December 7th, A Day that will live in infamy

[Doc Dan]

Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and then invaded Alaska on June 7, 1942. We got past this, but we need to remember that America is not invulnerable. We were attacked again September 11, 2001. We must remember those who gave their lives and why, or we are doomed to have a repetition.

[RustyIron]

As is always the case, the victors write history. History is what we learned in elementary school. But it wan't that long ago, and not all the facts have been lost to the sands of time. I'll try to summarize with minimal distortion precursors to December 7, 1941. The Japanese were screwing around in their corner of the world. They were bullying neighboring countries, and America decided to make it our business.

While we weren't at war, we were poking the Japanese in the eye. I have a magazine from the spring of 1941, describing how half the American population thought we should go to war with Japan. Many thought war was inevitable, many wanted to strike first. Everyone knew that hostility was brewing. Nobody expected Pearl Harbor, but that's the point of a surprise attack.

We were provoking the Japanese and painting them into a corner. They lashed out. Many died. It was neither pretty nor glorious.

The lesson that no one talks about and many still haven't learned is that while you can be the big dog, you can only push a little mutt so far before he snaps back. Even the big dogs need to be very, very careful about how they exert their might.

I mourn the loss of all the Allied soldiers. But I feel for the bad guys, as well. Most of them were just a bunch of dopes like you and me who would rather have stayed home with their families.

[ChrisinHove]

With the strength of the USA in terms of industry and resources, Japan lost that war the moment they started the shooting: it was just a matter of time. One can only assume they didn’t believe America had the stomach for a protracted war.

Also, the conscripts of the democratic Allies were mostly very different from the indoctrinated and zealous soldiers of the strongly militaristic societies they faced. Hard lessons had to be learned in Burma, Normandy, the Pacific.

It is shocking to see the graves of so many teenage soldiers in Normandy, but they were the ones who dictated that so many battles were “no quarter”. They *were* victims of their time and place, but there was no alternative to their fate.

[RugerNurse]

I was glad I was able to squeeze in a trip to the Memorial at Pearl Harbor when I was in Hawaii 10yrs ago. Also got to tour the USS Missouri battleship they have docked there

[akapennypincher]

Being a student of history let’s say many sources knew it was coming, the attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR allowed it to happen, as we had broken Navel Code of Japanese. It the PearlHarbor allow us the USA to get into a two World War fronts with backing of American People.

My father was already servicing in US Merchant Marines, her did three area of the War. North Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Pacific.

Man never said much about his war time experiences, but it was not picnic.

[TomAiello]

With the strength of the USA in terms of industry and resources, Japan lost that war the moment they started the shooting: it was just a matter of time.

And they knew that before they launched the attack:

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

--Isoroku Yamamoto


A large part of the reason Japan decided to attack the USA was that the head of their navy (Isoroku Yamamoto) had essentially lost the political battle against the head of their army (Hideki Tojo). To simplify, the Navy had the (fairly realistic) view that there was no way the Japanese industrial base could win the war and that modern war was simply a case of matching industrial production and grinding away until one side's industry proved superior. The Army had the more traditional view that victory on the battlefield could be achieved through valor and superior war fighting skills.

Pre-war Japanese politics, and the resulting war (wars if you consider the pre-pearl harbor invasion of china separately), were basically formed by the political conflict between Yamamoto and Tojo. In many ways, this was the final political conflict of feudal Japan, with two leading samurai (which both Yamamoto and Tojo were) competing for the favor the emperor to pursue their competing visions for the nation.

Isoroku Yamamoto, who spoke fluent English, graduated from Harvard, and had lived in the USA for several years (at Harvard and then twice as naval attache at the embassy in Washington) is a fascinating figure. He was against war with the Allies, and opposed the Japanese alignment with Germany and Italy, but having lost the political battle, fought the war with every ounce of his tremendous skill. Killing him (individually) was one of the primary pacific war goals of the USA, and with good reason. The US was able to kill him by ambushing the (unarmed) transport plane he was using on April 18, 1943. There is some argument as to whether this was legally a military battle or a targeted political assassination.

[The Mastiff]

There is some argument as to whether this was legally a military battle or a targeted political assassination.

I agree that some try to argue that but they are usually left leaning academics. There was nothing wrong legally or morally then or now with the decision to target the enemies command structure. It's one of the basic precepts of warfighting and always has been. The only time it isn't done is times like when the British decided targeting Hitler should be avoided because his actions and decisions were counterproductive to his own countries war efforts. In other words he fubar'ed everything he did.

[Manixguy@1994]

A good read to see what was happening before Pearl Harbor is by William Stevenson called A Man Called Intrepid . The pilots who downed Yamamoto used a gyroscope out of a ship between a pilot’s legs to reach the plane in P38 s . It was a one shot opportunity to be able to attack and get back home safely .

