Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Yeah, attacking military infrastructure is one thing, but if you REALLY wanted to slow down the enemy, you'd target the infrastructure that supplies and builds their forces, which the Japanese left intact.

[Lord Shonus]

Yeah, attacking military infrastructure is one thing, but if you REALLY wanted to slow down the enemy, you'd target the infrastructure that supplies and builds their forces, which the Japanese left intact.

That's an excellent idea - for total war. Total war is exactly what the Japanese were trying to avoid, because they knew that was a losing fight.

Taking it to an analogy, Japan's strategy was to kick America in the balls, then use the time while America was recovering to put on brass knuckles, stretch, and be so ready to fight that America would decide that beating Japan up would hurt too much to be worth doing. In this analogy, trying to hurt the US supply and manufacturing infrastructure would be like taking potshots at America's family members - something completely unforgivable that would make America hop in a car and run Japan's ass over. That America would hop in a car and run Japan's ass over anyway was unexpected.

[Reelya]

A lot of that however comes down to political failures - the Japanese misjudged that they could push a peace treaty much more quickly than they did. Thus, they de-emphasized infrastructure as they believed reducing frontline combat ability would be the decisive element.

Given the extent of Japanese conquests in the first year of the war, if their political judgements had been correct, they would indeed have forced the Americans to negotiate for peace before the infrastructure could make much difference.

That's not the same thing as what Newt was talking about: the level of planning required to surprise attack multiple fleets across the pacific within a short time-span.

This really is equivalent to a business decision which turns out to be based on faulty market research. e.g. the engineering and planning of the actual product can be well done, but if the market research is wrong, then the product will flop. That doesn't mean the product's design is inherently bad.

[Lord Shonus]

A lot of that however comes down to political failures - the Japanese misjudged that they could push a peace treaty much more quickly than they did. Thus, they de-emphasized infrastructure as they believed reducing frontline combat ability would be the decisive element.

Given the extent of Japanese conquests in the first year of the war, if their political judgements had been correct, they would indeed have forced the Americans to negotiate for peace before the infrastructure could make much difference.

This is exactly the point I was trying to get across.

[Reelya]

I was typing when you were typing.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

The "by the way, we aren't allies anymore" telegraph (gram?) was supposed to arrive 30 minutes before the attack, but ended up getting delayed and sent after the attack. That's like one of your friends shooting you in the foot and then saying "btw, I might shoot you." That enraged the US and drove us to war.

[PTTG??]

I think this has to be a cover operation of some kind. Like, knowing that you didn't study for the test, so eating a huge lunch, then faking sick and "accidentally" throwing up all over the test papers right as you walk into class. No, it's not dignified or anything, but it gets you out of the test for annother day.

The alternative is that Newt Gingrich and his entire twitter staff somehow managed to convince themselves that this was a good idea.

Maybe he's trying to take some heat off of Trump?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure that makes much sense. Everybody knew of America's sleeping giant status, both industrially and militarily. Perhaps it was easy to rationalize at the time that our performance in WWI could be entirely chalked up to a fresh army crashing against a spent one, but I still think even at the time the Japanese made a huge mistake. Not to mention their attacks outside of the Pacific theater were pathetic and meaningless: occupying nearly uninhabited Alaskan islands and a single hackeyed plan to burn down the entire West coast with a single firebombing run on a mountain forest.

I recall there being contemporary Japanese sources that agree, as a matter of fact. It's just that they were in the same room as guys who thought things like:

Would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

CURSED PUNCTUATION MIS-USER

CLEANSE THEM WITH FIRE

HERETICS, CAST THEM OUT

(he needs a ?)

[Lord Shonus]

I'm not sure that makes much sense. Everybody knew of America's sleeping giant status, both industrially and militarily. Perhaps it was easy to rationalize at the time that our performance in WWI could be entirely chalked up to a fresh army crashing against a spent one, but I still think even at the time the Japanese made a huge mistake. Not to mention their attacks outside of the Pacific theater were pathetic and meaningless: occupying nearly uninhabited Alaskan islands and a single hackeyed plan to burn down the entire West coast with a single firebombing run on a mountain forest.

