I can’t really argue with any of that, Father O Rielly.

In fact, I similarly often wonder whether Germany could even have hung on to all of Europe in the longer term, even if they had enjoyed overwhelming military success in Russia and even if the US hadn’t into the equation.


I just read Wikipedia on that affair, U-96, and it certainly seems to have been a bigger affair then what I took it for (as also goes for the views on this of the historian I happened to read some years ago). I also didn’t know that Zhukov was the Russian commander here. Thanks.

monkeyboy wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:The attack on America by the japs was a act of murder. It was an attempt to say all Americans deserve to die.
Killing people without first talking over matters is the sign of the bad guys.
They were trying to assert their identity against European and american peoples. The Japs were trying to say they were no longer inferior to us and attacking us all was to teach us this.
they also were trying to show greatness by murdering their asian neighbours.
For the generation of Japaness of those times who in heart consented to all this evil they are guilty of murder and being evil people. Those who came later are innocent and its my impression they are today one of the finest peoples on earth.
They seem to practice decency or kindness and industriness and intelligence that is worthy of the Anglo American civilization to note.
Those japs of those war years are rightly to be denouced by the japanese of these years in Japan.
they reaped sadly what they sowed. Death and destruction and humiliation in morality and intellectual and practical ability.
The past is past and let it stay there save for these occasional rememberences.
God bless America

In purely military terms, it was actually a very shrewd move, a pre-emptive strike aimed at destroying the American carrier fleet for very little cost. It failed largely because the American carriers weren't where they had expected them to be, at anchor in Pearl Harbour. I'm not going to go as far as suggesting that the Japanese might have been victorious in the pacific had the attack succeeded as planned but it would have seriously hindered the American response, probably allowing the Japanese to gain much more territory before America had replaced the carriers and were in a position to respond.

You might well call it murder but to go as far as labelling that generation as evil is bit harsh. You might well remember that America is currently engaged in a war where they aren't beyond assassination attempts with smart bombs, including attacks inside Pakistan, neighbours to the area of conflict.

In the first Gulf War, the Americans anhilated a large portion of the Iraqi army in retreat on the road to Basra after they had left Kuwait and were clearly inside Iraq, completely routed.

Would that count as murder? Are the Americans of this generation evil? Maybe a little less "first stone" casting Robert. War isn't pretty, people die. At least they tend to be over territory and resources these days which is a tad more honest than those wars over whose imaginary friend is the one being worshipped in the right way!!

I'll answer this post but I'm being attacked too.
I call it murder because thats what it was. That is of those who consented to it amongst the enemy.
Murder fits the motive. Evil means killing human beings without cause and all the suffering it brought. Evil generation is what everyone would of said back then and now. if a person withheld consent then they were innocent.
Why say shrewd? Nothing shrewd about a evil cowardly attack.

No Iraq is not the same. I agree with the first gulf war, not the second, and also opposed the final attack in Iraq as uneeded to destroy them. Yet this was a decision of the general and not the people. Also reasons were given to the people after that is was needed. so the people are innocent.

In war or words its all about motives. Not results. Attacking someone for no reason with deadly force is evil. its murder. Attacking a attacker is not murder. its rightful defence. The people understand the difference with no excuse.
If leaders do wrong things without the peoples consent then the peoiple are still innocent.
No sympathy to the enemy. The better man won in the end.
I'm proud of all I said. Its all the truth.

Robert Byers wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:The attack on America by the japs was a act of murder. It was an attempt to say all Americans deserve to die.
Killing people without first talking over matters is the sign of the bad guys.
They were trying to assert their identity against European and american peoples. The Japs were trying to say they were no longer inferior to us and attacking us all was to teach us this.
they also were trying to show greatness by murdering their asian neighbours.
For the generation of Japaness of those times who in heart consented to all this evil they are guilty of murder and being evil people. Those who came later are innocent and its my impression they are today one of the finest peoples on earth.
They seem to practice decency or kindness and industriness and intelligence that is worthy of the Anglo American civilization to note.
Those japs of those war years are rightly to be denouced by the japanese of these years in Japan.
they reaped sadly what they sowed. Death and destruction and humiliation in morality and intellectual and practical ability.
The past is past and let it stay there save for these occasional rememberences.
God bless America

In purely military terms, it was actually a very shrewd move, a pre-emptive strike aimed at destroying the American carrier fleet for very little cost. It failed largely because the American carriers weren't where they had expected them to be, at anchor in Pearl Harbour. I'm not going to go as far as suggesting that the Japanese might have been victorious in the pacific had the attack succeeded as planned but it would have seriously hindered the American response, probably allowing the Japanese to gain much more territory before America had replaced the carriers and were in a position to respond.

