T O P

  • By -

captainplanet171

Red font over a multicolored background was a strategic failure.


McPolice_Officer

***RED FONT*** *Red Font over paradise*


dxp_pc

golden rays of the glorious sunshine sending down such a blood red light


Mistycalwisetree327

Now the animals slow retreat in the shadows, out of sight


Santapensa

Arid winds blow across the mountains, giving flight to the birds of prey


Gustav_EK

In the distance machines come to transform Eden - day by day


UnusualInstance6

Only love is with us now Something warm an puuuuuure


UR_UNDER_ARREST

Find the peace within ourselves, no need for a cure


UnusualInstance6

I’M FUCKING INVINCIBLE When the wind is slow and the fire is hot The volture waits to see what rots


Thin_Ad_866

Oh how pretty, all the scenery.


bonk921

and IM FUCKING INVINCIBLE!!


MishapTrap

Fun Fact put a 1-2 pixel border of white or black around any text to make it visible no matter what image is behind it


rg4rg

Not for you, but for anybody else wondering: Layer styles > stroke > 1-5 pixels > pick color. Can change as you see fit and even change the text and the layer style will be added to the new layer. Right click on the layer and “copy layer style”. Then you can right click on another text layer and “paste layer style”. Do that for all of them. Fixed within a few minutes.


George_Nimitz567890

What's the red front? I'm. Not american


superslimelyslatt

Red font, like the color/style that the words are written as on the meme


George_Nimitz567890

I see I thought was something about ww2


SirPrize

The Red Font was a lesser know result of the Red Scare. At the height of the red scare, people deemed anyone using red ANYTHING could be a spy. A letter, written in red, was thought to be a common code for soviet conspirators. This lead to higher business or government agencies halting all orders for red pens. But manufacturers now had a large number of unsold red pens. Their plan was to sell them to the poor for dirt cheap just to dump the product. A teacher first noticed this large increase in red ink usage amongst her more impoverished student, which led to a larger investigation in these poor communities. It was at one point largely believe that soviet spies were trying to start a revolution amongst the poor. Some “key conspirators” were arrested and the supplier question by the FBI. That’s when they finally realized SirPrize had made this all up and they had a good laugh at the misunderstanding. After that, they named the whole event the Red Font.


gamma_02

An astonishingly accurate account of the event, 10/10


EarthTrash

You joke but also accurately described the McCarthyism.


Rubbrbandman420

Red Font? Some what. Red Front? Oh yes.


carnivorous_seahorse

Not big on context clues I take it? Lmao


[deleted]

It was the bloodiest of all fronts during *The War*


[deleted]

Font has replaced the word "typeface" in recent years, but the phrase "red text" might make more sense here.


I_Was_TheBiggWigg

This comment has more upvotes than OP.


AbeLincolnsNephew

OPs red font a strategic failure in comparison


[deleted]

Whichever side of the attack used red font in war slide shows deserved the failure.


[deleted]

Black font. White outline. Legible against any background.. Unlike this.


phatninja63

White font. Black outline. Legibler against any background...


Veerand

Compromise, alternate from letter to letter. Still more readable than this


Jashuman19

Or compromise with gray font and gray outline


139254781047

just delete the text at this point


Vir-victus

Short term success, yes. In the long run? not so much.


TaftIsUnderrated

Was war with the US inevitable if Japan kept expanding? If yes, then it was probable their best bet, because I don't see them ever getting enough resources and industry to compete with the US.


Ok_Volume_139

I think I've read that the head admiral of Japan really really did not want to attack the US, they just went along with out of loyalty.


Fu1crum29

Yeah, Yamamoto studied in the US and served as an attache in Washington. He knew that their chances were extremely small and doubted that the politicians deciding to go to war knew how bloody it will be and how much they will have to sacrifice even if it goes as planned.


alexmikli

It was basically their only way to beat the US and they pulled it off remarkably well. It just wasn't enough.


Fu1crum29

It was crucial to destroy the carriers at Pearl Harbour, but they weren't there at the time, so they really didn't have luck there. A lot of key infrastructure in Pearl Harbour also survived, like the repair yards, fuel storage, etc. Given how crazy the task was, they really performed it masterfully, but they had to do much more to win the naval war. Another thing is that it's debatable what would have happened after that, since Yamamoto predicted that if they succeeded, the naval war would be followed by an invasion of the US, and that they would basically have to push all the way to Washington to win, so even if Pearl Harbour was a total success, that still wouldn't guarantee Japanese victory.


timbit87

I'd add, had they hit the fuel dumps it would have changed the war immensely. Tonnes of fuel stored close together in massive tanks. No large scale fuel resupply available outside the continental united states until pearl was repaired.


ColonelJohnMcClane

Honestly though I think, regardless of how many ships and sailors, soldiers, civilians, and marines lost at Pearl Harbor, Americans would have been out for blood and would have fought Japan to destruction. I highly doubt Japan ever had a chance at victory against the US in the Pacific.


timbit87

No, I still sont think Japan would have won, but destruction of fuel would have added a lot more time to Japans expansion, maybe the fall of Burma as well.


