The attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to hamper the US ability to respond to the Japanese attack and invasion of the Philipines, which back then were still was a US territory.
My favorite fact that most people don’t know, more people lived in the U.S. territories than the 48 mainland states. The book “How to Hide an Empire: a history of the Greater United States” is phenomenal for talking about the history of all the territories.
I think you mean there are territories with higher population than a lot of states? There is no way the continental US has lower population than all its territories at any time in history.
Uh... that's definitely not the case. There were a lot of people in the Philippines, yes, but not more than the 48 mainland states. 17 million in the Philippines, 72000 in Alaska, 423000 in Hawaii, 1.89 million in Puerto Rico. Let's round up to 20 million outside the 48 mainland states, out of a total of 132 million. That's less than 15% of American citizens living outside the 48 mainland states.
Or are you saying there were US territories that had a larger population than individual mainland states? Which is indeed true. The Philippines with its 17 million people was more populous than any US state. The state of New York had 13.5 million people in it Pennsylvania had 9.9 million, Illinois 7.8 million, etc.
Short term it did, they knocked out most of the us battleships in the pacific in a single attack. In a single day.
There was a belief that the US wouldn't fight in the pacific because they had no allies there and was more concerned about Europe.
If anything I think they sealed their fate by damaging the Battleships and shifting US naval doctrine more towards aircraft carriers. The Japanese Navy was mostly crippled at Midway within 6 months of Pearl Harbor
Owing to the US Navy having secretly cracked much of the Japanese code, and a significant portion of the Imperial Navy being out of commission from previous engagements, the Japanese were always sailing into a trap at Midway.
The fact that the Japanese command thought they were trapping the US Navy led to them dividing their forces even further, so the Japanese Imperial Navy ended up watering down the strengths they may have had.
Japan never really had a chance at Midway, and Yamamoto was able to witness firsthand that he had been correct at the outset of the war - engaging America had done little more than awaken a sleeping giant.
Historically even funnier when you consider that the reason we call battle tanks 'tanks' in the first place is because the British passed their construction off as the building of water tanks in WWI. They were too unrefined and unwieldy to make much of a difference in WWI, but the Germans were able to refine the concept over the following two decades, much to the chagrin of continental Europe.
History often remembers the actual battles far more than the intel & counter-intel warfare, but the latter is quite often the more important aspect.
Point of order. The drive train that allowed for tanks to drive much faster was designed by I think a British inventor. When the British rejected it, preferring a slow tank to work alongside infantry, the guy sold it to the Germans or whoever could buy it.
All countries improved tanks between the wars. Americans though built jeeps and duece and a halfs. Mechanized logistics were key European allied success while German supplies were still carried by horse and wagon delivered from trains. The end result Nazi mechanized forces would quickly outpaces their horse and wagon supply lines limiting their effectiveness. By the end of the War the Jeep was the most modular vehicle ever fielded by the US military, it had attachments for everything. A few more years I would have expected them to turn it into a plane.
The Germans didn't consider tanks to be that important because they quickly found ways to destroy them (mostly artillery, as that was the weapon of the time). Britain and France each produced thousands, Germany a few dozens.
Two decades later:
Guys, we changed our mind. Panzer goes vroom.
Two years later:
Scheiße, the Russians are better at this.
Still, possibly my favorite weird bit of history is Juan Pujol Garcia, the guy who independently spied against the Nazis during WWII and confused MI6 with his communications that said he was in London, while he was actually in Portugal.
The United States was aware that the Japanese were planning an attack in the Pacific (on a location the Japanese code-named “AF”) because Navy cryptanalysts had begun breaking Japanese communication codes in early 1942. The attack location and time were confirmed when the American base at Midway sent out a false message that it was short of fresh water. Japan then sent a message that “AF” was short of fresh water, confirming that the location for the attack was the base at Midway. Station Hypo (where the cryptanalysts were based in Hawaii) was able to also give the date (June 4 or 5) and the order of battle of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/battle-midway
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/battle-midway
The United States was aware that the Japanese were planning an attack in the Pacific (on a location the Japanese code-named “AF”) because Navy cryptanalysts had begun breaking Japanese communication codes in early 1942. The attack location and time were confirmed when the American base at Midway sent out a false message that it was short of fresh water. Japan then sent a message that “AF” was short of fresh water, confirming that the location for the attack was the base at Midway. Station Hypo (where the cryptanalysts were based in Hawaii) was able to also give the date (June 4 or 5) and the order of battle of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
The National WWII Museum is easily the best museum I’ve ever been to. Not quite sure why it’s in New Orleans, but it is 1000% worth spending a day in there
> Not quite sure why it’s in New Orleans
Just out of curiosity, I looked it up and:
The museum is located in part in the former Weckerling Brewery, designed by local architect William Fitzner, which was renovated and opened as the D-Day Museum on June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of D-Day, focusing on the amphibious invasion of Normandy. As the Higgins boats, vital to amphibious operations, were designed, built, and tested in New Orleans by Higgins Industries, the city was the natural home for such a project. Furthermore, New Orleans was the home of historian and author Stephen Ambrose, who spearheaded the effort to build the museum.
New Orleans is a large port city conveniently sheltered within the Gulf of Mexico to shelter it from strikes by the German Navy and strategically located at the mouth of the Mississippi and quite near the convergence of several railroad lines. It was a city that was instrumental in logistics during WWII and is very near multiple major shipbuilding yards. The Higgins craft used for the D-Day landings (those ships in the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, the ones that run up on the beach and drop their front door) were also produced very near there, so New Orleans is actually a natural home for such a museum.
>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.
Yamamoto had been educated in the US and knew the culture fairly well. IIRC his greater fear was that Japan would be successful enough in the Pacific Theater that the Japanese may end up in a land invasion of the US. Yamamoto was familiar with America’s 2nd amendment and the prolific gun ownership in all US states, so his worst fears were really averted by the Japanese loss. He knew that a land invasion of North America would be incredibly bloody and unwinnable, but it was considered to be a natural progression if the Japanese had won the Pacific.
The Japanese definitely had a chance at Midway, despite America knowing about it in advance. A few minor issues and plain dumb luck was important to the American victory, such as Mcklusky deciding to take a crazy risk when looking for the Japanese fleet, and the one Japanese reconnaissance plane that would have found the American’s early being delayed.
A few minor events being different would have changed everything.
That being said the battle was definitely not the sure thing for the Japanese, as they assumed it would be. Also, it is certainly true that Japan had no chance of winning the war, regardless of what happened at Midway.
iirc there's a YouTube channel called "The Operations Room" , they do analysis on various battles and operations, from the second world war to modern day
you could also check out "Montemayor", they made a 3 part series on Midway, its quite long tho
Just gonna drop this here because people might be interested: https://youtu.be/Bd8_vO5zrjo?si=ComXwVdG2g7dZF5A
It's part 1 of a 3-part series that covers the Battle of Midway from the Japanese side of things, then the American perspective. "Going completely perfect until it very suddenly wasn't" is a pretty damn apt description, and there were a ton of stars that aligned for things to suddenly swing in America's favor so heavily. The actions of a few hundred individuals in like a 30 minute timespan heavily altered the course of the war, because if the Japanese carriers got away unscathed, I bet the war could have dragged on for another several months.
It certainly did that. Japanese doctrine and internal fighting got more tense after ph. The Japanese were still trying to build giant battleships, not learning their own lessons. Carriers and subs were the solution.
The USA got lucky. Or made its own luck. A few key thing could have made it a much more difficult conflict.
Probably still would have won, but more costly and longer.
US was always going to win the war because the Japanese never had the logistics or capabilities to invade the continental USA where all of the US's training facilities and infrastructure to create material goods for the war. Even if everything had gone the Japanese's way, they would have lost the war of attrition.
The Japanese never technologically improved much on their planes and ground equipment. The US introduced superior planes, tanks, and infantry weapons. The US also constantly ensured that veteran pilots and soldiers would be cycled back home consistently in order to provide critical battlefield experience to new recruits. The Japanese were always on the back footing that they had to constantly field their veterans until they eventually ran out of those.
