Pearl Harbor moral/ethics question: (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By distrflman: I didn't count the last two Iowa class as they were not laid down until after Pearl Harbor. Yeah 3 Alaska class made it to being laid down, once again after PH. I guess plans were drawn up before. The last 2 Iowas were instead of 2 Montana class. |
Why not (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Zoidberg?
|
This thread made possible by a combination of hindsight, stripping out the contemporary contextual elements, and the odd tendency to attribute everything to some sort of conspiracy. The assertion that the administration wanted an open war is quite valid. Rather than 'baiting,' seeing it as a deliberate escalatory move to elicit some sort of response, is valid. The notion that national command authority would willingly sacrifice a significant portion of their order of battle....not just anything, but capital assets that take years to a decade in peacetime to build, years to train, and a generation to build competency... for no military gain, is not credible. The question of naval aviation vs. 'big gun' ships was not yet settled in 1941, not in 1942, and arguably not completely settled until the last one was launched. Plenty of evidence that the administration was capable of cynical, cold, and morally questionable actions. This wasn't one of them. Why does everything have to be a cabalistic conspiracy carried out flawlessly by the same people we accuse of gross incompetence in the next post? Or could it be that variables exist, uncertainty and mistakes are a thing, and fighting adaptive, smart people, let alone states, is hard? |
|
Originally Posted By nihilsum: This thread made possible by a combination of hindsight, stripping out the contemporary contextual elements, and the odd tendency to attribute everything to some sort of conspiracy. The assertion that the administration wanted an open war is quite valid. Rather than 'baiting,' seeing it as a deliberate escalatory move to elicit some sort of response, is valid. The notion that national command authority would willingly sacrifice a significant portion of their order of battle....not just anything, but capital assets that take years to a decade in peacetime to build, years to train, and a generation to build competency... for no military gain, is not credible. The question of naval aviation vs. 'big gun' ships was not yet settled in 1941, not in 1942, and arguably not completely settled until the last one was launched. Plenty of evidence that the administration was capable of cynical, cold, and morally questionable actions. This wasn't one of them. Why does everything have to be a cabalistic conspiracy carried out flawlessly by the same people we accuse of gross incompetence in the next post? Or could it be that variables exist, uncertainty and mistakes are a thing, and fighting adaptive, smart people, let alone states, is hard? Respectfully, I wish to rebut. To wit: 1. The principal aerial threat to capital ship was at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack was considered to be the aerial torpedo. Pearl Harbor was considered to be too shallow to succesfully deploy aerial torpedoes. The British successfully attacked in shallow water in November 1940 at the Battle of Taranto so the possibility that Pearl Harbor was vulnerable *SHOULD* have been known, but the successful Japanese use of a dummy wooden nose and break-away wooden fins greatly ramped up the damage over what conventional wisdom would have expected in such an attack, more in point 2. 2. Again, conventional wisdom was that Japanese aircraft were inferior copies of western aircraft. Their actual capabilites were much greater, to the point that they could carry older 40cm armor piercing battleship shells that had been converted into armor piercing aerial bombs, whihc were alsso a surpise to the West.  Consider that the battleships present were basically WWI designs, and did nto have heavy deck armor, as large armor piercing aerial bombs were not known at the time of their design, nor was long range gunnery resulting in plunging fire through the deck possible due to the limitations in range-finding and fire direction. So the capabilies of the naval level bombers were much greater than expected, whihc also increased the damage well beyond what conventional wisdom would expect. 3. The attack was intended to create a window of 6 - 18 months where Japan had freedom of action in the Pacific without the possibility of interference by powerful American surface elements. Japan presumed they could negotiate a favorable recognition of a fait accompli that legitimized their gains in CHina and the Pacific. To that end, it was a successful - but it was a failure in that it also sowed the seeds of a resolute refusal to settle for anthing less than an unconditional surrender. |
Why not (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Zoidberg?