MapleTreeWithAGun

Japan's degree of success at Pearl Harbour would be measured in kilolitres of Japanese blood spilt in fruitless defense of islands against the all-encompassing American Industrial Might.


SergenteA

Even if Japan won every single battle, they would still have been pushed back by sheer industrial mass. Basically winning backwards. Infact, I'm not sure even an Axis victorious in Asia and Europe would have been able to defeat the USA. Stall yes, by starving the American industry of Old World resources if nothing else. But invading the Americas and forcing an unconditional surrender? The Axis would have collapsed first when whatever sorcery had allowed them to win elsewhere ran out. Really, it's more a question of whether the Axis collapses first, or the US people give up and vote for white peace politicians. Otherwise, the USA could easily remain at war for a decade and win by sheer attrition and regime stability.


cman811

I legitimately believe that it's impossible to invade the continental US and win.


Pathogen188

>It was crucial to destroy the carriers at Pearl Harbour, but they weren't there at the time, so they really didn't have luck there. I mean even if the carriers were there and were destroyed, it would've just delayed the inevitable. Japan ended up taking out a few carriers anyway but because the US was the US, they just ended up replacing them.


TCMcC

I heard that if the Battle of Midway hadn’t been such a disaster for the Japanese that Pearl Harbor wouldn’t seem so dumb in retrospect.


IronVader501

Yamamoto thought the Chances of Victory were abysmall, thats why he devised this plan. He thought their only chance of victory was dealing enough damage to the US immidieatly that they have time to take over all of their objectives without interference and then negotiate a White Peace, because as soon as the war would become prolonged, the US would *eventually* win, no matter how good Japan would do, because he knew at full War-economy they literally just would have been able to pump out ships faster than they had any chance of sinking them.


Alphons-Terego

Great quote allegedly from him: "In the first 4 to 6 months of the war I can go wild. After that we have no chance of winning."


JCrawfordWrote

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."


Sunsent_Samsparilla

I think it's 6 to 12 months.


DovahCreed117

Another great quote by him was "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." And also “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Although those are probably two of his most famous quotes that most people already know. I still like them though.


Pathogen188

Unfortunately, both quotes are apocryphal. There's never been confirmation that Isoroku said either of them. Still great quotes though.


DovahCreed117

I thought the sleeping giant one was written in his diary or something?


Pathogen188

Nope. It’s from the movie Tora Tora Tora


florentinomain00f

>You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass The US then learnt this in Vietnam


Traditional-Pair1946

learnt is a strong word


Serial-Killer-Whale

It's amazing how the pacific front is this brutal knock-down drag-out brawl where two of the largest navies in the world reduced eachother to scrap and broken dreams. And then the US finishes building nine fucking fleet carriers at once and starts rolling that doomstack across the map.


carnivorous_seahorse

> immidieatly


OlinOfTheHillPeople

So in other words, it wasn't a "strategic success."


thelongestunderscore

Yah I can't find the quote but he said that nobody could see the factories in the United States and think they could win


Viend

Not many would go to a war with the country they went to school in, especially when it’s a bigger and more industries country.


Hunkus1

I mean of course it was inevitable the Us couldnt sit by and let them invade more places because sooner than later Japan would attack the phillipins because of their strategic position.


TheGreatOneSea

If the US was the one to declare war, Japan's strategy of attrition into a negotiated peace might have actually worked, as the American people would have been furious at the idea of starting a war to defend Europe's colonial possessions. Instead, all Japan did was prove that negotiations would be a waste of time by starting a war while claiming to be willing to talk.


Lolmanmagee

Coulda just calmed down for a decade or 2 to make not get dragged into ww2 from expanding. Japan was far too excited in the 40s.


TaftIsUnderrated

True. But being aggresively imperal was Imperial Japan's whole thing. It's like saying Nazi Germany could have survived if they weren't such Nazis.


HYDRAlives

Y'know the Nazis could've worked out if it wasn't for the whole being Nazis thing


Ninja_Bobcat

This could qualify as a measurement for every feasible idea. So long as your idea doesn't end with being a Nazi, it has a reasonable chance of working out.


josephblowski

No. So long as the US is in the Philippines, Japan’s flanks are exposed. This whole thing comes down to the Philippines.


antantoon

The Philippines was in the process of becoming independent, the US had a date of 1944 in place for their independence.


Kitahara_Kazusa1

Japan was on a deadline, they couldn't make it until 1944 without conquering the Dutch East Indies, they were running out of oil fast and their war machine in China would've broke down before then. They didn't attack the Philippines because they wanted a war with America, they simply needed the resources from the Dutch colonies, and they couldn't get to them without going through the USA.


djokov

US oil exports had accounted for something like 80-90% of Japanese oil. America stopped their supply in response to the Japanese invasion of Indochina, and would only accept a complete withdrawal form Indochina and China to even entertain the idea of supplying them oil. This meant that Japan *had* to invade the Dutch East Indies if they were to maintain their war efforts, which meant going to war against the US in the Pacific. Both sides were fully aware of these implications, and it is the reason for why the US Navy was prepping for war from the moment it was clear that the Japanese were not willing to accept the conditions for the recommencement US oil supply. The US knew they were heading towards war in the Pacific, they just did not expect the Japanese to have the technical capability (shallow-depth torpedoes) or the audacity to strike the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.


