Pearl Harbor in Images: 'A Date Which Will Live in Infamy'

Pearl Harbor in Images: 'A Date Which Will Live in Infamy'

If you were raised in the United States, you were taught about the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. You’ve heard the famous description of it by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who called it “a date which will live in infamy.” With a lack of declaration of war and without warning — and killing 2,403 Americans — the surprise attack by Japan’s military on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii was judged to be a war crime, and was the impetus for the U.S. officially entering World War II. You know this, but there’s a good chance you haven’t seen many (or any) photos from that day.

What better way to immortalize the events of that day 76 years ago than through photographs? As photographers, we know that photographs are time capsules; the images we create pause time and document history in ways we won’t understand until we ourselves are long gone. Looking back on photos taken during this time is certainly a reminder of that. Here are a few of them from the U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command, along with some of their captions, that I thought were interesting. I encourage you to take a look at that site and look at more of the images -- there are a lot of them, and they certainly have a story to tell.

A Japanese Navy Attack Plane taking off from an aircraft carrier on its way to Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. For some reason I liked the profile in the foreground of the Japanese soldier looking on.

Here's a cartoon that was found in a wrecked Japanese plane following the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think drawings and cartoons like this say a lot about the spirit of the times. The Japanese inscription at left reads: "Hear! The voice of the moment of death. Wake up, you fools."

Image taken from a Japanese plane during the torpedo attack on ships moored on both sides of Ford Island.

A view of Pearl Harbor looking southwest from the hills towards the north. Taken during the Japanese raid, with anti-aircraft shell bursts overhead. Large column of smoke in lower center is from USS Arizona.

View from a pier looking toward the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard's drydocks.

A photograph taken from an automobile around 9:30 a.m. on December 7.

There aren't as many images like this, showing the U.S. forces fighting back.

A patrol bomber burning at Naval Air Station Kaneohe, on Oahu, with crews trying to put out the fires.

"A U.S. Army B-17E at Hickam Air Field, after landing safely during the Japanese air raid. Smoke from burning ships at Pearl Harbor is visible in the distance. Photographer may be Staff Sergeant Lee Embree."

"Destroyed U.S. Army aircraft at Wheeler Field, Oahu, during post-attack cleanup activities. P-40 pursuit planes are among the types present."

The forward magazine of USS Shaw (DD-373) explodes during the second Japanese attack wave. At right is the bow of USS Nevada (BB-36), with a tug alongside fighting fires. Photographed from Ford Island, with a dredging line in the foreground. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.

Explosion of the forward magazines of USS Shaw in the floating drydock, after a bombing attack by Japanese planes on 7 December 1941. USS Nevada, also hit by the attackers, is at right. Photographed from Ford Island, with USS Avocet partially visible at left. Official U.S. Navy Photograph.

USS Cassin burned out and capsized against USS Downes after the attack. It's hard to imagine the time and effort required to clean up the wreckage from these massive ships.

"USS Downes, at left, and USS Cassin, capsized at right, burned out and sunk in the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard drydock on 7 December 1941, after the Japanese attack. The relatively undamaged USS Pennsylvania is in the background." Note the man in a white shirt standing under the gun, in awe.

Here are the wrecked destroyers USS Downes and USS Cassin at the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard after the attacks were over. This image has been attributed to Navy Photographer's Mate Harold Fawcett

Sailor lies face down, killed during the air attack at the Naval Air Station in Kaneohe Bay.

"A Marine rifle squad fires a volley over the bodies of fifteen officers and men killed at Naval Air Station Kaneohe Bay during the Pearl Harbor raid. These burial ceremonies took place on 8 December 1941, the day after the attack."

This, to me, almost looked like an old drone shot. "Aerial view of Battleship Row moorings on the southern side of Ford Island, 10 December 1941. ... Note dark oil streaks on the harbor surface, originating from the sunken battleships."

I didn't see many portraits in the archives, but here are a couple. "Divers emerging from a gas-filled compartment aboard one of the ships undergoing salvage, after the 7 December 1941 Japanese raid. Note oily conditions, and face masks worn by the men."

Taking the time to pose during cleanup. "Divers standing in front of a decompression chamber, while they were working to salvage ships sunk in the 7 December 1941 Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor. Note warrant officer standing at right."

Looking back on these images is also a reminder of how far photography has come since the 40s. These images are in black and white, taken before the popularity of color film hit in the 1970s. Many are out of focus, no doubt taken with a manual focus camera in a quickly developing, traumatic situation. The question is, would we want these images to be more “technically correct” than they are, so as to get a more accurate picture of what happened on that day? Or, at this point, is there something about the historical "feel" to them that adds something to what they communicate? I don’t have an answer. Either way, they still tell a story that shouldn't be forgotten. And maybe, if we all look back and remember the damage caused during past wars, we'll be less inclined to start new ones.

