You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pearl Harbor Day
- Thread starter 4V50 Gary
- Start date
Walt Welch
New member
God bless all the young men who died serving
their country. Any country.
Does anyone recall that some young aggressive assistants to FDR had planned a sneak bombing attack on Japan in early 1941, from bases in China, and this proceeded quite far along in planning. It was finally stopped by Gen. George Marshall, Chairman of the JCS, who said that in his opinion, if
Japan was attacked by American bombers, flown by American crewmen, then the Empire of Japan would declare war on America. A war which America, in his opinion, was not ready to fight. Walt Welch
their country. Any country.
Does anyone recall that some young aggressive assistants to FDR had planned a sneak bombing attack on Japan in early 1941, from bases in China, and this proceeded quite far along in planning. It was finally stopped by Gen. George Marshall, Chairman of the JCS, who said that in his opinion, if
Japan was attacked by American bombers, flown by American crewmen, then the Empire of Japan would declare war on America. A war which America, in his opinion, was not ready to fight. Walt Welch
Walt,
Never heard of it but the difficulties would abound. As you know, China was at war with Japan and the B-17s would have to fool or evade any Japanese Army and Navy fighters which moved to intercept. Even during the preparation stage, the bombers must be hidden from the Japanese lest the Japanese attack them believing them to be Chinese. Remember, they bombed our Gunboat, the USS Panay on Sunday, Dec. 12, 1937 when we were still neutral and at peace (o.k. so the Chinese weren't good at target identification either and dropped bombs near the U.S.S. Sacramento and our tanker, U.S.S. Ramapo on Aug. 15, 1937).
I know Roosevelt wanted war (besides escorting convoys partway to England and supplying ships to the English, he was sailing the U.S.S. Texas around convoy zones daring the Germans to torpedo her - like the Rueben James) and needed an incident to sway the people. Walt, please cite your source - I'd like to do some more reading. Thanks.
Gary
Never heard of it but the difficulties would abound. As you know, China was at war with Japan and the B-17s would have to fool or evade any Japanese Army and Navy fighters which moved to intercept. Even during the preparation stage, the bombers must be hidden from the Japanese lest the Japanese attack them believing them to be Chinese. Remember, they bombed our Gunboat, the USS Panay on Sunday, Dec. 12, 1937 when we were still neutral and at peace (o.k. so the Chinese weren't good at target identification either and dropped bombs near the U.S.S. Sacramento and our tanker, U.S.S. Ramapo on Aug. 15, 1937).
I know Roosevelt wanted war (besides escorting convoys partway to England and supplying ships to the English, he was sailing the U.S.S. Texas around convoy zones daring the Germans to torpedo her - like the Rueben James) and needed an incident to sway the people. Walt, please cite your source - I'd like to do some more reading. Thanks.
Gary
I heard of a conspiracy theory that Winston Churchill had the information on hand, but did not warn the White House in time before the invasion. The motive, supposedly, is because Churchill desperately needed the U.S. to enter the war. Does anybody really know what happened? I saw it on CNN's documentary on the Cold War.
It has been wide speculated that the British knew about the attack before the happened and neglected to warn us for that reason, but there is also information that shows that Roosevelt may be known about the pending attack, also, but did not warn our servicemen because he felt the the world would get us out of the depression for good.
It did not help the defense of Pearl harbor that they were expecting a bunch of planes to fly in from SF, and that the planes have their turrents dysfunctional. and that when the japanese planes were first spotted on the radar, the CO of the guy at the radar station told him to disregard it. We ended up winning the war, but the cost to humanity is the eteranal fear of nuclear war.
It did not help the defense of Pearl harbor that they were expecting a bunch of planes to fly in from SF, and that the planes have their turrents dysfunctional. and that when the japanese planes were first spotted on the radar, the CO of the guy at the radar station told him to disregard it. We ended up winning the war, but the cost to humanity is the eteranal fear of nuclear war.
Chink - I agree the war in with Japan was terribly costly, but I think we'd have the same fear of nuclear war whether or not we'd fought Japan.
4V50 Gary - I'm becoming interested in the history, politics, strategies, etc. of WWII, and you sound well versed. I cut my teeth on "The Second World War", by John Keegan, which is a superb short history. Now I'm looking for more. Any suggestions?
4V50 Gary - I'm becoming interested in the history, politics, strategies, etc. of WWII, and you sound well versed. I cut my teeth on "The Second World War", by John Keegan, which is a superb short history. Now I'm looking for more. Any suggestions?
I hope I don't come across as a hard case nut - but I feel that Dec 7th is a memorial not just to the folks at Pearl Harbor... but to incompitence. In order for the attack to have been a real sneak attack as it turned out - there was a parade of failures that lent to the attack being successful.
Dec 7th always reminds me to stay on my toes.
