December 7, 1941 A date Which will live in Infamy

[ken barber]

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

 

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

 

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

 

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

 

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

 

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

 

---President Franklin Delano Roosevelt 

 

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

 

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

 

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

 

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

 

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

 

And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

 

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

 

 

As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

 

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

 

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

 

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

 

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

 

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

 

--President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, December 8 1941 Address to Emergency Joint Congressional Session asking for a Declaration of War.

[D'Artagnon]

This day is always a mixed feelings day for me.  So many of my family members died fighting in this war, in Europe, in Africa and in the Pacific.  I have come to love and appreciate much of Japanese culture over the years, and that would never have happened if that war hadn't happened.  We are such a changed society in general as a result of that war.  It's effects reach deep, and still affect us today.

 

I'd like to think we've learned from the mistakes of that time.

[Jeikor]

I had a great aunt that was stationed there when the attack occurred. She survived the attack but did die there from an illness and is buried in Arlington National Cemetary.

I now work for a Japanese company and my oldest son has had several Japanese friends while in high school so I agree with D'Artagnon that it has had profound effects on us.

[ken barber]

D'Artagnon, 

There is a silver lining in the cloud. And your right, its strange to think about but sometimes your worst enemies become you best friends.

[seabird]

I remember December 7, 1941 very well. I was not quite 4 years old (2-1) and could not understand why my Father was taking down the Christmas lights before Santa had come. By the end of the next week, he was gone, he was a member of the California National Guard and that was about the ONLY military available to President Roosevelt at the time, The National Guard.

 

We got an occasional letter from him from places I did not know of nor could I pronounce. On Sundays, we sat and listened to a newscaster, Gabriel Heater, who always ended his broadcast with, "And that is the way it was" That was something a later news reporter picked up as his own. We did not see my Father again until the summer of 1944 and he was not released from the Army until 1947. Upon his release, he carried the Rank of Lt. Colonel, although he left as a Staff Sergeant in the National Guard.

 

 

We were farmers and my Mother carried on running the farm and arguing with the Ration Board. We even housed recovering wounded soldiers, sailors and Marines in our barn, the Air Force did not exist at that time and the Coast Guard was part of the Navy.

 

There were regular blackouts and air raid drills, along with billboards warning us, "Beware The Yellow Peril" and showing a cartoon character Japanese soldier with thick glasses and buck teeth, holding a rifle with a bayonet. Living in California, we were always warned about being invaded and, when a Japanese submarine lobbed a few shells at our coastline, and later in Oregon, the Home Guard went berserk!

 

 

On VE Day, the schools were let out (schools went through June in those days) and on VJ Day, I was in town at my Aunt's house when the box plant steam whistle wen't off. I thought is was an air raid! I was headed for 8 years old by then.

 

Living on a farm, I had it much better than my town cousins, we were pretty much self-sufficient in those days. The Ration Board was always checking to see if we had green tinted gasoline in the old car (we never did) and they threatened my Mother because she gave a pound of butter to a sick old lady who lived down the road from us.

 

When my father finally came home, he looked like hell, but OH BOY was I glad to see him!

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[seabird]

A mistype - I was not quite 5 years old!

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[Ricky]

Let's not forget the Japanese Americans and how they suffered as well. They were rounded up and placed in camps. They lost everything and were treated like the enemy. But they were American's. Just as interested in preserving the lives they had built here. They lost all simply because of the shape of their eyes.

 

I hate war. Nobody wins except the corporate world of trade.

[larkin]

In the US, the attack on Pearl Harbor is never forgotten.  Every year on December 7, there is an national observance of those who lost their lives.

 

But there is another day of observance held in the rest of the world but never in the US.  That is August 6, 1945. This was the day that the first Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima resulting in 120,000 lives.  by today's standards, it was a rather small bomb.

 

This is not to lay blame nor am I suggesting we forego observing 12/7/41. what is called, Pearl Harbor Day.