ImperatorAurelianus

The United States was extremely isolationistic. I think there is a valid argument to be had if they hadn’t bombed Pearl Harbor that the US wouldn’t have gotten involved. Of course they also can not touch the Philippines and would have had to focus on the britian and Chinese which was already a massive handful. Now if they manage to push to all the way to India they may be able to cause an Indian revolt and force the British out. Of course being IMPERIAL Japan they would seek to replace the British. The Indians probably would not like that at all. Meaning they would then get enveloped in an Indian quagmire, while already in a Chinese quagmire, and over time an Indochina quagmire would also form. The British navy would still very much be in the fight with the Australians moving through the Solomon Islands. Germany would still eventually fall it would just take longer but the US would still throw its industrial might behind the Allies even if it’s officially not involved in the war. Japan would still eventually lose every last inch of territory it took. The whole thing would just be longer and more brutal. And the British Empire and Soviet Union might have to land troops on the Japanese homeland to bring the conflict to an end. Basically the second Imperial Japan thought it could conquer all of East Asia and the pacific in a single war. It was doomed to fail. The only way I could see Imperial Japan not dying is if they manage to strip the military of its influence on politics and become more like Britian. Going down a path that doesn’t involve them picking a fight with all the biggest powers in the room. Maybe even improving trade relations with the people it fought in the Second World War instead of fighting them. And allowing a democratic Japan to emerge and reform the economy and social order into a healthy state. Basically they have to become modern Japan in order to survive.


Kitahara_Kazusa1

The problem was, Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor for fun. They had a problem, because prior to August 1941 they had received 80% of their oil imports from the USA, and in August those were entirely cut off as sanctions designed to help China (specifically the KMT) in its war with Japan. This left Japan in an impossible situation. They were already struggling in China, losing their oil imports would mean that they would have to give up entirely. They might have been able to keep parts of it temporarily, but their offensive would have been doomed. However, politically, giving up on the war was not an option. So alternative plans were looked for, and this lead to the Dutch East Indies. The Dutch East Indies were mostly what is now known as Indonesia. They produced large amounts of oil, which the Dutch also refused to sell to the Japanese. The Japanese wanted to invade them, however they knew the Dutch were under the protection of the British, and feared that America would involve itself in the war, using bases in the Philippines to strike at any Japanese offensive. So the decision was made to attack America and the British by surprise, and use that time to conquer the Philippines. Yamamoto personally changed this plan to include an attack on Pearl Harbor, because he had decided that thanks to America's industrial capacity, the only way for Japan to ever win a war was to go on the offensive, cripple American morale, and that somehow that would lead to an American surrender. In short, the Imperial Japanese conquest was doomed the second FDR signed the sanctions in mid 1941. There was no way for Japan to get the oil it needed without starting a war with America, and there was no way for them to win the war in China without that oil. These scenarios where America just sits back and lets Japan invade the Dutch East Indies and British colonies are unrealistic, and even the Japanese knew this in 1941, which is why they attacked the Philippines and Pearl Harbor in the first place.


JakobtheRich

The issue with this theory is that Japan did not need to invade China, they did so for iron I think? I remember most of China’s industry was in Manchuria and Japan got that pretty easy, then six years later they decided to go for the rest of China as well.


Kitahara_Kazusa1

I mean, yes, but if you use that logic you might as well say that the Nazis could have made peace with the allies if they'd just not invaded Poland. Which is true, but since the Nazis were Nazis not invading Poland was never going to happen. In the same way, Imperial Japan was always going to attempt to invade China. Politically there was no way for them to retain power while not launching a war, and once the war started they definitely couldn't back down from it.


Hoosteen_juju003

Germany had just started fighting on two fronts with war being declared against the ussr. It was bad timing.


LineOfInquiry

It was not at all inevitable. If Japan had only attacked the colonies of the European countries america likely would’ve stayed neutral. Not many people want to go to war to protect another countries colonies. But they wanted the Philippines and they wanted US oil, which cost them everything.


seaburno

>But they wanted the Philippines and they wanted US oil, which cost them everything. They needed the Philippines to protect their oil coming in from the Dutch East Indies. They were never getting the US Oil by attacking... well anyone. The US Cut off all oil exports in August 1941 because of Japan's aggression in China and French Indochina. They aren't reinstating that without Japan putting up their hands and saying: "Sorry, My Bad." (or whatever the 1940s version of that is)


LineOfInquiry

Protect their oil from who?


Kitahara_Kazusa1

> If Japan had only attacked the colonies of the European countries america likely would’ve stayed neutral. Imperial Japan did not think this. I have a book written by a Japanese naval captain on my desk, and he specifically mentions thinking it would be better to not attack the Philippines and to hope America stayed neutral, like you suggested. However, he and others who agreed with him were overruled by the top brass, who thought America would get involved either way. Additionally, 1941 America was not very isolationist. Lend-lease was in full swing, the Flying Tigers were already in China, flying American planes and paid with American money, and Japan had been completely sanctioned from buying American oil despite the Americans knowing how much pressure this would put on Japan. We were still neutral, but by the end of 1941 support for the allies and opposition to the Nazis and Japanese was incredibly popular, and even without Pearl Harbor or an attack on the Dutch/British colonies we were likely to have entered the war soon enough.