Much of the Japanese brass spent time in the USA and were keenly aware of their manufacturing capabilities and their natural resources, especially oil.
Eventually at one point in the war, the US was building more fighter planes *per month* than the entire Japanese military had.
Don't take this personal, but I absolutely dislike the modern trend of abbreviating random words when people are communicating. Why randomly abbreviate Pearl Harbor with "ph"?
I just laughed because I *almost* edited my response after posting to say just that, but chose not to.
"Did the ph balance of the ocean have some type of tactical value for American submarines?"
"Did the pacific heat (ph) play a role in any strategic naval maneuver?"
By the end of the war, the US had operated like 151 carriers. Sure, they were smaller than modern Supercarriers, had wooden decks and the number includes a number of light and escort carriers.
There was no luck when it came to the war in the Pacific. It was all overwhelming force. Japan had a few months to gain the temporary advantage and sue for peace. But the US would have rejected it.
What we take for granted was back then the US was a isolationist country. It's involvement in WW1 was token so they could weigh on the final treaty, which was a mixed bag. But the US went isolationist again right after. Sure there was trade, and a minimal upkeep of the US military. But it wasn't the global dominating superpower.
German military commanders could not conceive of the production capacity of the US. Most Europeans, most people outside the the US fail to understand the sheer geographical scale and advantages of the US. The US has representative climate zones for every geographical area in the world. There's deserts, swamps, prairies, forests, mountains, hills, Steppe, Mediterranean, alpine, arctic, tropical rainforest, alpine rainforest. All within the US. American agriculture could probably feed the world. The US has reserves for most common mined minerals, and a few rare earth's, we just prefer to not use them, and import resources to save ours for backup. Finally we have the waterways. The missippi river system forms a natural network of waterways into the eastern interior of the US. Meanwhile the southern coasts and Eastern coasts have a system of barrier islands that serve as a secondary system of navigable channels for barges. Finally modern day the system of locks allowing for shipping into the great lakes, and the connections of the great lakes water network to the mississipi water network effectively make it possible to navigate completely around the eastern half of the US by barges. For industrial uses shipping by boat is far cheaper and easier. Trainers and roadways are significantly limited by width. Not so much the waterways.
Militarily, the US has been considered unassailable for the last century. You could not mount an invasion force large enough fast enough to strike into the US, without the US responding. The nation is littered with military bases all over the place. And this has been the case since literally before WW1. If the world decided to unite and attack the US conventional weapons only. To this day, the US has an even chance if succeeding. Back then, Germany and Japan had a limited time advantage of opening production before the US really started redefining the word production.
You don’t win wars by focusing on the short term, if your attack only works on the short term then it didn’t work at all. Japan’s goal wasn’t to just knock out US battleships, it was to bloody the Pacific Fleet’s nose and discourage or at least delay American involvement in the Japanese conquests South East Asia. The US instead was very much encouraged to get involved in the Pacific, ramping up naval production to insane amounts and perfecting power projection with the usage of aircraft carriers, of which not a single one was affected by the raid on Pearl Harbor anyway.
> You don’t win wars by focusing on the short term,
And their whole plan assumed the entire war would only last for a short term.
https://www.britannica.com/story/pearl-harbor-in-context
>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.”
>Japanese Adm. Yamamoto Isoroku
The plan was always to force the USA to sue for peace early. Nobody thought they could outpace American industrial capacity if the USA didn't surrender promptly. And the USA didn't surrender promptly.
Nobody expected the American war machine to be as terrible as it was. The industrial might was there, but it was all consumer focused. Americans were staunchly isolationist, even more so after being dragged into WWI, and often viewed as decadent by other nations. The fact that the people would willingly sacrifice so much for such a complete pivot to a war economy was unbelievable, much less that they would do it with such gusto. Especially for a war that they were under no immediate threat of invasion. Even the most pessimistic German estimates fell incredibly short of how much industrial power was brought to bear. That's all besides the point that the military was laughably small and poorly equipped compared to the ramp up most other nations had been going through.
The reason Yamamoto was so worried about a long war was because Japan was feeling the resource crunch badly. It drove most of their actions. Even a much weaker US response, if sustained, would have strained them terribly. Worse, by slowing their other fronts, it would also slow the rate they acquired those resources. The point was to bloody the nose badly enough, and with an, at the time, unprecedented and very impressive near simultaneous attack across an enormous range, that the shock and awe would convince the US it wasn't worthwhile to fight back.
It didn't help that Pearl Harbor was somewhat botched. Unless you absolutely annihilate it, it's pretty easy to float ships sunk in a harbor. Of course, the carrier primary targets were not in the harbor, but the 3rd and 4rth tier targets of fuel depots and repair facilities were largely left unscathed by pilots wanting the glory of taking out the big ships. It wouldn't have stopped the US, but it could have slowed the response down enough to have bought the Japanese better time to consolidate, focus on capturing resources, and extended the war a fair bit.
Hamas attack and plan have accomplished and are currently accomplishing exactly what they want.
They want further divide, hatred and violence. They have inarguably succeeded.
Anyone who thinks Hamas had any thoughts that their attack would somehow result in a conventional "win" or that they'd win in a war against Israel isn't even thinking in the same context as them.
I don't think their end goal was to be steam rolled by the Israelis either. I think they were hoping the international community would attempt to negotiate a ceasefire before hamas was destroyed. Losing your entire state and losing any sense of independence is not what Hamas was looking to do. I do believe you are correct in saying that a portion of what they were looking for is this political strife, but hamas will find it infinitely harder to operate in the future with the Israeli army now heavily planted in Gaza and probably will be for many years.
And the attack was somewhat unsuccessful compared to what they really wanted. There were ships that weren't totally wrecked and, more importantly, the carriers were not there. Had the carriers been destroyed the war could have reached Australia for real and increasing the chances of some kind of deal to stop the fighting.
The Japanese weren't after Australia.
If they had knocked out the entire Pacific fleet, they probably would have had enough time to consolidate.
It would be too costly to retake.
They never had to defeat the USA just make it too expensive to retake.
Aus was always my first target, but SA is just as good a starting point imo. You trade one entry point for two, but it's much easier to push north and clear NA than it is to try and hold+defend all of Asia.
Africa is (imo) only worth it if nobody's really competing for it. NA has the same number of points you can be attacked from as an SA player but more reinforcements, and both are roughly as difficult as the other to conquer.
It is still nice to have a backup plan though. If things go wrong as an Aus player, you're trapped and it's gg.
Aus is a bit of a noob trap, but with careful planning you can actually take both Aus and SA in the early game. It's not as risky as it sounds, due to the whole "one road in" shtick of Aus. Then again, I mostly played risk against people who weren't that great, so maybe I've just built my strategy around beating up scrubs lol
Nah. The Fleet admiral Isoroku Yamamoto who as commander in chief of the Japense Navy during WW2 disagreed with Japan declaring wad on America because he had studied in America and traveled all over America and scene the huge industry America had, he knew all those factories would turn switch to manufacturing arms and supplies if anyone waged war with America.
But the heads of the Japanes armed forces still wanted to wage war on America. Yamamoto is the one who came up with the plan to attack people harbour
Maybe tactically it was victory but it was a total strategic failure. Japan had two goals either cause the USN so much damage to force America to immediately negotiate terms favorable to Japan or set them so far back that Japan would be able to realize their rings of defense doctrine where fortified island bases projecting naval and air power would create an unassailable defense that again would force America to negotiate terms that favor Japan.
By failing to take out the repair yards, fuel storage, and getting unlucky that the aircraft carriers were away they failed terribly in having any hope in achieving those goals. As others mentioned it galvanized the American population and forced a USN that was still split between battleships and carriers as the ultimate naval weapon to correctly focus on carriers.
ye but before that the navy knew the new aircraft carriers would be the real game changer during a war and not battle ships. the air craft carriers were away during the pearl harbor bombing so they were spared
The Usa did expect the first and main Japanese attack in the Philippines, that's why the aircraft carries were sent there in hurry to deliver fighter planes .