|
Rick-Oshay- Fantastic post. Things like this make the history forum worthwhile. I agree with everything you said and I think your arguments are on point. Not quite sure what you're rebutting.... I was just calling out the ridiculous premise in the OP. Originally Posted By Rick-OShay: Respectfully, I wish to rebut. To wit: 1. The principal aerial threat to capital ship was at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack was considered to be the aerial torpedo. Pearl Harbor was considered to be too shallow to succesfully deploy aerial torpedoes. The British successfully attacked in shallow water in November 1940 at the Battle of Taranto so the possibility that Pearl Harbor was vulnerable *SHOULD* have been known, but the successful Japanese use of a dummy wooden nose and break-away wooden fins greatly ramped up the damage over what conventional wisdom would have expected in such an attack, more in point 2. 2. Again, conventional wisdom was that Japanese aircraft were inferior copies of western aircraft. Their actual capabilites were much greater, to the point that they could carry older 40cm armor piercing battleship shells that had been converted into armor piercing aerial bombs, whihc were alsso a surpise to the West. https://www.bulletpicker.com/images/1397-075.png Consider that the battleships present were basically WWI designs, and did nto have heavy deck armor, as large armor piercing aerial bombs were not known at the time of their design, nor was long range gunnery resulting in plunging fire through the deck possible due to the limitations in range-finding and fire direction. So the capabilies of the naval level bombers were much greater than expected, whihc also increased the damage well beyond what conventional wisdom would expect. 3. The attack was intended to create a window of 6 - 18 months where Japan had freedom of action in the Pacific without the possibility of interference by powerful American surface elements. Japan presumed they could negotiate a favorable recognition of a fait accompli that legitimized their gains in CHina and the Pacific. To that end, it was a successful - but it was a failure in that it also sowed the seeds of a resolute refusal to settle for anthing less than an unconditional surrender. I like the point on lack of protection against bombs and plunging fire, also gave the rare beast that is the coastal defense mortar it's time in the sun...  On the subject of the pacific war in general, I have spent far too little time but really enjoyed this one and will read it again:  |
|
Originally Posted By nihilsum: Rick-Oshay- Fantastic post. Things like this make the history forum worthwhile. I agree with everything you said and I think your arguments are on point. Not quite sure what you're rebutting.... I was just calling out the ridiculous premise in the OP. I like the point on lack of protection against bombs and plunging fire, also gave the rare beast that is the coastal defense mortar it's time in the sun... https://i0.wp.com/meaderingthroughtheprologue.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/batteryway.jpg?resize=584%2C396&ssl=1 On the subject of the pacific war in general, I have spent far too little time but really enjoyed this one and will read it again: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/P/0812968581.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SX500_.jpg My apologies for not being clear. I was trying to make the case that IF knowledge was at hand that a specific attack on PH was forthcoming, that the level of damage would be believed to be much more minor that it actually turned out to be, and thus might have been considered "worth it" to get into the war on an active basis. |
Why not (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Zoidberg?
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
5833
EE: 0% (0)
RUS
|
Originally Posted By couchlord: Pearl Harbor got us into a war with Japan. Germany then declared war on the US. If Germany had not done that, would the US have declared war on Germany? The U.S. was already conducting combat operations against Germany. Hitler's declaration was a formality that recognized actuality. |
Why not (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Zoidberg?
Joined:
Sep 2023
Posts:
4449
EE: 0% (0)
NV, USA
|
Originally Posted By zapthycat: There are no "right" answers, I'm wondering what your thoughts are- First off, it's not even a real debate, FDR not only knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, he baited Japan into it by dictating the US Navy move its primary Pacific base from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, to the point where he sacked the Admiral in charge who argued that a fully-supplied US fleet in San Diego was more of a deterrence than a half-supplied fleet in Hawaii, but whatever. If you don't know what the McCollum Memo is, where it's in writing that we should "completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, if by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better." - that's virtually a smoking gun. The US Battlewagons were sacrificed because they were worse than useless, they were deathtraps. If we had defended them and they hadn't sank, they would have put to sea and been wiped out by the Yamato and Musashi, and thousands and thousands of men would have died in the deep, instead of being on shore leave or able to swim to the beach 100 feet away. QUESTION FOR YOU: So, was FDR justified in sacrificing a few thousand men to get the deathtraps out of commission, or should he have vigorously defended Pearl Harbor, knowing that if those BBs survived and got out to fight, every man on every ship was doomed? FDR was a Marxist half wit who was going to lose an election so he had to stoke up fear of an outside threat to draw attention away from his failures. He will not be remembered fondly in the future nor should he. |
