Today marks the 80 year anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor and this event brought America into World War 2. This is a day in infamy that changed the course of world and American history.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatod ... 8853326002
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1410141&p=20915385&hilit=Pearl+harbor#p20915385

So, it is. Growing up, we were always reminded of this day, but I guess, as time goes on, certain important events begins to lose their place in the list of important things.

I guess it helps, that now, the belligerents of that particular event are string economic partners and allies.

fr8mech wrote:

So, it is. Growing up, we were always reminded of this day, but I guess, as time goes on, certain important events begins to lose their place in the list of important things.

I guess it helps, that now, the belligerents of that particular event are string economic partners and allies.

Also, most people who were adults back then are now deceased. Back in 2018, between June and November, I visited three very memorable places associated with World War Two...Omaha Beach, Arnhem and Pearl Harbor.

80 years, wow. The day is coming--alas, soon--when all those veterans of the Greatest Generation will be gone.

To fr8mech's point, let's hope this day of infamy, along with its various precedents and consequences, is never forgotten.

Just to show how much history means to different generations can be seen just on these forums. Without going into specifics (because I'd probably get the post deleted), here's an example. A poster from one country chastises another from a different country about some human rights or military issue. The second poster comes back with something the first poster's country did in WW2. It gets deleted because it's "ancient history" and you can't judge the current country by something that "happened so long ago". For people of my generation (I'm 62), it isn't old. Every one of my uncles and the fathers of my classmates and friends fought in that war. I was born less than 20 years after Pearl Harbor. It's still fresh to me.

Much respect to all of the servicemen and women who died that day, as well as the ones who survived and went on to fight in that war.

I've read countless books, articles, biographies, even recognition guides to aircraft, tanks, arms, gear, etc regarding that war. I truly hope that war never looses its place and importance in history.

I'm rather young to someone who was alive in that Era but my grandmother was born in 1941 and most of her childhood memories she shared with me were talks of WW2 from her parents and the immediate aftermath during the late 40s and early 50s. Shes passed on now but I'll never forget those stories

I was elated by all the school groups at Omaha Beach and Arnhem. They were respectful and quiet, not acting like it was a boring day.

Aaron747 wrote:

For most Americans under 50, 9/11 became a far more relevant date than Dec. 7th could ever be. Living in Japan, it was always interesting that Dec. 7th almost never got mentioned in TV commemorations but September 2nd did.

Japan had already been at war for some time in China when they launched the Pearl Harbor strike. December 7th seems like it'd be more of a turning point in hindsight, at least for the people who weren't directly involved. Whereas in the United States the significance of the event was immediate and obvious nationwide.

Though there is of course an element of revanchism / historical revisionism as well.

Aaron747 wrote:

For most Americans under 50, 9/11 became a far more relevant date than Dec. 7th could ever be.

I'm in my early thirties, so 9/11 was the big one for me, but in my place of employment we're starting to see youngsters born around that time or even after who are just indifferent to the whole event. It's a bizarre feeling to be talking to them and they just don't care. This must he what it felt like for those who loved through Pearl Harbour.

johns624 wrote:

Just to show how much history means to different generations can be seen just on these forums. Without going into specifics (because I'd probably get the post deleted), here's an example. A poster from one country chastises another from a different country about some human rights or military issue. The second poster comes back with something the first poster's country did in WW2. It gets deleted because it's "ancient history" and you can't judge the current country by something that "happened so long ago". For people of my generation (I'm 62), it isn't old. Every one of my uncles and the fathers of my classmates and friends fought in that war. I was born less than 20 years after Pearl Harbor. It's still fresh to me.

I think it's pretty normal for each generation to be a bit less interested in historical events that happened X years ago and instead care more about events closer to their year of birth, doesn't necessarily mean it's a flaw. I could imagine that your generation are also less interested in the US Civil War compared to your father's and grandfather's generation. <3

johns624 wrote:

Also, most people who were adults back then are now deceased.

Unfortunately most people alive then are dead now. Life expectancy was only around the late 60s mark.

Time is a funny thing. I was born less than 25 years after the end of the war, but in history classes it always seemed like an eternity ago (and so why the fuss?). Now I look back to things that happened 25 years ago as if they happened yesterday.

It's the way of history; time passes, people who were alive die. No one is alive now who was around for the signing of the American Declaration of Independence. We celebrate that day (sort of) each year, but we struggle with "negative" days like the attack on Pearl Harbor. Perhaps in the future September 11th won't be a big deal like it sort of is now.

But, I think it's arguable that December 7th is the most important day in US history. There aren't that many candidates with as strong of an argument to have completely changed the course of history for the US.

