Sixty one years ago.... the "day of infamy"

[Darth Wong]

Something else to consider why some feel Dec 7 is a day of imfamy We were conducting peace talks with the Japaneese when they attacked Pearl Harbor .

How can you be conducting peace talks when there's no war?

In reality, the American government knew perfectly well that some kind of attack was coming. The notion that they were completely caught by surprise is 100% historical revisionist bullshit. The problem was that they grossly underestimated the Japanese military, and they expected some sort of cowardly sabotage attack rather than a direct military assault. Their entire defenses were designed around sabotage; that's why they had the planes crammed wingtip to wingtip in the airfields (so there would be large open spaces surrounding them and they'd be able to see saboteurs) and the ships in the harbour laid out so they couldn't maneuver (they were worried about subs sneaking in, not planes bombing and torpedoing them in open daylight).

[Sokar]

Lord Wong is entirely correct, Washington knew full well that war in the Pacific was a very good probability, but they never expected the Japanese Imperial Navy to be quite as ballsy as they were. Military planners had figured on a sabotage raid as an opening gambit in any Pacific conflict and planned accordingly. At this time aircraft from carriers were still something of a unknown quantity. Certainly , airborne attacks aginst ships had been highly successful so far in the war , notably in the crippiling of the Bismarck and the daring night raid by the RAF on Taranto to cripple the Italian Med Fleet (Don't laugh, the Italian Navy was nothing to sneeze at, fast, well armed, and out numbering the Royal Navy Med Squadron at about two to one early in the War), an attack the Japanese basically re-created for the Pearl Operation. A great deal of credit goe to luck for the Japanese Task Force had in weather, avoiding American patrols, and merchant traffic. Only a day to so's notice for the Us Pac Fleet, and the whole complexion of the beginnig of the War changes. as it was , the US got an object lesson in the power of carrier based aircraft, a lesson we were only to ready to repay in kind at Coral Sea and Midway.

[Jim Raynor]

How was Pearl Harbor a legitimate military target? Even though war was most probable, the USA was a neutral nation at the time. What did it do to justify a Japanese attack?

[Darth Wong]

How was Pearl Harbor a legitimate military target? Even though war was most probable, the USA was a neutral nation at the time. What did it do to justify a Japanese attack?

It held soldiers and military equipment, hence it is a legitimate military target. An example of a non-military target is the World Trade Centre, not Pearl.

And it should be noted that the Japanese attackers were specifically ordered not to hit the field hospital or cause undue civilian casualties.

[Jim Raynor]

How was Pearl Harbor a legitimate military target? Even though war was most probable, the USA was a neutral nation at the time. What did it do to justify a Japanese attack?

It held soldiers and military equipment, hence it is a legitimate military target. An example of a non-military target is the World Trade Centre, not Pearl.

And it should be noted that the Japanese attackers were specifically ordered not to hit the field hospital or cause undue civilian casualties.

Just because there's soldiers and military equipment at a place doesn't make an attack justified. What had America done to the Japanese at the time that made it ok for them to attack? Would it be ok if the USA decided to attack the military bases of any country it didn't like?

[Perinquus]

Something else to consider why some feel Dec 7 is a day of imfamy We were conducting peace talks with the Japaneese when they attacked Pearl Harbor .

How can you be conducting peace talks when there's no war?

The talks were aimed at averting war. American anger came at least partly from the impression (correct as it turned out) that the Japanese were not negotiating in good faith. It also comes partly from the fact that it's a natural human reaction to get really, really pissed off when you've been sucker punched - even if you've done it to other people (human nature, even if it is hypocritical).

In reality, the American government knew perfectly well that some kind of attack was coming. The notion that they were completely caught by surprise is 100% historical revisionist bullshit. The problem was that they grossly underestimated the Japanese military, and they expected some sort of cowardly sabotage attack rather than a direct military assault. Their entire defenses were designed around sabotage; that's why they had the planes crammed wingtip to wingtip in the airfields (so there would be large open spaces surrounding them and they'd be able to see saboteurs) and the ships in the harbour laid out so they couldn't maneuver (they were worried about subs sneaking in, not planes bombing and torpedoing them in open daylight).

Can't really disagree with any of this. There's no question the American military seriously underestimated Japanese capabilities, and no arguing with the fact that it was generally because they felt Asians were inferior to Anglo-Saxon whites.

[AdmiralKanos]

Just because there's soldiers and military equipment at a place doesn't make an attack justified.

Irrelevant. You asked why it was a legitimate military target, not whether a war was justified. Do not change the subject.

What had America done to the Japanese at the time that made it ok for them to attack? Would it be ok if the USA decided to attack the military bases of any country it didn't like?

Ask the people of Korea and Vietnam.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Just because there's soldiers and military equipment at a place doesn't make an attack justified. What had America done to the Japanese at the time that made it ok for them to attack? Would it be ok if the USA decided to attack the military bases of any country it didn't like?

The Japanese wanted to stop the US from being able to thwart their plans in the SW Pacific, if I recall correctly. We were the other Pacific power and thus a threat to them, even if we had no intention ourselves of interfering.