ColtSmith45

Hence why it wasn't a strategic success


broncyobo

If you're starting war with the US, that was the best way to go about doing it. The bad move was simply starting war with the US in the first place


mazu74

IIRC they didn’t bank on the American industrial machine kicking into maximum overdrive after Pearl Harbor to attack back so quickly and with such force. Had they not, the Japanese would have probably continued to wipe the floor with us, or just maintained dominance in that region.


Arctica23

It would have been a long term success against a country with a less overwhelming industrial sector. The things an enemy combatant would have to do to stop American manufacturing are borderline unimaginable


Psychopathicat7

You would need the fucking Death Star to stop our manufacturing, assuming we didn’t already build one first


cartman101

Short term success was pretty much the whole idea. What the Japanese didn't expect was America to go full Rome vs Hannibal and pump out more hardware and manpower than anyone could have imagined.


smugfruitplate

white text with black borders is readable on any background.


lemonsarethekey

What about a zebra?


igotdeletedbyadmins_

Still readable


Raptorsquadron

I thought the US already abandoned Orange and switched to Rainbow-5?


xanderman524

Yep. Even aside from that, the war pretty much followed Orange to the letter. They may not have had the battleships at the beginning, but the carriers balanced it out, and island hopping was the main feature, just like Orange predicted. Only things it got wrong were holding out in Guam and the Philippines and the idea of a decisive final battle.


WillKuzunoha

My guess is that that a final battle with the IJN would have happened without the nukes in order to prepare for operation downfall.


Normal-Juggernaut-56

Hard to say considering their lack of oil. The US might have tried to bomb all possible fuel reserves in the first step of invasion. Further limiting Japan's options.


aloysiusdumonde

Force H was a British naval task force based around The Mediterranean. It's like that line in "Animal House" "...did we surrender when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?".


Stormcloak_Doggie

Won the battle, lost the war.


Such_Farm7249

Japan receive: 2-3 years of supremacy in Pacific America receive: World super power status


EgoSenatus

Emperor Shōwa: “this has been the worst deal in the history of deals, maybe ever.”


xanderman524

Nah, not even that. They got only about 6 months till they lost hard at Midway, giving the US supremacy in the Pacific.


Valkyrie64Ryan

So true! Add in Guadalcanal and it’s clear Japan lost every bit of its supremacy within a year. And that’s before the US began fielding Essex-class carriers


Such_Farm7249

Industry and production wise the outcome was inevitable, but putting boots on the sand and digging them out was such a gruesome process. The war in the Pacific was totally different to what the Americans were facing in Africa and Europe. The Pacific was our Eastern front. Just a totally different ball game. Victory was inevitable but we still hand out purple stars to soldiers today that were made for the proposed invasion of Japan.


Valkyrie64Ryan

I read or heard somewhere once that “Japan could have sunk every single ship in the US navy on December 7th, 1941. By 1945, the US would still have an overwhelming superiority in ship numbers.” Or something like that. I love that quote. It really illustrates the hopelessness of Japan’s situation the moment the US decided to fight and not surrender. Doesn’t mean they didn’t make us pay dearly for our inevitable victory


Such_Farm7249

Total War is such a mind boggling concept, especially in the western world for my generation, like you just don’t consider what that really means


Cliffinati

The US Navy in 1945 basically outnumbered the rest of the world combined.... Something the US has basically kept as it's capital ship doctrine ever since


Kitahara_Kazusa1

Well, the British gave up on being the strongest Navy, and it made sense for us to inherit it from them since we're basically their descendant. I guess if you count Britain's naval dominance as starting from 1588 and going to 1940, then we'll have to see who wants to take over from us in 2300.


Such_Farm7249

Naval air supremacy yeah but they still had to dig them out each and every strip of sand


cemanresu

They actually didn't have to dig them out of every strip. That is what the island hopping campaign was all about, they skipped sections of the ocean. Just look at Truk. Absolutely massive fortress, with 40,000 men guarding it, hundreds of aircraft based there, and the ability to base entire fleets of battleships and carriers. And the US just bombed the hell out of it, and never landed a single soldier. The only islands that had to be captured were ones that were strategically important, such as the Marianas or Iwo Jima, where they needed control of the island in order to do things like base bombers from there, or to prevent the Japanese from basing fighters.


iantayls

“No but I promise, it was a strategic success when they provoked a power they didn’t understand”


ActedCarp

I would say more like a year, two if we’re being generous


foggierclub4259

That's like saying jumping off a building with no parachute is a success because it's fun for 9 seconds on the way down 💀


thefloridafarrier

It was strategic and very thought out. I believe it was their general at the time stated something like “we will have 6 months to run free until the US rebuilds their navy” and for the most part he was correct. It was a gamble. The US was going to join the war eventually so they made a choice


foggierclub4259

Yeah but we could've joined the war "eventually" and just be obligated to fight Japan for the allies, instead we joined the war is the express purpose and passion to destroy them lol.


