Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/7/2018 10:09:54 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3084
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
Today, December 7, is Pearl Harbor day. Fairly every military history buff knows this day. The question in the post heading was brought to mind by another post in the Press Releases, etc., sub forum. Did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor to delay a U.S. attack on Japan?

pre·emp·tive/prēˈemptiv/adjective: serving or intended to preempt or forestall something, especially to prevent attack by disabling the enemy.

So, was the U.S. planning an attack against Japan? Forget the fact that the U.S. was not even prepared for war. However they were preparing for war. Combat aircraft plants were already under construction or were ready to produce. Did Japan preempt a U.S. attack by conducting a surprise attack? Or was the Japanese attack not preemptive, instead making a surprise attack to cripple the U.S. Pacific fleet so Japan could act freely in the Pacific and Southeast Asia?

Personally I think using the term preemptive is incorrect. To call it that implies that an attack by the U.S. against Japan was imminent. It smacks of yet more history editing.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"
Post #: 1
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/8/2018 2:20:14 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
I agree.

It was also a strategic blunder, compounded by Hitler's declaration of war on the US. Churchill couldn't believe his luck - he knew the allies would now win, albeit with years of struggle ahead.

The Japs had their co-prosperity zone and could have kept that;as indeed Hitler had Europe at his knees and didn't have to attack Russia.

Oh well.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 2
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/8/2018 3:45:34 PM   
Bennett

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 6/3/2001
Status: offline
From what I have read, the US decision to implement oil and scrap metal embargoes in 1940/41 meant that Japanese oil reserves for military operations were going to be drained to the point where they could not effectively fight. Some sources say within a year or two. Would that have faced the Japanese leaders with two stark choices; go to war or effectively surrender their interests in China to the United States within two years? And in this case, the US never needed to consider a preemptive attack. They could wait until the Japanese economy ground to a halt. A lot of sources indicate FDR preferred this approach so that they could militarily focus on Germany for the first years of any military conflict. The Americans rated the Germans as more capable opponents. And frankly, at the time, the US military did not rate the Japanese military very highly. At some future cost for both countries.

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 3
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/8/2018 6:08:19 PM   
Orm


Posts: 18135
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Personally I think using the term preemptive is incorrect. To call it that implies that an attack by the U.S. against Japan was imminent. It smacks of yet more history editing.

It is indeed incorrect. In my humble opinion, that is. US might indeed have attacked Japan eventually, but that was not in the near future. Who can say for certain what the US actions would have been if the Japanese war in China had continued. Or if Japan had done something else like capture some oil fields in NEI.

And why impose the oil embargo if USA was going to launch a surprise attack on Japan?

_____________________________

Intend attacking at dawn high water.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 4
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/9/2018 9:41:13 AM   
Hexagon


Posts: 1114
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline
The motive to launch a surprise attack in the middle of an embargo is obviosly have a "short range plan" to complete the "long range plan", even if USA didnt consider Japan a real challenge i doubt they were to idiots to expect no reaction from Japan related with the "economic war".

Had a plan to strike before Japan do it was good... like had another plan if Japan hit first.... better a bad plan ready over no plan to deal with an unexpected situation.

Embargo was the cheap option in politic and material resources but to made it succesfull they needed Japan stay pasive waiting their military options dissapear.

For me the oil embargo was the way used by USA to push Japan to a war that USA expected be easy for them in the moment the core of Japanese army was stuck in the Chinese inferno... but first victim of war is the plans you made waiting enemy only can do what you expect or are ready to engage... the Japanase army did with a strong navy and moderate support from army something that USA never expected.


< Message edited by Hexagon -- 12/9/2018 9:44:58 AM >

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 5
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/10/2018 6:30:14 AM   
Pvt_Grunt

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 2/13/2007
From: Frankston Victoria
Status: offline
I dont believe the US was planning a strike. Pearl Harbor was a "Pre Emptive" strike bu the Japanese, but only to further their own aggression. But, it wasn't the coup de e'tat that they hoped for.

