this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
432 points (98.2% liked)

News

25286 readers
3788 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A new book, A Very Stable Genius by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, reveals Donald Trump's ignorance on key historical and geopolitical issues.

During a 2017 visit to the USS Arizona Memorial, Trump reportedly asked, "What's this all about?" showing a lack of understanding of Pearl Harbor.

The book also details Trump's confusion over India's border with China, his eagerness to meet Vladimir Putin before taking office, and his frustration with anti-bribery laws.

The authors claim their findings are based on extensive interviews and documents.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal 5 points 2 days ago

It was just a random fucking air raid like any other.

I'd call it militarily pretty important. It was a very large air raid. It was against an unprepared target, sank important parts of the Pacific Fleet.

It wasn't a war-winning attack, and Japan got unlucky and didn't have the Pacific Fleet's carriers at Pearl Harbor at the time when they needed to attack, but if you consider that Japan's strategy, the pre-war stuff and then Kantai Kessen was basically:

  1. Ensure that Japan has naval superiority over at least half of the American fleet. The Washington Naval Treaty had Japan negotiate a fleet with limits 60% the size of the American one, with the idea that the US would need to be split between the Pacific and Atlantic. (Unfortunately for Japan, the US had already broken Japanese diplomatic codes and knew that 60% was the minimum that Japan would accept and negotiated for that, but it still gave Japan an edge over the US fleet in-theater.)

  2. Conduct a surprise attack, sinking a significant portion of the opposing US Pacific Fleet. This is the attack on Pearl Harbor. This was analogous to what Japan had very successfully done the last time they had fought a great power, when they hit Imperial Russia at Port Arthur:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

    The Battle of Port Arthur (Japanese: 旅順口海戦, Hepburn: Ryojunkō Kaisen)[2] of 8–9 February 1904 marked the commencement of the Russo-Japanese War. It began with a surprise night attack by a squadron of Japanese destroyers on the neutral Russian fleet anchored at Port Arthur, Manchuria, and continued with an engagement the following morning; further skirmishing off Port Arthur would continue until May 1904.

  3. In the time purchased by knocking much of the closest opposing naval force out, conquer and secure island airbases to establish a security perimeter.

  4. Wait for the Americans to conduct a prompt major naval counterstrike aimed at the area, as the Russians had in the Russo-Japanese War. Conduct an battle of attrition against this force, making use of submarines and aircraft from these island airbases to whittle it away, without having to actually face it directly. Versions of the American War Plan Orange, IIRC a decade or two earlier, did envision this prompt response, but the US had long-since decided that in an actual war, they would build up their forces to an overwhelming level and then strike.

  5. Engage it near the Japanese home islands with the bulk of Japanese naval strength. At this point, the American naval force would be weakened and could be defeated in a decisive battle. Japan would win a great victory, as it had against Imperial Russia at the Battle of Tsushima.

  6. As with Imperial Russia, Japan would offer fairly generous peace terms. The US, demoralized by the great loss and with a limited ability to rapidly field a major naval force in the immediate future, would accept.

In practice, it didn't work. And it had very little chance of working, in significant part because the US was already building a lot more warships than Japan had and had a lot more ability to build more than Japan did. But the attack on Pearl Harbor was an important part of that intended strategic-level process.