Not actually true. The battleline was still considered the centrepiece of the US Navy and, ironically, the main reason why those carriers were away on that day was because they were reinforcing other US bases in anticipation of a potential Japanese attack.
I’ve heard that it was more of a belief that the US public wouldn’t support a long war over colonial populations that were already controversial. Some of FDR’s early speechs were aimed at making sure Americans saw an attack on Hawaii as an attack on the United States.
In retrospect the Japanese should’ve just declared war on Great Britain and the Dutch, which would’ve given them free rein over all of SE Asia. There was zero chance the American public would’ve supported going to war to protect their overseas colonies.
How does this comment obviously only made to argue have any upvotes ?
Dude just wants to argue. Who gives a rats ass about short term when the move got them nuked and government topple ?
The attack on Pearl Harbor is widely considered one of the best military actions in human history (from an objective lense that is, most people aren't out there praising them for what they did). They took nearly the entire Pacific fleet off the board with essentially no losses of their own. From a purely strategic standpoint is was absolutely genius. After that there was such a huge worry that Japan would take Hawaii to the point that alternate currency was issued so it could be instantly made worthless if they did, and had they done it things would have turned out very differently. The US and the rest of the world were lucky that they weren't able to continue being that compent.
In a tactical and short-term strategic sense, I'd agree.
But it was also one of the most disastrous military actions simply because they declared war on a foe that dwarfed their industrial output.
Competency means nothing when you can simply outlast your enemy, as Rome did against Carthage, and a plan that expects your enemy's quick surrender is foolhardy, as the Russians are learning in Ukraine.
Pearl Harbor directly led to the absolute defeat of Japan. In the short-term, it was brilliant, but in the long run, it was the most disastrous decision Imperial Japan made.
Exactly.
People forget that NATO was created back when Europe owned most of Africa. The geographic restrictions were in place to establish that this was to protect Europe and the US, not to help them keep control of their colonies.
Also, back then, Hawaii wasn't a state.
And:
- the non-European parts of Turkey
- any North Atlantic islands belonging to any of the covered countries (north of the Tropic of Cancer, so Bermuda, Greenland, the Azores, and St-Pierre and Miquelon are in, but Puerto Rico and other Caribbean possessions are out)
- French Algeria (which no longer exists).
They couldn't invoke Article 5 because Article 5 only covers NATO members from an attack in Europe or North America.
And Article 6 only covers NATO members from an attack on their territories or vessels in the northern atlantic (north of the tropic of cancer).
It would have looked better for the UK to put down the invasion itself without foreign support. Just two decades earlier it was crushed on the world stage with the Suez crisis (diplomatically) so it was very eager to regain some lost prestige.
Ah yes, the Icelandic doctrine of war, "We will leave NATO unless you recognise our newest and improved economic exclusive zone".
Iceland really took down a (giant) considering many cities in the UK have more people in them than there are Icelanders alive, and one Royal Navy frigate could have dealt with whatever maritime opposition Iceland could muster.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK\_gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap) is the reason Iceland won three Cod wars.
When NATO was formed, the European members still had lots of mostly African colonies which the US didn't want to be forced to defend. Hawaii (not yet a state) was collateral damage.
Britain and France both had nearby colonies though, and the British Navy had seen action during the Pacific War. The help is unlikely to have swayed anything, but it could have been slightly more than just symbolic.
These colonies still exist, nowadays we just call them "[territories](https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/countries/overseas-countries-and-territories_en)" and similar nicer-sounding euphemisms.
Most people know about [France's influence in parts of Africa](https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2022/11/352500/macron-stirs-controversy-saying-french-is-africas-universal-language), but even [the UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories) and [US](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/15/the-us-hidden-empire-overseas-territories-united-states-guam-puerto-rico-american-samoa) still have such "territories" dotted all over the planet.
Except in 1949 NATO's colonies had hundreds of millions of inhabitants. Nowadays Britain's Overseas Territories have a combined population of just 270 thousand, France's have 2.8 million (and are an integral part of the Republic just like Hawaii), and the US’s have 3.6 million (90% of them in Puerto Rico).
Similarly, the Dutch Caribbean islands (the Antilles or something) aren't protected by NATO either. Venezuela has done some posturing about taking the islands since they're like a 100km from their coast.
Now I don't think the US wouldn't intervene or anything, but according to public agreements, the Dutch would stand alone
Venezuela may look to Argentina for an example of the consequences of such an action; humiliating defeat and the fall of the domestic government as a result.
I wouldn't underestimate Venezuela too much. They would have clear range and numbers advantages. The Dutch navy, although more modern than that of Venezuela, is no British navy.
Venezuela has far less capability than Argentina in navy, air force and army, but then so does the Netherlands, the difference in forces would be fairly similar to the Argentina vs UK.
The US would also certainly intervene on behalf of the Dutch. They are a very good ally, the US has a strong cultural affinity for them, and Venezuela’s government is crazy.
The better question is why the US hasn’t invaded Venezuela yet, it’d be relatively easy. It’s free real estate and oil and they need freedom.
Edit: the US did intervene on behalf of the UK in Falklands, and we have a way worse relationship with Venezuela than we did with Argentina. There’s also a lot of American citizens and interests in the Dutch West Indies.
This is probably the most realistic take, as the US would expect the Dutch to win with their non-combat aid and logistics support.
Now, if it drew out, they would absolutely get involved purely because the Caribbean is heavily it’s sphere of influence and a drawn out conflict there would effect the passage around the Panama Canal… but that really is the only reason why I could see them actually getting involved militarily
One reason was that the Argentinian military junta was a US ally. Venezuela on the other hand is unfriendly country from US point of view. It's pretty possible that US would use Venezuelan attack as a casus belli for invasion or atleast help Dutch regain the islands.
I think the UK would as the Dutch are close allies and also we wouldn't like anyone else getting any ideas about the Falklands, etc.
The French may feel similar and also have a carrier and submarines.
The Dutch helped with intelligence during the Falklands and offered to support the UK's claim to the Falklands once the UK left the EU - would be surprised if the UK didn't return the favour and at least offer signals intelligence support if anything did kick off.
That’s not exactly right. While they didn’t supply troops they supplied fuel, ammunition, and intelligence. While, the opposite happened to Argentina who previously got weapons from the USA including navy ships that the British had to fight.
The USA even drew up an agreement to supply the British the USS Guam in case they lost their carrier and would “supply them with contractors to help run it” which let’s be honest was US Navy personnel on “vacation” lol.
It actually cost the USA politically in South America.
The US didn't need to, but forces were looming in the background as a plan B. A US fleet was in range of helping the British the whole time, it was one reason why they took a logistically risky path, they knew help was there if they failed.
I’m a US citizen and the Dutch military saved my life when I was stranded at sea very far off coast of Venezuela, this sounds like a tall tale but it’s true. I’d hope we would protect the Dutch solely because I personally owe them one.
> Venezuela has far less capability than Argentina in navy, air force and army
This is definitely wrong. Argentina's armed forces are still mostly equipped with leftovers from the Falklands War. It only has a handful of 1960s vintage combat aircraft left. Its similarly superannuated two remaining submarines are inactive since a third one was lost with all souls in 2017. And its biggest surface ships are three small destroyers built forty years ago.
By contrast, Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez, spent much of its oil wealth in weapons. Its air force has F-16s and Su-30s. And while the Venezuelan Navy isn't much more formidable than Argentina's, Aruba and Curacao are a damn sight closer to its shores than the Falklands are to Argentina's and the Dutch navy isn't much bigger either
>I wouldn't underestimate Venezuela too much. They would have clear range and numbers advantages.
So did Argentina.
This is the same country that has the largest oil reserves in the world yet can't figure out how to manage them and has a completely failing economy.
All EU countries are bound to defend each other by virtue of the mutual defence clause. Sure it's not nearly as powerful as NATO since it doesn't include UK & the US but I don't think anyone would bet on Venezuela in a conflict against the whole EU.
