Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 17, 2017, 05:41:05 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Hysterical History  |  Topic: 75 Years Ago Today...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  All Print
Author Topic: 75 Years Ago Today...  (Read 7527 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« on: December 07, 2016, 03:32:36 AM »

Inescapably intertwined with CAP's 75th year is the attack which brought the
United States into the war and made CAP necessary.

This is purported to be the only color footage of the attack..


...and this is an indication of how far the US and World have come since the cessation of hostilities:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/asia/obama-abe-pearl-harbor/index.html

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced Monday he will visit Pearl Harbor in late December
with President Barack Obama, 75 years after Japan's attack on Hawaii in 1941.

He will be the first Japanese leader to visit the site since the end of World War II.






So many of "my" generation refer to 9-11 as "our Pearl Harbor", and while it might be a handy
reference conversationally, and in fact the casualty counts are similar, the sheer magnitude
of the aftermath, and the totality of the resulting conflicts are something that is really incomparable,
and I would assert incomprehensible to the people of today, and that hopefully will not be seen again.

THEY FOUGHT TOGETHER AS BROTHERS-IN-ARMS.
THEY DIED TOGETHER AND NOW THEY SLEEP SIDE BY SIDE.
TO THEM WE HAVE A SOLEMN OBLIGATION.


Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 743

« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2016, 09:32:34 AM »

"Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced Monday he will visit Pearl Harbor in late December
with President Barack Obama, 75 years after Japan's attack on Hawaii in 1941.

He will be the first Japanese leader to visit the site since the end of World War II."

He has also announced that he will not apologize for the cowardly unprovoked attack...  A date of infamy...

F. D. Roosevelt: "Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific."
« Last Edit: December 07, 2016, 11:04:06 AM by AirAux » Logged
HGjunkie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,616

« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2016, 11:03:40 AM »

He has also announced that he will not apologize for the cowardly unprovoked attack

Are you saying that's a bad thing?
Logged
retired
C1C USAFA
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 743

« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2016, 11:05:28 AM »

Yes, as it would be the honorable thing to do, to apologize for the attack, would it not??
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,088
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2016, 11:59:16 AM »

Yes, as it would be the honorable thing to do, to apologize for the attack, would it not??

Is the US going to apologize for all their actions leading up to the attack? Our leaders at the time are far from blameless. Poke the bee hive, and the bees will get pissed. Works both ways, and we poked first.

That said, let's keep this civil or we'll click it off.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2016, 12:46:25 PM »

and we poked first.

Cite please.

The Pearl Harbor attacks were unprovoked and occurred during negotiations with Japan.

They occurred because the Empire of Japan was seeking to cut out it's piece of the world before there wasn't any left
to slice, and they were concerned the US would intervene in their Pacific expansion.

It was, in hindsight, a desperate attempt to force the US into negotiating non-intervention, and by the estimation
of most scholars, a serious underestimation on the part of the Japanese (coupled with some happenstance that limited the
damage to the US' capabilities).
« Last Edit: December 07, 2016, 12:51:22 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,088
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2016, 02:34:14 PM »

The US cut off oil exports to Japan earlier in 1941, and was actively working on limiting availability of war resources from other sources through various embargos.

One of my college history courses was on Japan-US relations, and this was discussed extensively. My notes and texts are packed away, or I could give you solid references on this.

Here are some links about the embargos, and events leading up to the attack:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/13228-japans-need-for-oil-and-the-embargo-1940-1941/

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Japanese-reaction-to-the-US-embargo-in-1941

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,535

« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2016, 03:07:10 PM »

Those actions were not punches. They would not / should not have led to that attack if we were talking.

Or are you saying that the United States is wrong after warning a nation they will attack they cannot have airplanes taking off for advanced bases like happened before the first Gulf War? I seem to remember that the US was expecting Iraq to back off -- talking -- we were also jockeying for position?

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 972
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2016, 03:54:34 PM »

"War is the continuation of politics by other means" - Clausewitz, yes?


When a national command authority (of whatever nation) feels that a given political message isn't strong enough, then "Why, a lesson has to be applied (harrumph, harrumph)". Such have been the actions of nations throughout history, from kidnapping the son of the chief of the rival stone age tribe, to punitive bombing, to (you fill in the blank).


Apologies enforced are at the discretion of the winner, who may compel them (and execute or imprison the surviving opposition) at their discretion.  Therefore, Osama bin Laden is (allegedly) dead, Nuremburg brought many Nazis (with some selective exemptions) to justice, and our former evil enemies in WW2 were reconstructed and rearmed to form an opposition to the international communist forces of evil.