All images from the U.S. Naval History and Historical Command Archive.

Stephen Ironside's picture

Stephen Ironside is a commercial photographer with an outdoor twist based in Fayetteville, Arkansas. While attempting to specialize in adventure and travel photography, you can usually find him in the woods, in another country, or oftentimes stuffing his face at an Indian buffet.

Log in or register to post comments

Fun fact - In a time before speech writers really existed, FDR changed the diction last minute from - "a date which will live in world history."

There are no "fun" facts associated with this tragedy.

Thanks for both spending time here to remember the attack, and for sharing these incredible images, many of which I have not seen before.

You mention that all students in United States are taught about Pearl Harbor. I wonder if those in this community that are outside the U.S. were also taught about it, and if so what were they told? I would hope that an event that had repercussions around the world is still taught in classrooms outside of the U.S.

The FStoppers community. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

I assume many/most students in most countries are taught some version of U.S. history, for sure, but I don't know what they're taught.

Yeah definitely. I'm hoping some commenters outside the U.S. will chime in too. I'd be interested to hear what they've been told.

I've seen a fair amount of footage from Pearl Harbor, but some of these images were new to me and very striking. Really appreciate the post!

I'm English and I remember learning all about WWII in History at school. (I'm 36 so that was over 20 years ago) We learned a lot about the whole war, including Pearl Harbor. A very cowardly and sickening attack indeed.

These photos are very interesting and thought provoking. Not only the subject matter, but the fact that now in a digital world, everyone has a camera and can take photos of everything and anything. Historical photos like this seem all the more precious because they could only be taken by the few who happen to have had a camera at the ready, and even then, those people with cameras will have only had so many shots or rolls of film at their disposal.

Thank you, Chris. I appreciate your input and perspective.

History, and wars themselves are pretty tricky things if someone is looking to assign blame. As a high school student we were taught that Imperial Japan attacked Pearl in a pretty straightforward and cowardly sneak attack. Much like FDR's speech.

As a graduate student, we worked from a slightly murkier perspective. Imperial Japan was pushed into a corner by US and British policies in the Pacific. Japan was quickly running out of oil and rubber and this was the intention of both the US and the British. All three countries, Imperial Japan, Britain and the US were expanding influence in the Pacific. All three were at a virtual state of war by 1941.

FDR's speech, though one of the greatest speeches ever given (in my opinion anyway), was specifically designed to convince congress to go to war. Something FDR had wanted since 1939. There was certainly a political agenda in his speech. Pearl served a very valuable purpose, much the same as the Zimmerman telegraph or the sinking of the Lusitania in WWI. But, in and of itself, simply part of war. Which, should be avoided at almost all costs (almost - but not all).

Surprise attack, yes. A tragedy for those who (and I count myself in) lean more towards a western way of life, yes. But it was war, even if it was 'undeclared.' There are few modern powers who haven't engaged in warfare minus a declaration of war (the US have fought multiple wars without declarations). And NONE who haven't committed war crimes in one form or another.

Don't get me wrong, I mark December 7 as a sad day. As a day that will live in infamy. I ache for all those who died. But I ache for the individuals and their families and the families that never were because of December 7. Not for the country. The same as I ache for those other days that marked the final end of the conflict in August 1945.

Pearl Harbour was attacked for many reasons, the most compelling for the Japanese was their plan for Imperial expansion into the Pacific. In addition they wanted to defeat Singapore which was defended by the Americans. America was weakened in the Pacific theatre both by Pearl Harbour and the loss of the British Colonies which is why the Pacific campaign took so long to ramp up other than small engagements. In addition the US was ill equipped to deal with the type of tactics that the Japanese employed.

The Japanese couldn't go toe-to-toe with either the US or the UK (whom they stole a lot of the technology from after being allies in WW I) without that carrier tech then Pearl Harbour would probably never have happened.

Pearl Harbour or a similar attack would have happened regardless the US policy of non-conflict at them time also showed them as weak (regardless of actual strength) and Japan thought that disparate cultures in the US would not hold up in a conflict compared to their monolithic society which they perceived to be a strength.

Japan has never atoned to the atrocities that Unit 731 carried out both during the Chinese war let alone WWII which included a live vivisection on a US Airman in Japan (and countless thousands of other people). The US granted immunity to all research post-1945 but Russia and China pursued their own courts. It was the existence of Unit 731 and the ghost of biological warfare that was one of the factors of the Atom Bomb which lead to massive civilian deaths in Japan which is America's own atrocity.

The links, miscalculations and arrogance was rife on all sides which led to the loss of too many people. That's not taking into the consideration the insanity in Europe.

I read the author's "we all" as in all of humanity, not just America. Maybe Stephen can chime in.

