more armor and armament; only the final two Stnadard classes even had post-Jutland lessons taken into account). While the three Yorktown-class carriers were impressive, the Lexingtons were somewhat inefficient battlecruiser-based designs while Ranger and Wasp were considered small and slow compared to the others. The USN possessed a number of older cruisers and destroyers of questionable capability (especially for the latter); until newer classes filled the ranks, USN destroyers, heavy cruisers and battleships were generally inferior to their Japanese counterparts due to their age and often untested designs.

In addition, not all of the USN was concentrated in the Pacific; several battleships retired from the battle line, in addition to some of the later Standards as well as Ranger were in the Atlantic in preparation for war with Germany. With them went their attendant destroyers and cruisers. Hell, even before the threat of WWII, the US had split its navy under the assumption it would have to fend off a European power and either said power's colonies or Japan in the Pacific. Due to this, the available American surface ships in the Pacific at the outbreak of war there were inferior in number and overall quality to those of the Japanese.

Further, about the view others had about the US at the time, they were a latecomer to WWI who hadn't really wowed anyone else with amazing new technology or their manufacturing capability jut yet. The US hadn't wanted to bring its best guns and artillery to the fray, for fear they'd be stolen or reverse-engineered, resulting in numerous cases of subpar equipment. Before then, sure, there was the Great White Fleet, but that involved outdated warships (all pre-Dreadnoughts, some already rather old but with fresh new paint) that sometimes broke down during the trip. And before then? The Spanish-American War? The Spanish were in a bad way at the time, and the US was in the middle of an arms buildup following the realization that its fleet of ACW-era monitors was literally falling apart at the docks.

In short....Yeah, the USN wasn't really top of the line at the outbreak of WWII and one could forgive views of said Navy as being badly equipped for a war if one ignores the submarines and untapped manufacturing capability.