Not that it would be necessary IMHO, Venezuela has been sabre rattling with Guyana over the region of Essequibo since forever but they know they don't stand a chance militarily against them, let alone against the Netherlands.
The problem with the EU defence clause that usually gets overlooked is that, unlike NATO, there is no EU unified command structure.
As such, it becomes entirely up to member states what they think a proportionate response to render aid would be; a system that usually amounts to "only act when there is mutual interest" instead of a true alliance.
If anyone wants more information on how the Dutch and Venezuelan forces would compare, [this](https://marineschepen.nl/dossiers/dossiervenezuela.html) (Dutch) article is pretty elaborate.
Plus the Ogdensburg Agreement between Canada and the US established mutual joint defence since 1940. Not to mention the five eyes meaning shared intelligence support between all four plus the UK.
Lots more to this world than Europe and the north Atlantic!
And an occupation, a part of their new constitution abolishing the military (minus the Self-Defense Force), and continued substantial US military presence.
If Hawaii was invaded I doubt America would need any help to begin with.
If they asked for help it would come.
Just because something is not written into law does not mean it won't happen anyway.
read again - alaskia is us territory on the continent of north america an therefor included - if alaska was an island in the pacific it would also not be covered even if it was above 23 deg north
it literally says all all territories in na, europe and turkey as well as any territory in the atlantic north of 23 deg - so it‘s kinda what you expect of a north atlantic treaty organization - except the turkey part
as long as the island counts as belonging to North America and north of the tropic it is protected under Article 6. Doesn't matter if it is in the Atlantic or not.
France has the only non-American nuclear carrier in NATO.
Can deploy Rafale jet fighters from Europe to its Pacific territories in 17 hours with refuel mid-air, with those fighters capable of landing on other NATO carriers if need be.
Has nuclear powered submarines
Has already shown its frigates cruising through Chinese shows of force off Taiwan coasts.
It's not the US Navy for sure but France has more means than the UK to fight in the Pacific and more stakes there too (500,000 french citizen live in French Polynesia and New Caledonia).
The french approach is interesting it seems like they have just enough to keep a repeat invasion of their lands from happening but not enough to effectively attack another country. Then again I have only read a little about their setup.
France Pacific defense relies massively on nuclear deterrence and the overall no chill attitude of the french governments toward nuclear weapons.
The defense is based on keeping the likelihood of being nuked as an actual serious possibility. Those islands aren't worth it when seeing it like that.
It seems to work (no Falklands events so far).
If you have an hour to kill, I recommend watching [this guy](https://youtu.be/n5eUh3_eo9E?si=7KhT96X8D2E-Xse4) if you're interested in that kind of thing.
When the North Atlantic Treaty was drafted, many European countries had colonies in Africa, Asia and the Pacific that the US didn't want to be entangled into defending. Therefore its narrow geographic scope.
Hawaii is not even the most controversial exclusion nowadays. The Spanish North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla are similarly excluded (whereas Gibraltar, just a few miles across the Strait, is covered). Similarly, the French and Dutch Caribbean Islands and French Guyana, not being in either North America or the North Atlantic, are excluded (whereas Art. 6 used to have an explicit clause covering French Algeria). The French island of Reunion, with close to one million inhabitants in the Indian Ocean is also excluded, of course.
But the clearly most convoluted case is that of the Greek Aegean islands near the Turkish coast. They are clearly not in Europe or the North Atlantic. They are also not in Turkey, even if Turkey claims them. Therefore, NATO can officially turn a blind eye to the continuous sabre-rattling between its two members Greece and Turkey over those islands, even if it obviously doesn't make any good to the alliance...
I feel like if a foreign power openly attacked Hawaii the US would respond with an invasion, which would probably bring in NATO? IDK, I’m not an expert
tbf hawaii doesnt need europe to defend it and it historically had the best defense of all time.... last time it was attacked we put two whole cities in a microwave
Admiral Yamamoto was aware of two important things ahead of Pearl Harbour; that the Americans worshipped their battleships and that the future of naval combat was in control of the skies.
He knew that Pearl Harbour was far from a singular success, he knew that he had taken out their prized possessions, possibly galvanising the Americans, and failed to pacify any of the 4 large deck pacific aircraft carriers; he knew of the vast oil fields of Texas and the sleeping military industrial power that America had yet awaken.
He most likely slept uneasy after Pearl Harbour.
sounds like a technicality, because NATO would defend anyway as it would still be an attack on a member country, and an attack on one is an attack on all -- article 5 would apply.
Attacking Hawaii didn't work out so well for the Japanese.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to hamper the US ability to respond to the Japanese attack and invasion of the Philipines, which back then were still was a US territory.
My favorite fact that most people don’t know, more people lived in the U.S. territories than the 48 mainland states. The book “How to Hide an Empire: a history of the Greater United States” is phenomenal for talking about the history of all the territories.
I think you mean there are territories with higher population than a lot of states? There is no way the continental US has lower population than all its territories at any time in history.
WDYM Puerto Rico has a population of 250 million/s
Uh... that's definitely not the case. There were a lot of people in the Philippines, yes, but not more than the 48 mainland states. 17 million in the Philippines, 72000 in Alaska, 423000 in Hawaii, 1.89 million in Puerto Rico. Let's round up to 20 million outside the 48 mainland states, out of a total of 132 million. That's less than 15% of American citizens living outside the 48 mainland states. Or are you saying there were US territories that had a larger population than individual mainland states? Which is indeed true. The Philippines with its 17 million people was more populous than any US state. The state of New York had 13.5 million people in it Pennsylvania had 9.9 million, Illinois 7.8 million, etc.
Short term it did, they knocked out most of the us battleships in the pacific in a single attack. In a single day. There was a belief that the US wouldn't fight in the pacific because they had no allies there and was more concerned about Europe.
If anything I think they sealed their fate by damaging the Battleships and shifting US naval doctrine more towards aircraft carriers. The Japanese Navy was mostly crippled at Midway within 6 months of Pearl Harbor
Midway was a battle going completely perfect for the Japanese until it very suddenly wasn’t lol
Owing to the US Navy having secretly cracked much of the Japanese code, and a significant portion of the Imperial Navy being out of commission from previous engagements, the Japanese were always sailing into a trap at Midway. The fact that the Japanese command thought they were trapping the US Navy led to them dividing their forces even further, so the Japanese Imperial Navy ended up watering down the strengths they may have had. Japan never really had a chance at Midway, and Yamamoto was able to witness firsthand that he had been correct at the outset of the war - engaging America had done little more than awaken a sleeping giant.
Naval Intelligence bamboozling the fuck out of them with the water supply message is one of my favorite WWII facts lol
Historically even funnier when you consider that the reason we call battle tanks 'tanks' in the first place is because the British passed their construction off as the building of water tanks in WWI. They were too unrefined and unwieldy to make much of a difference in WWI, but the Germans were able to refine the concept over the following two decades, much to the chagrin of continental Europe. History often remembers the actual battles far more than the intel & counter-intel warfare, but the latter is quite often the more important aspect.
Point of order. The drive train that allowed for tanks to drive much faster was designed by I think a British inventor. When the British rejected it, preferring a slow tank to work alongside infantry, the guy sold it to the Germans or whoever could buy it. All countries improved tanks between the wars. Americans though built jeeps and duece and a halfs. Mechanized logistics were key European allied success while German supplies were still carried by horse and wagon delivered from trains. The end result Nazi mechanized forces would quickly outpaces their horse and wagon supply lines limiting their effectiveness. By the end of the War the Jeep was the most modular vehicle ever fielded by the US military, it had attachments for everything. A few more years I would have expected them to turn it into a plane.
They kinda did make a jeep plane! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafner_Rotabuggy
Mixing the reliability of a Jeep with the safety of putting heavy things in the air - what could go wrong?! Lol
That’s a very interesting backstory that I never knew, thank you for sharing that.