You might well call it murder but to go as far as labelling that generation as evil is bit harsh. You might well remember that America is currently engaged in a war where they aren't beyond assassination attempts with smart bombs, including attacks inside Pakistan, neighbours to the area of conflict.

In the first Gulf War, the Americans anhilated a large portion of the Iraqi army in retreat on the road to Basra after they had left Kuwait and were clearly inside Iraq, completely routed.

Would that count as murder? Are the Americans of this generation evil? Maybe a little less "first stone" casting Robert. War isn't pretty, people die. At least they tend to be over territory and resources these days which is a tad more honest than those wars over whose imaginary friend is the one being worshipped in the right way!!

I'll answer this post but I'm being attacked too.
I call it murder because thats what it was. That is of those who consented to it amongst the enemy.
Murder fits the motive. Evil means killing human beings without cause and all the suffering it brought. Evil generation is what everyone would of said back then and now. if a person withheld consent then they were innocent.
Why say shrewd? Nothing shrewd about a evil cowardly attack.

No Iraq is not the same. I agree with the first gulf war, not the second, and also opposed the final attack in Iraq as uneeded to destroy them. Yet this was a decision of the general and not the people. Also reasons were given to the people after that is was needed. so the people are innocent.

In war or words its all about motives. Not results. Attacking someone for no reason with deadly force is evil. its murder. Attacking a attacker is not murder. its rightful defence. The people understand the difference with no excuse.
If leaders do wrong things without the peoples consent then the peoiple are still innocent.
No sympathy to the enemy. The better man won in the end.
I'm proud of all I said. Its all the truth.

From the Japanese point of view, they had some very good reasons for attacking Pearl Harbor. They were boxed in, their oil cut off, and were being threatened by a much larger country, one with a proven imperialist and militaristic record.

War is of course, always murder, but to cherry pick who is wrong and who is right can be a problem.

America, for example, has had many instances of attacking others for no other reason than financial or geopolitical gain. The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the ongoing assault against native Americans, the seizure of former Spanish colonies a hundred years ago, the repeated interventions in Central America and the Caribbean in the early part of the last century, the misguided grabs at hegemony in Vietnam and in Iraq more recently are just some examples of the “evil” committed by the USA.

Father O Rielly wrote:From the Japanese point of view, they had some very good reasons for attacking Pearl Harbor. They were boxed in, their oil cut off, and were being threatened by a much larger country, one with a proven imperialist and militaristic record.

War is of course, always murder, but to cherry pick who is wrong and who is right can be a problem.

America, for example, has had many instances of attacking others for no other reason than financial or geopolitical gain. The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the ongoing assault against native Americans, the seizure of former Spanish colonies a hundred years ago, the repeated interventions in Central America and the Caribbean in the early part of the last century, the misguided grabs at hegemony in Vietnam and in Iraq more recently are just some examples of the “evil” committed by the USA.

This idea of America as the "imperialist and militaristic threat" isn't really born out by the events before the Pearl Harbor attack... clearly it was a poverty stricken Japan that looked at the US and various European nations involvement in Asia and said 'me too'. This lead to an aggressive imperialist expansion by Japan, starting with the invasion of China. Not only was this a breaking of the Kellogg–Briand non-aggression pact of 1928, it also lead to many unspeakable atrocities by Japanese soldiers. America provided aid to China but didn't get officially involved in military action.

Then July 1941, Japan invaded Indochina threatening American interests in the region, it responds by freezing Japanese assets and trade. Japan and the US enter into talks, America says it will resume all trade if Japan withdraws from Indochina and China, and returns to it's non-aggression pact, Japan asks for two weeks to consider the offer and then refuses. The American president then makes a personal appeal for peace to Japan's emperor, however Japan has used the time to organise an attack on America.