[The Mastiff]

ChrisinHove wrote: ↑
07 Dec 2023 08:06
With the strength of the USA in terms of industry and resources, Japan lost that war the moment they started the shooting: it was just a matter of time.

And they knew that before they launched the attack:

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

--Isoroku Yamamoto


A large part of the reason Japan decided to attack the USA was that the head of their navy (Isoroku Yamamoto) had essentially lost the political battle against the head of their army (Hideki Tojo). To simplify, the Navy had the (fairly realistic) view that there was no way the Japanese industrial base could win the war and that modern war was simply a case of matching industrial production and grinding away until one side's industry proved superior. The Army had the more traditional view that victory on the battlefield could be achieved through valor and superior war fighting skills.

Pre-war Japanese politics, and the resulting war (wars if you consider the pre-pearl harbor invasion of china separately), were basically formed by the political conflict between Yamamoto and Tojo. In many ways, this was the final political conflict of feudal Japan, with two leading samurai (which both Yamamoto and Tojo were) competing for the favor the emperor to pursue their competing visions for the nation.

Isoroku Yamamoto, who spoke fluent English, graduated from Harvard, and had lived in the USA for several years (at Harvard and then twice as naval attache at the embassy in Washington) is a fascinating figure. He was against war with the Allies, and opposed the Japanese alignment with Germany and Italy, but having lost the political battle, fought the war with every ounce of his tremendous skill. Killing him (individually) was one of the primary pacific war goals of the USA, and with good reason. The US was able to kill him by ambushing the (unarmed) transport plane he was using on April 18, 1943. There is some argument as to whether this was legally a military battle or a targeted political assassination.
Top

Excellent overview BTW. It shows that if you push to hard in shutting off resources needed to run the economy that will cause a reaction that you may not like. The winning side ( Tojo, Yamamato had to head out to his fleet to avoid assassination ) was also convinced the soft Americans didn't have the stomach for losses and extended wars so they thought that first year would be enough.

[Fireman]

I got to see the Arizona this year. Well worth a visit to remember those who sacrificed and gave all

[TomAiello]

There is some argument as to whether this was legally a military battle or a targeted political assassination.

I agree that some try to argue that but they are usually left leaning academics. There was nothing wrong legally or morally then or now with the decision to target the enemies command structure. It's one of the basic precepts of warfighting and always has been. The only time it isn't done is times like when the British decided targeting Hitler should be avoided because his actions and decisions were counterproductive to his own countries war efforts. In other words he fubar'ed everything he did.

I agree with you, but I think it's important to recognize opposing viewpoints.

For what it's worth, I think the US killed the wrong guy. If they could have killed Tojo (which would have been much harder) there is some (small) chance that Yamamoto could have taken over the politics and ended the war.

[ChrisinHove]

There is some argument as to whether this was legally a military battle or a targeted political assassination.

I agree that some try to argue that but they are usually left leaning academics. There was nothing wrong legally or morally then or now with the decision to target the enemies command structure. It's one of the basic precepts of warfighting and always has been. The only time it isn't done is times like when the British decided targeting Hitler should be avoided because his actions and decisions were counterproductive to his own countries war efforts. In other words he fubar'ed everything he did.

I’m surprised it’s even a question, tbh.

I hadn’t heard that about WW2. There appears to be a habit, though, of generals and politicians claiming in hindsight that their failures were in fact deliberate, and the incidental benefits were intended.

[Doc Dan]

One has to be careful of leftist revisionists and their "history". Take that mess of a book and its purposeful re-telling of American History A People's History of the United States with his liberal, Marxist leaning rhetoric. A lot of people get their information from such purposefully polluted sources without realizing it. (Even the title is a clue to its orientation).

[The Mastiff]

For what it's worth, I think the US killed the wrong guy. If they could have killed Tojo (which would have been much harder) there is some (small) chance that Yamamoto could have taken over the politics and ended the war.

Perhaps that's true but IMO after Pearl Harbor and then the Japanese treatment of American prisoners nothing but a humiliating defeat and unconditional surrender of the Japanese would be acceptable to the United States and it's people. No negotiated / compromise end would have been proposed by any American politician who planned on winning a future election. Indeed it had become very personal to majority America. American parents didn't bat an eyelash at sending their children off to war knowing many wouldn't come back. They didn't complain about food shortages, rationing, not having basics like clothing and medicines available.

I look back at the way history has been rewritten especially in the last 25 years and laugh. The "Zoot suit" riots modern coverage are a prime example. It's portrayed as exclusively a racist driven event but in reality Americans were not able to buy new clothing and didn't complain at all about it . Then you have people in your face not only unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good but they added insult to injury by using enough materials for several new suits in their new clothing. Even the cops wanted some of that action. :)

Play stupid games and get stupid prizes.