Anyone into WW2 history and podcasts needs to listen to Ray Harris Jr Podcast Highly recommended

_____________________________


(in reply to Hexagon)
Post #: 6
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/10/2018 9:23:39 AM   
bazjak

 

Posts: 242
Joined: 9/1/2014
From: Wales UK
Status: offline
Living here in the UK i had heard somewhere but i cant remember where that Churchill had warned Roosevelt about it
So the mind boggles
Did they not do anything about the warning because Roosevelt wanted a good reason to become involved in the war
Conspiracy theories again just like the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11

(in reply to Pvt_Grunt)
Post #: 7
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/10/2018 3:24:51 PM   
Poopyhead

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 3/17/2004
Status: offline
In August, 1941 the UK captured a German spy who had been tasked to get info for the Japanese ambassador about the attack by Royal Navy carriers on the Italian battleships in Toranto and also on the defenses of Pearl Harbor. They gave this intel to the USA. So either someone should have known and was incredibly incompetent or someone made a decision to allow the attack. Remember that in those days, "little yellow Asiatics" weren't considered a threat to the western colonial powers. When Zero fighters were able to escort bombers all the way to Clark Field from Formosa, MacArthur thought that our Navy was lying to him. He argued that the IJN must have more carriers than the USA knew about, because no US fighters could fly that far. Other Japanese military abilities were also grossly underestimated.

Governments want war heroes bravely saving the nation. It wasn't until decades after WW2 that governments released the real story of how code-breakers and spies influenced our victory. Gen. Washington had spies in the Revolutionary war and Administrations have used intel in every war since then. The embargo was a "starve or fight" ultimatum to Japan. If the Japanese had left Indochina to forgo the embargo, then the Japanese knew that another embargo could force them out of China, Manchuria or Korea. I can't imagine that Roosevelt was a fool. He must have known the consequences of his actions. He would of course ask for all the intel we could get about Japanese intentions. Otherwise, he is a President of infamy.

_____________________________

Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.

(in reply to bazjak)
Post #: 8
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/10/2018 4:07:22 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 6577
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
Wanting (or not minding to be at) war is a lot different than wanting a disaster like Pearl Harbor. A lot of important people saw what they wanted to see and didn't see what they should have seen.

Many of FDR's anti-Japan actions were politically motivated by the need to appear to be doing something to oppose Japanese aggression in China and French Indochina. The move of the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl was one of them. It was generally opposed by the military who realized how exposed Pearl Harbor was.


(in reply to Poopyhead)
Post #: 9
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/10/2018 5:04:41 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40094
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Was Pearl Harbor Pre-emptive? Who cares? All I know is, it was freakin' fantastic!

Possibly the finest war film nay - the finest film of any genre - ever made.

Pure celluloid magic. Who can forget the wonderful en point script too?

Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle: There's nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer.

Gooz: Red, do you think they are making us do this film because we are young and dumb?

Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle: You know what top secret is?"
Rafe: Yes, sir. It's the kind of mission where you get medals, but they send 'em to your relatives.


Rafe: Not anxious to die sir, just anxious to matter.

Rafe [duet with Kate Bush]: I made a deal with God.
And I'd get him to swap our places
Be running up that road
Be running up that hill
Be running up that building
See if I only could, oh


Danny: I think World War II just started.

Rafe: Ma'am, I'm never gonna be an English teacher, but I know why I'm here, to be a pilot, and you don't dogfight with manuals, you don't fly with gauges, I mean it's all about feeling and speed and lettin' that plane become like it's apart of your body, and that manual says that a guy who's a slow reader can't be a good pilot... that file says I'm the best pilot in this room... Ma'am, please... Don't take my wings

Evelyn: Do you ever wonder if this war's going to catch up with us?

Stop it Evelyn - I'm welling up here!

Evelyn: You died Rafe. So did I.