Japan, did have it's reason's true, a feeling betrayal after WW1, economic issues from the depression, and the wanting to throw foreign countries out of Asia are some, however whilst America, like every other nation, isn't always 'good' in it's actions, ultimately it was Japan's aggressive imperialism which lead directly to this attack.

Robert Byers wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:The attack on America by the japs was a act of murder. It was an attempt to say all Americans deserve to die.
Killing people without first talking over matters is the sign of the bad guys.
They were trying to assert their identity against European and american peoples. The Japs were trying to say they were no longer inferior to us and attacking us all was to teach us this.
they also were trying to show greatness by murdering their asian neighbours.
For the generation of Japaness of those times who in heart consented to all this evil they are guilty of murder and being evil people. Those who came later are innocent and its my impression they are today one of the finest peoples on earth.
They seem to practice decency or kindness and industriness and intelligence that is worthy of the Anglo American civilization to note.
Those japs of those war years are rightly to be denouced by the japanese of these years in Japan.
they reaped sadly what they sowed. Death and destruction and humiliation in morality and intellectual and practical ability.
The past is past and let it stay there save for these occasional rememberences.
God bless America

In purely military terms, it was actually a very shrewd move, a pre-emptive strike aimed at destroying the American carrier fleet for very little cost. It failed largely because the American carriers weren't where they had expected them to be, at anchor in Pearl Harbour. I'm not going to go as far as suggesting that the Japanese might have been victorious in the pacific had the attack succeeded as planned but it would have seriously hindered the American response, probably allowing the Japanese to gain much more territory before America had replaced the carriers and were in a position to respond.

You might well call it murder but to go as far as labelling that generation as evil is bit harsh. You might well remember that America is currently engaged in a war where they aren't beyond assassination attempts with smart bombs, including attacks inside Pakistan, neighbours to the area of conflict.

In the first Gulf War, the Americans anhilated a large portion of the Iraqi army in retreat on the road to Basra after they had left Kuwait and were clearly inside Iraq, completely routed.

Would that count as murder? Are the Americans of this generation evil? Maybe a little less "first stone" casting Robert. War isn't pretty, people die. At least they tend to be over territory and resources these days which is a tad more honest than those wars over whose imaginary friend is the one being worshipped in the right way!!

I'll answer this post but I'm being attacked too.

Sorry you feel that way Robert. My intention was was not to attack you personally, just to question your post as ever.

I call it murder because thats what it was. That is of those who consented to it amongst the enemy.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Is it only not murder in war when all sides have signed up to some "Queensberry Rules" type warefare? You can only kill in war and it not be murder if both sides have consented to there being some killing going on?

Murder fits the motive. Evil means killing human beings without cause and all the suffering it brought. Evil generation is what everyone would of said back then and now. if a person withheld consent then they were innocent.
Why say shrewd? Nothing shrewd about a evil cowardly attack.

Shrewd because, if you take the step of attacking another, it is shrewd to do this with as much surprise, speed and aggression as possible. You are more likely to succeed, more likely to complete your objectives and less likely to take large numbers of casualties.
Evil isn't a word in my vocabulary. It conjures up images of people sitting around with clear agendas to do wicked things for purely that reason. I'm sure the Japanese had perfectly good reasons which were morally acceptable to them for carrying out their attack rather the simplistic idea of carrying out some form of "evil" deed.
As for cowardly, see above. It may seem cowardly to not stand out in the open and duke it out with your oponent on a level playing field but that is the nature of war. It's why the USA prefers to send in the smart bombs and missiles instead of ground troops where possible. It cuts down on the risk of casualties to your own side. Is that evil or cowardly?

No Iraq is not the same. I agree with the first gulf war, not the second, and also opposed the final attack in Iraq as uneeded to destroy them. Yet this was a decision of the general and not the people. Also reasons were given to the people after that is was needed. so the people are innocent.

I'm sure reasons were given after Pearl Harbour. Indeed, I have offered some. Can we leave the Japanese alone now? Just because you disagree with their reasoning doesn't make it evil.

In war or words its all about motives. Not results. Attacking someone for no reason with deadly force is evil.

There were reasons, other posters have given them so I shan't repeat them.

its murder. Attacking a attacker is not murder. its rightful defence. The people understand the difference with no excuse.

Fair enough, There is a difference between attack and defence. What you seem to miss is the whole political, financial and territorial climate leading up to these events in the Asian/Pacific area which could well have been perceived by the Japanese as provocative.