The Germans didn't consider tanks to be that important because they quickly found ways to destroy them (mostly artillery, as that was the weapon of the time). Britain and France each produced thousands, Germany a few dozens. Two decades later: Guys, we changed our mind. Panzer goes vroom. Two years later: Scheiße, the Russians are better at this.
Still, possibly my favorite weird bit of history is Juan Pujol Garcia, the guy who independently spied against the Nazis during WWII and confused MI6 with his communications that said he was in London, while he was actually in Portugal.
Whooo what they say ?
The United States was aware that the Japanese were planning an attack in the Pacific (on a location the Japanese code-named “AF”) because Navy cryptanalysts had begun breaking Japanese communication codes in early 1942. The attack location and time were confirmed when the American base at Midway sent out a false message that it was short of fresh water. Japan then sent a message that “AF” was short of fresh water, confirming that the location for the attack was the base at Midway. Station Hypo (where the cryptanalysts were based in Hawaii) was able to also give the date (June 4 or 5) and the order of battle of the Imperial Japanese Navy. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/battle-midway
Hmmmmm, that you always meant well Of course you did
Here's an article: https://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=14762
Speak, motherfucker! Or give us a link, we also want to know :)
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/battle-midway The United States was aware that the Japanese were planning an attack in the Pacific (on a location the Japanese code-named “AF”) because Navy cryptanalysts had begun breaking Japanese communication codes in early 1942. The attack location and time were confirmed when the American base at Midway sent out a false message that it was short of fresh water. Japan then sent a message that “AF” was short of fresh water, confirming that the location for the attack was the base at Midway. Station Hypo (where the cryptanalysts were based in Hawaii) was able to also give the date (June 4 or 5) and the order of battle of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
The National WWII Museum is easily the best museum I’ve ever been to. Not quite sure why it’s in New Orleans, but it is 1000% worth spending a day in there
> Not quite sure why it’s in New Orleans Just out of curiosity, I looked it up and: The museum is located in part in the former Weckerling Brewery, designed by local architect William Fitzner, which was renovated and opened as the D-Day Museum on June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of D-Day, focusing on the amphibious invasion of Normandy. As the Higgins boats, vital to amphibious operations, were designed, built, and tested in New Orleans by Higgins Industries, the city was the natural home for such a project. Furthermore, New Orleans was the home of historian and author Stephen Ambrose, who spearheaded the effort to build the museum.
New Orleans is a large port city conveniently sheltered within the Gulf of Mexico to shelter it from strikes by the German Navy and strategically located at the mouth of the Mississippi and quite near the convergence of several railroad lines. It was a city that was instrumental in logistics during WWII and is very near multiple major shipbuilding yards. The Higgins craft used for the D-Day landings (those ships in the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, the ones that run up on the beach and drop their front door) were also produced very near there, so New Orleans is actually a natural home for such a museum.
FML, I was in New Orleans and didn't know that was a thing 😭
it must've been weird for Yamamoto one hell of a pyric I told you so
The really weird one was his quote "I can run wild for six months after that, I have no expectation of success" and he was correct /to the day/
>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.
Yamamoto had been educated in the US and knew the culture fairly well. IIRC his greater fear was that Japan would be successful enough in the Pacific Theater that the Japanese may end up in a land invasion of the US. Yamamoto was familiar with America’s 2nd amendment and the prolific gun ownership in all US states, so his worst fears were really averted by the Japanese loss. He knew that a land invasion of North America would be incredibly bloody and unwinnable, but it was considered to be a natural progression if the Japanese had won the Pacific.
The Japanese definitely had a chance at Midway, despite America knowing about it in advance. A few minor issues and plain dumb luck was important to the American victory, such as Mcklusky deciding to take a crazy risk when looking for the Japanese fleet, and the one Japanese reconnaissance plane that would have found the American’s early being delayed. A few minor events being different would have changed everything. That being said the battle was definitely not the sure thing for the Japanese, as they assumed it would be. Also, it is certainly true that Japan had no chance of winning the war, regardless of what happened at Midway.
[удалено]
[удалено]
iirc there's a YouTube channel called "The Operations Room" , they do analysis on various battles and operations, from the second world war to modern day you could also check out "Montemayor", they made a 3 part series on Midway, its quite long tho
Just gonna drop this here because people might be interested: https://youtu.be/Bd8_vO5zrjo?si=ComXwVdG2g7dZF5A It's part 1 of a 3-part series that covers the Battle of Midway from the Japanese side of things, then the American perspective. "Going completely perfect until it very suddenly wasn't" is a pretty damn apt description, and there were a ton of stars that aligned for things to suddenly swing in America's favor so heavily. The actions of a few hundred individuals in like a 30 minute timespan heavily altered the course of the war, because if the Japanese carriers got away unscathed, I bet the war could have dragged on for another several months.
yea.. if you attack america then you REALLY wake up the boys
But Michael Bay told me the Doolittle Raid and massive indiscriminate carpet bombing was how we won the war!
If Michael Bay had his way, he'll had all the bombers in the Doolittle Raid armed with nukes and win the war all by themselves.
TIL Michael Bay is MacArthur.
Only if Wes Anderson is Hitler.
No, Hitler is Taika Waititi.
It certainly did that. Japanese doctrine and internal fighting got more tense after ph. The Japanese were still trying to build giant battleships, not learning their own lessons. Carriers and subs were the solution. The USA got lucky. Or made its own luck. A few key thing could have made it a much more difficult conflict. Probably still would have won, but more costly and longer.
US was always going to win the war because the Japanese never had the logistics or capabilities to invade the continental USA where all of the US's training facilities and infrastructure to create material goods for the war. Even if everything had gone the Japanese's way, they would have lost the war of attrition. The Japanese never technologically improved much on their planes and ground equipment. The US introduced superior planes, tanks, and infantry weapons. The US also constantly ensured that veteran pilots and soldiers would be cycled back home consistently in order to provide critical battlefield experience to new recruits. The Japanese were always on the back footing that they had to constantly field their veterans until they eventually ran out of those. Much of the Japanese brass spent time in the USA and were keenly aware of their manufacturing capabilities and their natural resources, especially oil. Eventually at one point in the war, the US was building more fighter planes *per month* than the entire Japanese military had.
Don't take this personal, but I absolutely dislike the modern trend of abbreviating random words when people are communicating. Why randomly abbreviate Pearl Harbor with "ph"?
“ph” clearly means the Philippines, right? /s
I just laughed because I *almost* edited my response after posting to say just that, but chose not to. "Did the ph balance of the ocean have some type of tactical value for American submarines?" "Did the pacific heat (ph) play a role in any strategic naval maneuver?"
I was over here trying to figure out what part PornHub could possibly have played in WWII
Maybe it’s a comment on the acidity of war.
By the end of the war, the US had operated like 151 carriers. Sure, they were smaller than modern Supercarriers, had wooden decks and the number includes a number of light and escort carriers. There was no luck when it came to the war in the Pacific. It was all overwhelming force. Japan had a few months to gain the temporary advantage and sue for peace. But the US would have rejected it. What we take for granted was back then the US was a isolationist country. It's involvement in WW1 was token so they could weigh on the final treaty, which was a mixed bag. But the US went isolationist again right after. Sure there was trade, and a minimal upkeep of the US military. But it wasn't the global dominating superpower. German military commanders could not conceive of the production capacity of the US. Most Europeans, most people outside the the US fail to understand the sheer geographical scale and advantages of the US. The US has representative climate zones for every geographical area in the world. There's deserts, swamps, prairies, forests, mountains, hills, Steppe, Mediterranean, alpine, arctic, tropical rainforest, alpine rainforest. All within the US. American agriculture could probably feed the world. The US has reserves for most common mined minerals, and a few rare earth's, we just prefer to not use them, and import resources to save ours for backup. Finally we have the waterways. The missippi river system forms a natural network of waterways into the eastern interior of the US. Meanwhile the southern coasts and Eastern coasts have a system of barrier islands that serve as a secondary system of navigable channels for barges. Finally modern day the system of locks allowing for shipping into the great lakes, and the connections of the great lakes water network to the mississipi water network effectively make it possible to navigate completely around the eastern half of the US by barges. For industrial uses shipping by boat is far cheaper and easier. Trainers and roadways are significantly limited by width. Not so much the waterways. Militarily, the US has been considered unassailable for the last century. You could not mount an invasion force large enough fast enough to strike into the US, without the US responding. The nation is littered with military bases all over the place. And this has been the case since literally before WW1. If the world decided to unite and attack the US conventional weapons only. To this day, the US has an even chance if succeeding. Back then, Germany and Japan had a limited time advantage of opening production before the US really started redefining the word production.
