The Day that will live in Infamy...

[Dúnedain]

Ok I know there is only 15 minutes left on this day December 7th, but I was out all day and didn't get to post this. Today was a very important day for us Americans. I thought it was appropriate to remember Pearl Harbor. Today, December 7th, 62 years ago, Japan attacked us. It's amazing how certain days in history that would have been normally an obscure day are long remembered for unfortunate instances. Just as Pearl Harbor occurred, some 60 years later we are awoken again with 9/11. These are the days that have made our country great, the days where we have seen the true American spirit, the bond of patriotism and love for what we have and who we are.

Here is a great piece that National Geographic put together on Pearl Harbor...

http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com.../frameset.html

Here is info on the ships and planes at Pearl Harbor as well, this is pretty neat:

http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com...bor_facts.html

[Sister Golden Hair]

I mentioned to JD that I was surprised that he hadn't started a thread about it.

[jerseydevil]

I know SG - I just usually don't think about Pearl Harbor. I know I should, my brother is stationed in Hawaii currently on his way back to the Middle East and my grandfather was in the Pacific Fleet during World War II.

Pearl Harbor is a mixed blessing/disaster. If we didn't get bombed, thousands of people would have lived, yet chances are we would never have entered World War II. If we never got into World War II, Europe would have been ruled by Nazi Germany and Hitler would have won.

[Draken]

I wonder what would have happened if Germany hadn't declared war on the USA straight after the attack? It was that declaration that linked the Pacific and European wars - the USA could have reasoned that the Pacific needed dealing with before even thinking about joining a war in Europe.

However, I'm not so certain the implications of non-involvement by the USA would have been ultimate victory for Hitler. With a tiny surface fleet the Germans had one chance to invade Britain, and when they failed to destroy the RAF at its most vulnerable that chance was gone. Hitler had already taken the decision that lost the war before 7th December, because he had invaded Russia by then. Rule One of world domination: never march on Moscow! Maybe without the worry of guarding against a second front the Germans could have stabilised the Eastern Front and engineered a ceasefire that left them in charge of Continental Europe for a time. Likelier that the Russians would have eventually have steam-rollered them unaided, with the Iron Curtain coming down across the English Channel instead of midway through Germany.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Draken
Rule One of world domination: never march on Moscow!

LOL. Sound advice. The fact was that Hitler regarded the Brits as natural allies. Must be our saxon heritage and sausage-eating proclivities. However, one of the oft-ignored aspects of the pre-war "appeasement" debate is that if we'd declared war on Germany in 1938 our air force would've been in an even more parlous state and the Battle of Britain would probably have been lost. Chamberlain bought time to build Spitfires and Hurricanes.

There were so many turning points that you can't put your finger on one of them. Battle of Britain, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Pearl Harbour, Battle of the Atlantic, Midway. Even "small" things like radar, sonar and Bletchley Park played a decisive part.

Still, somehow I think that Europe would be a radically different shape now if America hadn't entered the war in 1941 (not to mention minus even more of its Jewish population).

[Draken]

Originally posted by The Gaffer

Still, somehow I think that Europe would be a radically different shape now if America hadn't entered the war in 1941 (not to mention minus even more of its Jewish population).

Agreed, I would just imagine it would have ended up with Europe under Stalin rather than under Hitler. 6 and two 3s really.

And good point about the extra year or so buying the RAF some time, though I don't think he could claim to have been playing for that! All the same, Gladiators, Albacores and Defiants against the Bf109 doesn't bear thinking about!

[Nurvingiel]

In addition, this led to the use of the first atomic bomb. The world realized it was so terrible that it should never be used again. Unfortunately, we can't be completely sure. In an on-going arms race, nations continue to stockpile and produce them. Plus, after the collaps of the USSR, many bombs possibly unaccounted for.

This is perhaps slightly off topic, but I feel that the bombing of Hiroshima was a significant result of Pearl Harbour.

Simplistically, the Japanese government of the time wanted to control the entire Pacific, which includes Hawaii. They took over other islands as well, but Pearl Harbour was the most major attack. In addition, a direct attack got the USA involved, as was already mentioned.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Draken
Rule One of world domination: never march on Moscow!

Yes! In RISK, you NEVER try to control Asia...

btw... has ayone else seen it? There's a "Lord of the Rings" version of RISK out there now! PERFECT Christmas present for me, if anyone is interested!!!

[Draken]

Nurvingiel:

Well you could certainly say that Pearl Harbour started a chain of events that led to Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I'd suggest though that the desperate defence of Iwo Jima and the like had a big influence: the Allied planners must have scaled that up for what resistance on the main Japanese islands would be like and decided the losses from a conventional invasion would have been horrendous.

I think Pearl Harbour was one of those cases of a tactical victory but a strategic defeat - yes the Japanese did a lot of damage for light losses, but they pissed off the biggest economy in the world AND missed the carriers.

[Valandil]

Iwo Jima probably was key in our decision to USE the atom bomb, and Pearl Harbor may have helped us justify their use. However, I think the development was in response to German efforts to develop the same kind of thing. They just focused on 'heavy water' while we went to uranium. Then, the way things unfolded, with Germany NOT being successful in deleloping their own atom bomb, and the way they were surrounded and fell at the end, there was no reason to use it in Europe.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by Valandil
Iwo Jima probably was key in our decision to USE the atom bomb, and Pearl Harbor may have helped us justify their use. However, I think the development was in response to German efforts to develop the same kind of thing. They just focused on 'heavy water' while we went to uranium. Then, the way things unfolded, with Germany NOT being successful in deleloping their own atom bomb, and the way they were surrounded and fell at the end, there was no reason to use it in Europe.

