The Attack on Pearl Harbor Was One of the Best Things That Could Have Happened

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: missed_gear
you do know Winston Churchill agreed, just saying.

Agreed with what? Churchill continually pressured Roosevelt to leave the Pacific for later in the war and pushed for the American fleet to assist the British feet against the Germans immediately.

Only to a certain extent. Churchill did indeed want USN destroyers to be deployed to ensure convoy protection, which was really in the best interests of the US as well, they just didn't see it at first.

From what I've read, the Brits didn't really care all that much about carriers and battleships though, as not only was their own Atlantic fleet capable of defending the home Island, carriers served no purpose around continental Europe.

Don't forget, the British Pacific fleet was decimated, and they were more than willing to let the Americans deal with the Japanese, while the Med/N.Africa theater was more of a combined effort (though. US capital ships, and carriers weren't imperative there either).

One other point I'll make, when Roosevelt wanted to pressure Churchhill, all he had to do was mention the fact that the "Germany first" doctrine could easily be adjusted if the British didnt see things Marshal's way.

originally posted by: Mach2

carriers served no purpose around continental Europe.

Tell that to Malta.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Mach2

While the bombs were indeed horrible, I don't think one can argue that any alternative would have cost more lives, both American, and Japanese certainly, but also Chinese, Russian, Burmese, etc.

Usually ppl that see it as a black or white choice, fail to take into account the context and reality of the time, in an historical perspective.

Yeah no I agree with you 100% on that. I just didn't like the way one
could misconstrue the heading. Feel me?

Personally, I would have worded it differently, but being a history buff, it certainly got my attention.

Such is the "internet world" we live in. Clickbait usually invokes clicks.

Cool cool I just read or rather replied. from a victims perspective. Not exactly the "Best" anything for them.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Mach2

carriers served no purpose around continental Europe.

Tell that to Malta.

Malta wasn't short on air power at all. The problem was keeping them supplied, not to mention the fact that those problems, for the most part, occured in 40/41, predating PH, and the US's entry into the war.

a reply to: neo96

I seem to remember they had problems with the torpedoes during
the first part of the war.Plus,you touched this thread when you posted.
I do see the logic behind this and have to admit the op is right.

a reply to: mamabeth

5 second rule.

a reply to: JIMC5499

A relief force is not a full on battle. The United States naval doctrine had shifted and they were no longer going for a decisive battle as the Japanese had hoped. The entire Japanese naval strategy was one of engaging the United States surface fleet in a massive battle.

a reply to: Mach2

If you read Hornfischer's Neptune's Inferno, which covers the decisive naval engagement of the Pacific, Guadalcanal, there are numerous communications between Nimitz, Halsey and Roosevelt where they make clear Churchill did not want the United States taking on the IJN until they had neutralized the Kreigsmarine.

originally posted by: Nickn3
Explain that to the family’s of the dead. I would bet you couldn’t convince more than a handful that you are right. You see my cousin was awarded the CMH and we don’t really care. We would rather have our family member back.

Very understandable, especially if the American services ignored any hints of an attack for any reason, it might have been simple arrogance, it might well have been that Hoover really didn't pass on his, 'several' lines of intel....all pointing to an imminent attack..one of those lines at very least, was the interception of Japanese diplomatic cables, nor can the information from double agents be completely ignored as a misnomer.

As for the Japanese attack, it clearly wasn't a failure, their novel torpedo's did the job for instance.

What is very striking is that the Japanese attack was influenced by a 1925 novel called The Great Pacific War, written by a British author Hector Bywater, who was a naval analyst, who pretty much predicted the event of a US/Japanese war???

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: JIMC5499

The Attack on Pearl Harbor Was One of the Best Things That Could Have Happened

And so was the atom bomb.

SARC

The atom bomb was one of the best things. Probably saved over a million lives.

Including mine. It is doubtful I would have been born at all. My Dad was in the Philippines in a Division that would have been i the first wave of an invasion.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: JIMC5499

A relief force is not a full on battle. The United States naval doctrine had shifted and they were no longer going for a decisive battle as the Japanese had hoped. The entire Japanese naval strategy was one of engaging the United States surface fleet in a massive battle.

The Japanese did try to force the issue at Midway, Coral sea, Marianas, etc..

All it did was expidite their downfall.

I've read many opinions that they were well aware of US industrial potential, and relied on the belief that the American ppl didnt have the "intestinal fortitude" for an all out war. I'm not so sure that they really did comprehend either the speed with which armaments could be produced, nor the ferocious response of Americans after an attack.

To FDRs credit, he clearly saw what was coming, and started laying the groundwork in 1939.

originally posted by: smurfy
What is very striking is that the Japanese attack was influenced by a 1925 novel called The Great Pacific War, written by a British author Hector Bywater, who was a naval analyst, who pretty much predicted the event of a US/Japanese war???

His attack was on the Panama Canal.

originally posted by: Mach2
The Japanese did try to force the issue at Midway, Coral sea, Marianas, etc..

Correct, and not one time did we take the bait which demonstrates the shift in our naval doctrine away from the Plan Orange full scale surface battle to the one of attrition in Rainbow 5.