|
Originally Posted By zapthycat: You missed the point. This isn't arguing the obvious. And yeah, when the gov't investigates itself when it comes to joining a world war, do you really think they're going to "find themselves guilty"? Do you oppose this because you think government is too virtuo 
|
|
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay: The last 2 Iowas were instead of 2 Montana class. No, the original plan was to build 6 Iowa's and 4 Montana's; which were basically all designed at the same time. When it came time to plan out the dry docks, steel armor supply and guns it was decided to build the Iowa's first and the Montana's later as the drydocks were full of Essex class carriers and despite the U.S. steel plants being greatly expanded there simply wasn't enough steel to build everything authorized. The guns were another bottle neck as there wasn't equipment (huge lathes with 75 foot beds) to build enough all at once, they had to be spaced out in time. The navy decided to build the Iowa's & Alaska's before the Montana's because we had nine battleships with 16 inch guns (3 Colorado's, 2 North Carolina's and four South Dakota's) and 11 with 14 inch guns for fighting with the Japanese battleships, but not enough ships that had the speed to escort the Essex carriers. So the fast Iowa's and Alaska's got built and the Montana's got delayed until it was obvious they couldn't be built in time for the war at which point they were cancelled along with the last two Iowa's and last four Alaska's that had been laid down. |
|
Originally Posted By aplomado: I don't know anything about Pearl Harbor, but FDR absolutely was trying to bait the Japanese into attacking the USA first. Before Pear Harbor, FDR ordered an a lightly armed Navy ship to be sent out in the midst of the Japanese fleet. The Navy man in charge believed he was being sent on a suicide mission to provoke a war. The Japanese attacked shortly before the ship was to leave, and the "mission" was cancelled. I can't find the a reference now. Does anyone else here remember reading about this?  I do recall reading about it in the National Enquirer of all places. |
| I remember reading about a U.S. navy sailing vessel armed with 2 50 caliber Browning machine guns that was ordered to sail the Southeast Asian seas by FDR. The intent was to have the Japanese mistake the ship for a pirate and attack it to trigger a war between the U.S. and Japan. |
|
Trying to discern how far back into history the chain of conspiracy goes is becoming a daunting task. Here goes: We know that George Washington was a pawn of Big Whisky, and that Lincoln conspired to lure the Confederacy into war in order to set in motion the destruction of the Constitution so that Wilson would enter WW1 to save the Rothschild Military Industrial Complex and allow Stalin to come to power ensuring the Forever War. When Stalin started losing to the Evil Nazis, Roosevelt was ordered to get America into the war so he baited the peaceful and easily fooled Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, this both cleared the way for the ascendancy of Northrop-Boeing and allowed him to declare war on Hitler, so that ComIntern could finish infiltrating America's universities and launch its fluoridation assault on America's youth. Using the foundations laid by Washington and Lincoln, Roosevelt oversaw the creation of the MIC and ordered the A-bomb to be dropped on the non-expansionist Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere because racism. Kennedy heroically tried to oppose the MIC, and so was assassinated by a cabal of the MIC, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA,the KGB, every local/state/federal LE organization in Texas, the Mafia, the Teamsters and the United Fruit Company(apparently the only people not involved were JFK and Oswald) so that the MIC could slaughter more Asians in Vietnam(Bell really needed thousands of helicopters to be shot down)and the FBI could create a phony Civil Rights movement(by assassinating both MalcolmX and MLK) thus allowing the CIA to fund itself via the Drug Trade to the black community. The Space Race is in there somewhere to disguise the integration of Alien tech from 1947 into the CIA. Oh, and Big Tech(actually DARPA funded, and managed and staffed by MK-Ultra zombies) finally achieved Gorgon Stare, allowing complete informational dominance over Congress, the media, SCOTUS, POTUS and the NFL. This has been revealed to be orchestrated by Aliens, and this means we have to circle back to Atlantis, the Pyramids, the Aztecs and the Illuminati(aka the WEC/GloboHomo/NWO) whose main goal is child rape/cannibalism to serve Lucifer in order to harvest as many souls as possible before the Rapture, currently scheduled for the January 20, 2025 inauguration of the Antichrist. |
The cost of treason isn't paid in Dollars.