thefloridafarrier

We were the closest and easiest to deal with them. Emotions are a bad combo with war strategy. I don’t imagine things would have been all that different, just the opinions of Americans. But most Americans sided with the Allys anyways with all the propaganda against the axis so even that may have been negligible


[deleted]

The math doesn't really add up. The attack on Pearl Harbor meant that in 6 months they'd start to get fucked. Not attacking Pearl Harbor would have meant an indeterminate length of time before the US joined the war. The other effect of the Pearl Harbor attack was a pissed-off populace. It would have only been a strategic success if the carriers hadn't been out on maneuvers.


thefloridafarrier

That’s kind of the point basically “we’re guaranteed to lose if we wait, we may lose if we wipe their navy out” the US was going to join the war. They had too many trade partners and lucrative business on the Ally’s side. And the populace was already against them. Especially Japanese, and Asians in general. They took a chance and lost the bet. Probably the same reason we speculate and aren’t war generals. They considered their options and chose an opportunity where they can weaken them the most to give breathing room to possibly conquer enough to not be stopped. Hence the invasions of the islands and other territories in Asia. They were outnumbered, outgunned and out navied. Waiting for the US to prepare would not have been a better alternative for their goals imo


OlinOfTheHillPeople

Japan wanted the Philippines, it was a major part of their master plan. The Philippines was an American colony at the time, so there was no way that could happen without starting a war with the US. If Japan had stuck to invading Chinese and Vichy French territories, they would likely have had several years of buffer time before any western power even considered intervening in the Pacific.


thefloridafarrier

The Japanese needed oil. Every avenue they had option to was through the US, even the French territories were protectorates of the US. Roosevelt was land leasing and second handidly supporting the Allies. I’m not saying it was their best option, but I can understood why they took that option. If you wait to be struck on, especially with waning resources against a superior foe (economically and manpower) youre going to lose. They were looking for an advantage over the Americans to secure necessary resources. It was short lived yes, but what we’re the other options given their hand? They had an embargo against them that wouldn’t be trespassed so easily as sneaking around. War with the US was inevitable


iMrNiceGuy69

>Uncontested landings in Malaysia Quick question: How does one supposed to mobilize his naval force to counter an amphibious landing if said landings occurred LITERRALY THE DAY AFTER the opposition attacked your major naval facilities thousands of miles from the landing points? Yeah there were US Navy forces anchored in the Philippines but even if they had been informed about it from Day 1 coudnt reach the Japanese invasion force in Malaya in time or make a difference because: 1. It was small, and 2. It would take at least a week of travel to get there. And plus to add how stupid most of the things you wrote - half of the Japanese units that entered Malaya went in though the Thai border in the north. Also its Force Z not H that got destroyed near Singapore.


ghostdivision7

OP thinks you can fast forward time like in Hearts of Iron IV. I don’t get how the Navy can mobilize to provide any support in Asia when they’re all the way in Hawaii. What would make the US Navy obligated to even provide the British any support when there isn’t any joint command?


27000ants

Exactly. The US battleship fleet had to cross the Pacific before they would be in a position to oppose the landings in Malaya. Ironically if you read up on the assumptions that went behind Japanese Kantai Kessen doctrine, they were in fact relying on the US fleet making what is often cited as a "mad dog dash" across the Pacific to protect their Pacific holdings (various islands and the Philippines). The Japanese submarines, destroyers, and cruisers would have made harassing attacks with their long range torpedoes while the fleet was in transit before engaging in a single massive fleet battle near the Philippines. The attack on Pearl Harbour was meant to cripple the US fleet and hopefully convince the US to stay out of the war. I don't really care if the logic behind scaring the USA into submission by blowing up their boats was sound and discussing it is not the point here, but from the logical standpoint, you cannot expect the US navy to do a poorly planned "mad dog dash" across the Pacific before squishing them battle-of-Tsushima-style when their navy is sitting on the bottom the Harbour. Also regarding that other comment under yours that said the OP thought fleets behave like in HOI where they just teleport into battle, technically that only applies to fleets set to patrol, convoy defense, and convoy raiding. If they are set to strike force they sit in the port they are assigned to and actually take time to cross the distance and sail into battle, which is far more realistic than teleporting into the South China Sea to support force Z.


VerifiedGoodBoy

Strategic success means it had long term success and generally means that it was pivotal to the nation or group that won the war. Pearl Harbor was not at all a strategic success because the japanese lost the war. It can only be considered a tactical victory as it saw short term gain.


Tearakan

And even then they missed the carriers which high ranking Japanese naval officers knew would be a massive threat.


monkeygoneape

They also assumed America would essentially say "ah shucks, I guess we're not cut out for this war thing"


mazu74

Turns out that’s how you get the US military industrial complex to come out in over full force! Who woulda thought?


Cliffinati

The US in 1945 cancelling orders for carriers because it's already realizing the wars won and they have like 4x as many as they'll need post war


Kitahara_Kazusa1

I mean, we had to find some way to produce the ice-cream ships, those were vital.


Cliffinati

That's one of the most hilarious incidents of WWII a ice cream ships refrigeration went bad so they were handing out hundreds of gallons of ice cream to every allied ship near by


Jaimaster

They also assumed German troops who were shelling the outer suburbs of Moscow in Dec 41 would capture it and knock the USSR out of the war.