I have always been intrigued by the history of the lead up to American involvement in WWII many conspiracies abound in regards to Pearl Harbour.

Right or wrong I don’t think that both Admiral Kimmel and General Short should have been used as scapegoats for failures among political and military commanders in Washington, when you consider that General MacArthur had knowledge and warning of Japanese hostility had already commenced and suffered a similar defeat in the Philippines

I'm 29. 9/11 is the event that as another a.netter I'm another thread said "took my generations innocence". I'm a millennial.
JFK was my parents'. Baby Boomers
Pearl Harbor was my grand parents. Veteran generation.

What was the similar event for Gen X?

Aaron747 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I'm 29. 9/11 is the event that as another a.netter I'm another thread said "took my generations innocence". I'm a millennial.
JFK was my parents'. Baby Boomers
Pearl Harbor was my grand parents. Veteran generation.

What was the similar event for Gen X?

I have three gen X cousins and for them it is still definitively 9/11.

I believe it. An alternative I would say is Challenger but that still wasn't a total world changing event as the above are, though still very tragic.

BlueberryWheats wrote:

I'm in my early thirties, so 9/11 was the big one for me, but in my place of employment we're starting to see youngsters born around that time or even after who are just indifferent to the whole event. It's a bizarre feeling to be talking to them and they just don't care. This must he what it felt like for those who loved through Pearl Harbour.

Yeah, you are definitely onto something here. I know exactly what you mean.

TWA772LR wrote:

JFK was my parents'. Baby Boomers
Pearl Harbor was my grand parents. Veteran generation.

What was the similar event for Gen X?

Perhaps Nixon taking the US off the gold standard. While it wasn't as in-your-face as Pearl Harbour, the way the world used commerce changed instantly.

A101 wrote:

Right or wrong I don’t think that both Admiral Kimmel and General Short should have been used as scapegoats for failures among political and military commanders in Washington, when you consider that General MacArthur had knowledge and warning of Japanese hostility had already commenced and suffered a similar defeat in the Philippines

MacArthur had better PR and name recognition. He isn't my favorite general...let's just leave it at that.

johns624 wrote:

MacArthur had better PR and name recognition. He isn't my favorite general...let's just leave it at that.

I've long been an avid reader of military history, particularly World War II, but until the last few years had been predominantly a consumer of European theater material. I've spent a lot more time on the Pacific theater the last few years. I finished not too long ago a very good book by one of my favorite WW2 historian authors, John McManus, on the US Army in the Pacific. It was fascinating reading much more than I ever had about MacArthur; some truly damning stuff in there about how he handled things both before and after Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, he was egotistical. There are two good series of books on the Pacific war (mostly naval) by Ian Toll and James Hornfischer. I've come to realize that while Bull Halsey got all the press, Raymond Sprunace was a better admiral and commander. Just like Patton wasn't the best general in Europe, just the loudest.

A101 wrote:

I have always been intrigued by the history of the lead up to American involvement in WWII many conspiracies abound in regards to Pearl Harbour.

Right or wrong I don’t think that both Admiral Kimmel and General Short should have been used as scapegoats for failures among political and military commanders in Washington, when you consider that General MacArthur had knowledge and warning of Japanese hostility had already commenced and suffered a similar defeat in the Philippines

Both Kimmel and Short were blamed due to the "this is a war warning" memo both received. Mac got to skate (as he did his entire career) due to his outsized to his skills ego and political influence, and by saying that he was arraying his forces with the assumption that the USPACFLEET was going to be able to relieve him in time. That was a gross overstatement of the ability to ABDA forces in the aggregate to do much more than speed bump the IJN movement in the south Pacific.

That said, the little discussed subtexts of the PH attack were the fact that the intelligence likely existed in the bureaucracy, but was tightly compartmentalized because the military didn't trust the White House to leak in the first instance, and no where near enough analytical talent to process the intel, and no good way to disseminate it between the Navy Department and War Department.

Second, the USAAC campaigned on decade long effort that coastal defense should be a air mission. Traditionally, coastal defense was an Army mission, and the air-breathers believed they could poach that peacetime funding stream. So, the Navy never really cared about coastal defense and didn't have much in the way of equipment to do much more than air search and harbor defense. The assumption among Naval officers at the time was the Army's mission set, and Army tended to not like to do it.

johns624 wrote:

Yeah, he was egotistical. There are two good series of books on the Pacific war (mostly naval) by Ian Toll and James Hornfischer. I've come to realize that while Bull Halsey got all the press, Raymond Sprunace was a better admiral and commander. Just like Patton wasn't the best general in Europe, just the loudest.

Patton was far better than anyone else at the maneuver level. Spruance was an outstanding Admiral.