The real question today is, what political purposes would it serve (both internally and externally) to try to compel the Japanese to apologize, and what parallels and lessons can we draw to maintain peace while standing up for our national interests? It would be doubtful that State (and the current administration) would ever go so far, but politics changes, as we see with the incoming CINC-elect reopening lines of communication with ROC (aka Taiwan, aka "free China", aka the separate province to be reclaimed, depending on your POV). On that topic, there are eerie parallels to the 1941 Japanese response to US trade embargo (peaceful, civil) pressure which stood in the way of their national ambitions. Will the Communist Chinese nomenklatura of 2017 see any rapprochement between the Taiwanese government and the incoming administration as internally threatening enough to merit a response in what THEY see as equivalent pressure? Should the US (continue to) roll over and show our bellies, or stand up for equal treatment of all nations around the world, risking a response? What will that communist response be, and what will the US be willing to do?


An aside: I watched CNN the other night (I was TDY... hotel cable, ugh) and heard Anderson Cooper railing at the Trump campaign manager about loose cannons needlessly angering our peaceful Chinese neighbors on this issue, and then CNN cut straight to a commercial from - Hainan Airlines (owned, through a chain of holding companies, by the communist government of China). Lesson: the Chinese communist elite are not subtle about advertising their control over their silver haired mouth pieces in the US media, nor about PR as an extension of national policy.


We've already forgotten 9-11 and have cut and run, leaving the field to the enemy. Few kids today remember the significance of Pearl Harbor and 7th December. None remember the Maine except to pass a quiz in 10th grade. Almost none at all remember the previous roads to war. And they'll all vote. God help us all.


V/r
Spam

Logged
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 743

« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2016, 05:40:56 PM »

Let's not forget that the U.S. promised to never abandon Taiwan in the first place.  Although the discussion has taken a turn, probably due to me, Let's not forget the men and women that died at Pearl Harbor on that terrible day, Sunday, December 7, 1941.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2016, 10:52:17 PM »


Barbed wire was installed at Waikiki Beach and other coastlines across Hawaii after the 1941 attacks on Pearl Harbor.


Barbed wire along the front of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel in Waikiki


Gas masks were issued to all Hawaii civilians over the age of 7...


Every citizen of the Hawaiian Islands was required to be fingerprinted and issued an official ID card like this one. Under martial law, this card had to be carried at all times.
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

USACAP
Forum Regular

Posts: 101
Unit: MV0181

« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2016, 12:42:04 AM »

Thanks. I just can't seem to get enough revisionist history!
Especially from some worthless class second-rate professor in an undergrad course.
Japan acted savagely and disgustingly in the Second World War. From day #1.
When putting this conflict into the context of #Merica started it with sanctions...
That ignores the history of the Japanese Empire over the previous decade.
If you want to discuss honorable intentions ...?
Shall we discuss the Rape of Nanking?
The Bangka Island Massacre?
The Bataan Death March or the Sandakan Death March?
Korean "comfort women?

Japan was on a direct collision course with the US just as Germany was rolling over Western Europe.
Look at the extent of Japan's empire in Dec 1941 and tell me with a straight face we could have made peace with them.
That sort of Herbert Hoover revisionist history is foolish ignorance.
I hope you keep that crap to yourself when you get up in front of cadets.

The US cut off oil exports to Japan earlier in 1941, and was actively working on limiting availability of war resources from other sources through various embargos.

One of my college history courses was on Japan-US relations, and this was discussed extensively. My notes and texts are packed away, or I could give you solid references on this.

Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,088
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2016, 01:48:46 AM »

Lighten up, Francis.

That's pretty harsh to indict a college prof you have zero knowledge of. Just because your opinion of the course of events differs from mine doesn't mean that you should go off on a rant like that.

I never said that the US started it. I simply stated that they poked an already angry beehive, and the beehive retaliated. I do not disagree with anything you said. It is all horribly true. US involvement was coming; the sanctions accelerated it.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 12:42:21 PM by SarDragon » Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,809

« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2016, 12:06:09 PM »

This is an interesting discussion in that it is a real world example of Obi-wan's argument that you will "find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Did Japan act savagely? From a non-Japanese POV, youbetcha. However, in their view, they viewed that part of the world as theirs, and in order to better serve their "manifest destiny", they had to be savage to what they viewed as "lesser" peoples, Americans included. Did they commit war crimes? Maybe, as that is always defined by the victors. American and allied troops committed as many violations of the laws of armed conflict and broke as many treaties as the Japanese. Just look at Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo, the "no SS man will be taken alive" orders and you'll see that during the war, no belligerent's hands were clean. We've become used to viewing the entirety of the war as a cosmic conflict between good and evil. That view is tainted by the lens of time, culture and the national position of the US. Were either of the parties "right"? Just ask Obi-wan.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,535

« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2016, 01:21:30 PM »

Are war crimes defined by the victors? I would say "no." Why?

What defines a "war crime" gets discussed at peace conferences. Then the countries make treaties. You break those rules, you can be charged of a war crime. Then judges decide.

