Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2017, 09:29:36 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 3344 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,361

« 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

"Effort" does not equal "results".
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: 737

« 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: 1,613

« 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
•••
C2C USAFA
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 737

« 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: 9,789
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: 27,361

« 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

"Effort" does not equal "results".
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: 9,789
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: 2,391

« 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: 824
Unit: GA-001/CV

« 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: 737

« 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: 27,361

« 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

"Effort" does not equal "results".
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: 9,789
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: 1,746

« 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: 2,391

« 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: 824
Unit: GA-001/CV

« 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: 1,746

« 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: 2,391

« 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: 1,746

« 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: 737

« 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
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2016, 12:51:32 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.

Exactly. History is, in my opinion, an examination of the facts not clouded by emotion, bias or political leanings. If that's revisionist, that is a new definition to me. I do agree about the Enola Gay "controversy".  For every action, there will always be a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, second guessing, and alternate scenarios. Based on the casualty estimates of an invasion of the home islands, Truman had little choice. He could let a million of his guys get killed, or use the bombs. How many of us today would not be here if he had chosen the former? I know I wouldn't be.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
ColonelJack
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,323
Unit: SER-GA-153

« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2016, 08:17:40 AM »

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.

As simplistic and trite as it may sound, it is also indeed true ... "History is written by the winners."

Jack
Logged
Lt. Col. Jack Bagley, Civil Air Patrol
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2016, 09:25:18 PM »

If you think the Japanese should apologize for Pearl Harbor, keep in mind that it wasn't until 1993 that the US apologized for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. And we didn't give the kingdom back to the Hawaiians. When the US criticized and then embargoed Japan for their seizure of Manchuria, the Japanese pointed to Hawaii as the pot calling the kettle black. It was the US embargo that lead to the Japanese feeling the need to find replacement resources for the US embargoed products and that lead to WWII.

Things are not always as simplistic as we were taught in grade school.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2016, 11:28:39 PM »

Had Japan stayed in Japan, they would not have not needed oil... Had Japan used the steel for pacific use, they would not have needed extra steel... Or any other resources the US included in the embargoes.

[Edited to correct small grammar gaffe]
« Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 12:43:23 AM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

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

Posts: 824
Unit: GA-001/CV

« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2016, 12:05:37 AM »

What "western viewpoints" you all have, forsooth...

I share most of the POVs here, with the exception being that the US committed as many atrocities as Japan (not true at all). As reasonable societies reform themselves to civilized modes of behavior, they tend to self-police such aberrant behavior, rather than celebrating it or excusing it.

So, yeah... guys who slaughter US prisoners in 1942 because they follow a bushido code and think "anyone who surrenders rather than fight to the death is less than human and worthy of butchering" equate for me to islamic animals who today demand conversion, submission, or failing that take a razor and slowly slice their captives heads off. I'm tired of apologists for Japan. I'm tired of apologists for muslim inhuman animals who blame THEIR barbarism on OUR standing up to them. No, there is not a moral equivalency. No, the crusades of a millennia ago (*in response to an islamic invasion) do NOT somehow justify the current barbarism as some sort of equivalent response.

Western viewpoint or not, evil is evil. Mercy and tolerance are mercy and tolerance.  The "lens of their culture" was a perverse, horrible view of humanity; the bushido code rightly belongs on the ash heap of history, and you don't need a doctoral degree in Japanese history to see that it was wrong, and that the US wasn't even close to the axis powers in terms of inhumanity in WW2.


V/r
Spam


Logged
Damron
Suspended

Posts: 219
Unit: xxx

« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2016, 01:52:47 AM »

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).

The use of the word "unprovoked" is a bit problematic as those that identify acts viewed as provocative by Japan are not suggesting the attack was justified or anything other than a brutal act of war.  Japan started a war with the United States, even Japan understood that.  The word "unprovoked" often leads folks into a debate when they really share the same view of the War. 

The Japanese had every reason to see the United States as a rival and potentially expansionist colonial power in the Pacific. We were.  The Japanese looked at the Philippine–American War as proof of U.S. desire to be a Pacific power and post WWI actions by the U.S. certainly reinforced the Japanese view.

Let's not forget that the Philippines, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Samoa, Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, and Wake Island were all colonial possessions of the United States. 

Did the U.S. work hard to maintain good relations with Japan after WWI?  No, we coerced the U.K. to break the Anglo-Japanese Treaty and Japan's relationship with the U.S. and U.K. began a slow and steady decline and Japan grew more and more isolated.