 

To acknowledge August 6th 1945 doesn't mean anyone was right or wrong but it calls attention the significance of an event that from that day forward, can affect all civilization and we must be reminded ourselves that the threat is enjoying a resurgence on the world stage.  

 

Pearl Harbor is important to Americans and should remain so, but in the scheme of the human experience it doesn't count for much.  This no true for the threat of mutually assured destruction.

 

To maintain ties between these two events means that Japan got what they deserved for the attack on Pearl Harbor and since the US and Japan have been friends and partners for 70 years, this is hardly a constructive way forward.

 

The US is reluctant to revise its view on history because it reserves the right to unquestioningly support the its right to use these weapons even without prior attack and on nations that do not necessarily possess nuclear weapons.   This will and is provoking a reinitiation of the nuclear arms race that will more frightening that anything the cold war ever had to offer.  

 

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1892952.1407328444!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki-69-years.jpg

[Rilbur]

Iarkin, it's hard to follow your comment (poor grammar makes it very difficult to parse, and it also seems to ramble from point to point), but you seem to feel there's something somehow shameful with the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan.

 

If there is shame, it's on the Japanese government of the time, that they refused to surrender.  The lives lost to the two nuclear bombs are tragic, but far more lives would have been lost in an invasion of mainland Japan.  The American government of the era had responsibility only to the American's whose lives would have been lost.  It was the Japanese government who held responsibility for Japanese lives that would have been lost via invasion, and they were already preparing for that invasion by encouraging every last citizen to arm themselves and attack.  Man woman and child, the Japanese public was being encourages to prepare to fight at any cost, 'for the emperor'.

 

Dropping the bomb was a weighty decision, but at the end of the day it cost fewer lives than a conventional invasion, and every last one of those lives were the responsibility of the government that was refusing to surrender.  The US had every right to drop that bomb -- and it would have been a criminal decision to refrain from doing so.  And I use the term 'criminal' quite carefully and deliberately.

[ken barber]

RIlbur,

Wow who made you the Grammar Police.

 

I disagree with completely the ends do not justify the means

[ken barber]

However I will say this. The United States will always hold certain dates dear to them and will never forget them

July 4th
December 7th
September 11th

 

Those dates are what make us the society we are today. So while I can respect that the rest of the world honors 8/6 December 7th holds a special place in our hearts and will never be overshadowed but another day.

[larkin]

Iarkin, it's hard to follow your comment (poor grammar makes it very difficult to parse, and it also seems to ramble from point to point), but you seem to feel there's something somehow shameful with the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan.

 

If there is shame, it's on the Japanese government of the time, that they refused to surrender.  The lives lost to the two nuclear bombs are tragic, but far more lives would have been lost in an invasion of mainland Japan.  The American government of the era had responsibility only to the American's whose lives would have been lost.  It was the Japanese government who held responsibility for Japanese lives that would have been lost via invasion, and they were already preparing for that invasion by encouraging every last citizen to arm themselves and attack.  Man woman and child, the Japanese public was being encourages to prepare to fight at any cost, 'for the emperor'.

 

Dropping the bomb was a weighty decision, but at the end of the day it cost fewer lives than a conventional invasion, and every last one of those lives were the responsibility of the government that was refusing to surrender.  The US had every right to drop that bomb -- and it would have been a criminal decision to refrain from doing so.  And I use the term 'criminal' quite carefully and deliberately.

 

 

 

 

It's not my grammar, it a dyslectic problem so forgive me. I omit words all the time.

 

I wasn't taking a stand on whether it was right or wrong to bomb Japan. or shame on the government of Japan or the US. These are issues 70 years in the past and I am trying to separate these two events. 

 

I am suggesting that nuclear weapons have one purpose and one purpose only and that is kill urban populations.  There is talk of mini nukes for surgical strikes but this a euphemism used by the military to make them seems harmless and to justify the use and productions of these bombs.  But once one is dropped, "All bets are off!".