If leaders do wrong things without the peoples consent then the peoiple are still innocent.

So as a previous poster asked, "was dropping atomic bombs on Japanese population centres 'evil' too then?

No sympathy to the enemy. The better man won in the end.
I'm proud of all I said. Its all the truth.

How very, very Christian of you. What a shame that you can't finish on the commenting on how dreadful it was that so many people lost their lives on all sides through mankind's propensity to settle their differences through violence instead of reasoned discourse. I wonder where those morals came from throughout history?

Japan was hardly ‘poverty stricken’, U-96, and actually did pretty well from WWI.

It was also a major industrial power in its own right but almost wholly dependent on other countries for its raw materials, oil supplies crucial.

Where atrocities are concerned, well, they obviously had their own code, one foreign to the West, but fire-bombing civilian cities as practiced by the allies never struck me as particularly civilized either, as for the Holocaust say…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Japan

Before World War II, Japan built an extensive empire that included Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and parts of northern China. The Japanese regarded this sphere of influence as a political and economic necessity, preventing foreign states from strangling Japan by blocking its access to raw materials and crucial sea-lanes, as Japan possessed very few natural and mining resources of it own, although it imported large amounts of coal from Chosen, Manchukuo, and some regions of occupied China. Japan's large military force was regarded as essential to the empire's defense.

Rapid growth and structural change characterized Japan's two periods of economic development since 1868. In the first period, the economy grew only moderately at first and relied heavily on traditional agriculture to finance modern industrial infrastructure. When the Russo-Japanese War began in 1904, 65% of employment and 38% of the gross domestic product (GDP) was still based on agriculture but modern industry had begun to expand substantially. During World War I, Japan used the absence of the war-torn European competitors on the world market to advance its economy, generating a trade surplus for the first time since the isolation in the Edo period. By the late 1920s, manufacturing and mining contributed 23% of GDP, compared with 21% for all of agriculture. Transportation and communications had developed to sustain heavy industrial development.

In the 1930s, the Japanese economy suffered less from the Great Depression than most industrialized nations, expanding at the rapid rate of 5% of GDP per year. Manufacturing and mining came to account for more than 30% of GDP, more than twice the value for the agricultural sector. Most industrial growth, however, was geared toward expanding the nation's military power.

Beginning in 1937 with significant land seizures in China, and to a much greater extent after 1941, when annexations and invasions across Southeast Asia and the Pacific created the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Japanese government sought to acquire and develop critical natural resources in order to secure economic independence. Among the natural resources Japan seized and developed were coal in China (where production rose substantially under Japanese control, from 15 million metric tonnes in 1936 to 58 million metric tonnes in 1942), sugarcane in the Philippines, petroleum from the Dutch East Indies and Burma, and tin and bauxite from the Dutch East Indies and Malaya. Japan also purchased the rice production of Thailand, Burma, and Cochinchina.

During the early stages of Japan's expansion, the Japanese economy expanded considerably. Japanese iron production rose from 3,355,000 tonnes in 1937 to 6,148,000 tonnes in 1943. Steel production rose from 6,442,000 tonnes to 8,838,000 tonnes over the same time period. In 1941 Japanese aircraft industries had capacity to manufacture 10,000 aircraft per year. From 1941 to September 1944 defense production (including airplanes and vessels) rose by 94%. Much of this economic expansion benefited the "zaibatsu", large industrial conglomerates.

Lewis wrote:Japan was hardly ‘poverty stricken’, U-96, and actually did pretty well from WWI.

Sorry Lewis but in 1930 Japan was in a deep depression with massive unemployment and poverty, especially in rural areas. It was the key factor for the rise of the Japanese military in government, and the attack on China and it's effect on militarisation was a key element in their quick recovery.