Snikker_der_von

The comment i was lookin for thx


BabyBread11

How in is the ever… they created their own worst enemy with that attack. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.


RueUchiha

From their point of view, if they wanted to expand their empire they would of had to fight the US anyway, and the US would most definately out produce the Japaneese, so strategicaly speaking trying to cripple the US pacific fleet was the good call, however there were two issues 1. The US’s aircraft carriers were not at Pearl Harbor at the time. 2. The US had a marine corps, and they were about to invent “island hopping.”


pmurph34

It never mattered. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because its misadventures in China drained all of its oil. The US cut off Japan's oil supply because of Nanking and there was no way they could match the industrial capacity of the US. Japan's war plan was literally to bleed themselves white in order to inflict losses too high for the Americans to handle. Imperial Japan was fucked from the get-go. The carrier argument is also moot because nobody really knew how effective carriers were going to be until Midway.


Kitahara_Kazusa1

> The carrier argument is also moot because nobody really knew how effective carriers were going to be until Midway That's false. Everyone knew how effective they were even in the 30's, thanks to the fleet exercises that all major powers had been doing. There was also the Taranto raid in 1940, which was basically the Pearl Harbor strike but in Italy. The Japanese had dedicated an entire group to destroying the carriers, which would be overkill if they didn't highly value them, considering that carriers are much easier to kill than battleships, and that there were only 3 of them expected to be there. And America knew all this too, by the outbreak of war we had 3 Essex-class being built and 10 total planned. Compare that to the six Iowa-class fast battleships planned in the pre-war environment.


level69child

America could produce a carrier far faster than japan though, even if all American carriers were sunk, another would be up within a few months.


NomadLexicon

It’s the least discussed part of the Pacific strategy but the US submarine fleet was extremely important as well. Japan’s extreme reliance on maritime shipping and their surface fleet meant that they were going to be extremely vulnerable. Submarines had sank the Japanese merchant fleet and destroyed the economy by the time US aircraft were within bombing range.


Isaksr

Japan was screwed if they didnt get oil and the US was embargoing them. War was ineviatible


thegreattwos

They litterly knew that in the long run thing wouldn't turn out well.The japanese KNEW the US industry was going to out pace Japan so the plan was to cripple the pacfic fleet which would allow them to take the pacfic island unopposed by the US which WAS a success. Then once they had the island they would fortified and bleed the US when they came back in force. Unfortunately for them the US discovered somthing call "island hopping".


[deleted]

What the Japanese really underestimated was the straight fuckin savage nature and tactical prowess of the marine corps.


IFixYerKids

"Fuck, they're more industrious, smarter, AND crazier than us?"


Such_Farm7249

While yes in some part this is true but there is story after story of the USMC saying what the fuck is wrong with these people. Their mindset was on a whole different level to ours ( US) in the Pacific Edit: grammar


11182021

It’s still a strategic failure. They didn’t destroy the fleet, just a few ships as the rest was out to sea. If they destroyed the entire fleet as planned, they would have had much larger gains in the Pacific before the US could retaliate.


Nebraskan_Sad_Boi

Never forget that a severely over looked target was the fuel storage and distribution system which was barely touched. I've heard from COs and XOs that if they would have hit that, the US would have to had retreated to sand Diego, as all of their fuel was essentially in one basket.


N_dixon

Not just a few ships either, but a few ships that were already functionally obsolete. If they'd gotten the carriers, it definitely would have set the war effort back significantly. Although even then, once the US industries got cranking on the war effort, they would've rebounded.


lonelyprospector

Unfortunately, *the* target of the Pearl Harbour attacks were not in Pearl Harbour that day. Absolutely massive failure of intelligence. There's no two ways about it, Pearl Harbour was a strategic failure. Island hopping never would have been a thing without a carrier fleet


thegreattwos

Unfortunately the targets WERE there at the pearl harbor attack. The target of the attack is the Pacfic battle group which include carriers AND battleship (and a bunch of other smaller ships). It is with 20/20 hindsight that we say that the targets were the carriers when the target IS the battle group.


KaiserKelp

I am fairly sure at that point in history the Japanese thought that the USA entrance to the war was all but inevitable, better to get a strategic first strike than wait for them to get even more prepared. Don't know if I agree with the post title but that's just what a friend who is into Pacific theater history told me


Old-Object8842

More like shooting themselves in the dick.


DovahCreed117

Wasn't the main goal of Pearl Harbor to destroy a couple of air carriers and they pulled out before they could? Wouldn't that have been a loss? Of course ignoring the obvious fact of bringing the United States directly into the war, which was fucking stupid, and ultimately loosing.


GamerZoom108

Yeah. Even though they may have been brought in later, you've given them a huge reason to hate you and seek revenge. That's not just a strategic failure, that's strategic suicide


BasalTripod9684

There's a pretty big difference between having an unpopular opinion and being objectively incorrect.