 

 

Iarkin, it's hard to follow your comment (poor grammar makes it very difficult to parse, and it also seems to ramble from point to point), but you seem to feel there's something somehow shameful with the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan.

 

Please correct my grammar. I am full of flaws and I always need improvement.

 

I am not saying that it was shameful to drop a bomb on Japan I am saying that nuclear weapons are shameful and the thought of using them is evil. 

 

Pearl Harbor is important to Americans and should remain so, but in the scheme of the human experience it doesn't count for much.  In stead we have rekindled the threat of mutually assured destruction.

 

To maintain ties between these two events means that Japan got what they deserved for the attack on Pearl Harbor and since the US and Japan have been friends and partners for 70 years, this is hardly a constructive way forward.

[Rilbur]

RIlbur,

Wow who made you the Grammar Police.

 

I disagree with completely the ends do not justify the means

 

No one made me the grammar police, but when grammatical failings make it impossible to clearly discern another person's intent, common courtesy requires you to inform them of that fact and give them an opportunity to clarify.  To do otherwise is incredibly disrespectful, requiring you to at best ignore them and their comments.  Attempting to discern their intent, stating that assumption, and then attempting to answer it is the best compromise I have ever found.

 

As for 'ends justifying the means', that's a complete misrepresentation of my position.

 

Option one: destroy the infrastructure of a nation, killing significant portions of it's military and civilian population via a conventional invasion supported by bombings, shoreline bombardments, and similar.  Loss of life on both sides was expected to be high -- at least in the hundreds of thousands on each side, and up into the millions.

 

Option two: destroy select parts of a nation's infrastructure, killing significant portions of it's military and civilian population by a new, more powerful weapon, without loosing the lives of your own men in the process.

 

Lets not kid ourselves; ultimately, the use of nuclear weapons reduced the loss of life on both sides, as well as shifting all those losses to the Japanese, who -- as you may recall -- were the ones who started the war via a sneak attack, and who had repeatedly demonstrated a cultural willingness to engage in the worst kinds of barbarity on captured populations and prisoners of war.  Japan had refused to surrender and it's government was in fact preparing it's civilian population to assist in repelling any invasion attempt.  That refusal placed the continuation of the war squarely on their heads, and their own preparations put their civilian population square in the cross-hairs down both paths.

 

It was a horrible decision, but in the end there was only one choice Truman could take.

[Rilbur]

It's not my grammar, it a dyslectic problem so forgive me. I omit words all the time.

There's nothing to forgive.  Your dyslexia creates grammatical issues, and while courtesy requires I inform you when they arise, there's no fault to worry about.  So long as you strive your best to make yourself as clear as possible, it's up to us to do our best to meet you halfway.

 

As for your position that nuclear weapons are shameful, I have to disagree.  Shame implies wrongdoing.

 

Nuclear weapons are powerful, dangerous, and should be as controlled as possible.  They're also a simple physical fact.  Whether we like it or not, the human race possesses the power to destroy ourselves, whether by nuclear weapons, biological weapons, or chemical.  They are all dangerous, all deserve respect, and all must be carefully controlled lest they escalate to a scale that destroys us.

 

Careless, frivolous, or inappropriate use of these weapons may be shameful, but that doesn't automatically imply that use of them is shameful period.

[ken barber]

a. I had no problem following Larking

b. Pointing out someones grammar issues is a good idea but using some tact is a better idea. 
c. Speculation on the number of lives it would have cost to invade is just that pure speculation their is no mathematical or scientific formula in the world to estimate casualties doing combat operations.

d. War is hell, War is dirty, There is no glory or honor in war but the wholesale massacre of two entire city's. 225,000 people killed can be chalked up to oh well that's war.  The complete and utter annialition of of our enemies people the innocent women  and children the old the feeble, the sick, the wounded. Not Ok never has been and never will be, to say its in any way justified explains why the rest of the world sees us as barbarians

[ken barber]

Oh and Larkin you knew here so you wouldn't know but this a very Normal exchange between Rilbur and I

[Rilbur]

c. Speculation on the number of lives it would have cost to invade is just that pure speculation their is no mathematical or scientific formula in the world to estimate casualties doing combat operations.