Admiral Kimmel: The smart enemy attacks when he knows I'm in charge.




The problem is some of those above were not from the film but its so bad its difficult to tell which is which.....

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/10/2018 5:09:03 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 10
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/10/2018 6:34:06 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 6577
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Was Pearl Harbor Pre-emptive? Who cares? All I know is, it was freakin' fantastic!

Possibly the finest war film nay - the finest film of any genre - ever made.

Pure celluloid magic. Who can forget the wonderful en point script too?

Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle: There's nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer.

Gooz: Red, do you think they are making us do this film because we are young and dumb?

Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle: You know what top secret is?"
Rafe: Yes, sir. It's the kind of mission where you get medals, but they send 'em to your relatives.


Rafe: Not anxious to die sir, just anxious to matter.

Rafe [duet with Kate Bush]: I made a deal with God.
And I'd get him to swap our places
Be running up that road
Be running up that hill
Be running up that building
See if I only could, oh


Danny: I think World War II just started.

Rafe: Ma'am, I'm never gonna be an English teacher, but I know why I'm here, to be a pilot, and you don't dogfight with manuals, you don't fly with gauges, I mean it's all about feeling and speed and lettin' that plane become like it's apart of your body, and that manual says that a guy who's a slow reader can't be a good pilot... that file says I'm the best pilot in this room... Ma'am, please... Don't take my wings

Evelyn: Do you ever wonder if this war's going to catch up with us?

Stop it Evelyn - I'm welling up here!

Evelyn: You died Rafe. So did I.

Admiral Kimmel: The smart enemy attacks when he knows I'm in charge.


The problem is some of those above were not from the film but its so bad its difficult to tell which is which.....

Pearl Harbor is the anti-Tora! Tora! Tora!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 11
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/10/2018 8:27:17 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3084
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Was Pearl Harbor Pre-emptive? Who cares? All I know is, it was freakin' fantastic!

Possibly the finest war film nay - the finest film of any genre - ever made.

Pure celluloid magic. Who can forget the wonderful en point script too?

Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle: There's nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer.

Gooz: Red, do you think they are making us do this film because we are young and dumb?

Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle: You know what top secret is?"
Rafe: Yes, sir. It's the kind of mission where you get medals, but they send 'em to your relatives.


Rafe: Not anxious to die sir, just anxious to matter.

Rafe [duet with Kate Bush]: I made a deal with God.
And I'd get him to swap our places
Be running up that road
Be running up that hill
Be running up that building
See if I only could, oh


Danny: I think World War II just started.

Rafe: Ma'am, I'm never gonna be an English teacher, but I know why I'm here, to be a pilot, and you don't dogfight with manuals, you don't fly with gauges, I mean it's all about feeling and speed and lettin' that plane become like it's apart of your body, and that manual says that a guy who's a slow reader can't be a good pilot... that file says I'm the best pilot in this room... Ma'am, please... Don't take my wings

Evelyn: Do you ever wonder if this war's going to catch up with us?

Stop it Evelyn - I'm welling up here!

Evelyn: You died Rafe. So did I.

Admiral Kimmel: The smart enemy attacks when he knows I'm in charge.




The problem is some of those above were not from the film but its so bad its difficult to tell which is which.....


Back away from the wine and put your hands where we can see them.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 12
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 4:07:28 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5268
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

In August, 1941 the UK captured a German spy who had been tasked to get info for the Japanese ambassador about the attack by Royal Navy carriers on the Italian battleships in Toranto and also on the defenses of Pearl Harbor. They gave this intel to the USA. So either someone should have known and was incredibly incompetent or someone made a decision to allow the attack.


A Taranto-style attack was considered by the USN to be impossible. Pearl Harbor is shallow: at low tide the battleship keels were only feet off of the sea floor. Air-dropped torpedoes would bottom out.

