7 ms·

"Contrary to popular memory, the event familiarly known as “Pearl Harbor” was in fact an all-out lightning strike on US and British holdings throughout the Paci

"Contrary to popular memory, the event familiarly known as “Pearl Harbor” was in fact an all-out lightning strike on US and British holdings throughout the Pacific. On a single day, the Japanese attacked the US territories of Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, Midway Island and Wake Island." This is horrendously sloppy journalism. The first attack on Wake was three days later and was repelled. The successful attack was another 12 days after that. And the Midway attack was six months after Pearl.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Wikipedia disagrees with you, and confirms that both Midway and Wake were attacked on the day of Pearl. In the case of Wake, 8 of the 12 Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters were destroyed. In the case of Midway, the attack that day was repulsed.
- black_puppydog 8y ago
  Popular memory strikes again! It's interesting though that in this case both Wikipedia and "Joe H. N. Internet" could be called popular memory. :P
- yellowapple 8y ago
  I'd argue that the Pearl Harbor attack specifically was the primary attack (at least on that front, i.e. excluding the Philippines), and that the Wake and Midway attacks that happened were incidental (or at most in support of) that attack. While I hate the idea of quantity of lives lost being any sort of metric for the "importance" of an attack (every American life lost matters), Pearl Harbor took the brunt of it. If anything, Pearl Harbor (and other surrounding targets) was the target specifically to tie up American efforts in the Northeast Pacific and keep them out of the way of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. That much the article seems to get correctly, and is arguably the article's main point.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    It was definitely the primary attack. That's where First Air Fleet was going and they only had so many carriers. Spread them around and they might have all failed. Midway and Wake were much smaller attacks, but I'm not sure they were quite incidental, weren't they both significant oiling bases? They were certainly both part of Yamamoto's first phase strategy. So were the Philippines, Malaya, and Borneo. Malaya and Philippines were attacked and invaded the same day. Phase 2 would have turned south across territories toward Australia. His strategy was not too dissimilar to China's today. Loosely to create a huge space of Japanese air space by taking those far flung outposts to ensure any enemy was stretched across thousands of miles of hostile Pacific. The Battle of Midway, six months later, was one of the most famous and strategically important naval battles of the entire war. As they lost that naval battle it is never really called an attack on the islands, least not in what I've read. They didn't make it that far.
    - yellowapple 8y ago
      "Midway and Wake were much smaller attacks, but I'm not sure they were quite incidental, weren't they both significant oiling bases?" They were more significant as refueling stops for transpacific flights, and as projection points for America's air and naval power. Japan wanted to use them for the same purpose, but was unable to; even with the "successful" invasion of Wake Island, the American submarine blockade kept it from being strategically useful to Japan. Ultimately, the US was able to build up its carrier force enough to offset the need for these force projection points (or at least the need for Wake, given that they didn't retake it until after Japan had already surrendered).
  - jfk13 8y ago
    > (every American life lost matters) Are non-American lives somehow worth less? (Or just worthless?) That's the kind of ethno-centric mindset that doesn't even bother to count the civilian "collateral damage" as long as our guys are safe in their body armor or -- better -- thousands of miles away directing drones from behind a desk. It doesn't help much with building intercultural trust and understanding, though, or "winning hearts and minds".
    - skinnymuch 8y ago
      OP could have just been saying American lives talking about attacks on American military areas. In which case you assume it is American lives. There’s no way to tell if they were caring more about American or western lives like is an unfortunate case a lot of the time.
    - yellowapple 8y ago
      By "American lives", I meant "lives lost as a result of an attack on American soil". That includes civilian lives, including civilians in American territories (i.e. the Philippines, which was part of America at the time, and Hawaii/Wake/Guam/Midway, which still are). While I understand that this can be an emotional topic, I would appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.
      - jfk13 8y ago
        The point isn't the exact semantics of "American lives", it's that you chose to identify a particular kind of lives that "matter". Whether or not you meant it that way, it's easy for a reader to see this as implying that other lives matter less, especially as this kind of attitude (and phrasing) is pretty widespread. A more inclusive "every life lost matters" would have served equally well in the context, wouldn't it?
        yellowapple 8y ago
        The context was an attack on American soil and ascertaining the primary target of that attack. Casualties on the American side are definitely the more relevant metric than, say, casualties on the Japanese side. Besides, the non-American lives lost - that is, the Japanese lives lost - were lost specifically because they were attacking American soil unprovoked and by surprise. While their lives certainly did matter, and I do sympathize with the soldiers and their families who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, it should be entirely unsurprising that, you know, maybe I'll have a little more sympathy for the defenders. This is not a US-centric mindset, by the way (despite me happening to be American), unless you think extending the same difference in sympathy to Chinese defenders v. Japanese aggressors in the same exact war is somehow "US-centric", or similarly extending the same difference in sympathy to Middle Eastern defenders v. American aggressors.
- jfk13 8y ago
  Let's not forget Malaya (as it was then known) and Hong Kong, too.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    True, I mentioned it in my follow up. Wasn't HK a month or two after, rather than same day?
    - jfk13 8y ago
      It was attacked on December 8th, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong.
culturestate 8y ago
My understanding of the initial attacks (which largely comes from what I was taught in school) lines up with the timeline presented in the article, and every source I've been able to find in the last few minutes after reading your comment supports that. Can you point to any additional material we might have missed?
blowski 8y ago
Perhaps you’re thinking of the Battle of Midway where the US defeated Japan, and which was indeed six months after Pearl Harbour. However Midway was attacked just two hours after Pearl Harbour.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Wikipedia disagrees with you, and confirms that both Midway and Wake were attacked on the day of Pearl. In the case of Wake, 8 of the 12 Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters were destroyed. In the case of Midway, the attack that day was repulsed.