Japan was caught up in world depression from 1930. As elsewhere there was a price slump and massive unemployment, but the Japanese situation was exacerbated by severe agricultural depression already existing and government retrenchment policies aimed at a return to the gold standard. In both 1930 and 1931 wholesale prices and interest rates fell drastically. There was a flight of specie, and many smaller banks and companies suspended business, hastening concentration of economic interests. By adopting a cheap money policy after abandoning the gold standard in December 1931 and by increasing military expenditure after the Manchurian Incident, the Japanese stumbled comparatively quickly upon reflationary policies, enabling Japan's industry to recover more quickly than was the case in many other countries. Agricultural depression continued through much of the 1930s.
Concise Dictionary of Modern Japanese History

Also see:
http://www.grips.ac.jp/teacher/oono/hp/ ... /lec09.htm

Its main consequences on the Japanese economy and society were as follows:

--As before, macroeconomic downturn was felt primarily in falling prices and not so much in output contraction (estimated real growth was positive during this period). As prices fell, manufacturers produced even more to maintain earning and keep factories running. But clearly, this behavior would collectively accelerate the oversupply and the deflation. From 1929 to 1931, WPI fell about 30%, agricultural prices fell 40%, and textile prices fell nearly 50%.

--Around 1931, rural impoverishment became severe. Moreover in 1934, rural communities were hit by famine. Especially in Tohoku (northeastern) Region of Japan, rural poverty generated many undernourished children and some farmers were forced to sell their daughters for prostitution. This rural disaster caused much anger and popular criticism against the government and big businesses.

--Cartelization and rationalization were promoted under government guidance. Free market seemed to worsen the depression, so agreements on output restriction were adopted. This practice spread to virtually all material industries including cotton yarn, rayon, carbide, paper, cement, sugar, steel, beer, coal and so on.

--Military and right-wing movements emerged. In economic despair, much blame was placed on party governments and their policies. Even ordinary people, who normally hated militarism, were disappointed with the performance of party governments and became more sympathetic to the military and nationalists.

Sorry U-96, I’m forced to strongly disagree.

Europe was devastated by WWI, unlike Japan (whose economy in fact gained from it), whereas most other countries were hit far harder by the Great Depression, with Japan actually weathering it comparatively well. None of it, including subsequent political, military or economic gyrations equates to your ‘impoverishment’ (notwithstanding obvious rural hardship, and as distinct from Japan’s reliance on raw material imports).

In fact, one of your own links appears to contradict your view:

Japan considered that resources from the "Yen Bloc" (Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and the rest of occupied China) were not enough. In July 1941, in order to secure more resources, Japan began to invade Southeast Asia, starting with French Indochina (Vietnam). This angered the US, which imposed oil embargo and asset freeze on Japan. If oil imports from the US were cut off, Japan's oil reserve would last only two years. At this point, Japan began to prepare a war with the US. Diplomatic efforts to maintain peace were tried but failed. With the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941, Japan started the Pacific War against the US and its allies.

As before, macroeconomic downturn was felt primarily in falling prices and not so much in output contraction (estimated real growth was positive during this period). As prices fell, manufacturers produced even more to maintain earning and keep factories running. But clearly, this behavior would collectively accelerate the oversupply and the deflation. From 1929 to 1931, WPI fell about 30%, agricultural prices fell 40%, and textile prices fell nearly 50%.

Another aim of the military and right-wing groups was active military expansion. They criticized "Shidehara Diplomacy" which to them seemed too soft on China. Their primary goal was to "defend Japanese interests in Manchuria and Mongolia [more precisely, eastern part of "Inner" Mongolia]).

Thanks to this policy turnaround, the Japanese economy began to recover in 1932 and expanded relatively strongly until 1936 (the last year of non-wartime economy). Among major countries, Japan was the first to overcome the global depression of the 1930s. Fiscal and monetary expansion seemed appropriate. But the yen's large depreciation might be considered as the "beggar-thy-neighbor" policy (i.e., a cheaper yen was beneficial to Japanese industries but it imposed costs on other countries through real appreciation of their currencies).

Around 1934 when the Japanese economy was firmly on a path to recovery, Takahashi shifted to a tighter budget (which seemed an appropriate decision). But the army and navy demanded more military spending despite fiscal pressure. Takahashi resisted and was assassinated by a military group in the February 26 Incident in 1936.


If the US is to maintain its broader industrial dominance (as opposed to off-shoring it), it might also heed and reinterpret piece’s conclusion from its own perspective:

According to the latter view, implications for today's developing countries are as follows. Light industries and electronics assembly can be promoted by free trade and FDI, but if the country hopes to absorb technology vigorously and have advanced manufacturing capability, certain industrial promotion measures become necessary…

Hmm maybe a poor choice of words on my part, by poverty stricken I meant stricken with poverty and economic turmoil, not bankrupt.