 

No, it's not 'pure' speculation.  It's an educated estimate.  An attempt to put facts together to generate numbers.  True, we can never know the exact number of lives that would have been lost in a conventional invasion, but we can make some pretty good guesses.  And those guesses grossly exceed the roughly two hundred thousand lives lost to the bombs.

 

In fact, lets do some guestimating of our own!  This is all quick and dirty, but it's a replication of the type of math some of the estimates of the time used.

 

Doing some quick googling, at the time of the Okinawa invasion the island had a population of roughly 300,000 civilians, and the japanese military forces were about 70,000 strong, with an additional 20-40 thousand local conscriptipts.  They killed 20,000 American soldiers, and lost around 80,000 of their own soldiers.  Depending on the number you choose, either 40,000 or 150,000 local civilians were killed (or committed suicide) in the course of the invasion.

 

Scale that up to the Japanese mainland, with a population of around 45 million, and around 5.5 million of those in uniform.  You're looking at at least 4 million civilians killed if the same ratios hold, and they wouldn't have.  Japanese culture is built around revering and protecting the emperor, to a degree that American's simply cannot conceive of.  The Emperor is more important a figure to them than Jesus is in our culture, and no that is not an exaggeration -- he's actually a major figure in the Shinto religion.  The Japanese population would die to protect him, if not 'to the last man' then pretty damned close.  And that is exactly what the government of the time was preparing for.  It was encouraging everyone to prepare to fight -- even the children, using sharpened bamboo sticks.

 

I can't find any hard numbers for soldiers on the ground, but lets assume only 10% of the total military was on the homeland during the invasion.  That's still 550,00 men.  Compared to the 70,000 men that's 'close enough' to ten times the combat power for our purposes.  More than 20,000 Americans lost their lives in the invasion of Okinawa.  Increase that to 200,000... oh, wait, that's the bomb casualties.

 

Point made, I assume?

[Zergrinch]

If the U.S. really wanted to murder a bunch of Japanese, they would have nuked Tokyo and Kyoto instead of the industrial cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Just sayin'.

[ken barber]

Rilbur,

Your point is most definetly not made. There are so many more factors that go into "trying" to guess how many casualties your forces would sustain during invasion. The troop numbers are a small factor.

 

1. Weather.

2. Terrain
3. Enemy equipment
4. Your Equipment

5. Logistics established on both sides.

6. Enemy Morale

7. Your Morale 

8. Enemy Experience and training
9. your Experience and training

10. Enemy Strength (numbers)

11. Your Strength (numbers)

 

Thats just to name a few and remember those things can change during the operation

 

As a matter of fact the Army uses huge document called a 5 paragraph Operations order to launch such an invasion. Don't let the term paragraph fool you for a small recon mission I once had to right an op order that was 37 pages long. No where in the op order do you attempt to calculate estimated losses its a fools guess. That is a fact. having commanded men in combat before I can tell you never once did any officer or NCO attempt to calculate how many men they would loose. No combat leader ever will. So saying the bombs saved more lives than an invasion is pure speculation

[Zergrinch]

I disagree that it is speculative.  How many Americans died during the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?  Maybe a few dozen prisoners of war?

 

How many Americans would have died in an outright invasion of the Japanese home islands?  Estimates vary, but all of them agree you would be dealing with hundreds of thousands.

 

Point being, the bombs saved more American lives is not pure speculation.

 

And even if you want to qualify that into total human lives, it is not speculation either.  We saw from Okinawa how the civilians would react - and Okinawa Island inhabitants are nowhere near as dedicated Emperor-worshippers as the mainland Japanese.  The death toll would easily run into the millions, instead of less than 200,000 from the atomic bombs.
 

