Was Pearl Harbor really that injurious? Even today, americans

>>2996103
it nearly destroyed the pacific fleet , even though that cocksucker FDR caused it

it still hurt

They were mainly pissed that the US got pulled out of peacetime and into war.

It represented the beginning of a war which killed 400,000 Americans, a war which the United States didn't start

>inb4 oil embargo
>inb4 can't inb4

>>2996103
>Was Pearl Harbor really that injurious?
Not really, no. 4 battleships were sunk but 3 of them were later raised, and to be honest, all of the BB at Pearl were obsolescent vessels; if the Japanese had completely pulverized all 8, it probably wouldn't have changed much about how the war went.

>Even today, americans talk about it like one of the most perfidious attack ever.
The level of perfidy in an attack has little to do with how strategically crippling it is.

>We know the tensions were high and that the americans knew the japanese were about to attack.
OP, just because tensions are high and people might be expecting an attack doesn't mean that it won't be harshly decried if it happens. Tensions were high with Al-Queda in the early 2000s, and while shocking, it's not like the Twin Tower or Pentagon attacks crippled America's military capabilities. You have noticed how nasty a reaction that got, and how much America mobilized to stamp out "terrorism" in its aftermath, right?

>>2996103

It was a perfect pretext for war, in terms of its impact on the American war machine it may actually have helped America since it took out their remaining Battleships, which would otherwise have slowed their navy without filling any useful role and convinced the Americans to double down on aircraft carriers.

Every war/attack on America seems larger to Americans than other people because America never experienced wars/attacks on the scale that other nations have. America's bloodiest war only had ~250k deaths iirc which seems tiny for a nation of their size

>>2996211
lmao I was way off, I guess ww2 was the usa's deadliest war with about 1mil deaths. that's still small compared to other nations of our size

>>2996218
lmao made another mistake it was just 400k the other 600k in ww2 were just wounded people

>>2996211
>>2996218
>>2996223
Kek

File: tragedy battle of the crater.jpg (589KB, 805x1094px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 805x1094px

>>2996218
>usa's deadliest war

No, the Civil War still takes the cake at 1,000,000+ dead. WW2 has only half that.

>>2996103
>Americans
2,403 killed.
1,178 wounded.
>Japanese
64 killed.
1 sailor captured.
Also, the Japanese sunk 6 ships, 2 of them battleships, and dealt various levels of damage on 13 other ships as well as destroying nearly 200 aircraft.
So, yes. From a K/D viewpoint, the japs came in, wreaked havoc and left untouched. That aside, they fucked up in that they didn't destroy any fuel facilities. Generally speaking, America recovered pretty fast, and it would have done so even faster if Hitler and Britain didn't require them to focus the starting war effort on the Atlantic.

>>2996492
>That aside, they fucked up in that they didn't destroy any fuel facilities.
I always hear this, and it never ceases to amaze me as to how stupid it is. It's always "based" (When it's based on any sort of thought at all) on that Nimitz quote about how the destruction of the fuel tanks could have held the U.S. back a year. But that same quote is based on the assumption that the Japanese could keep the U.S. from resupplying Hawaii via submarine, which might have been seen as a threat nowadays, but with what we know in hindsight, isn't really a possibility.

Pearl Harbor stored about 4.5 million barrels of fuel. That sounds like a lot, and in an abstract, it is a lot. But the U.S. produced about 1.5 BILLION barrels a year in 1940, and would keep to similar levels of production all throughout the war; or to translate that into more concrete terms, the fuel storage at Pearl Harbor represented about a day and a third's worth of U.S. oil production.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a

Loss of the oil stores themselves, even if you light them all up, is a nuisance. Carrier planes have tiny payloads, and the notion that they could keep a major port like Pearl Harbor out of commission with one raid is laughable. With a fleet of 23 submarines that can make it there and back, the idea that the Japanese can blockade the islands is also absurd. Quite simply, the oil tanks were not an important target, which is why they were not attacked.

>>2996532
Welp, learned something today.