Not sure how that quoted text contradicts what I said, seems to support it exactly?

Probably just semantics getting in the way, U-96.

Must be my Australian accent.

Just as an aside, I was at Pearl Harbor not too long ago, and toured the monuments there. What amazed me was the size of the ships- the battleships sunk by Japanese planes. By today’s standards, they are relatively small. It is quite something to see that so much of world history (at least as it was perceived by many at the time) hung on a few ships that by today’s standards would be considered rather small and nondescript, and would be dwarfed by modern military or commercial ships.

Father O Rielly wrote:Just as an aside, I was at Pearl Harbor not too long ago, and toured the monuments there. What amazed me was the size of the ships- the battleships sunk by Japanese planes. By today’s standards, they are relatively small. It is quite something to see that so much of world history (at least as it was perceived by many at the time) hung on a few ships that by today’s standards would be considered rather small and nondescript, and would be dwarfed by modern military or commercial ships.

Compare modern jet fighters with WW2 medium bombers. They're about the same size.

Rome Existed wrote:Japanese attacks against Malaya took place on the 8th of December, shortly before the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor on the 7th.

How can the 8th occur before the 7th?

It can't. Japanese attacks on Pearl, Manila and Clark Field in the Philippines, Wake Island, and in Malaya all occurred on the same day. But owing to the International dateline, it was the 7th in Hawaii and the 8th in the Phillipines and at Wake and in Malaya.

Robert Byers wrote:The attack on America by the japs was a act of murder. It was an attempt to say all Americans deserve to die.
Killing people without first talking over matters is the sign of the bad guys.
They were trying to assert their identity against European and american peoples. The Japs were trying to say they were no longer inferior to us and attacking us all was to teach us this.
they also were trying to show greatness by murdering their asian neighbours.
For the generation of Japaness of those times who in heart consented to all this evil they are guilty of murder and being evil people. Those who came later are innocent and its my impression they are today one of the finest peoples on earth.
They seem to practice decency or kindness and industriness and intelligence that is worthy of the Anglo American civilization to note.
Those japs of those war years are rightly to be denouced by the japanese of these years in Japan.
they reaped sadly what they sowed. Death and destruction and humiliation in morality and intellectual and practical ability.
The past is past and let it stay there save for these occasional rememberences.
God bless America

This is a gross and racist interpretation of events, and dead wrong.

A more realistic interpretation shows that Japanese military moves in the Central and West Pacific were intended to gain a strategic advantage vis-a-vis oil supplies in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), which the Japanese were in desperate need of. The attack at Pearl was intended to take out the US 7th Fleet and its attacks on Manila, Cavite, and Clark Field were intended to deny US forces its traditional bases on the island of Luzon in the Philippine Islands.

Japanese forces immediatelky swept south to take and occupy Truk, Kieta, and Rabaul, along with other islands in the Soloman and Gilbert Islands, including Guadalcanal and Tarawa. They occupied Java. They were setting up to takeover the Dutch oil fields and ship the product thereof to Japan, where it was desperately needed to fuel their plans for an Asia-Pacific Empire.

Read some fookin' history, dude.

The US already had an oil embargo going on Japan. Tokyo knew America would fight to keep Japanese forces from taking the Indonesian oil fields. Their strikes in December 1941 were intended to give them unencumbered access to those fields by obviating US military forces in the region.

That's the real story. It isn't complicated, it's called war.

Just to nitpick, 7th Fleet wasn't constituted until until '43 - the name you're looking for is United States Pacific Fleet. Truk had been a Japanese possession since the end of WWI, so no need to invade . Rabaul, Kieta and Guadalcanal were taken in Feb, March and July '42 respectively.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Rome Existed wrote:Japanese attacks against Malaya took place on the 8th of December, shortly before the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor on the 7th.

How can the 8th occur before the 7th?

It can't. Japanese attacks on Pearl, Manila and Clark Field in the Philippines, Wake Island, and in Malaya all occurred on the same day. But owing to the International dateline, it was the 7th in Hawaii and the 8th in the Phillipines and at Wake and in Malaya.

And yet it's still possible for two events to occur at different times. The attacks on Malaya happened before the attack on Pearl Harbor.