What they did not know was that the Japanese developed special torpedoes with wooden fins (you can see them in a shot of Pearl Harbor) which ran shallow. And also bombs made from modified battleship AP shells capable of punching through deck armor, which the British did not yet have.

It is true that FDR was trying to get the U.S. involved in WWII, but his target was Nazi Germany rather than Japan. And during October 1941, he had pretty much succeeded: besides the munitions supplied by Lend-Lease, the USN was in a shooting war with the U-boats. (The U-boats were winning, but that's beside the point.)


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Poopyhead)
Post #: 13
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 9:58:11 AM   
inconelpipe

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 12/11/2018
Status: offline
Inconel 625 tubing used in so many industrial applications performed high elevated temperature. The resistivity of the inconel tubes help to manage the temperature and perform well in these kind of environments.

(in reply to bazjak)
Post #: 14
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 2:48:48 PM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 3123
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

as indeed Hitler had Europe at his knees and didn't have to attack Russia.

I have to call BS on this. Hitler needed oil to keep Wehrmacht and the rest of Germany running, UK had blockaded import across Atlantic and didn't want to negotiate about it (nor about peace for that matter), and if import from Russia or elsewhere from USSR was a choice, only then attack wasn't needed. Hitler didn't want Stalingrad to mock Stalin as seems to be common understanding; he wanted Stalingrad to secure Caucasus and its oil fields.

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 15
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 4:39:45 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25350
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inconelpipe

Inconel 625 tubing used in so many industrial applications performed high elevated temperature. The resistivity of the inconel tubes help to manage the temperature and perform well in these kind of environments.



Of course it is. But isn't that rather self-evident? I mean anyone who knows anything about industrial tubing type 625 knows that Inconel tubing performs well in environments of "high elevated" temperature. But what about applications in environments of "low elevated" temperature or "high decreased" temperature? What then pray tell?

_____________________________


(in reply to inconelpipe)
Post #: 16
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 4:44:14 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25350
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Personally I think using the term preemptive is incorrect. To call it that implies that an attack by the U.S. against Japan was imminent. It smacks of yet more history editing.


Of course.

I also bristle at the commentary that the Japanese had no choice other than to attack PH and the PI post-oil embargo. They could have agreed to our terms for a normalized relationship or worked elsewhere for their strategic petroleum needs. They apparently (mis)calculated that to do so was not worth their costs to save face, stop pillaging China and play nice on the international stage. They chose war. They chose their pre-emptive strike.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 17
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 5:02:04 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40094
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: inconelpipe

Inconel 625 tubing used in so many industrial applications performed high elevated temperature. The resistivity of the inconel tubes help to manage the temperature and perform well in these kind of environments.



Of course it is. But isn't that rather self-evident? I mean anyone who knows anything about industrial tubing type 625 knows that Inconel tubing performs well in environments of "high elevated" temperature. But what about applications in environments of "low elevated" temperature or "high decreased" temperature? What then pray tell?
warspite1

Believe me CB you don't want to know.... This is serious, big boy s***. I only use Inconel type 625 for all my personal tubing needs - whether high elevated or low.

Trust me on this.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 18
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 5:12:31 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40094
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Personally I think using the term preemptive is incorrect. To call it that implies that an attack by the U.S. against Japan was imminent. It smacks of yet more history editing.


Of course.

I also bristle at the commentary that the Japanese had no choice other than to attack PH and the PI post-oil embargo. They could have agreed to our terms for a normalized relationship or worked elsewhere for their strategic petroleum needs. They apparently (mis)calculated that to do so was not worth their costs to save face, stop pillaging China and play nice on the international stage. They chose war. They chose their pre-emptive strike.
warspite1

I always find funny (and by that I mean bloody irritating) the criticism labelled at the British and French for desperately trying to stop another catastrophic war (just a generation after the last one) by appeasement policy - and then the same armchair critics who criticise the Americans for trying to stop Japan by stronger arm tactics.