There were several clues that the attack was coming - but they were brushed off.
Dec 7th always reminds me to stay on my toes.
There were several clues that the attack was coming - but they were brushed off.
I really don't think that all the warnings were brushed off. I personally think (there has been no hard evidence to prove this theory) that our gov't knew that the attack was coming. We knew all the Japanese codes and knew they had mobilized naval units. in fact we lost track of a carrier group. Roosevelt wanted war, and Pearl harbor was teh perfect reason. He neglected to inform those incharge of military opertaions that the intelligence commnity had gain a little information about what was going on.
Walt Welch
New member
4V50 Gary; it was a TV documentary. They did show typed copies of declassified documents proving the plan existed, and interviewed some people in further support. I will see if I can dig up something in print.
About the Pearl Harbor attack: it went absolutely perfectly as planned. Complete, total surprise, massive loss of life and ships.
However, Admiral Yamamato realized that it had failed when it was discovered that the carriers had not been in port. He said 'we have wakened a sleeping giant.'
The fascinating thing to me is that the Japanese invasion of China was brought to a stand still at the Shao Leen (sp?) Gap. By the last eight P-40's of the AVG. Had the Japanese crossed this river, there was nothing to stop them from taking Chun-King, then the capital of China.
In retrospect, from a clinical, dispassionate point of view, Pearl Harbor was the best thing that could have happened to the USA. Most of the battleships were sunk. WWII was not a war won by battleships. Carriers were the deciding factors. Remember the ignonimous fate of the Yamato, which was, I believe, larger than the Iowa class battleships? Her captain was ordered to beach her on Okinawa to provide stationary artillery support for the troops fighting. She never made it that far, being sunk by planes before arriving.
The populace was incredibly united; every induction center was inundated on Dec. 8.
True, 90 % of troops would be sent to the European Theatre, and only 10% to the Pacific, but they were ready to fight. This in itself was enough to defeat Japan.
Did FDR know? My understanding is that Clark Field, in the Phillipines, which had radio contact with Pearl Harbor, was caught unaware as well. As I recall there are at least four time zones difference in time, so the Japanese attacked about four hours later at Clark Field. The commander at Pearl was disciplined, the commander of Clark was not.
Seems somewhat suspicious to me.
I am sure glad I was born just before this terrible war was over. Walt
About the Pearl Harbor attack: it went absolutely perfectly as planned. Complete, total surprise, massive loss of life and ships.
However, Admiral Yamamato realized that it had failed when it was discovered that the carriers had not been in port. He said 'we have wakened a sleeping giant.'
The fascinating thing to me is that the Japanese invasion of China was brought to a stand still at the Shao Leen (sp?) Gap. By the last eight P-40's of the AVG. Had the Japanese crossed this river, there was nothing to stop them from taking Chun-King, then the capital of China.
In retrospect, from a clinical, dispassionate point of view, Pearl Harbor was the best thing that could have happened to the USA. Most of the battleships were sunk. WWII was not a war won by battleships. Carriers were the deciding factors. Remember the ignonimous fate of the Yamato, which was, I believe, larger than the Iowa class battleships? Her captain was ordered to beach her on Okinawa to provide stationary artillery support for the troops fighting. She never made it that far, being sunk by planes before arriving.
The populace was incredibly united; every induction center was inundated on Dec. 8.
True, 90 % of troops would be sent to the European Theatre, and only 10% to the Pacific, but they were ready to fight. This in itself was enough to defeat Japan.
Did FDR know? My understanding is that Clark Field, in the Phillipines, which had radio contact with Pearl Harbor, was caught unaware as well. As I recall there are at least four time zones difference in time, so the Japanese attacked about four hours later at Clark Field. The commander at Pearl was disciplined, the commander of Clark was not.
Seems somewhat suspicious to me.
I am sure glad I was born just before this terrible war was over. Walt
Walt,
Thanks for the update. I'm not much of a TV fan and didn't see the documentary. I have to ask a friend to tape it for me if it's ever rebroadcasted.
Concerning Pearl Harbor, as tragic as the loss of American lives was, the attack was a mixed blessing since our battleships would have been hard pressed to fight a classic Nelsonian battle with the Imperial Japanese Navy. Whereas Japanese ships were fully manned with well trained and drilled crews, our ships were at about 70-80% complement and would have been very difficult if not impossible to sustain an effort in any early battle against their better staffed IJN counterparts. Further, since a battleline moves only as fast as the slowest ship, and our slowest, thanks to boilers needing rebuilding and extensive fouling on the hull could only do 15 knots - 9 knots slower than the slowest Japanese BB, they would have been easily outmaneuvered. If a classic gun battle were to take place in 1941, the outcome would probably have been another Tsushima or Trafalgar in the Japanese favor. The loss of life would have been much greater and none of those ships would have been salvaged. At least with Pearl Harbor many sailors survived and only the Arizona and the Oklahoma never fought again. The rest of the battleline was raised, salvaged and returned to service.