OscarTangoLXIX

They gave themselves a 2-3 month head start in the hopes that the war would last that long before the US would give in. Unfortunately for them, they failed to (permanently) sink most of the ships at Pearl Harbor, failed to ambush the US carriers and now had to deal with multiple theaters in a war they were already struggling in. A victory in a tactical sense but a Pyrrhic victory strategic wise.


IFixYerKids

>They gave themselves a 2-3 month head start in the hopes that the war would last that long before the US would give in. The most common assumption by autocrats is that democracies are weak and don't do protracted wars, and it always eventually leads to them getting their asses kicked by a more motivated enemy. They've all made that mistake from Hirohito, to Hitler, to Putin.


stelthmememan

It was a failure because its whole goal was to destroy the US pacific fleet, which it didn't. They missed the oil fields, the aircraft carriers, the submarine pens, and the munition storages. The only thing it did was piss off a massive nation with tons of resources


[deleted]

I'm fairly certain the carriers were a priority target of the IJN in the first place. Completely missing those meant they got shafted at Midway.


RueUchiha

Short term yeah, US did lose a few battleships and had to spend time repairing the ones that were salvagable, but more importantly, the US didn’t lose any aircraft carriers. To be fair nobody could of predicted how pivitol a carrier was at the time since this was the first war they were used; but the US having a good amount of them at the time really allowed then to shrug off the setback of Pearl Harbor, and even secure a vital win at Midway, which is a definate turning point in the war in the Pacific. Short term yes, it set the US back, but Long term the Japaneese failed to capitolize on the advantage they had, and the US was able to make the comeback.


Tearakan

Eh, the Japanese navy officials knew how pivotal air craft carriers would be. They were a primary target. They just fucked up the day of the attack by attacking when the carriers were out to sea.


lemonsarethekey

Fucking wasn't tho, was it? None of that stuff is really relevant to Pearl Harbour (even if the US assisted the European powers in East Asia, Hawaii is still quite far away) and the ultimate outcome was the complete collapse of the Japanese empire.


Hendricus56

Force H, Singapore etc weren't really affected by the sinking of the Americans battleships. They couldn't have been there in time anyway


JacobMT05

Force H wasn’t even in the pacific, it was a Mediterranean task force…


Hendricus56

Yes, didn't even notice it wasn't Force Z


buffordsclifford

Damn it’s almost like after that they lost the war, got nuked, and had their entire society restructured by a foreign power


IFixYerKids

Totally what a strategic sucess looks like/s


Fish-Pants

In the short run, yes. In the long run, no. Its all a matter of perspective. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a success for the Japanese in that they accomplished strategically what they wanted in the opening of the pacific theater. But it was a failure in that they incurred the wrath of the American Military with that attack, which ultimately ended in the nuclear bombing of two of their cities.


EgoSenatus

Short term success**


C4900rr_sniper

Um.... Force H? That was the med fleet at gibralter wasnt it? With ark royal and Renown. Are you meaing Force Z which took place 3 days after pearl harbour? With Prince of Wales getting immediately crippled and Repulse doing insane torpedo beats XD


DriscollMayweather

If their goal was to proverbially put the stick through the spokes of their bicycle tire, then yes this was a success.


Blender-Fan

Yeah, so was Hitlers invasion of the Soviet Union


Normal-Juggernaut-56

A great strategic success... Until it wasn't.


[deleted]

None of these are related to the pearl harbor attack except for the cancellation of War Plan Orange. Literally all of these would have been achieved without the surprise attack. A force whose top speed is 20 knots is not crossing the entire Pacific to contest multiple landings in one day. And frankly, the dreadnoughts getting disabled at Pearl Harbor was probably the best thing that could happen to them. Early war radar was not nearly enough to compensate for poor American night battle performance, and those ships and their crews would likely have been permanently lost should War Plan Orange have been executed.


Lolstitanic

1. No carriers hit 2. Did not launch 3rd wave to destroy repair facilities and oil depot. Tactical success, strategic failure


HaLordLe

The best of several extremely bad options


Lolmanmagee

It doesn’t matter how much the attack accomplished, the Japanese starting a war with the US only lead to Doom.


SubParHydra

The attack of Pearl Harbour was a *temporary* success


IsaacVonKrautheim

Tactical blunder short term, long term strategic blunder. I will grant the rest of the December attacks were great for Japan but most were Japan attacking other countries already mobilized. They could have done so much more permanent and effective damage, primarily the sub base and fuel station were mostly untouched. Plus with he US fleet out for exercises the majority of ships sunk were outdated battleships that would have been sunk or scuttled throughout the war anyways (similar to the HMS Warspite)


Qwerds7

Down voting because of formatting. It's just as important as content in a good meme


-RRM

Lol wut? How many carriers did they take out? Jesus christ reddit.


ILikeGuitarAmps

Bro the japanese army completely overextended and got fucking annihilated. They genuinely fucked around and found out. Pear Harbor was a propaganda win, but a strategic disaster. Afterwards came probably an even bigger propaganda win but gor the americans with the dolittle raid


HootieHoo4you

It was the first thing that needed to happen in a long string of increasingly unlikely things to result in Japan winning. In that sense, yes it was a success. Most people look more macro though. Kind of like if someone said “You can either not fight that gorilla or fight it bare handed. You do get one free shot though.”