So basically, to these wise-acres both attempts, despite being diametrically opposed, were both wrong. So easy to bash the democracies regardless of what they did - especially with hindsight ...



_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 19
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 5:28:02 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 6577
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: inconelpipe

Inconel 625 tubing used in so many industrial applications performed high elevated temperature. The resistivity of the inconel tubes help to manage the temperature and perform well in these kind of environments.



Of course it is. But isn't that rather self-evident? I mean anyone who knows anything about industrial tubing type 625 knows that Inconel tubing performs well in environments of "high elevated" temperature. But what about applications in environments of "low elevated" temperature or "high decreased" temperature? What then pray tell?
warspite1

Believe me CB you don't want to know.... This is serious, big boy s***. I only use Inconel type 625 for all my personal tubing needs - whether high elevated or low.

Trust me on this.


Off Topic!

Forum guidelines quite clearly specify Inconel tubing as verboten.
Moderator, please lock this thread.

Personally, I use PVC tubing. PVC, velcro, and duct tape can fix anything.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 20
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 5:36:39 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25350
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: inconelpipe

Inconel 625 tubing used in so many industrial applications performed high elevated temperature. The resistivity of the inconel tubes help to manage the temperature and perform well in these kind of environments.



Of course it is. But isn't that rather self-evident? I mean anyone who knows anything about industrial tubing type 625 knows that Inconel tubing performs well in environments of "high elevated" temperature. But what about applications in environments of "low elevated" temperature or "high decreased" temperature? What then pray tell?
warspite1

Believe me CB you don't want to know.... This is serious, big boy s***. I only use Inconel type 625 for all my personal tubing needs - whether high elevated or low.

Trust me on this.


Off Topic!

Forum guidelines quite clearly specify Inconel tubing as verboten.
Moderator, please lock this thread.

Personally, I use PVC tubing. PVC, velcro, and duct tape can fix anything.



Zorch:

Yes, we're familiar with your preferred use of such tubing. But let's keep this a PG-13 forum, shall we?






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 21
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 5:47:42 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 6577
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: inconelpipe

Inconel 625 tubing used in so many industrial applications performed high elevated temperature. The resistivity of the inconel tubes help to manage the temperature and perform well in these kind of environments.



Of course it is. But isn't that rather self-evident? I mean anyone who knows anything about industrial tubing type 625 knows that Inconel tubing performs well in environments of "high elevated" temperature. But what about applications in environments of "low elevated" temperature or "high decreased" temperature? What then pray tell?
warspite1

Believe me CB you don't want to know.... This is serious, big boy s***. I only use Inconel type 625 for all my personal tubing needs - whether high elevated or low.

Trust me on this.


Off Topic!

Forum guidelines quite clearly specify Inconel tubing as verboten.
Moderator, please lock this thread.

Personally, I use PVC tubing. PVC, velcro, and duct tape can fix anything.



Zorch:

Yes, we're familiar with your preferred use of such tubing. But let's keep this a PG-13 forum, shall we?






Oh Behave!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 22
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 7:28:16 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 4045
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Personally I think using the term preemptive is incorrect. To call it that implies that an attack by the U.S. against Japan was imminent. It smacks of yet more history editing.


Of course.

I also bristle at the commentary that the Japanese had no choice other than to attack PH and the PI post-oil embargo. They could have agreed to our terms for a normalized relationship or worked elsewhere for their strategic petroleum needs. They apparently (mis)calculated that to do so was not worth their costs to save face, stop pillaging China and play nice on the international stage. They chose war. They chose their pre-emptive strike.
warspite1

I always find funny (and by that I mean bloody irritating) the criticism labelled at the British and French for desperately trying to stop another catastrophic war (just a generation after the last one) by appeasement policy - and then the same armchair critics who criticise the Americans for trying to stop Japan by stronger arm tactics.

So basically, to these wise-acres both attempts, despite being diametrically opposed, were both wrong. So easy to bash the democracies regardless of what they did - especially with hindsight ...