I'm not so sure that they really did comprehend either the speed with which armaments could be produced, nor the ferocious response of Americans after an attack.

A good point. In 1943 the United States produced more ships than the rest of the world combined. This site shows how and why the Japanese lost the Pacific War.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Interesting, I will look into it.

Not that it was Churchill's call to make, and different historians sometimes draw different conclusions, but I'm always open to different perspectives.

Thanks for the recommendation.

originally posted by: Mach2
Not that it was Churchill's call to make, and different historians sometimes draw different conclusions, but I'm always open to different perspectives.

No, it wasn't, but he was persuasive and from Roosevelt's perspective the outlook in Europe was grim. The United States still had all of it's carriers with more on the way so the thinking was the Pacific could wait.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
With this being the 78th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I thought that it might be a good time to throw this out here.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the best things that could have happened to the U.S. Navy.

Now, let me explain my reasons for saying this. I spent from 1982 through 1987 in the Navy. My squadron deployed on aircraft carriers. The Navy has a policy of continuing the professional education of it's personnel. One of the main subjects of this is U.S. Naval History. As a result the libraries on Navy bases and on ship have a large selection of reading material. (this was before the Internet) One of those sources are thesis from the Naval Postgraduate School. I read one that was titled "Thank God For Pearl Harbor". I'm going to list some of the reasons in that thesis.

1. The attack saved many lives. If the Japanese wouldn't have attacked Pearl, the Fleet would have gone to the defense of the Philippines. At the time the Japanese Fleet out numbered and out classed the US Fleet. Almost half of the lives lost in the attack came from one battleship, the USS Arizona. Five other battleships were sunk or damaged in the attack, but, the majority of their crews survived, by being able to swim ashore or by being rescued. If the attack hadn't happened the US Fleet would have engaged the Japanese in the open ocean, resulting in a larger loss of life.

2. Four out of the six battleships were able to be salvaged and returned to duty, because of their being sunk in shallow water. Again if the US Fleet had gone after the Japanese Fleet, odds are that they would have been sunk in deep water, with no chance of salvage.

3. The attack changed the doctrine of the US Navy. It forced them to use the forces that they had left. The aircraft carriers and submarines. Prior to the attack, Navy doctrine was to use the carriers and submarines as scouts to locate enemy forces so that they could be engaged by the battleships. Little thought was given to attacking with carriers or using submarines to interdict the enemy's supply lines.

4. The attack forced the US Navy to modernize it's aircraft and tactics. Many planes were destroyed in the attack, but, the pilots and flight crews survived. The few pilots who got into the air found that they were out matched by Japanese fighter aircraft. The Navy was forced to replace it's aircraft with newer models. If the attack hadn't happened they would have gone up against the Japanese in the older aircraft and probably would have lost more pilots and aircrew. This was later proven by how easy the Japanese shot down the aircraft based on Midway during the Battle of Midway.

These are just some things to think about.

No, the biggest mistake Japan ever did was not doing a land invasion after on. Japs have been known to have crap strategies since their war against China. You cannot win a war without a land war.

In all seriousness. The Pearl Harbour attack was to cripple US navy because everyone knows US has been building a massive naval force. They failed.

originally posted by: smurfy

As for the Japanese attack, it clearly wasn't a failure, their novel torpedo's did the job for instance.

It clearly was a failure. In addition to what Nimitz stated above, they completely missed the carriers and managed to galvanize the American public. Six months later, in June of 1942. The Japanese lost 3,057 men and the Americans: 307. The Japanese Navy was eliminated as any kind of threat at the Battle of Midway and at that point it was just a matter of time before the Japanese were defeated. Pearl Harbor was a Pyrrhic victory at best. They completely underestimated their enemy.

originally posted by: makemap
No, the biggest mistake Japan ever did was not doing a land invasion after on.

How were they going to get there, walk?

originally posted by: schuyler
The Japanese Navy was eliminated as any kind of threat at the Battle of Midway...

That is not accurate. The IJN pushed the United States to the brink at Guadalcanal, after the battles we had no operating carriers in the Pacific and lost a huge amount of cruisers, destroyers and personnel. The Navy lost more men than the Marines who were holding Guadalcanal. Once the campaign here concluded the IJN was no longer able to go on the offensive and the Rainbow 5 island hopping campaign began.

See the book I referenced above for a much more detailed picture. Here is a brief summation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Mach2
Not that it was Churchill's call to make, and different historians sometimes draw different conclusions, but I'm always open to different perspectives.

No, it wasn't, but he was persuasive and from Roosevelt's perspective the outlook in Europe was grim. The United States still had all of it's carriers with more on the way so the thinking was the Pacific could wait.

That was probably the reasoning to a point, but it was a fluid situation.

Midway was pivotal, from the standpoint of protecting Hawaii, and the west coast, so I don't believe conceding there was even a consideration.

After that, offensive opportunities were just too appealing to pass up. Couple that with the fact that the Brits were content to sit on their hands, while Russia fed 20 million ppl into a wood chipper on the eastern front (don't get me wrong -- well played), there was really no reason to wait on Churchhill.