Just like in a community. People decide on a set behavior. It becomes rule. You do not abide by that rule, you will get arrested / accused / judged.

Or are you going to contend the community itself is / are "victors?" That they create rules after the action???


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 972
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2016, 02:02:33 PM »

This is an interesting discussion in that it is a real world example of Obi-wan's argument that you will "find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Did Japan act savagely? From a non-Japanese POV, youbetcha. However, in their view, they viewed that part of the world as theirs, and in order to better serve their "manifest destiny", they had to be savage to what they viewed as "lesser" peoples, Americans included. Did they commit war crimes? Maybe, as that is always defined by the victors. American and allied troops committed as many violations of the laws of armed conflict and broke as many treaties as the Japanese. Just look at Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo, the "no SS man will be taken alive" orders and you'll see that during the war, no belligerent's hands were clean. We've become used to viewing the entirety of the war as a cosmic conflict between good and evil. That view is tainted by the lens of time, culture and the national position of the US. Were either of the parties "right"? Just ask Obi-wan.


First, Obi-wan was a moral relativist, and a shifty-eyed, flat out liar. I personally feel he wasn't originally written that way, but since George Lucas can't carry a plot line further than the bathroom (cf. Luke and Leia love interest?!?) it is what it is. So, the fictional Obi-wan is certainly no good arbiter of morality in my book.


Second, while none of us are righteous (no not one), to equate the systematic and mechanized rape, defilement and murder of millions by successive governments of imperialists, fascists, national socialists, socialists, and communist thugs, with the legitimate targeting of military target complexes by US forces is vastly off base.  Yes - we have had My Lai incidents. Yes - we abused prisoners in Iraq. Yes - we did on occasion commit documented atrocities and those who committed them were later relieved and brought to justice, because that's one of the differences between civilized soldiers and barbarian warriors. The Japanese never agreed to the Geneva convention, and systematically butchered, raped, tortured, and mistreated their captives, to the point of vivisecting them, intentionally infecting them with diseases, to using chemical weapons to burn them alive, and to bury them alive to slowly and horribly die. The Japanese made a systematic practice of subjugation and murder of the enemy and civilians, the Germans made a systematic practice of extermination, and the Russians of sacrificial elimination of undesirables, where the Americans did not have "as many violations" as you claim, and their scope and nature were not even NEAR to being in the same ballpark. Putting thousands of Nissei Japanese Americans who refuse to sign an oath of allegiance to the US in internment camps is not even CLOSE to, say, enslaving thousands of captive women as sex slaves (a documented fact which todays Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (Jiyū-Minshutō) has repeatedly denied ever happened.


The current Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has publicly ancestor worshipped at the Japanese shrine for many of the convicted Japanese war criminals. His LDP party is trying to deny and move on. You won't see him apologize for Pearl Harbor, and the current US administration would never dream of suggesting that he should.  But to confirm that all politics is local, read some of the background on domestic reasons as to why hes up for this, following the US presidential Hiroshima visit/apology/rollover: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/05/why-shinzo-abe-is-really-going-to-visit-pearl-harbor.html


Their facist and imperialist side performed unspeakably evil aggressive acts routinely and systematically. Ours was unquestionably the good fight, with occasional errors that we need to remember and guard against. Both sides were comprised of imperfect humans, and good triumphed over evil and defeated it utterly through having the clarity to recognize evil, coupled with the commitment to total war. We would do well to remember that now in our current war against islamic aggression, and to remember that half measures don't work, and that moral relativism will lead us astray from confronting evil until it is too strong to overcome. (*so yeah, Edith Keeler did have to die in Captain Kirks timeline).


V/r
Spam




Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,809

« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2016, 03:09:03 PM »

This is an interesting discussion in that it is a real world example of Obi-wan's argument that you will "find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Did Japan act savagely? From a non-Japanese POV, youbetcha. However, in their view, they viewed that part of the world as theirs, and in order to better serve their "manifest destiny", they had to be savage to what they viewed as "lesser" peoples, Americans included. Did they commit war crimes? Maybe, as that is always defined by the victors. American and allied troops committed as many violations of the laws of armed conflict and broke as many treaties as the Japanese. Just look at Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo, the "no SS man will be taken alive" orders and you'll see that during the war, no belligerent's hands were clean. We've become used to viewing the entirety of the war as a cosmic conflict between good and evil. That view is tainted by the lens of time, culture and the national position of the US. Were either of the parties "right"? Just ask Obi-wan.


First, Obi-wan was a moral relativist, and a shifty-eyed, flat out liar. I personally feel he wasn't originally written that way, but since George Lucas can't carry a plot line further than the bathroom (cf. Luke and Leia love interest?!?) it is what it is. So, the fictional Obi-wan is certainly no good arbiter of morality in my book.