Oh I think you're reading too much into this. It's a generalized sentiment and call for peace. He squarely places blame on Japan earlier:

"With a lack of declaration of war and without warning — and killing 2,402 Americans — the surprise attack by Japan’s military on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii was judged to be a war crime."

It was 2,403 casualties, however.

Context is always relevant.

Just to be clear, you disagree with the idea that we should remember the damage caused by past wars and use that knowledge before committing to new ones?

Because if you do, I'm going to label you at best stupid and insane, and at worst evil! :P

Fair point on the context.

I wasn't misrepresenting what you said, however. I paraphrased what the author wrote to clarify if you disagree with the statement.

And the last part was just in jest. Not meant to be nasty or anything. Sometimes that hard to get across online, hence the :P

Preaching peace and learning from history is always relevant.

Being ready and willing to go to war for a justifiable cause does not distract from aiming for peace, nor is this what the article was stating. You seem to be creating a false distinction from the content of the article.

Oh I accept what you believe here: it’s a perfectly valid position. Off topic, and based on a misread of the text, but valid.

You do realize you can have a serious conversation and still inject a little humor, no?

Bob I mean this with all sincerity: you misread the text and based your points off a fallacy. If you're too stubborn to see (or admit) this, there's no reason to talk anymore.

Sorry if you were offended by my joke. Certainly not my intent.

So you agree, or disagree with my statement? I can't tell if you're trying to argue or just like listening to yourself talk.

The latter. Got it.

Why do these things have to be mutually exclusive? Of course you make sure you're ready to go to war if it's necessary.

Why is it wrong to want peace?

Then I suggest you do everyone you’re debating the same service and not imply that because they want peace they’re just being politically correct and somehow equate what they say to meaning we shouldn’t be prepared to go to war. This isn’t a two sided coin.

Preach, brother!

Hows the view from way up on that high horse?

You're right Peter, 2,403 looks like a more accurate number. I read 2,402 somewhere.

I never said Americans started WWII. I also never said fighting back in this instance wasn't justifiable.What I was implying was that if we remember and learn from history -- both from our mistakes and the mistakes of others -- and remember the damage to society that wars cause, we'll be more inclined to find a peaceful solution to our problems rather than start violent conflicts.

A fair point well articulated in the article. Others’ agenda and bias may complicate it or muddle their comprehension of it, but that’s not your fault.

Again with the dogmatism. You've shown a pattern of devolving conversations this way. Sorry Bob, but I'm not going to engage further with your pointless ego stroking.

In my opinion truth is almost always relative (with some glaring examples). Always has been, always will be.

Bias is almost impossible to get away from.

Sure, 2x2=4 (at least on earth). But, in considering two or more arguments, in considering two or more interpretations of the same event, bias always plays a role.


Yes I agree wholeheartedly.

Best of luck articulating your logic any further on this forum, lol.

Perhaps then the word truth is being used with multiple meanings at the same time. Truth does not equal fact.

Fact is often not nearly the solid point of reference that many assume it is.

The argument has gone on for a while here, and has taken many twists. I don't want to put words in your mouth, can you tell me where you see others confusing your truth with untruth? Or, fact with preference?

I think truth has a pretty fluid meaning. And, truth certainly changes over time.

There is along chain of discussion above, I'm just asking you were you feel that you are being accused of not speaking the truth. I'm not asking you what others think. I'm asking you where you think your truth is being called into question.

As another question, do you really and truly believe that truth is so clear and distinct from preference? You don't see any grey? I'm not judging, just asking.

'Tis you, good sir, who needs to review some meanings of words:

And what, pray tell, are you reporting me for? I merely provide assistance to those who seek definitions of words! I am logophile! I have made no threats, and caused no abuse. I seek to enlighten!

I know not of these accusations you speak of: I have never been banned from this fine website.

Aha! I've found another word of relevance for you!

Triggered much?

My word! (Aha!)

Lies and threats to my safety offline? How very troubling. And all for providing dictionary definitions to an assumed fellow logophile.

As you have threatened me and accused me of crimes I did not commit, without cause or evidence, I now fear for my wellbeing.

I can certainly agree with the bully comment. And as far as it extends to world politics, I can also agree.

Where we disagree is when the someone actually is a tyrant and needs to be stood up to. It's easy, I think, to see certain people as tyrants in retrospect. Harder at the time. More on this in our other conversation.

By the by, I have no problem about a political discussion when the article is essentially about a political topic.

Don't worry. Bob is on a crusade to purge the nation of political correctness by being obtuse and dense. Take his comments with a grain of salt.

Don't worry, we're used to it.

What a desperate straw man comment. I'd say quit while you're ahead, but that opportunity is long gone.

So i'm not allowed to agree with anyone and back them up? Don't you believe in others people's right to self-determination?