You're right in that the Carrier and its air wings revolutionized naval warfare. For the first time, fleets fought each other without coming within visual range of one another. As a people we are so fortunate to have been so well served by dedicated men and women and to have leaders like Nimitz, Spruance and Halsey. (BTW, I met a nurse who cared for Nimitz after a major surgery - he was so doped up that he was reliving the signing of the treaty aboard the Mighty Mo). Midway was definitely the battle which broke the sword of the IJN. After Midway, as a whole, Japanese naval aviators were never of the same high calibre of their early war predecessors. Saburo Sakai lamented that many of the aspirant pilots who washed out while he was being trained were better fliers than those with whom he had to fly with later.
While the Carrier proved its ascendancy as Queen of the Seas, the strategic outcome of Pearl Harbor was the unrestricted submarine warfare the men of the silent service waged upon the Japanese merchant marine and IJN. Nimitz had little choice (I believe he commanded a sub-squadron once and had a monitor as his flagship) with which to fight with (3 carriers - scattered at the time). After overcoming the frustration with bad torpedoes, our subs went out and sank over 70% of the merchant ships. The Japanese couldn't reap the benefits of conquered lands and were starving at war's end.
Speaking of the Yamato, there's a guy in SFPD whose pop was a dive bomber pilot during the war. His claim to fame is dropping eine bomben down its smokestack.
The debate continues about FDR. FDR wanted war, but couldn't start it himself.
Morgan,
Keegan is a good writer and his books are generally well received. You may also consider Len Deighton if you're into WWII.
As to recommendations, it depends on your interest and I'll caution you now that I'm no military historian. If you want a good primer on our naval effort, try Adm. Samuel Elliot Morrison's, "The Two Ocean War." It's a classic with some mistakes, but a good primer. I've never read his full 15 volume treatise (can't afford $350) and don't have time to scoot down to the public library for it. If you want to read about the German Navy, Edward Van der Porten's, "The German Navy in WWII" is well researched. Paul S. Dull's, "A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy" is a classic which you shouldn't have trouble finding either.
If you haven't read Liddell Hart's, "The German Generals Talk" (also published as, "The Other Side of the Hill"), is standard reading. Liddell Hart is regarded as one of the foremost military thinkers of this century - but somewhat self-promotive and got some of the Germans (Guderian of "Panzer Leader") to give him more credit than he deserves. Mellethin's, "Panzer Battles" is worthwhile if you're into the Afrika Korps, and the massive tank battles in Russia. If you think Monty was great, consider Correlli Barnett's, "The Desert Generals." It'll make you reconsider.
If you're into the war in China, you may want to try Edgar Snow's, "Red Star Over China." While he was heavily influenced by the Communists, he does point out some of the reasons why even the American advisors became disgusted with Chiang Kai Shek and the KMT near the end of the war. I think Joseph Stillwell's biography, "The Stillwell Papers" is being republished. Poor Stillwell had mission impossible in dealing with Peanut. Barbara Tuchman was not a historian by training and she was scorned by academia (snobs) for it. Yet I find she does very credible research and her books are good reading. You may want to find her book, "Stillwell's Mission in China."
I believe Gen. Curtis Le May (Mr. Firebomb the Japanese) wrote a book on our aerial efforts over Japan, but have never been able to find it. It's as elusive as Roskill's, "The War at Sea" which was published by HMSO back in the '60s.
By the way, I shy away from Edwin P. Hoyt books. He writes OK, but none of his research is original. It's as if you and I each read two dozen books on something and then wrote our own book. No interviews with survivors or research into diaries, journals, official histories, no primary sources (archival research for documents produced during the event); in short - no real scholarly effort.
There are numerous books on unit histories, weapons, campaigns, battles out there. Pick an area you like and have at it.
Like I said, I'm no military historian and don't have the discipline to study any particular aspect of history in minute detail. I even enjoyed Herodotus (The Persian Wars), Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War), Xenophon (Anabasis?). Hope this helps. Let me know what area you're interested in and I may be able to steer in towards some books I enjoyed.
Gary
[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited 12-09-98).]
[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited 12-09-98).]
Thanks for the update. I'm not much of a TV fan and didn't see the documentary. I have to ask a friend to tape it for me if it's ever rebroadcasted.
