Remembering December 7th, 1941

[Vespertania]

"Remember Pearl Harbor, Never Again."

[The Huskar Social Union]

Japanese gamble to try and scare America out of a possible confrontation by hitting their biggest naval assets in the pacific. Failed miserably and japan had half a year to go crazy before the allies turned the tide against them.

They were doomed from the start.

[The New California Republic]

It ultimately led to Germany declaring war on the USA, so it likely brought about defeat for the Axis a lot faster.

[Nolo gap]

i'm more interested in the cause of it, and it was far from being without justification.

granted it didn't turn out to be the best possible move, but its not like japan had a whole lot of other options.

[Novus America]

i'm more interested in the cause of it, and it was far from being without justification.

granted it didn't turn out to be the best possible move, but its not like japan had a whole lot of other options.

Continuing Japan’s genocide against the Chinese was the “justification”!
Japan could have:
A not been so damn genocidal in the first place
B stopped being so genocidal and negotiated a withdrawal from China

How was the Rape of Nanking justified?

It should be noted Japan deliberately attacked US ships in China, looted American property in China, and a Japanese soldier slapped a US consul in Naking.

That combined with brutal genocide against a government friendly to the US.

Japan was doing pretty much everything possible to provoke a US response. The US had more than justified cause to declare war on Japan, but only went with some limited sanctions.

[Novus America]

It was a pretty shocking and ballsy move. Though if I remember correctly, didn’t they fail to deal any real damage to the station’s infrastructure (at least when it came to fuel) and missed all the U.S. aircraft carriers (who were out on a training exercise)?

Not to say that it wasn’t a good move, or that we don’t have the benefit of hindsight, but the surprise attack mostly ended up angering America more than crippling it. Though, in all fairness, I highly doubt there was any scenario Japan wouldn’t have hard to wear the U.S. down before they gave up, which means it was a lost cause from the beginning.

From what I know Japan did fail to destroy any infrastructure at Pearl Harbor which is how the U.S. still had a strong Pacific Fleet.

Well it is unlikely Japan could have destroyed too much. Hitting the oil tanks would have done more perhaps, but their carrier planes did not have the payload to actually seriously damage the most infrastructure there.

And the more important infrastructure, the ship yards of the North East US, the steel mills, the oil wells of Texas, were all completely out of reach.

It would have only maybe kept Japan in the war a little longer.
By 1943 the US had an overwhelming adavantage in quantity and quality.
By 1945 70% of all military ships in the world were American. The US Navy was so absurdly huge by that point it could have destroyed every other navy in the world.

Japan simply did not have the resources for a protracted war, and no way to end the war quickly.
The Japanese strategy was entirely based on the premise that the US had no will to fight a protracted war. Which was of course completely wrong.

[Aeritai]

I remember reading a World War 2 book about Pearl Harbor. According to the book the Soviet Union some how "knew" about the attack but, didn't try to warn the United States about it.

I'm not sure if it's 100% true but it makes me wonder if there were nations that knew about the Japanese attack before it happened.

But in my opinion Japan should've told the Axis they were going to do something crazy like bombing Pearl Harbor. If they did I'm sure Germany and Italy would suggest that Japan shouldn't attack America.

[Andsed]

I remember reading a World War 2 book about Pearl Harbor. According to the book the Soviet Union some how "knew" about the attack but, didn't try to warn the United States about it.

I'm not sure if it's 100% true but it makes me wonder if there were nations that knew about the Japanese attack before it happened.

But in my opinion Japan should've told the Axis they were going to do something crazy like bombing Pearl Harbor. If they did I'm sure Germany and Italy would suggest that Japan shouldn't attack America.

Well I don´t see how the Soviets would know about Pearl Habor but if you could give me that source I would be very interested in it.

Also apparently when Hitler learned about Pearl Habor he was happy saying:

¨We can’t lose the war at all. We now have an ally which has never been conquered in 3,000 years¨ I think this article is a pretty good explanation on why: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1207/Pearl-Harbor-Day-How-did-Adolf-Hitler-react-to-the-attack

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

They also failed to destroy strategic resource spots across Pearl Harbor,like the oil towers.

[Hammer Britannia]

FDR did Pearl Harbor

nonono

Pearl Harbor did FDR

[Andsed]

FDR did Pearl Harbor

nonono

Pearl Harbor did FDR

So a habor banged the wheelchair bound president.... Kinky.

[The New California Republic]

They also failed to destroy strategic resource spots across Pearl Harbor,like the oil towers.