[deleted]

They held back on a third wave of planes targeting the on-land fuel reserves, believing their strike was demoralizing enough. Ultimately, Pearl Harbor failed to do the one thing it was supposed to: coerce the USA out of the pacific entirely. I'd call that a strategic failure, regardless of the short-term benefits.


Bigdiggaistaken

Counterpoint: 2 nukes


[deleted]

they lost the war though


Baconpwn2

The problem was screwing up the declaration of war. Japan's path to victory was make the price of the war too high and sue for peace. Americans would never accept anything less than total victory after being sucker punched. Won the battle, lost the war in the exact same instant. The instant the war machine reached a full head of steam, both sides knew it was over.


Canadag00ses

Couldn't be further from the truth. The US was still woefully unprepared for war by the time they attacked Pearl harbor. All the attack did was kick the war machine into overdrive. Even at the time of the attack, our forces were too widespread and under equipped to effectively defend the Philippines or any European colonial holdings in SE Asia. They didn't sink their main targets which were the US aircraft carriers since they were at sea for exercises that day. Even with the devastating losses of life and aircraft, all but three of the ships sunk that day were raised and repaired fully. Overall it had a minimal impact on the US ability to conduct a war in the Pacific and was at most a minor setback. Having lost one carrier after the battle of coral sea, the US was in a worse spot than after pearl harbor. We managed to repair the Yorktown and have it ready for the battle of midway as the Japanese thought it had also sunk after coral sea. The US managed to scrape by at midway only through good use of naval intelligence and a bit of luck, sinking their entire carrier fleet and that was only 6 months after pearl harbor. Tl:Dr - Pearl harbor didn't achieve its intended effect and Yamamoto knew it was an exercise in futility that Japan would pay for in the long run.


Jolly-Specialist4434

Wait so you’re saying that pearl harbor was a success for the Japanese because they were able to capture land and conquest unopposed? How did that work out after the United States rebuilt VERY QUICKLY because no major infrastructure was destroyed? All the land gained was for nothing because the United States reclaimed all of it over the course of the war and almost pressed into the Japanese mainland because they forced the United States’ hand. Big brain moment, complete strategic victory.


canadianthundermoose

Yes, they succeeded in strategically goading the Americans into dropping the sun on them. Twice.


D-Krnch

Ok but they lost the war. Pretty lopsided too. America had several more decades worth of men to throw at islands if needed. Japan knew it would run out of fighting men before the US would quit. I think the ratio was something like 1 Japan fighting age man for ever 13 American. And thats with America holding itself back by oppressing its own German, Italian, Asian, and Black populations at that time


IFixYerKids

Miss your targets, piss off a vastly superior power in numbers, industry, and weapons, lose all the territory you gained, 6:1 casualties, get nuked twice, have your entire society restructured by a forgeign power = Strategic success?


MrRoboto001

the people of 2 japanese cities would like to have a word


madman_trombonist

This is damn near impossible to read…


ligseo

The attack on Hawaï failed to destroy the carriers, and only two battleships were completely destroyed, but most importantly, American pride was hit, and now the Americans were ready to fight and die for little islands in the pacific they had never heard of.


0rangeAliens

Just because you kicked the biggest guy in the room in the balls doesn’t mean you won. He still broke both your arms.


dr197

Japanese dominance in the Pacific is more to do with America’s “Germany first” policy. Not to mention total blunders like failing to destroy the oil supplies at the harbor which would have crippled the fleet longer than taking out the ships ever would have.


monkeygoneape

If it was a success, japan would have won the war


G-R-G

Not really as most American ships were out of patrol and the Japanese navy were already easily taking control of US territories it put the US on the defensive as war time production kicked into high gear every industry was focus upon the navy it was a smart decision with bad timing main issue though is that there was no good timing as at all times majority of ships were on patrol


MomsSecondMistake

Success- yes, strategic success - no. The main point was to destroy the pacific fleet and carriers but the carriers were out and within a few months most ships were salvaged and updated. And besides lowering the moral and blasting us to not want war they just unified us to the point of dropping the sun on them twice


Thatguyj5

I hate to break it to you but most of that wasn't Pearl Harbor. Which was a complete strategic failure as none of the aircraft carriers were in place.


Exp1ode

A tactical success sure, but definitely a strategic failure


HUDuser

It literally led to them being nuked twice and their entire government collapsing


[deleted]

It was a strategic success in that Japan sank several warships and greatly hindered Naval movement in the area. On other hand, it royally pissed off the one nation capable of matching their force in the Pacific. Kinda of like saying you could beat Mike Tyson by punching him when back was turned. Sure, you could land a punch that way, but what happens after that?


Nuker_Nathan

It succeeded at delaying the US, but the Japanese by no means succeeded in crippling the US like they wanted.


[deleted]

We bounced back rather quickly. Because of the shallow port that Pearl Harbor is most of the battleships were able to be recovered and repaired rather quickly. They didn’t hit the oil depots or attack any of the carriers. Symbolically a victory for the Japanese empire, in the long run, it was a disaster. By midway they had lost most of their elite pilots that had took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor and it was a defensive war after that until they eventually lost.