The Lessons of Pearl Harbor

American Thinker ^ | December 7, 2016 | Bruce Walker

[Kaslin]

Seventy-five years ago, on December 7, 1941, the American Navy suffered the worst defeat in its history when a force led by six Japanese fleet carriers launched a surprise attack at the battleships at Pearl Harbor. Two of the eight battleships, Arizona and Oklahoma, were destroyed, and the other six were knocked out of action for many months. The Army Air Corps fields were attacked with great loss, and other smaller naval vessels were attacked as well.

The American carriers were at sea. Had those carriers been at Pearl Harbor, the whole course of the Pacific War would have been very different. During the first year of that conflict, only the carriers were able to slow down the Japanese advance. Battleships proved too vulnerable to air attack to fight major fleet actions alone. American submarines, which eventually would prove an incredibly potent force in the Pacific, were plagued by multiple problems with torpedoes which made them almost useless for many months.

The Japanese still might have inflicted crippling damage even with the carriers gone. The fuel depots for the American Fleet were at Pearl Harbor and so were major repair and maintenance facilities. Without these, the American Fleet could have had to operate out of San Diego, thousands of miles east.

The Japanese could also have utterly destroyed all the battleships, instead of just Arizona and Oklahoma, and these other battleships in two years were refitted and fighting the Japanese Navy. There were a number of other, smaller naval vessels at Pearl Harbor, which would be desperately needed in the first six months of 1942 and which follow-up attacks by the Japanese would have damaged or sunk.

[dfwgator]

Just as the Nazis hoped that with their overwhelming victory in Poland, the British and French would have begged for a truce.

[Lou L]

I think the survival of the carriers has been overstated. Later use of them as an offensive weapon proved, out of necessity, that they were very effective.

Overstated? In hindsight, their survival has been overstated, and I agree with that. Perhaps at the time of the attack, we had yet to realize what kind of offensive weapon the carriers could be in wartime, and the initial assessments of the carriers was more understated.

[pfflier]

Agreed, and also the carriers were the only US offensive option available until mid-1942.

[Kodos the Executioner]

CDR Dudley “Mush” Morton and the submarine arm might have had something to say about that.

Even with their lousy torpedoes.

The Japs missed the subs at Pearl Harbor as well.

When Nimitz took over Pacific Fleet, he broke his flag in a sub.

[Thibodeaux]

I’m going to watch Tora tora Tora again tonight. The movie presents a very good depiction of events. It sticks pretty close to parallel reading history.

There was in fact no real defense possible to make a difference. The ships could have put to sea and the planes dispersed.

The primary problem is poor and extremely terse communications that reflect not knowing, not understanding, by either the people in hawaii or in washington. There was a problem at multi levels receiving and believing and acting.

The fact is, the Japs planned and executed a superb attack that Americ was not capable of resisting

[DNME]

If Nagumo knew our submarines were armed with flawed torpedoes, would he have lingered and sent the second and third waves?

[Impy]

Lesson is don’t elect democrats, especially as President. There’s a good chance FDR knew it was coming and let it happen to create a casus belli.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It is disturbing to realize FDR was willing to sacrifice thousands of our servicemen and women in Hawaii in order to get the war he wanted.

[GOPsterinMA]

Amen!

[Impy]

Gun to my head, he was the worst President.