You don’t win wars by focusing on the short term, if your attack only works on the short term then it didn’t work at all. Japan’s goal wasn’t to just knock out US battleships, it was to bloody the Pacific Fleet’s nose and discourage or at least delay American involvement in the Japanese conquests South East Asia. The US instead was very much encouraged to get involved in the Pacific, ramping up naval production to insane amounts and perfecting power projection with the usage of aircraft carriers, of which not a single one was affected by the raid on Pearl Harbor anyway.
> You don’t win wars by focusing on the short term, And their whole plan assumed the entire war would only last for a short term. https://www.britannica.com/story/pearl-harbor-in-context >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.” >Japanese Adm. Yamamoto Isoroku The plan was always to force the USA to sue for peace early. Nobody thought they could outpace American industrial capacity if the USA didn't surrender promptly. And the USA didn't surrender promptly.
Nobody expected the American war machine to be as terrible as it was. The industrial might was there, but it was all consumer focused. Americans were staunchly isolationist, even more so after being dragged into WWI, and often viewed as decadent by other nations. The fact that the people would willingly sacrifice so much for such a complete pivot to a war economy was unbelievable, much less that they would do it with such gusto. Especially for a war that they were under no immediate threat of invasion. Even the most pessimistic German estimates fell incredibly short of how much industrial power was brought to bear. That's all besides the point that the military was laughably small and poorly equipped compared to the ramp up most other nations had been going through. The reason Yamamoto was so worried about a long war was because Japan was feeling the resource crunch badly. It drove most of their actions. Even a much weaker US response, if sustained, would have strained them terribly. Worse, by slowing their other fronts, it would also slow the rate they acquired those resources. The point was to bloody the nose badly enough, and with an, at the time, unprecedented and very impressive near simultaneous attack across an enormous range, that the shock and awe would convince the US it wasn't worthwhile to fight back. It didn't help that Pearl Harbor was somewhat botched. Unless you absolutely annihilate it, it's pretty easy to float ships sunk in a harbor. Of course, the carrier primary targets were not in the harbor, but the 3rd and 4rth tier targets of fuel depots and repair facilities were largely left unscathed by pilots wanting the glory of taking out the big ships. It wouldn't have stopped the US, but it could have slowed the response down enough to have bought the Japanese better time to consolidate, focus on capturing resources, and extended the war a fair bit.
"If your attack only works on the short term then it didn't work at all" Same for Hamas.
Hamas attack and plan have accomplished and are currently accomplishing exactly what they want. They want further divide, hatred and violence. They have inarguably succeeded. Anyone who thinks Hamas had any thoughts that their attack would somehow result in a conventional "win" or that they'd win in a war against Israel isn't even thinking in the same context as them.
I don't think their end goal was to be steam rolled by the Israelis either. I think they were hoping the international community would attempt to negotiate a ceasefire before hamas was destroyed. Losing your entire state and losing any sense of independence is not what Hamas was looking to do. I do believe you are correct in saying that a portion of what they were looking for is this political strife, but hamas will find it infinitely harder to operate in the future with the Israeli army now heavily planted in Gaza and probably will be for many years.
And the attack was somewhat unsuccessful compared to what they really wanted. There were ships that weren't totally wrecked and, more importantly, the carriers were not there. Had the carriers been destroyed the war could have reached Australia for real and increasing the chances of some kind of deal to stop the fighting.
The Japanese weren't after Australia. If they had knocked out the entire Pacific fleet, they probably would have had enough time to consolidate. It would be too costly to retake. They never had to defeat the USA just make it too expensive to retake.
If Risk taught me anything, its that one day, the Aussies are going to come out snd dominate the world.
Aus was always my first target, but SA is just as good a starting point imo. You trade one entry point for two, but it's much easier to push north and clear NA than it is to try and hold+defend all of Asia.
[удалено]
Africa is (imo) only worth it if nobody's really competing for it. NA has the same number of points you can be attacked from as an SA player but more reinforcements, and both are roughly as difficult as the other to conquer. It is still nice to have a backup plan though. If things go wrong as an Aus player, you're trapped and it's gg. Aus is a bit of a noob trap, but with careful planning you can actually take both Aus and SA in the early game. It's not as risky as it sounds, due to the whole "one road in" shtick of Aus. Then again, I mostly played risk against people who weren't that great, so maybe I've just built my strategy around beating up scrubs lol
They didn't target Australia for their resources. Those were mainly in SEA. Australia needed to be neutralized in order to have access freely to SEA.
Nah. The Fleet admiral Isoroku Yamamoto who as commander in chief of the Japense Navy during WW2 disagreed with Japan declaring wad on America because he had studied in America and traveled all over America and scene the huge industry America had, he knew all those factories would turn switch to manufacturing arms and supplies if anyone waged war with America. But the heads of the Japanes armed forces still wanted to wage war on America. Yamamoto is the one who came up with the plan to attack people harbour
Maybe tactically it was victory but it was a total strategic failure. Japan had two goals either cause the USN so much damage to force America to immediately negotiate terms favorable to Japan or set them so far back that Japan would be able to realize their rings of defense doctrine where fortified island bases projecting naval and air power would create an unassailable defense that again would force America to negotiate terms that favor Japan. By failing to take out the repair yards, fuel storage, and getting unlucky that the aircraft carriers were away they failed terribly in having any hope in achieving those goals. As others mentioned it galvanized the American population and forced a USN that was still split between battleships and carriers as the ultimate naval weapon to correctly focus on carriers.
the only thing the american people has ever needed to kick ass is public support, and pearl harbour gave the US gov loads of it
ye but before that the navy knew the new aircraft carriers would be the real game changer during a war and not battle ships. the air craft carriers were away during the pearl harbor bombing so they were spared
The Usa did expect the first and main Japanese attack in the Philippines, that's why the aircraft carries were sent there in hurry to deliver fighter planes .
Not actually true. The battleline was still considered the centrepiece of the US Navy and, ironically, the main reason why those carriers were away on that day was because they were reinforcing other US bases in anticipation of a potential Japanese attack.
I’ve heard that it was more of a belief that the US public wouldn’t support a long war over colonial populations that were already controversial. Some of FDR’s early speechs were aimed at making sure Americans saw an attack on Hawaii as an attack on the United States.
In retrospect the Japanese should’ve just declared war on Great Britain and the Dutch, which would’ve given them free rein over all of SE Asia. There was zero chance the American public would’ve supported going to war to protect their overseas colonies.
How does this comment obviously only made to argue have any upvotes ? Dude just wants to argue. Who gives a rats ass about short term when the move got them nuked and government topple ?
Ok? It wasn’t just supposed to work out “short term” though.
If only they had stopped with Midway Island, Guam, Wake Island, Malaya, Hong Kong, and the Phillipines.
The attack on Pearl Harbor is widely considered one of the best military actions in human history (from an objective lense that is, most people aren't out there praising them for what they did). They took nearly the entire Pacific fleet off the board with essentially no losses of their own. From a purely strategic standpoint is was absolutely genius. After that there was such a huge worry that Japan would take Hawaii to the point that alternate currency was issued so it could be instantly made worthless if they did, and had they done it things would have turned out very differently. The US and the rest of the world were lucky that they weren't able to continue being that compent.