Second, while none of us are righteous (no not one), to equate the systematic and mechanized rape, defilement and murder of millions by successive governments of imperialists, fascists, national socialists, socialists, and communist thugs, with the legitimate targeting of military target complexes by US forces is vastly off base.  Yes - we have had My Lai incidents. Yes - we abused prisoners in Iraq. Yes - we did on occasion commit documented atrocities and those who committed them were later relieved and brought to justice, because that's one of the differences between civilized soldiers and barbarian warriors. The Japanese never agreed to the Geneva convention, and systematically butchered, raped, tortured, and mistreated their captives, to the point of vivisecting them, intentionally infecting them with diseases, to using chemical weapons to burn them alive, and to bury them alive to slowly and horribly die. The Japanese made a systematic practice of subjugation and murder of the enemy and civilians, the Germans made a systematic practice of extermination, and the Russians of sacrificial elimination of undesirables, where the Americans did not have "as many violations" as you claim, and their scope and nature were not even NEAR to being in the same ballpark. Putting thousands of Nissei Japanese Americans who refuse to sign an oath of allegiance to the US in internment camps is not even CLOSE to, say, enslaving thousands of captive women as sex slaves (a documented fact which todays Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (Jiyū-Minshutō) has repeatedly denied ever happened.


The current Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has publicly ancestor worshipped at the Japanese shrine for many of the convicted Japanese war criminals. His LDP party is trying to deny and move on. You won't see him apologize for Pearl Harbor, and the current US administration would never dream of suggesting that he should.  But to confirm that all politics is local, read some of the background on domestic reasons as to why hes up for this, following the US presidential Hiroshima visit/apology/rollover: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/05/why-shinzo-abe-is-really-going-to-visit-pearl-harbor.html


Their facist and imperialist side performed unspeakably evil aggressive acts routinely and systematically. Ours was unquestionably the good fight, with occasional errors that we need to remember and guard against. Both sides were comprised of imperfect humans, and good triumphed over evil and defeated it utterly through having the clarity to recognize evil, coupled with the commitment to total war. We would do well to remember that now in our current war against islamic aggression, and to remember that half measures don't work, and that moral relativism will lead us astray from confronting evil until it is too strong to overcome. (*so yeah, Edith Keeler did have to die in Captain Kirks timeline).


V/r
Spam

Again, you're looking at it through the lens of western culture. From their POV and from the perspective of their culture, they were right. As far at Pearl Harbor goes (that is what started this discussion, I think...), it was supposed to be a crushing defeat for the Pacific Fleet. Since the Japanese viewed Americans as soft and lazy, their government in the form of the IJN fully expected the Americans to fold immediately. Very few among their ranks considered the backlash that was to come. Again, it was part of their culture, not just a concept of the moment, that they were the superior people and they would always be victorious. It can been seen in the way they planned the war. Each of the IJN battles was planned and designed as a decisive Mahanian battle. Each ship and each man had a part to play, and play it they would. There was no room for individual initiative or out of the box thinking. That's why, at Midway, they ended up with 4 carrier decks at the bottom of the Pacific. Why? Because the Americans gave Spruance the command and as a tin can admiral, he used his assets much differently than Halsey, a carrier admiral if there was one, would have.

Do I think that the WW2 Japanese were the bad guys? Yep. Again, looking through the lens of history, there are many cases where the same can be said for the Americans, but since we were on the victorious side, those events are often overlooked or minimized. Did the US goad the Japanese into a conflict? They didn't have to. It was coming.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 03:22:05 PM by THRAWN » Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,535

« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2016, 04:34:59 PM »

No matter what the US had done, they would have attacked. Sometimes people talk just to stall. That is just what the Japanese were doing.


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,809

« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2016, 04:56:07 PM »

No matter what the US had done, they would have attacked. Sometimes people talk just to stall. That is just what the Japanese were doing.

Kind of. The Japanese government often operated like multiple and separate governments. The Army and the Navy hated each other. The "civilian" members of the government were often bullied into action by their military and nationalist counterparts. The Emperor was out of the OODA loop, often until doin's were a happenin'. Kido Butai had set sail well before the talks were taking place. The die had been cast. Even if the talks had resulted in hand shakes, back slaps and toasts to the spirit of Yamato, the bombs still would have fallen.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 743

« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2016, 12:41:57 PM »

If one wants to learn about the attempt of revisionist trying to change history, one needs go no further than the debate over the display of the Enola Gay in which the revisionist attempted to portray America as guilty as Japan in igniting WWII and that American military were war criminals.  This was successfully fought by the Air Force and many veteran groups.  It seems strange to me that revisionist and history can be used together as history should be fact and not politically slanted.  JMHO, as usual.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Hysterical History  |  Topic: 75 Years Ago Today...
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.457 seconds with 20 queries.