Um...they weren't even targeted in the first place, they weren't one of the objectives, so criticizing them for failing to destroy something that wasn't even an objective seems a bit weird:

Important base installations such as the power station, dry dock, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section), were not attacked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

[Andsed]

They also failed to destroy strategic resource spots across Pearl Harbor,like the oil towers.

Um...they weren't even targeted in the first place, they weren't one of the objectives, so criticizing them for failing to destroy something that wasn't even an objective seems a bit weird:

Important base installations such as the power station, dry dock, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section), were not attacked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

I mean you can criticize the Japaneses commanders for not targeting such important objectives like the oil towers.

[The New California Republic]

Um...they weren't even targeted in the first place, they weren't one of the objectives, so criticizing them for failing to destroy something that wasn't even an objective seems a bit weird:

I mean you can criticize the Japaneses commanders for not targeting such important objectives like the oil towers.

Targeting the fuel would only have given short term gains, as it can be replaced within relatively short order, hence the focus on the ships themselves. It is debatable whether Japan would have been able to muster enough air power to take out every potential target at Pearl Harbor anyway, hence why they had to focus what they had against what was strategically important.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Horrible unwarranted attack.

"Remember Pearl Harbor, Never Again."

...someone should have told that to the CIA before they supported the Mujahideen.

[Novus America]

Horrible unwarranted attack.

"Remember Pearl Harbor, Never Again."

...someone should have told that to the CIA before they supported the Mujahideen.

That is a completely different issue and the contention Mujahideen = Al Qaeda just because a few who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan later joined Al Queda or the Taliban is false. Many Mujahideen also fought AGAINST Al Queda.

A broad decentralized movement having a variety of factions gets rather complicated, especially when said factions are fighting amongst themselves.

[Taliostia]

Perl Harbor forced America into World War 2.

[Pax Nerdvana]

"Remember Pearl Harbor, Never Again."

Yes, we must remember our fallen soldiers who gave their lives so we could be free.

[Teachian]

Targeting the fuel would only have given short term gains, as it can be replaced within relatively short order, hence the focus on the ships themselves. It is debatable whether Japan would have been able to muster enough air power to take out every potential target at Pearl Harbor anyway, hence why they had to focus what they had against what was strategically important.

I can agree that the alternative option wouldn’t have crippled the U.S. much, but I’d argue that just means neither were a viable strategy.

Maybe part of it was pragmatics (in that sense that ships are harder to replace than fuel), but I also think it was their priority of targets (“knocking out conventional naval ships=victory” in their mind). But Pearl Harbor ended up being more of an attack on the fleet than an attack on the port, and America showed they could repair/replace the fleet far quicker than Japan would have liked. I don’t have the hard numbers on me, but it’s interesting to wonder if damaging America’s ability to maintain a fleet in the Pacific would have been any different than damaging the fleet.

(And, I mean, I get that Japan was limited in what they could do, and that we have hindsight. But I think their leaders deserve a little flak for initiating an operation that couldn’t achieve a crippling blow against a nation they weren’t at war with with. On some level, I think either overconfidence played it, or an underestimation of their enemies.)

[Cetacea]

Targeting the fuel would only have given short term gains, as it can be replaced within relatively short order, hence the focus on the ships themselves. It is debatable whether Japan would have been able to muster enough air power to take out every potential target at Pearl Harbor anyway, hence why they had to focus what they had against what was strategically important.

I can agree that the alternative option wouldn’t have crippled the U.S. much, but I’d argue that just means neither were a viable strategy.

Maybe part of it was pragmatics (in that sense that ships are harder to replace than fuel), but I also think it was their priority of targets (“knocking out conventional naval ships=victory” in their mind). But Pearl Harbor ended up being more of an attack on the fleet than an attack on the port, and America showed they could repair/replace the fleet far quicker than Japan would have liked. I don’t have the hard numbers on me, but it’s interesting to wonder if damaging America’s ability to maintain a fleet in the Pacific would have been any different than damaging the fleet.

(And, I mean, I get that Japan was limited in what they could do, and that we have hindsight. But I think their leaders deserve a little flak for initiating an operation that couldn’t achieve a crippling blow against a nation they weren’t at war with with. On some level, I think either overconfidence played it, or an underestimation of their enemies.)

Japans focus was south, they wanted control of Asia and the Pacific which meant getting the British, French and Dutch colonies out. The war in Europe made that bit easy the only other threat was the US Pacific Fleet.
We now know they under estimated on how quickly the Americans would recover after Pearl Hatbour and also miscalculated the US strategy - ie a long trip to the Phillipines. Also no one had planned for the atrocities of Hiroshima

[Monsa]

Just like the Germans in Barbrossa. Operation AI was not the greatest move looking back.