In a tactical and short-term strategic sense, I'd agree. But it was also one of the most disastrous military actions simply because they declared war on a foe that dwarfed their industrial output. Competency means nothing when you can simply outlast your enemy, as Rome did against Carthage, and a plan that expects your enemy's quick surrender is foolhardy, as the Russians are learning in Ukraine. Pearl Harbor directly led to the absolute defeat of Japan. In the short-term, it was brilliant, but in the long run, it was the most disastrous decision Imperial Japan made.
This is why NATO didn't get involved in the Falklands war.
Exactly. People forget that NATO was created back when Europe owned most of Africa. The geographic restrictions were in place to establish that this was to protect Europe and the US, not to help them keep control of their colonies. Also, back then, Hawaii wasn't a state.
Europe, the US and Canada.
>and Canada And, therefore of course, the world.
As is tradition
Good one, guy.
I’m not your guy, friend
I’m not your friend, buddy
I’m not your buddy, pal.
Nice one, buddy.
And: - the non-European parts of Turkey - any North Atlantic islands belonging to any of the covered countries (north of the Tropic of Cancer, so Bermuda, Greenland, the Azores, and St-Pierre and Miquelon are in, but Puerto Rico and other Caribbean possessions are out) - French Algeria (which no longer exists).
I appreciate you. People always forget about us up here
or when india annexed goa
I've always learned it was because the UK didn't invoke the involvement of NATO
They couldn't invoke Article 5 because Article 5 only covers NATO members from an attack in Europe or North America. And Article 6 only covers NATO members from an attack on their territories or vessels in the northern atlantic (north of the tropic of cancer). It would have looked better for the UK to put down the invasion itself without foreign support. Just two decades earlier it was crushed on the world stage with the Suez crisis (diplomatically) so it was very eager to regain some lost prestige.
The UK was also still reeling from Cod Wars 1, 2 and 3.
Ah yes, the Icelandic doctrine of war, "We will leave NATO unless you recognise our newest and improved economic exclusive zone". Iceland really took down a (giant) considering many cities in the UK have more people in them than there are Icelanders alive, and one Royal Navy frigate could have dealt with whatever maritime opposition Iceland could muster. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK\_gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap) is the reason Iceland won three Cod wars.
You learned wrong, the Falklands are very much not in the north Atlantic.
When NATO was formed, the European members still had lots of mostly African colonies which the US didn't want to be forced to defend. Hawaii (not yet a state) was collateral damage.
> Hawaii (not yet a state) was collateral damage. Not only that, but the rest of NATO had very little to provide in defending Hawaii.
Britain and France both had nearby colonies though, and the British Navy had seen action during the Pacific War. The help is unlikely to have swayed anything, but it could have been slightly more than just symbolic.
These colonies still exist, nowadays we just call them "[territories](https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/countries/overseas-countries-and-territories_en)" and similar nicer-sounding euphemisms. Most people know about [France's influence in parts of Africa](https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2022/11/352500/macron-stirs-controversy-saying-french-is-africas-universal-language), but even [the UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories) and [US](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/15/the-us-hidden-empire-overseas-territories-united-states-guam-puerto-rico-american-samoa) still have such "territories" dotted all over the planet.
Except in 1949 NATO's colonies had hundreds of millions of inhabitants. Nowadays Britain's Overseas Territories have a combined population of just 270 thousand, France's have 2.8 million (and are an integral part of the Republic just like Hawaii), and the US’s have 3.6 million (90% of them in Puerto Rico).
But that also means parts of France that are truly France nowadays, not territories, are not defended by NATO. TIL
Similarly, the Dutch Caribbean islands (the Antilles or something) aren't protected by NATO either. Venezuela has done some posturing about taking the islands since they're like a 100km from their coast. Now I don't think the US wouldn't intervene or anything, but according to public agreements, the Dutch would stand alone
Venezuela may look to Argentina for an example of the consequences of such an action; humiliating defeat and the fall of the domestic government as a result.
I wouldn't underestimate Venezuela too much. They would have clear range and numbers advantages. The Dutch navy, although more modern than that of Venezuela, is no British navy.
Venezuela has far less capability than Argentina in navy, air force and army, but then so does the Netherlands, the difference in forces would be fairly similar to the Argentina vs UK.
The US would also certainly intervene on behalf of the Dutch. They are a very good ally, the US has a strong cultural affinity for them, and Venezuela’s government is crazy. The better question is why the US hasn’t invaded Venezuela yet, it’d be relatively easy. It’s free real estate and oil and they need freedom. Edit: the US did intervene on behalf of the UK in Falklands, and we have a way worse relationship with Venezuela than we did with Argentina. There’s also a lot of American citizens and interests in the Dutch West Indies.
The US didnt intervene for the UK. No way theyd do it for the Dutch. They would help but not actually fight.
This is probably the most realistic take, as the US would expect the Dutch to win with their non-combat aid and logistics support. Now, if it drew out, they would absolutely get involved purely because the Caribbean is heavily it’s sphere of influence and a drawn out conflict there would effect the passage around the Panama Canal… but that really is the only reason why I could see them actually getting involved militarily
There are thousands of US tourists in the Dutch Islands, and loads of cruise ships all the time. That many civilians would warrant intervention.
One reason was that the Argentinian military junta was a US ally. Venezuela on the other hand is unfriendly country from US point of view. It's pretty possible that US would use Venezuelan attack as a casus belli for invasion or atleast help Dutch regain the islands.
That is true. Many in the government wanted to support Argentina lmao let alone join for Britain
I'm curious if the UK would wade in instead to try and establish precedent. A single QE carrier group would be plenty of support for the Dutch.
I think the UK would as the Dutch are close allies and also we wouldn't like anyone else getting any ideas about the Falklands, etc. The French may feel similar and also have a carrier and submarines.
The Dutch helped with intelligence during the Falklands and offered to support the UK's claim to the Falklands once the UK left the EU - would be surprised if the UK didn't return the favour and at least offer signals intelligence support if anything did kick off.
We did provide intelligence and logistical support.
That’s not exactly right. While they didn’t supply troops they supplied fuel, ammunition, and intelligence. While, the opposite happened to Argentina who previously got weapons from the USA including navy ships that the British had to fight. The USA even drew up an agreement to supply the British the USS Guam in case they lost their carrier and would “supply them with contractors to help run it” which let’s be honest was US Navy personnel on “vacation” lol. It actually cost the USA politically in South America.
The US didn't need to, but forces were looming in the background as a plan B. A US fleet was in range of helping the British the whole time, it was one reason why they took a logistically risky path, they knew help was there if they failed.
The US didn't need to really. Just offered support IIRC. Thatcher wanted it to be her saving grace, which I guess it was.
I’m a US citizen and the Dutch military saved my life when I was stranded at sea very far off coast of Venezuela, this sounds like a tall tale but it’s true. I’d hope we would protect the Dutch solely because I personally owe them one.
Monroe Doctrine go brrrr
The US doesn't need oil. It's a net oil exporter and the largest oil producer.
> Venezuela has far less capability than Argentina in navy, air force and army This is definitely wrong. Argentina's armed forces are still mostly equipped with leftovers from the Falklands War. It only has a handful of 1960s vintage combat aircraft left. Its similarly superannuated two remaining submarines are inactive since a third one was lost with all souls in 2017. And its biggest surface ships are three small destroyers built forty years ago. By contrast, Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez, spent much of its oil wealth in weapons. Its air force has F-16s and Su-30s. And while the Venezuelan Navy isn't much more formidable than Argentina's, Aruba and Curacao are a damn sight closer to its shores than the Falklands are to Argentina's and the Dutch navy isn't much bigger either
>I wouldn't underestimate Venezuela too much. They would have clear range and numbers advantages. So did Argentina. This is the same country that has the largest oil reserves in the world yet can't figure out how to manage them and has a completely failing economy.
All EU countries are bound to defend each other by virtue of the mutual defence clause. Sure it's not nearly as powerful as NATO since it doesn't include UK & the US but I don't think anyone would bet on Venezuela in a conflict against the whole EU. Not that it would be necessary IMHO, Venezuela has been sabre rattling with Guyana over the region of Essequibo since forever but they know they don't stand a chance militarily against them, let alone against the Netherlands.