It’s sad to see someone who simply misread a statement unable to own up to a mistake, and instead dig a deeper hole for themselves in a desperate attempt to save face. Pride cometh before the fall.

You continue to miss to point, Bob. I welcome disagreement, as would a good number of people on this site. If we all agreed, or knew everything, there would be little need for a forum.

What is being addressed is your misread of the text. You start from a faulty comprehension of the article's content, and make arguments based on that inaccuracy. Even if you make a valid point (as I said you did earlier) it is irrelevant to the author's focus.

The author even clarified an already straightforward statement, yet still you persist doggedly. So it is an issue of the messenger, not the message.

That "one relevant closing comment" you mention you mistakenly considered to be a reference to the United States starting WWII. You just didn't read it correctly. Any point beyond this is a non-sequitur, and you've shown yourself to be unable or unwilling to accept this fact.

You were wrong. I have every right to respond to your method of presentation and your faulty line of reasoning. And it's not my problem if you see a critique of how you engage in conversation to be some sort of affront.

Man Bob, I’m at a loss. You really don’t see it, and there’s no clearer way to put it than I and others already have.

You should learn to not see criticism as an offense.

We’re done here.

"He said "and maybe, if we all look back and remember the damage caused during past wars, we'll be less inclined to start new ones."

That I responded with America didn't start WWII is a fair and reasonable reply to *that specific statement,* and considering the topic of the article, photographic documentation of who actually did, at least in the Pacific."

You won't admit that you could have misinterpreted "we" as not just the United States? You continue to see a request for peace as a statement that war is never justified.

You are a very interesting individual. You're so convinced that you're always right I wonder how often you actually listen when people tell you what they meant vs what you THINK they meant.

So tired of people like Bob. Literally ruining the internet with their fauxlosophy. A blog shares really rad images of WW2 and we have Bob talk circles around himself while he fails to make a point.

This discussion has clearly been going on for some time now. I would however disagree that the US didn't have a role in the start of WWII.

As I was saying above (sorry to cut and paste) Imperial Japan was pushed into a corner by US and British policies in the Pacific. Japan was quickly running out of oil and rubber and this was the intention of both the US and the British. All three countries, Imperial Japan, Britain and the US were expanding influence in the Pacific. All three were at a virtual state of war by 1941. The US clearly intended to cut short Japanese imperialism in the Pacific through war by a means other than armed conflict. I'd suggest that if you put a cat in a corner you can't really be surprised when it come out biting. Please note, I don't condone what happened, but it was war. A war that saw the US avenge those from December 7.

It's just that it's more complicated than "the US didn't start of the war in the Pacific."

I'd also suggest that the war in Europe is a little murkier (though I note, much less murky than the Pacific) than most are willing to acknowledge. Would you agree that WWII is a direct offshoot of WWI, which itself really started in the 1870's and the Prussian wars with Austria and France? Essentially, a series of wars that saw the rise of Germany and both France's and Britain's refusal to allow the pie to split with another player. Now Wilson, of all the leaders in 1918/19 really did try to change the world, but nobody listened to him. Which set the world on a direct course for 1939. US politics in the inter-war years certainly didn't do anything to calm the situation in Europe and didn't allow Harding to Hoover (and then FDR) to be stronger with a Germany trying to reassert itself after the smack down of Versailles.

The US was involved in WWII long before 1941. Lend / lease made the US a participant pretty early in the war. Although most the US wasn't willing to send young men (FDR excluded - who seemed to understand faster than most), it was certainly willing to allow the war in Europe to help pull it out of the depression.

I'd note that most of this is long before anyone really realized what was going on in Poland and on the Eastern Front. And nobody was willing to start a world war over what they knew of the treatment of the European Jews from 1933-1944.

To oversimplify, it's all pretty complicated. Were the Western Powers the good guys, CERTAINLY, but that doesn't make US policies and actions from 1918 to 1941 innocent. The US didn't trigger WWII, no, but they did have a measure to do with how it started. Especially in the Pacific.

Your statement is not factual. I spent some energy trying to explain that. Your response doesn't really provide an answer to what I said.

Instead, you just reduce your statement to the very moment someone fired a bullet or dropped a torpedo. That is a fallacy. That isn't the start of a war. There are causes to the start of wars. I am of the opinion you know that, but are simply looking to pick a fight instead of discuss. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I did try to engage you.

If you wanted to be factual, you could say Imperial Japan fired the first round. Sure, I'd agree with that.

Any nation has a reason to go to war, they don't have to be tyrants. Was Nixon or Kennedy or Johnson a tyrant? Was Eden? Was Ike (as president)? Lincoln? Victoria? For that matter, Washington and Adams?

Aloha! No, Mr. Brady, it is YOU who needs to research the definition of the word "war"!

More comments