Concerning Pearl Harbor, as tragic as the loss of American lives was, the attack was a mixed blessing since our battleships would have been hard pressed to fight a classic Nelsonian battle with the Imperial Japanese Navy. Whereas Japanese ships were fully manned with well trained and drilled crews, our ships were at about 70-80% complement and would have been very difficult if not impossible to sustain an effort in any early battle against their better staffed IJN counterparts. Further, since a battleline moves only as fast as the slowest ship, and our slowest, thanks to boilers needing rebuilding and extensive fouling on the hull could only do 15 knots - 9 knots slower than the slowest Japanese BB, they would have been easily outmaneuvered. If a classic gun battle were to take place in 1941, the outcome would probably have been another Tsushima or Trafalgar in the Japanese favor. The loss of life would have been much greater and none of those ships would have been salvaged. At least with Pearl Harbor many sailors survived and only the Arizona and the Oklahoma never fought again. The rest of the battleline was raised, salvaged and returned to service.
You're right in that the Carrier and its air wings revolutionized naval warfare. For the first time, fleets fought each other without coming within visual range of one another. As a people we are so fortunate to have been so well served by dedicated men and women and to have leaders like Nimitz, Spruance and Halsey. (BTW, I met a nurse who cared for Nimitz after a major surgery - he was so doped up that he was reliving the signing of the treaty aboard the Mighty Mo). Midway was definitely the battle which broke the sword of the IJN. After Midway, as a whole, Japanese naval aviators were never of the same high calibre of their early war predecessors. Saburo Sakai lamented that many of the aspirant pilots who washed out while he was being trained were better fliers than those with whom he had to fly with later.
While the Carrier proved its ascendancy as Queen of the Seas, the strategic outcome of Pearl Harbor was the unrestricted submarine warfare the men of the silent service waged upon the Japanese merchant marine and IJN. Nimitz had little choice (I believe he commanded a sub-squadron once and had a monitor as his flagship) with which to fight with (3 carriers - scattered at the time). After overcoming the frustration with bad torpedoes, our subs went out and sank over 70% of the merchant ships. The Japanese couldn't reap the benefits of conquered lands and were starving at war's end.
Speaking of the Yamato, there's a guy in SFPD whose pop was a dive bomber pilot during the war. His claim to fame is dropping eine bomben down its smokestack.
The debate continues about FDR. FDR wanted war, but couldn't start it himself.
Morgan,
Keegan is a good writer and his books are generally well received. You may also consider Len Deighton if you're into WWII.
As to recommendations, it depends on your interest and I'll caution you now that I'm no military historian. If you want a good primer on our naval effort, try Adm. Samuel Elliot Morrison's, "The Two Ocean War." It's a classic with some mistakes, but a good primer. I've never read his full 15 volume treatise (can't afford $350) and don't have time to scoot down to the public library for it. If you want to read about the German Navy, Edward Van der Porten's, "The German Navy in WWII" is well researched. Paul S. Dull's, "A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy" is a classic which you shouldn't have trouble finding either.
If you haven't read Liddell Hart's, "The German Generals Talk" (also published as, "The Other Side of the Hill"), is standard reading. Liddell Hart is regarded as one of the foremost military thinkers of this century - but somewhat self-promotive and got some of the Germans (Guderian of "Panzer Leader") to give him more credit than he deserves. Mellethin's, "Panzer Battles" is worthwhile if you're into the Afrika Korps, and the massive tank battles in Russia. If you think Monty was great, consider Correlli Barnett's, "The Desert Generals." It'll make you reconsider.
If you're into the war in China, you may want to try Edgar Snow's, "Red Star Over China." While he was heavily influenced by the Communists, he does point out some of the reasons why even the American advisors became disgusted with Chiang Kai Shek and the KMT near the end of the war. I think Joseph Stillwell's biography, "The Stillwell Papers" is being republished. Poor Stillwell had mission impossible in dealing with Peanut. Barbara Tuchman was not a historian by training and she was scorned by academia (snobs) for it. Yet I find she does very credible research and her books are good reading. You may want to find her book, "Stillwell's Mission in China."
I believe Gen. Curtis Le May (Mr. Firebomb the Japanese) wrote a book on our aerial efforts over Japan, but have never been able to find it. It's as elusive as Roskill's, "The War at Sea" which was published by HMSO back in the '60s.
By the way, I shy away from Edwin P. Hoyt books. He writes OK, but none of his research is original. It's as if you and I each read two dozen books on something and then wrote our own book. No interviews with survivors or research into diaries, journals, official histories, no primary sources (archival research for documents produced during the event); in short - no real scholarly effort.
There are numerous books on unit histories, weapons, campaigns, battles out there. Pick an area you like and have at it.
Like I said, I'm no military historian and don't have the discipline to study any particular aspect of history in minute detail. I even enjoyed Herodotus (The Persian Wars), Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War), Xenophon (Anabasis?). Hope this helps. Let me know what area you're interested in and I may be able to steer in towards some books I enjoyed.
Gary
[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited 12-09-98).]
[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited 12-09-98).]