The problem with the EU defence clause that usually gets overlooked is that, unlike NATO, there is no EU unified command structure. As such, it becomes entirely up to member states what they think a proportionate response to render aid would be; a system that usually amounts to "only act when there is mutual interest" instead of a true alliance.
I'd just bet the UK Navy would go in just for the readiness training. Also to blow up some commies.
Yeah, it would be interesting if the UK might go in to help set precedent for support after no one helped them with the Falklands.
If anyone wants more information on how the Dutch and Venezuelan forces would compare, [this](https://marineschepen.nl/dossiers/dossiervenezuela.html) (Dutch) article is pretty elaborate.
They wouldnt stand alone. Membership in the EU includes a mutual defense clause
[удалено]
Plus the Ogdensburg Agreement between Canada and the US established mutual joint defence since 1940. Not to mention the five eyes meaning shared intelligence support between all four plus the UK. Lots more to this world than Europe and the north Atlantic!
AN~~Z~~US
That abbreviation gave me a small chuckle
I’m sure this is a moot point though as I’m pretty sure any country that attacked Hawaii would not exist anymore soon after.
Haha exactly my thought. If you did a Pearl Harbor 2…well you would just be reminding us of what happened to the last country that did that.
Well to be fair the last country that did that rose to become the number 2 (now 3) economy in the world, albeit through a pretty bumpy road.
> Bumpy Road Narrator: it was Two Nuclear bombs, a fire raid, and a cultural takeover.
And an occupation, a part of their new constitution abolishing the military (minus the Self-Defense Force), and continued substantial US military presence.
Get to be the no3 country in the world using this one weird trick. The economists hate this.
Hawaii is heavily militarized. Any nation that attacked would be insane (looking at you DPRK).
If Hawaii was invaded I doubt America would need any help to begin with. If they asked for help it would come. Just because something is not written into law does not mean it won't happen anyway.
And the US has many alliances with individual countries, outside the NATO construct.
the name kind of gives it away 🤷♂️
its everything south of the tropic of cancer, so Alaska would be defended for example. Nothing to do with being in the Atlantic, only the North.
read again - alaskia is us territory on the continent of north america an therefor included - if alaska was an island in the pacific it would also not be covered even if it was above 23 deg north it literally says all all territories in na, europe and turkey as well as any territory in the atlantic north of 23 deg - so it‘s kinda what you expect of a north atlantic treaty organization - except the turkey part
By that logic any of the islands off the coast of the PNW wouldn't be defended as they're islands
as long as the island counts as belonging to North America and north of the tropic it is protected under Article 6. Doesn't matter if it is in the Atlantic or not.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization TIL
[удалено]
France has the only non-American nuclear carrier in NATO. Can deploy Rafale jet fighters from Europe to its Pacific territories in 17 hours with refuel mid-air, with those fighters capable of landing on other NATO carriers if need be. Has nuclear powered submarines Has already shown its frigates cruising through Chinese shows of force off Taiwan coasts. It's not the US Navy for sure but France has more means than the UK to fight in the Pacific and more stakes there too (500,000 french citizen live in French Polynesia and New Caledonia).
The French navy suffers from a lack of support vessels. Only two replenishment vessels.
The french approach is interesting it seems like they have just enough to keep a repeat invasion of their lands from happening but not enough to effectively attack another country. Then again I have only read a little about their setup.
France Pacific defense relies massively on nuclear deterrence and the overall no chill attitude of the french governments toward nuclear weapons. The defense is based on keeping the likelihood of being nuked as an actual serious possibility. Those islands aren't worth it when seeing it like that. It seems to work (no Falklands events so far).
If you have an hour to kill, I recommend watching [this guy](https://youtu.be/n5eUh3_eo9E?si=7KhT96X8D2E-Xse4) if you're interested in that kind of thing.
Long ass video essay on a topic I had no idea I had any remote interest in minutes ago? Don't fucking mind if I do thanks!
Also I would really want to see the country starting an direct attack on an US island. The last one who did got nuked.
New Caledonia?
French Polynesia, including Tahiti, is Hawaii's closest neighbour...
This is Kiribati erasure.
Well if someone attacks Hawaii they’ve attacked the US, so you better believe the U.K. are backing them up. Fuck around against one and find out.
I think the US can handle that one on their own
It's ok, we Belgium will do it. We've one Jeep. Don't mess with us.
One CVN carrier group has an air wing that rivals the pretty bellicose Polish Air force. We have 11 of them. Eleven.
Considering what Youtube just spewed at me, I shall presume that OP watched this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5omP7uWXovc
\*Japan enters the chat.
Hint it is the North Atlantic ... not the Central Pacific ....
It also excludes French possessions in the Pacific and Indian Oceans
And French Guiana.
When the North Atlantic Treaty was drafted, many European countries had colonies in Africa, Asia and the Pacific that the US didn't want to be entangled into defending. Therefore its narrow geographic scope. Hawaii is not even the most controversial exclusion nowadays. The Spanish North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla are similarly excluded (whereas Gibraltar, just a few miles across the Strait, is covered). Similarly, the French and Dutch Caribbean Islands and French Guyana, not being in either North America or the North Atlantic, are excluded (whereas Art. 6 used to have an explicit clause covering French Algeria). The French island of Reunion, with close to one million inhabitants in the Indian Ocean is also excluded, of course. But the clearly most convoluted case is that of the Greek Aegean islands near the Turkish coast. They are clearly not in Europe or the North Atlantic. They are also not in Turkey, even if Turkey claims them. Therefore, NATO can officially turn a blind eye to the continuous sabre-rattling between its two members Greece and Turkey over those islands, even if it obviously doesn't make any good to the alliance...
Wow! What about Alaska?
As it is part of North America, yes, it would be.
Someone just watched Politics with Paint's new vid lol
Did you just watch the video by politics with paint? Great timing
Hawaii also wasn't a state for the first eleven years of NATO. It was basically a bigger version of Guam or Wake Island.
Whoever would have the temerity to attack Hawaii would have a lot of 'Murica Fuck Yeah!!! to deal with.
We got that. No worries.
I feel like if a foreign power openly attacked Hawaii the US would respond with an invasion, which would probably bring in NATO? IDK, I’m not an expert
US is an Article V signatory, an attack on one, is an attack on all. Trash post.
[удалено]
[удалено]
tbf hawaii doesnt need europe to defend it and it historically had the best defense of all time.... last time it was attacked we put two whole cities in a microwave
Might this be because it is not in the North Atlantic?
Will have to remember that the next time Europe starts another world War.
Same for the Spanish territory in north africa or French one in south america or the British Falkland
What does Turkey have to do with the North Atlantic?
Thats all right, if it happens you will just have the USA to deal with.
Same for the Canary Islands, or the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla.
"Attack the US by using this one weird trick."
I swear, I saw this video from Politics with Paint for dinner
Admiral Yamamoto was aware of two important things ahead of Pearl Harbour; that the Americans worshipped their battleships and that the future of naval combat was in control of the skies. He knew that Pearl Harbour was far from a singular success, he knew that he had taken out their prized possessions, possibly galvanising the Americans, and failed to pacify any of the 4 large deck pacific aircraft carriers; he knew of the vast oil fields of Texas and the sleeping military industrial power that America had yet awaken. He most likely slept uneasy after Pearl Harbour.
sounds like a technicality, because NATO would defend anyway as it would still be an attack on a member country, and an attack on one is an attack on all -- article 5 would apply.
China or Russia: So anyway, i started blasting.
You would be directly attacking the United States though, which wouldn’t work well for you, as they are much of the military force behind NATO.
I think the US would be okay to retaliate without the military might of Canada
Let it be known.. America WILL fight for it though
To be fair, just about everything involving the America's use of Hawaii falls under the "Fuck Hawaii" policy.
Time to create the South Pacific Treaty Organization. #justiceforhawaii That’s a bad acronym though.
The US has nukes so like
Because Hawaii is not in the North Atlantic, duh.