Aaaand as for the checklist:

1. Weather: Hard to say, but I would argue it favors the defenders since attackers have to actually land in the first place.  Advantage: Japan.
2. Terrain: Favors the defenders, since they know their homeland better than you. Advantage: Japan
3. Equipment: By this time, the Allies would have better equipment.  Advantage: Allies
4. Logistics: Favors the defenders.  Advantage: Japan
5. Morale: The Japanese are defending their home - there's nowhere else to go.  Advantage: Japan
6. Experience and Training: Japan has been preparing for war for far longer, but on the other hand, they're quite diminished.  Advantage indeterminate.
7. Numbers: Every Japanese civilian is a potential combatant.  Advantage: Japan.

With only superior equipment as your main advantage, you would have to basically carpetbomb the entire area just to establish a foothold.  And you'll be contending with a hostile population.  Did anyone say turkey shoot?

[ken barber]

Your looking at this like its a game that is not a checklist but some and I repeat SOME of the factors involved. And those factors are constantly changing. Gentlmen First major rule you Learn in Basic Operation Tactics at the US ARMY War College is you cannot ever ever establish the outcome of a battle before the first bullet is fired. You can never estimate guesti mate or speculate on the number of causalities. Sorry but that's Military 101.

 

Now It may be that the bombs  were the better choice but I know for a fact no General Alive at the time or even today would have advised using the weapons because it would save lives. Your doing what ifs and that never works in combat.

 

The discussion is pointless. 

[Rilbur]

Your looking at this like its a game that is not a checklist but some and I repeat SOME of the factors involved. And those factors are constantly changing. Gentlmen First major rule you Learn in Basic Operation Tactics at the US ARMY War College is you cannot ever ever establish the outcome of a battle before the first bullet is fired. You can never estimate guesti mate or speculate on the number of causalities. Sorry but that's Military 101.

 

That's complete and utter bullshit.  As a programmer, I frequently have to deal with imponderables, things that make it impossible to say 'twenty hours work' or 'thirty hours work', but I can frequently say 'a couple of hours' vs 'a couple of days' vs 'a couple of weeks'.  Sure, I'll be wrong sometimes, but I can still produce an estimate.  The fact that an estimate is inherently inaccurate doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't produce it.  It just means you need to understand it's fundamental inaccuracy.  So even if you can't produce a hard and fast number, you can still come up with something.  And I don't care how many factors you rattle off as effecting that number, at the end of the day an invasion of the Japanese homeland would require slaughtering millions of people, because they will rise up to defend their Emperor.

[larkin]

Everyone here has been very patient with me and I thank you. It was not my intention to be dishonest but an idea was being formulated at the time I was posting it.
 

I did not want to engage in a conflict over the past.  I think it is because my view was philosophical and not necessarily factual.

 

The argument around Pearl Harbor, WW2 and the bombing of Hiroshima is an Americocentric view of history.  It is very important to us. 

 

But in the scheme of things, America has not always been here and the idea that it will last forever is absurd. 

 

The significance of the bomb is much greater and it was my intention that we look at this..

 

America is not forever but in terms of scientific principles, the bomb is.. 

[ken barber]

Larkin you will find that sometimes the most innocent comment can start a debate. That Happens frequently and it's healthy discussion. the forum moderators will keep us from getting really personal not that we would have here.

nobody's feelings were hurt and I didn't loose any sleep over it. Rilbur may have I mean he was debating with the great and powerful ken.

[ken barber]

I do disagree with your comment that to think The United States will last forever is absurd. It may change and adapt and it may not last for ever but to strive for that is our national pride. We have built a country from scratch and it's flexible it can adapt to current times that's what gives us longevity. We will think and strive to make our Nation last for an eternity. If not then why bother to begin with.