[Jim Raynor]

Just because there's soldiers and military equipment at a place doesn't make an attack justified.

Irrelevant. You asked why it was a legitimate military target, not whether a war was justified. Do not change the subject.

My first post in this thread shows that I also did ask whether an attack was justified. Also, I may have gotten the definition of what is a legitimate military target wrong, which I believed was a military target from a nation you are currently at war with.

What had America done to the Japanese at the time that made it ok for them to attack? Would it be ok if the USA decided to attack the military bases of any country it didn't like?

Ask the people of Korea and Vietnam.[/quote][/quote]

So are you in agreement that it's not ok for a country to go out and attack anyone they don't like?

[Sokar]

How was Pearl Harbor a legitimate military target? Even though war was most probable, the USA was a neutral nation at the time. What did it do to justify a Japanese attack?

Pearl was the forward deployment base for the entire American Pacific Fleet, note , it was not the home base , which was and still is , San Diego California a forward base by definition is a preperation for conflict, or there to protect a powers interests in a region. Japan was attempting to fulfill what it said was its manifest destiny to unite all Asian peoples under the umbrella of a Pan Asian Empire, led naturally by the Divine Emperor from Tokyo, sadly enough the Japanese were just imitating the example of the Dutch, British , and American Imperialism all across asia, they were just late for it to be fashionable. (Note this in no way excuses the violence and destruction wreacked by the Japanese, similarly it does not excuse the crimes of thoes self same Euro and American Imperialists)The only major obstacle to this expansion was the presence of American interests in Hawaii, the Philippenes(sp?) and Indonesia. due to the invasion and continuing war in China, the US had put economic pressure on Japan by cutting steel, iron, tin and oil sales to Japan in order to force a Japanese withdrawl from China. With out these strategic goods Japans economy would quickly grind to a halt, the nearest sources capable of supplying the Empire were in Dutch East Asia , and to get there required going through or over the American controlled Philipenes, to do this the American Fleet at Pearl Harbor had to be neutralized to prevent it from sailing to the relief of the Philipenes and forcing a battle on the open sea between the Imperial Combined Fleet and te US Pac Fleet. Hence the attack, which was hoped would cripple the Fleet for long enough for the Japanese to establish a defence perimiter that America would find to costly to assault and there by sue for peace. that it in a nutshell, god I love being a history major

[Darth Wong]

My first post in this thread shows that I also did ask whether an attack was justified.

Which was a tangent I chose not to follow. Don't pretend that I did otherwise.

Also, I may have gotten the definition of what is a legitimate military target wrong, which I believed was a military target from a nation you are currently at war with.

In other words, you should make sure to fill out the paperwork first. Ah, crucial distinction

Ask the people of Korea and Vietnam.

So are you in agreement that it's not ok for a country to go out and attack anyone they don't like?

War is never OK. But within the context of war, it is acceptable to attack any legitimate military target. The need for a prior formal declaration is a ridiculous formality whose importance is minimal, but which has been exaggerated for 50 years in order to demonize the Japanese (apparently, atrocities in China do not make for "infamy", but starting a war without the necessary paperwork does).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How can you be conducting peace talks when there's no war?

In reality, the American government knew perfectly well that some kind of attack was coming. The notion that they were completely caught by surprise is 100% historical revisionist bullshit. The problem was that they grossly underestimated the Japanese military, and they expected some sort of cowardly sabotage attack rather than a direct military assault. Their entire defenses were designed around sabotage; that's why they had the planes crammed wingtip to wingtip in the airfields (so there would be large open spaces surrounding them and they'd be able to see saboteurs) and the ships in the harbour laid out so they couldn't maneuver (they were worried about subs sneaking in, not planes bombing and torpedoing them in open daylight).

Actually, we did suspect a direct military assault. We just expected it against the PIs. There was no belief, yes, that they had the capability to reach Hawaii with more than sabotage efforts.

In a sense, though, we were in a low level state of war. We were already denying them industrial goods; we were in economic competition and competition over the resources of China. And there had been several incidents of violence in China already between US proper and Japanese forces, the sinking of two American gunboats on Chinese rivers, etc.

Also, remember the AVG, which was basically very thinly veiled American aide to China.

So I can basically accept that a war was already being waged between the USA and Japan, just not a war consisting primarily of armed conflict. Thus, calling the negotiations "peace" negotiations would not be inappropriate.

[Jim Raynor]

Which was a tangent I chose not to follow. Don't pretend that I did otherwise.

I'm not pretending anything, nor was I trying to change the subject of the discussion. As my next sentence showed, I interpreted "legitimate military target" as a military target from a nation you are at war with. What is the proper definition for that term? I apologize if what I believed to be the definition is incorrect.

[Darth Wong]

... I interpreted "legitimate military target" as a military target from a nation you are at war with. What is the proper definition for that term? I apologize if what I believed to be the definition is incorrect.

As I said, any military installation is considered a legitimate military target. Declaration of war has nothing to do with it. Any Russian ICBM silo, for example, was considered a legitimate military target during the Cold War.

[Sea Skimmer]

How can you be conducting peace talks when there's no war?