I recall there being contemporary Japanese sources that agree, as a matter of fact. It's just that they were in the same room as guys who thought things like:

Would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower.

Most of Japan's military high command was fully aware that America had the military and industrial potential to crush Japan like a bug, as the entire reason they were conquering everything they could was to redress that imbalance. What they disastrously overlooked was American resolve - they genuinely thought that, if they could knock the US back for a year then the US public would be unwilling to pay the cost of crushing Japan like a bug.

[Loud Whispers]

The problem is is that it's just plain wrong. Pearl Harbor was an act of unimaginable stupidity, that got them into a fight they couldn't win, and that they didn't even need to fight in the first place. The United States would not have gone to war with the force it did over Dutch colonies, if it would even go to war with them at all over them. An attack on American soil was a different matter entirely.

Pearl Harbour =/= Hong Kong and Sinagpore

First part is from the first tweet, the "Imperial Japan" part is obvious context. He's talking about the fucking Pearl Harbor attack, you know, among other things.

He's talking about the fall of Malaya and Hong Kong
It was one of the greatest defeats of Britbongs. Why is it taboo for an American to discuss British military defeat by Nippons? Does he mention Pearl Harbour in the first tweet, I can't see it atm

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Most of Japan's military high command was fully aware that America had the military and industrial potential to crush Japan like a bug, as the entire reason they were conquering everything they could was to redress that imbalance. What they disastrously overlooked was American resolve - they genuinely thought that, if they could knock the US back for a year then the US public would be unwilling to pay the cost of crushing Japan like a bug.

Which leads me to question why in the name of god anybody thought that. This ain't the post-Vietnam antiwar era. Even with WWI trauma, people were still gung-ho about war.

Forget the nukes even, the US made the plans and the purple hearts. "Japanese will only be spoken in hell" indeed.

[smjjames]

The problem is is that it's just plain wrong. Pearl Harbor was an act of unimaginable stupidity, that got them into a fight they couldn't win, and that they didn't even need to fight in the first place. The United States would not have gone to war with the force it did over Dutch colonies, if it would even go to war with them at all over them. An attack on American soil was a different matter entirely.

Pearl Harbour =/= Hong Kong and Sinagpore

First part is from the first tweet, the "Imperial Japan" part is obvious context. He's talking about the fucking Pearl Harbor attack, you know, among other things.

He's talking about the fall of Malaya and Hong Kong
It was one of the greatest defeats of Britbongs. Why is it taboo for an American to discuss British military defeat by Nippons? Does he mention Pearl Harbour in the first tweet, I can't see it atm

He mentions Hawaii, which is where Pearl Harbor is, ya britbong.

[Lord Shonus]

Most of Japan's military high command was fully aware that America had the military and industrial potential to crush Japan like a bug, as the entire reason they were conquering everything they could was to redress that imbalance. What they disastrously overlooked was American resolve - they genuinely thought that, if they could knock the US back for a year then the US public would be unwilling to pay the cost of crushing Japan like a bug.

Which leads me to question why in the name of god anybody thought that. This ain't the post-Vietnam antiwar era. Even with WWI trauma, people were still gung-ho about war.

The US in the first part of the 20th century was extremely isolationist. The Japanese thought that this was because Americans didn't have the guts to fight.

[misko27]

It's worth noting that Gingrich is wrong because it wasn't so much Japan's amazing brilliance such as the US's incredible, mind-boggling "head-in-the-sand" ignorance about it. Pearl Harbor was a incredible disaster; in fact, almost everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong, barring the US carriers being elsewhere at the time.  That even this devastating blunder was not enough to cripple the US in the Pacific says much.

Which leads me to question why in the name of god anybody thought that. This ain't the post-Vietnam antiwar era. Even with WWI trauma, people were still gung-ho about war.

It's worth noting you have the hindsight and knowledge to even speak of a post-Vietnam era, and that you speak about Vietnam as if it were a given. Tell me, how do you think Ho-Chi-Minh won? It sure wasn't through defeating the US militarily. Before him no one could have had any hope to defeat the US in that manner, and it was only after his success that it was possible; regardless, it was possible, Ho-Chi-Minh realized that, and he won it in that manner. That he was right and Japan was not is due to a variety of factors.