Joined:
Sep 2012
Posts:
4519
EE: 100% (3)
USA
|
Originally Posted By FMJ3: FDR was either inept or deceitful.  Inept? Certainly not! FDR was the greatest politician that ever lived. Yes. I CAREFULLY chose the word POLIICIAN. |
http://piccoloshash.blogspot.com
Vote "YES" on 'NO'!
For Captain Erick Foster, Wexford, PA KIA 29 Aug, 07.
Rangers lead the way.
Inspected by #26
I was checking out this midget porn website....
Vote "YES" on 'NO'!
For Captain Erick Foster, Wexford, PA KIA 29 Aug, 07.
Rangers lead the way.
Inspected by #26
I was checking out this midget porn website....
Joined:
Oct 2022
Posts:
308
EE: 0% (0)
MO, USA
|
Originally Posted By engineer61: I remember reading about a U.S. navy sailing vessel armed with 2 50 caliber Browning machine guns that was ordered to sail the Southeast Asian seas by FDR. The intent was to have the Japanese mistake the ship for a pirate and attack it to trigger a war between the U.S. and Japan. The USS Panay was a small gunboat that was present (and sunk) at the beginning of the rape of Nanking. It wasn't "sailing in the middle of the fleet" and it was far too small and of little significance to start a war. Japan apologized and paid for it, and no it wasn't meant to trigger a war. |
|
Originally Posted By zapthycat: The USS Panay was a small gunboat that was present (and sunk) at the beginning of the rape of Nanking. It wasn't "sailing in the middle of the fleet" and it was far too small and of little significance to start a war. Japan apologized and paid for it, and no it wasn't meant to trigger a war. No, the boat I read about wasn't a gun boat, it was a small sailing ship that had a couple of M2's mounted on it. The plan didn't happen because of Pearl Harbor, but it was supposed to go to what is today Indonesia and sail around the islands. It was meant to be mistaken for a pirate, and piracy has always been a problem in those waters, and if it had been sunk FDR wasn't going to let it slide but use it for an excuse to declare war. |
| My grandfather served in the European theater, but he was always pretty insistent that we had knowledge of the attack, and that the fact that the Carrier was on maneuvers at the time of the attack was pretty proof postie. You can loose a fleet, but you cant loose a flagship. Anyway that was his thinking. Thta, and the economic benefits of getting into the war were irresistible (thats NOT a conspiracy, thats the birth of the MIC). He was a cynical man, and an ultra-conspiracist. I cant verify whether the carrier was away, but if it was, then there;s something to consider. |
|
Originally Posted By Lavaspit11: My grandfather served in the European theater, but he was always pretty insistent that we had knowledge of the attack, and that the fact that the Carrier was on maneuvers at the time of the attack was pretty proof postie. You can loose a fleet, but you cant loose a flagship. Anyway that was his thinking. Thta, and the economic benefits of getting into the war were irresistible (thats NOT a conspiracy, thats the birth of the MIC). He was a cynical man, and an ultra-conspiracist. I cant verify whether the carrier was away, but if it was, then there;s something to consider. There were two carriers stationed at Pearl at the time, Lexington and Enterprise. They were both delivering Marine fighter aircraft to Midway and Wake. Enterprise was scheduled to be back in Pearl Harbor when the attack happened. It was delayed by weather. It doesn't prove anything. |
|
Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: The US had only THREE aircraft carriers in the Pacific at the time of Pearl Harbor Bigger_Hammer  The Saratoga was at San Diego. They other two, which were home ported at Pearl, were at sea, without surface ship escorts. US Navy aircraft carriers NEVER GO ANYWHERE without escorts. |
N&MEM, SSDR, NRA Life Member
Epstein Scalia did not kill himself.
Gun control is literally Hitler.
Gun control is literally Hitler.