In reality, the American government knew perfectly well that some kind of attack was coming. The notion that they were completely caught by surprise is 100% historical revisionist bullshit. The problem was that they grossly underestimated the Japanese military, and they expected some sort of cowardly sabotage attack rather than a direct military assault. Their entire defenses were designed around sabotage; that's why they had the planes crammed wingtip to wingtip in the airfields (so there would be large open spaces surrounding them and they'd be able to see saboteurs) and the ships in the harbour laid out so they couldn't maneuver (they were worried about subs sneaking in, not planes bombing and torpedoing them in open daylight).

Actually, we did suspect a direct military assault. We just expected it against the PIs. There was no belief, yes, that they had the capability to reach Hawaii with more than sabotage efforts.

In a sense, though, we were in a low level state of war. We were already denying them industrial goods; we were in economic competition and competition over the resources of China. And there had been several incidents of violence in China already between US proper and Japanese forces, the sinking of two American gunboats on Chinese rivers, etc.

Also, remember the AVG, which was basically very thinly veiled American aide to China.

So I can basically accept that a war was already being waged between the USA and Japan, just not a war consisting primarily of armed conflict. Thus, calling the negotiations "peace" negotiations would not be inappropriate.

AVG was in Burma training. Didn't see any action till IJA bombers arrived over Rangoon.

[The Dark]

Lord Wong is entirely correct, Washington knew full well that war in the Pacific was a very good probability, but they never expected the Japanese Imperial Navy to be quite as ballsy as they were. Military planners had figured on a sabotage raid as an opening gambit in any Pacific conflict and planned accordingly.

They also didn't believe the Japanese had the range to attack the Hawaiian Islands with any significant fleet.

At this time aircraft from carriers were still something of a unknown quantity. Certainly , airborne attacks aginst ships had been highly successful so far in the war , notably in the crippiling of the Bismarck and the daring night raid by the RAF on Taranto to cripple the Italian Med Fleet (Don't laugh, the Italian Navy was nothing to sneeze at, fast, well armed, and out numbering the Royal Navy Med Squadron at about two to one early in the War), an attack the Japanese basically re-created for the Pearl Operation.

There's actually no evidence that the Japanese studied the Taranto raid at all, and Pearl Harbor was actually planned before Taranto (so more credit to the Japanese planners is due for planning a smart attack).

A great deal of credit goe to luck for the Japanese Task Force had in weather, avoiding American patrols, and merchant traffic. Only a day to so's notice for the Us Pac Fleet, and the whole complexion of the beginnig of the War changes. as it was , the US got an object lesson in the power of carrier based aircraft, a lesson we were only to ready to repay in kind at Coral Sea and Midway.

True. Midway was the turning point of the war. Of course, even then we were working the bugs out of our war machine, since many of our bombers (torpedo especially) were lost in that battle. Of the 18 Avenger crew members, only 2 survived the battle.

All in all, it showed a definite lack of communication between Washington and ONI (not sure what its real name was) and the PacFltInt. Washington had suspicions of an impending attack, but didn't warn Pearl Harbor as to what kind of attack to expect. The most logical to the commanders there was sabotage, so that was what they planned for.

[The Dark]

AVG was in Burma training. Didn't see any action till IJA bombers arrived over Rangoon.

Sorta right. First combat mission was out of Kunming, over southern Yunnan province, on December 20, 1941. Destruction of 9 out of 10 bombers occurred for the loss of one P-40. The Rangoon combat was on the 23rd, a combined RAF and Third Squadron action. Between the 20th and New Year's, the AVG destroyed 75 Japanese airplanes (with another half dozen probables) for the loss of two pilots and six aircraft.

[Kamakazie Sith]

War is never OK. But within the context of war, it is acceptable to attack any legitimate military target. The need for a prior formal declaration is a ridiculous formality whose importance is minimal, but which has been exaggerated for 50 years in order to demonize the Japanese (apparently, atrocities in China do not make for "infamy", but starting a war without the necessary paperwork does).

I just wanted to add that not only is a prior formal declaration ridiculous but it also borders on betrayal to your own soldiers. When you are planning on going to war against another country and you have an opportunity to surprise and cripple your enemy it is in your duty to your soldiers to seize that opportunity.

[Perinquus]

I just wanted to add that not only is a prior formal declaration ridiculous but it also borders on betrayal to your own soldiers. When you are planning on going to war against another country and you have an opportunity to surprise and cripple your enemy it is in your duty to your soldiers to seize that opportunity.

Lots of the conventions and rules of war are ridiculous when you think about it. For example: I, for one, have never understood why it is cruel and inhuman (and thus forbidden) to shoot someone with hollowpoint or fragmenting bullets, but okay to roast them with flamethrowers and incendiary bombs. I mean, call me silly, but I'd much rather be hit and killed instantly by an expanding slug than spend the last few moments of my life in indescribable agony as a living pyre.

[Typhonis 1]

Actually the Japanese got the Ideas about Pearl Harbor from two sources one the British attack against the Italian navy and 2 A US wargame from the 1930`s where an american Admiral launched a mock attack on Pearl using both of the USs aircraft Carriers at the time .He attacked from the north on a sunday morning and would have hit EVERY ship in the harbor if it had been real