view the rest of the comments
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
To be fair, Pearl Harbors significance is vastly overstated. It was just a random fucking air raid like any other. All the stuff that led to it is much more important.
The random air raid that pushed US to war by narrowly avoiding catastrophic navy loss? Yeah, no biggie.
Edit: are->air
Yeah sure they totally werent itching for any excuse to go to war and totally wouldnt have done so anyways. We dont live in a butterfly effect world. Just like killing baby Hitler would not have prevented WW2, Pearl Harbor didnt by itself make the US join the war.
No, it didn't, but it is still regarded as the inciting incident that brought the US into the war. Stop apologizing for Trump being an idiot.
Even with other reasons to consider war, pearl harbor would have been enough for the US to join by itself. Get this, when another nation declares war on you... You are in a war. Now you can talk about what led to that moment, but that moment was war.
It was abundantly and absolutely not. It was the first raid on the US by Japan that was intended to show the US why they shouldn't enter the war and spectacularly backfired as it became the rally point for them to enter.
I'd call it militarily pretty important. It was a very large air raid. It was against an unprepared target, sank important parts of the Pacific Fleet.
It wasn't a war-winning attack, and Japan got unlucky and didn't have the Pacific Fleet's carriers at Pearl Harbor at the time when they needed to attack, but if you consider that Japan's strategy, the pre-war stuff and then Kantai Kessen was basically:
Ensure that Japan has naval superiority over at least half of the American fleet. The Washington Naval Treaty had Japan negotiate a fleet with limits 60% the size of the American one, with the idea that the US would need to be split between the Pacific and Atlantic. (Unfortunately for Japan, the US had already broken Japanese diplomatic codes and knew that 60% was the minimum that Japan would accept and negotiated for that, but it still gave Japan an edge over the US fleet in-theater.)
Conduct a surprise attack, sinking a significant portion of the opposing US Pacific Fleet. This is the attack on Pearl Harbor. This was analogous to what Japan had very successfully done the last time they had fought a great power, when they hit Imperial Russia at Port Arthur:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur
In the time purchased by knocking much of the closest opposing naval force out, conquer and secure island airbases to establish a security perimeter.
Wait for the Americans to conduct a prompt major naval counterstrike aimed at the area, as the Russians had in the Russo-Japanese War. Conduct an battle of attrition against this force, making use of submarines and aircraft from these island airbases to whittle it away, without having to actually face it directly. Versions of the American War Plan Orange, IIRC a decade or two earlier, did envision this prompt response, but the US had long-since decided that in an actual war, they would build up their forces to an overwhelming level and then strike.
Engage it near the Japanese home islands with the bulk of Japanese naval strength. At this point, the American naval force would be weakened and could be defeated in a decisive battle. Japan would win a great victory, as it had against Imperial Russia at the Battle of Tsushima.
As with Imperial Russia, Japan would offer fairly generous peace terms. The US, demoralized by the great loss and with a limited ability to rapidly field a major naval force in the immediate future, would accept.
In practice, it didn't work. And it had very little chance of working, in significant part because the US was already building a lot more warships than Japan had and had a lot more ability to build more than Japan did. But the attack on Pearl Harbor was an important part of that intended strategic-level process.
Yeah fuck those dead people!
Huge /s