Just wanted to mention that one of the reasons the germans never managed to make the a-bomb was because some Norwegians blew up their heavy-water factory (think this was on some place called "Vikan" or similar).

By the way, anybody knows the principles behind the heavy-water a-bomb? Would it have worked, if they had manage to put it together? Learned about it at school some years ago, but can't remember anything...

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Falagar
Just wanted to mention that one of the reasons the germans never managed to make the a-bomb was because some Norwegians blew up their heavy-water factory (think this was on some place called "Vikan" or similar).

Rjukan. Been there.

The heavy-water was not used in the bomb itself, but in the process of making it.

I wish young Norwegians would remember April 9, 1940, in much the same way as Americans seem to remember Pearl Harbor.

[Draken]

Artanis: Didn't Norway liberate itself at the end of the war? Or was that Denmark? Or both?

I think the implications of the invasion of Norway were almost the flip side of the attack on Pearl Harbour. At Pearl Harbour the Japanese won a tactical victory but missed the carriers that would eventually halt their advances in the Pacific. In Norway the Germans won a strategic victory but lost so many surface ships that their own later plans were badly affected - most obviously, with little surviving naval support they needed to totally destroy the RAF before they could attempt invasion of Britain.

Oh and thanks for the Christmas trees, btw!

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Draken
Artanis: Didn't Norway liberate itself at the end of the war?

I wouldn't say so. It started when the Russians forced the Germans to retreat from the northern parts of Norway autumn -44. All the people there were evacuated, and the Germans burned everything down. Then the country was liberated on the 8th of May 1945, when the Germans capitulated. But we were darned lucky, in that the Germans retreated in a peaceful way and didn't insist on continuing the occupation, which they very well could have done. The Norwegian resistance was prepared, but they would have been totally outnumbered by the Germans, and much less equipped with weapons.

Oh and thanks for the Christmas trees, btw!

You're welcome. I didn't know there were Norwegian Christmas trees in Durham. I hope they look good.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Draken
I wonder what would have happened if Germany hadn't declared war on the USA straight after the attack? It was that declaration that linked the Pacific and European wars - the USA could have reasoned that the Pacific needed dealing with before even thinking about joining a war in Europe.

However, I'm not so certain the implications of non-involvement by the USA would have been ultimate victory for Hitler. With a tiny surface fleet the Germans had one chance to invade Britain, and when they failed to destroy the RAF at its most vulnerable that chance was gone. Hitler had already taken the decision that lost the war before 7th December, because he had invaded Russia by then. Rule One of world domination: never march on Moscow! Maybe without the worry of guarding against a second front the Germans could have stabilised the Eastern Front and engineered a ceasefire that left them in charge of Continental Europe for a time. Likelier that the Russians would have eventually have steam-rollered them unaided, with the Iron Curtain coming down across the English Channel instead of midway through Germany.

Have to agree on that one. Stalingrad was the decisive battle of the war, and the battle of Kursk (July 1943) showed that the Russians could beat the Germans single-handedly, if at a slower pace. Even without American involvement Hitler had to keep considerable occupation forces in the West.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Have to agree on that one. Stalingrad was the decisive battle of the war, and the battle of Kursk (July 1943) showed that the Russians could beat the Germans single-handedly, if at a slower pace. Even without American involvement Hitler had to keep considerable occupation forces in the West.

Wow - then I guess the loss of 400,000+ Americans was sort of a waste. I disagree that the Soviet Union could have withstood Germany very long. Britain would have been destroyed one way or the other. But maybe Europe wouldn't have cared if the Soviet Union won. If they did, I seriously doubt Europe would be democracies right now.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Falagar
Just wanted to mention that one of the reasons the germans never managed to make the a-bomb was because some Norwegians blew up their heavy-water factory

Yay Norway!

Originally posted by Artanis
The heavy-water was not used in the bomb itself, but in the process of making it.

Thanks... either didn't know that or forgot it.

Originally posted by Artanis
Then the country was liberated on the 8th of May 1945, when the Germans capitulated. But we were darned lucky, in that the Germans retreated in a peaceful way and didn't insist on continuing the occupation, which they very well could have done. The Norwegian resistance was prepared, but they would have been totally outnumbered by the Germans, and much less equipped with weapons.

I imagine that in May of 1945 most Germans... even those in the military, breathed a sigh of relief that they were rid of Hitler and that it was all over.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Valandil
I imagine that in May of 1945 most Germans... even those in the military, breathed a sigh of relief that they were rid of Hitler and that it was all over.

True, but Josef Terboven, who was the commander of the German police forces, had declared to make Norway 'Festung Norwegen' against the allied forces. Luckily he didn't get his will through. At the end of the war, Terboven became desperate, and wanted to shoot 10 000 Norwegians, but both Hitler and Quisling denied him to carry out his plans. He committed suicide in the end.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Artanis
He committed suicide in the end.

As did Hitler.

[Wayfarer]

Wow - then I guess the loss of 400,000+ Americans was sort of a waste. I disagree that the Soviet Union could have withstood Germany very long. Britain would have been destroyed one way or the other. But maybe Europe wouldn't have cared if the Soviet Union won. If they did, I seriously doubt Europe would be democracies right now.

Europe is depocratic? Right... ];-)