IIRC, the reason for appeasement was that the British and French were not ready for war, but thought Germany was. She wasn't either, but they didn't know that. In Chris Crwaford's strategy book on his game Balance of Power, he wrote than when they entered the war when Poland was invaded, Hitler turned to Goebbels and asked "Now what?".

As for a "preemptive strike" on the US, I don't see it. Again, IIRC, US naval theory at the time was that a fleet lost 10% effectiveness for every 1,000 miles from base. Both sides considered battleships worth far more than carriers, According to the book 'The Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions', Yamamoto was quite willing to trade the six carriers for sinking US battleships. But, I ramble.....


_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 23
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 8:17:59 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6293
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


Personally, I use PVC tubing. PVC, velcro, and duct tape can fix anything.








Attachment (1)

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 24
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/11/2018 11:48:30 PM   
KurtC


Posts: 1288
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

In August, 1941 the UK captured a German spy who had been tasked to get info for the Japanese ambassador about the attack by Royal Navy carriers on the Italian battleships in Toranto and also on the defenses of Pearl Harbor. They gave this intel to the USA. So either someone should have known and was incredibly incompetent or someone made a decision to allow the attack.


A Taranto-style attack was considered by the USN to be impossible. Pearl Harbor is shallow: at low tide the battleship keels were only feet off of the sea floor. Air-dropped torpedoes would bottom out.

What they did not know was that the Japanese developed special torpedoes with wooden fins (you can see them in a shot of Pearl Harbor) which ran shallow. And also bombs made from modified battleship AP shells capable of punching through deck armor, which the British did not yet have.

It is true that FDR was trying to get the U.S. involved in WWII, but his target was Nazi Germany rather than Japan. And during October 1941, he had pretty much succeeded: besides the munitions supplied by Lend-Lease, the USN was in a shooting war with the U-boats. (The U-boats were winning, but that's beside the point.)



Agreed.

_____________________________

My known forum name is H Gilmer

He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
"There are no modern Nazis. The real Nazis in Hell laugh at the notion." - Gilmer, descendant of Poles.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 25
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/12/2018 9:11:52 AM   
Pvt_Grunt

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 2/13/2007
From: Frankston Victoria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: inconelpipe

Inconel 625 tubing used in so many industrial applications performed high elevated temperature. The resistivity of the inconel tubes help to manage the temperature and perform well in these kind of environments.



Of course it is. But isn't that rather self-evident? I mean anyone who knows anything about industrial tubing type 625 knows that Inconel tubing performs well in environments of "high elevated" temperature. But what about applications in environments of "low elevated" temperature or "high decreased" temperature? What then pray tell?

I am a total idiot!! I've been using Inconel 624 all this time!

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 26
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/12/2018 5:07:21 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25350
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warspite1
I am a total idiot!!


Agreed.

_____________________________


(in reply to Pvt_Grunt)
Post #: 27
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/12/2018 7:17:42 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6293
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Warspite1
I am a total idiot!!


Agreed.


Seconded

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 28
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/12/2018 8:18:10 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5337
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
NO.

27 replies and no one mentioned the most pertinent unavoidable issue during the interwar period.

ISOLATIONISM

It is well known that the Big Depression ended in fact only in 1945, despite Roosevelt's efforts (New Deal). So you're saying that a mess of a country was going to start a dangerous adventure abroad?

That's some science-fiction.

If you're attacked then you can get the whole population behind and start a massive mobilisation. And that's exactly what happened.

But (democratically speaking) such an strike could not be done, repeat, could not be done in one million years in the US circa early 1940s.

That Roosevelt wanted to join the struggle, that's another different story. But he needed an excuse to circumvent the unescapable isolationism of the US population.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 29
RE: Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? - 12/12/2018 8:27:55 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40094
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Warspite1
I am a total idiot!!


Agreed.


Seconded
warspite1

Thirdeded


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Was Pearl Harbor Preemptive? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.146