|
Originally Posted By tstorms: They had their normal cruiser and destroyer escorts. That's what I thought, I've never seen anywhere that said they didn't have escorts. That would be crazy and I don't see any task force, task group or carrier commander agreeing to go out without escorts. That would be very stupid. |
The value of Freedom is not realized until it is lost
|
Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: https://wompampsupport.azureedge.net/fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F022%2F524%2Ftumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg It was a CONSPIRACY ! !  Or the Japanese just were sneaky & lucky and we unluckily missed several opportunities. The "Magic" intercepts showed the Japanese were up to something, but the wisdom of the time was they would move locally - perhaps Malaya instead of Gonzo full roll of the dice Sneak Attack on a Fleet in shallow harbor by fleets of naval launched aircraft. The Navy was moved to Pearl Harbor to put them much closer to any conflict & to defend US territory (Philippines, Wake, Midway, Hawaii, etc) With the Air Power available on the island (PBY Patrol, B-17s, lots of P-40 fighters, not to mention Navy & Marine air assets) it should have been very defensible. Unlucky for us that we got caught with out pants down on a Sunday Morning as the Japanese had planned. Bigger_Hammer Not really, when you consider maintenance hours per flight hour, spare parts, crew rest. etc. There were not enough aircraft and crews to maintain an adequate watch on the Pearl Harbor area, and the local commanders had so advised D.C. |
Why not (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Zoidberg?
|
Originally Posted By GreyGhost: If FDR knew about it why weren’t our carriers waiting to annihilate the Japanese fleet after they sent off their attack waves? Halsey was at sea so FDR could have had him waiting to ambush them ala Midway.FDR would have looked like the greatest military mind since Alexander the Great. This is the key point. What is the value of a disaster of defeat relative to being prepared for an attack and if not an initial victory, at least a less destructive loss? The key point is that Japan attacks - we don't need a massive loss of men and ships to the extent that was never made public during the war. A disaster was not necessary to inflame public opinion. |
That's no way for guys like us to go out. We should go out in the midst of a desperate battle, doing great deeds. - COL Rick Rescorla
|
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks: This is the key point. What is the value of a disaster of defeat relative to being prepared for an attack and if not an initial victory, at least a less destructive loss? The key point is that Japan attacks - we don't need a massive loss of men and ships to the extent that was never made public during the war. A disaster was not necessary to inflame public opinion. Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks: Originally Posted By GreyGhost: If FDR knew about it why weren’t our carriers waiting to annihilate the Japanese fleet after they sent off their attack waves? Halsey was at sea so FDR could have had him waiting to ambush them ala Midway.FDR would have looked like the greatest military mind since Alexander the Great. This is the key point. What is the value of a disaster of defeat relative to being prepared for an attack and if not an initial victory, at least a less destructive loss? The key point is that Japan attacks - we don't need a massive loss of men and ships to the extent that was never made public during the war. A disaster was not necessary to inflame public opinion. 1. FDR had proven multiple times he was willing to risk Navy ships and casualties to get into the war - see the U.S. destroyers participation in anti-U-boat actions, U.S. naval aircrews flying "training missions" in combat in Great Britain in American Consolidated PBY Catalinas paid for with American money but painted in British markings under "Lend-Lease", the outfitting of a Philippine crewed ship with U.S. Navy officers and machine guns to be sent as a provocation/trip wire in the Asiatic area, and the plan to send the battleship USS Texas into U-boat infested waters as a convoy escort. 2. They didn't think it would be as bad as it turned out. The prevailing opinion pre-Dec. 7th: a. The Japanese were a buck-toothed anemic folk with thick glasses and bad eyesight. b. Japanese military aircraft were inferior copies of AMerican or European aircraft. c. Those inferior aircraft were incapable of operating from a carrier to deliver bombs larger than 250 Kg at a distance from the carrier. d. Pearl Harbor was too shallow to successfully deploy aerial torpedoes. In contrast, the reality was: a. The Japanese military aviation was the most experienced such air arm in the world - both their army and their navy. b. Japanese naval aircraft were fully the equal, if not superior to, anything else in the world in 1941. c. The Japanese had converted old battleship armor piercing rounds into aerial AP bombs AND had the means to deliver these almost 1-ton behemoths. d. Japan had successfully modified aerial torpedoes, the most feared weapon against ships, to operate successfully in the harbor. So *IF* the government knew they were coming, the damage was a lot, LOT worse than they expected. |
Why not (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Zoidberg?
|
Originally Posted By FMJ3: FDR was either inept or deceitful. This, but I lean toward deceitful. |
N&MEM, SSDR, NRA Life Member
Epstein Scalia did not kill himself.
Gun control is literally Hitler.
Trump's actions? Watergate does not bother me, does your conscience bother you?
Gun control is literally Hitler.