[The Mastiff]

One has to be careful of leftist revisionists and their "history". Take that mess of a book and its purposeful re-telling of American History A People's History of the United States with his liberal, Marxist leaning rhetoric. A lot of people get their information from such purposefully polluted sources without realizing it. (Even the title is a clue to its orientation).

Thank you Dan. I wish there were more teachers, professors and academics willing to be honest .

[The Mastiff]

I hadn’t heard that about WW2. There appears to be a habit, though, of generals and politicians claiming in hindsight that their failures were in fact deliberate, and the incidental benefits were intended.

Most promoted to general officer ranks in peace time are politicians . They use their uniforms and decorations for gravitas and should not be confused with the real leaders that spring up because of their talent and hard work during difficult times. Hard times does make strong men ( and women). The opposite is therefore true as well. One look around now shows that is so.

I do believe the decision to not try to assassinate Hitler is true. I have read it in several different books and TV shows as well. Not only did he make stupid decisions but he had people so scared that they only told him what he wanted to hear at crucial times. Imagine having a dictator who forbid the timely release of armored reserves by the commanders best suited to use them ( Rommel) but also forbidding people to wake him up early so he could do it himself. Stalingrad, Kursk, What we call the "Battle of the bulge" are all prime examples of Hitler Fucking up. There are so many more. Hitler himself was one of the best things that could have happened to the Allies war efforts.

[ChrisinHove]

There is some argument as to whether this was legally a military battle or a targeted political assassination.

I agree that some try to argue that but they are usually left leaning academics. There was nothing wrong legally or morally then or now with the decision to target the enemies command structure. It's one of the basic precepts of warfighting and always has been. The only time it isn't done is times like when the British decided targeting Hitler should be avoided because his actions and decisions were counterproductive to his own countries war efforts. In other words he fubar'ed everything he did.

I agree with you, but I think it's important to recognize opposing viewpoints.

For what it's worth, I think the US killed the wrong guy. If they could have killed Tojo (which would have been much harder) there is some (small) chance that Yamamoto could have taken over the politics and ended the war.

Ended the war with just the USA, or ended the war with everyone? I think the latter unlikely.

[TomAiello]

For what it's worth, I think the US killed the wrong guy. If they could have killed Tojo (which would have been much harder) there is some (small) chance that Yamamoto could have taken over the politics and ended the war.

Ended the war with just the USA, or ended the war with everyone? I think the latter unlikely.

Ended the war between Imperial Japan and the USA/UK alliance in the Pacific. He knew that Japan was destined to lose, and argued for making peace while still strong, rather than face an unconditional surrender.

That would certainly not have ended the war in Europe, but it might have shortened it considerably by allowing the Allies to focus on it more than they already were. If we want to explore the alternate history, it would also have been interesting to see if there was a follow on conflict between Imperial Japan and the USSR after that. But that's probably a topic for a novel rather than any real historical inquiry.

[TomAiello]

For what it's worth, I think the US killed the wrong guy. If they could have killed Tojo (which would have been much harder) there is some (small) chance that Yamamoto could have taken over the politics and ended the war.

Perhaps that's true but IMO after Pearl Harbor and then the Japanese treatment of American prisoners nothing but a humiliating defeat and unconditional surrender of the Japanese would be acceptable to the United States and it's people.

I think you are probably correct. And Yamamoto was a bigger 'enemy' to most Americans than Tojo, because it was known that he was the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack.

[Ankerson]

As is always the case, the victors write history. History is what we learned in elementary school. But it wan't that long ago, and not all the facts have been lost to the sands of time. I'll try to summarize with minimal distortion precursors to December 7, 1941. The Japanese were screwing around in their corner of the world. They were bullying neighboring countries, and America decided to make it our business.

While we weren't at war, we were poking the Japanese in the eye. I have a magazine from the spring of 1941, describing how half the American population thought we should go to war with Japan. Many thought war was inevitable, many wanted to strike first. Everyone knew that hostility was brewing. Nobody expected Pearl Harbor, but that's the point of a surprise attack.

We were provoking the Japanese and painting them into a corner. They lashed out. Many died. It was neither pretty nor glorious.

The lesson that no one talks about and many still haven't learned is that while you can be the big dog, you can only push a little mutt so far before he snaps back. Even the big dogs need to be very, very careful about how they exert their might.

I mourn the loss of all the Allied soldiers. But I feel for the bad guys, as well. Most of them were just a bunch of dopes like you and me who would rather have stayed home with their families.

Yes, correct.

The US has a long history of sticking it's nose in were it doesn't belong and or not wanted.

And it got burned twice for doing so, Pearl Harbor and Sept 11th.

Maybe eventually they just might learn, but I doubt it.

Usually money is the reason, making Billionaires and or the 1% richer.

And we all pay for that every single time, but then that is OK and they can play the victim (and will, propaganda) as long as the right people get richer.