[Novus America]

I can agree that the alternative option wouldn’t have crippled the U.S. much, but I’d argue that just means neither were a viable strategy.

Maybe part of it was pragmatics (in that sense that ships are harder to replace than fuel), but I also think it was their priority of targets (“knocking out conventional naval ships=victory” in their mind). But Pearl Harbor ended up being more of an attack on the fleet than an attack on the port, and America showed they could repair/replace the fleet far quicker than Japan would have liked. I don’t have the hard numbers on me, but it’s interesting to wonder if damaging America’s ability to maintain a fleet in the Pacific would have been any different than damaging the fleet.

(And, I mean, I get that Japan was limited in what they could do, and that we have hindsight. But I think their leaders deserve a little flak for initiating an operation that couldn’t achieve a crippling blow against a nation they weren’t at war with with. On some level, I think either overconfidence played it, or an underestimation of their enemies.)

Japans focus was south, they wanted control of Asia and the Pacific which meant getting the British, French and Dutch colonies out. The war in Europe made that bit easy the only other threat was the US Pacific Fleet.
We now know they under estimated on how quickly the Americans would recover after Pearl Hatbour and also miscalculated the US strategy - ie a long trip to the Phillipines. Also no one had planned for the atrocities of Hiroshima

Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives. Japan has already long lost the war at that point.
After the Marianas it completely lost, but the Japanese despite knowing the lost would not give up.

The only alternatives was a ground invasion or waiting for the Japtto starve to death, neither of which was preferable.

Japan did not underestimate the US ability to recover that badly. They were fully aware a they would lose a protracted war.
Their big mistake was assuming that the US had no will to fight, despite having the ability to win.

It was a bizzare decision for Japan to make an all or nothing gamble on such a dubious (and in retrospect completely incorrect notion) instead of ending its stupid and genocidal war in China.

It was really all that Japan was to proud to admit they screwed up in inavading China.

[Monsa]

Japans focus was south, they wanted control of Asia and the Pacific which meant getting the British, French and Dutch colonies out. The war in Europe made that bit easy the only other threat was the US Pacific Fleet.
We now know they under estimated on how quickly the Americans would recover after Pearl Hatbour and also miscalculated the US strategy - ie a long trip to the Phillipines. Also no one had planned for the atrocities of Hiroshima

Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives. Japan has already long lost the war at that point.
After the Marianas it completely lost, but the Japanese despite knowing the lost would not give up.

The only alternatives was a ground invasion or waiting for the Japtto starve to death, neither of which was preferable.

Japan did not underestimate the US ability to recover that badly. They were fully aware a they would lose a protracted war.
Their big mistake was assuming that the US had no will to fight, despite having the ability to win.

It was a bizzare decision for Japan to make an all or nothing gamble on such a dubious (and in retrospect completely incorrect notion) instead of ending its stupid and genocidal war in China.

It was really all that Japan was to proud to admit they screwed up in inavading China.

Depends on whoose lives. It saved the lives of *Some* would-be sudical bombers and american soldiers. However it also cost the lives of Japanese Civs would might of survived the war.

[Novus America]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives. Japan has already long lost the war at that point.
After the Marianas it completely lost, but the Japanese despite knowing the lost would not give up.

The only alternatives was a ground invasion or waiting for the Japtto starve to death, neither of which was preferable.

Japan did not underestimate the US ability to recover that badly. They were fully aware a they would lose a protracted war.
Their big mistake was assuming that the US had no will to fight, despite having the ability to win.

It was a bizzare decision for Japan to make an all or nothing gamble on such a dubious (and in retrospect completely incorrect notion) instead of ending its stupid and genocidal war in China.

It was really all that Japan was to proud to admit they screwed up in inavading China.

Depends on whoose lives. It saved the lives of *Some* would-be sudical bombers and american soldiers. However it also cost the lives of Japanese Civs would might of survived the war.

Mass starvation from the war continuing would have killed millions of Japanese civilians.
So would a land invasion.

Japan planned on giving pretty much everyone bamboo spears and sending them charging into battle. There would be few true civilians left as nearly everyone was to fight. Plus the starvation thing would still happen.

Mass civilian deaths was a given. Regardless of the option.

[Steampunk World War 1]

What's interesting about this entire event is that I believe Japan sent ambassadors to the United States to get their oil supply back. And I do believe Pearl Harbor was under attack at the time when the ambassadors visited.