Trump's actions? Watergate does not bother me, does your conscience bother you?
|
Might as well enter the fray. We have to be careful about comments made with the benefit of hindsight. Nobody completely understood carrier operations before WWII, but the Japanese were a lot further along the the curve than we were. Our carrier operations during the battle of Midway were abysmal compares to what they were a year later. We could not even launch a joint strike force from to carriers at the same time. Even after Pearly Harbor we never declared war on Germany. If they had not declared war on us the American Public was perfectly content to let Germany, England and Russia fight it out. They only wanted to crush Japan. 1) FDR knew that we would eventually get involved in WWII. Stating that we would was a great way to get voted out of office. The American public was adamant that we stay out of the war. We were profiting nicely by selling things to England and France. The start of WWII ended the Depression in America and got factories back up and running. The whole arsenal of democracy concept. Even Lend Lease was not popular with the American People at the time. 2) The Brits had got wind of something happening on December 7, 1941. Churchill passed this on to FDR. FDR and his military advisors had a very low opinion on Japanese military prowess at the time and figured the maybe the attack would be on the Philippines or one of the US territories in the western Pacific. No one understood the power of a six carrier strike force in 1941. Not even the Japanese whose naval doctrine still relied on carriers softening up an enemy fleet to their battleships could swoop in and finish them off. Even after Pearly Harbor the Japanese stubbornly clung to this belief. It was the battle plan for Midway. It was why their carrier strike force (only 27 ships) was so small while Yamamoto with the main fleet was 600 miles away during the battle. I was amazing that the Japanese whose fleet carriers had dominated the first six months of the war obliterating anything that they encountered still believed that the battleship was the key to victory in June 1942. The carrier sailors referred to the Yamato as "The Admiral's Barge". 3) Nobody knew the battleship was "obsolete" in 1941. In fact during WWII the Americans developed new tactics that separated fast battleships and slow battleships for different uses. The fast battleships allowed for multiple fast moving small strike forces that could raid deeply into enemy territory in different areas at the same time. No tankers needed as the battleships refueled the destroyers on the raid. Plus excellent AA and the ability to dominate any surface vessels encountered. The slower battleships proved essential to providing support before and during the island hopping campaign. Like it or not, any 20th century battleship is a wonderful mobile artillery platform. In the 1980's the New Jersey? found out the location of the Syrian high command in Lebanon and sniped them with a few round of 16" love. 4) We greatly underestimated the capability on the Japanese navy prior to WWII but as great as it was, it was built as a raiding force and had no ability to stay at sea for prolonged periods. It had no staying power. That is why Japan could never have taken the Hawaii in WWII. Look what we had to throw at Okinawa in WWII. 5) In 1944 when Dewey was running against Roosevelt he discovered that FDR did indeed know that something was up for December 7, 1941 and that messages sent to commanders in the Pacific never got to the relevant commanders in time. FDR found out about this and sent George Marshall to plead with Dewey not to use this information citing national security etc. Dewey relented and lost the election. As a result we got 82 more days of FDR. Side note: Since even after December 7, 1941 MacArthur ignored direct orders to spread out his air and naval assets I doubt he would have paid any attention to warnings issued before Pearl Harbor was attacked. |
|
Originally Posted By zapthycat: The USS Panay was a small gunboat that was present (and sunk) at the beginning of the rape of Nanking. It wasn't "sailing in the middle of the fleet" and it was far too small and of little significance to start a war. Japan apologized and paid for it, and no it wasn't meant to trigger a war. Different boat, different time. This was a "picket boat" out of the Philippines with a Philippine crew and navy officers. Pearl Harbor happened before it could be fitted out and sailed. |
Why not (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Zoidberg?
|
The British had come across intelligence that the Japanese were going to do something on December 7th. This information was passed on to the US. The real problem was that we had no idea of knowing where. We were not much impressed with their military capability in 1941 and figured that the attack would happen much closer to Japan. We had a pretty condescending view of the quality of the Japanese Navy in 1941 and paid the price. Only the Japanese believed that carriers could project so much power from so far away from the intended target. There were also the only naval power who could do it at the time. In 1941, carrier doctrine for the US was still in it's infancy. Even Japanese naval doctrine called for the carriers to be used to soften up the enemy fleet so the battleships could sweep in to finish the survivors off. The held onto this doctrine long after what they had already proven what carriers were capable of during the first six months of the war. |