black_puppydog 8y ago
Popular memory strikes again! It's interesting though that in this case both Wikipedia and "Joe H. N. Internet" could be called popular memory. :P
yellowapple 8y ago
I'd argue that the Pearl Harbor attack specifically was the primary attack (at least on that front, i.e. excluding the Philippines), and that the Wake and Midway attacks that happened were incidental (or at most in support of) that attack. While I hate the idea of quantity of lives lost being any sort of metric for the "importance" of an attack (every American life lost matters), Pearl Harbor took the brunt of it. If anything, Pearl Harbor (and other surrounding targets) was the target specifically to tie up American efforts in the Northeast Pacific and keep them out of the way of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. That much the article seems to get correctly, and is arguably the article's main point.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  It was definitely the primary attack. That's where First Air Fleet was going and they only had so many carriers. Spread them around and they might have all failed. Midway and Wake were much smaller attacks, but I'm not sure they were quite incidental, weren't they both significant oiling bases? They were certainly both part of Yamamoto's first phase strategy. So were the Philippines, Malaya, and Borneo. Malaya and Philippines were attacked and invaded the same day. Phase 2 would have turned south across territories toward Australia. His strategy was not too dissimilar to China's today. Loosely to create a huge space of Japanese air space by taking those far flung outposts to ensure any enemy was stretched across thousands of miles of hostile Pacific. The Battle of Midway, six months later, was one of the most famous and strategically important naval battles of the entire war. As they lost that naval battle it is never really called an attack on the islands, least not in what I've read. They didn't make it that far.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    "Midway and Wake were much smaller attacks, but I'm not sure they were quite incidental, weren't they both significant oiling bases?" They were more significant as refueling stops for transpacific flights, and as projection points for America's air and naval power. Japan wanted to use them for the same purpose, but was unable to; even with the "successful" invasion of Wake Island, the American submarine blockade kept it from being strategically useful to Japan. Ultimately, the US was able to build up its carrier force enough to offset the need for these force projection points (or at least the need for Wake, given that they didn't retake it until after Japan had already surrendered).
- jfk13 8y ago
  > (every American life lost matters) Are non-American lives somehow worth less? (Or just worthless?) That's the kind of ethno-centric mindset that doesn't even bother to count the civilian "collateral damage" as long as our guys are safe in their body armor or -- better -- thousands of miles away directing drones from behind a desk. It doesn't help much with building intercultural trust and understanding, though, or "winning hearts and minds".
  - skinnymuch 8y ago
    OP could have just been saying American lives talking about attacks on American military areas. In which case you assume it is American lives. There’s no way to tell if they were caring more about American or western lives like is an unfortunate case a lot of the time.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    By "American lives", I meant "lives lost as a result of an attack on American soil". That includes civilian lives, including civilians in American territories (i.e. the Philippines, which was part of America at the time, and Hawaii/Wake/Guam/Midway, which still are). While I understand that this can be an emotional topic, I would appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.
    - jfk13 8y ago
      The point isn't the exact semantics of "American lives", it's that you chose to identify a particular kind of lives that "matter". Whether or not you meant it that way, it's easy for a reader to see this as implying that other lives matter less, especially as this kind of attitude (and phrasing) is pretty widespread. A more inclusive "every life lost matters" would have served equally well in the context, wouldn't it?
      - yellowapple 8y ago
        The context was an attack on American soil and ascertaining the primary target of that attack. Casualties on the American side are definitely the more relevant metric than, say, casualties on the Japanese side. Besides, the non-American lives lost - that is, the Japanese lives lost - were lost specifically because they were attacking American soil unprovoked and by surprise. While their lives certainly did matter, and I do sympathize with the soldiers and their families who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, it should be entirely unsurprising that, you know, maybe I'll have a little more sympathy for the defenders. This is not a US-centric mindset, by the way (despite me happening to be American), unless you think extending the same difference in sympathy to Chinese defenders v. Japanese aggressors in the same exact war is somehow "US-centric", or similarly extending the same difference in sympathy to Middle Eastern defenders v. American aggressors.
jfk13 8y ago
Let's not forget Malaya (as it was then known) and Hong Kong, too.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  True, I mentioned it in my follow up. Wasn't HK a month or two after, rather than same day?
  - jfk13 8y ago
    It was attacked on December 8th, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong.

culturestate 8y ago

My understanding of the initial attacks (which largely comes from what I was taught in school) lines up with the timeline presented in the article, and every source I've been able to find in the last few minutes after reading your comment supports that. Can you point to any additional material we might have missed?

blowski 8y ago

Perhaps you’re thinking of the Battle of Midway where the US defeated Japan, and which was indeed six months after Pearl Harbour. However Midway was attacked just two hours after Pearl Harbour.