Instead of treating Japan as an equal at the Washington Naval Conference, Japan was forced to accept lower limits on naval fleet expansion with threat of economic sanctions and suggestion that some Japanese territorial claims would be challenged.

The final straw was the stupid decision of the U.S. to get involved in the Sino-Japanese War.  The tide was turning and Japan felt spread thin and vulnerable to U.S. action. 

Logged
Damron
Suspended

Posts: 219
Unit: xxx

« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2016, 02:06:29 AM »

Had Japan stayed in Japan, they would not have not needed oil... Had Japan used the steel for pacific use, they would not have needed extra steel... Or any other resources the US included in the embargoes.

[Edited to correct small grammar gaffe]

If you are going to play that kind of simplistic game, you can say that Japan would have stayed in Japan if China hadn't fought to control Korea,  the United States hadn't gone to war in the Philippines, and the French didn't claim French Indochina. 

The United States would not have cut off oil to Japan if the French didn't occupy French Indochina, so the French should have stayed in France too.




Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,789
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2016, 03:48:20 AM »

OK, it looks like we are arguing in circles here. I don't think anyone's minds have been changed.

Anyone got anything else fresh to contribute?
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 824
Unit: GA-001/CV

« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2016, 03:49:35 AM »

Nah, thanks   :)

Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2016, 08:50:10 AM »

Quote

...the United States hadn't gone to war in the Philippines...


The US did not go to war in the Philippines, it initially got to war with Spain. Then it stayed.

China controlling Korea? That is new to me.

Anyway we were discussing Japan's actions, not actions by other nations.


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2016, 12:31:32 PM »

The US did not go to war in the Philippines, it initially got to war with Spain. Then it stayed.

The US did more than stay.

The Spanish-American War was immediately followed by the Philippine–American War.

Quote
The Philippine–American War was an armed conflict between the First Philippine Republic and the United States. The conflict arose when the First Philippine Republic objected to the terms of the Treaty of Paris under which the United States took possession of the Philippines from Spain, ending the Spanish–American War. The war was a continuation of the Philippine struggle for independence that began in 1896 with the Philippine Revolution.

The US Army has separate battle streamers for the Spanish-American War (or as it calls it the War With Spain), comprising three streamers and the Philippine Insurrection, which has eleven streamers. Obviously the US Army considers the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War to be separate events.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,361

« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2016, 12:58:11 PM »

Pearl Harbor veteran honored with inflight hula, song


http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2016-12-09/pearl-harbor-veteran-honored-with-inflight-hula-song

"HONOLULU (AP) — A group of Hawaii musicians and a Hawaiian Airlines flight attendant provided special inflight entertainment to a Pearl Harbor survivor flying home from a ceremony commemorating the 75th anniversary of the attack..."
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
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.

PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,645

« Reply #32 on: December 11, 2016, 01:52:07 PM »

The US did not go to war in the Philippines, it initially got to war with Spain. Then it stayed.

The US did more than stay.

The Spanish-American War was immediately followed by the Philippine–American War.

Quote
The Philippine–American War was an armed conflict between the First Philippine Republic and the United States. The conflict arose when the First Philippine Republic objected to the terms of the Treaty of Paris under which the United States took possession of the Philippines from Spain, ending the Spanish–American War. The war was a continuation of the Philippine struggle for independence that began in 1896 with the Philippine Revolution.

The US Army has separate battle streamers for the Spanish-American War (or as it calls it the War With Spain), comprising three streamers and the Philippine Insurrection, which has eleven streamers. Obviously the US Army considers the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War to be separate events.

The M1911 .45cal pistol was developed for use in the Philippines when it was discovered that the pistol then in use didn't have enough "knock down" power.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #33 on: December 11, 2016, 03:04:16 PM »

You do not have to re-hash the entire history!

As I said, the United States stayed there, and was attacked. Then they defended themselves.

PLEASE stay on topic. 75 Years Ago Today is about the attack on the American Fleet by the Japanese. It does not matter what the US did or did not do. It does not matter what the British did or did not do in Australia. It does not matter what the French did or did not do. It does not matter what China did or did not do.

All it matters is that in the middle of talks, Japan moved.


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2016, 08:35:59 PM »

You do not have to re-hash the entire history!

As I said, the United States stayed there, and was attacked. Then they defended themselves.

The US did not stay and get attacked. The Spanish-American War was cooked up by a newspaper rivalry between two newspapers. Spain did not mine the USS Maine, all recent research points to a coal dust explosion. However, we used the pretext of an attack to assault the entire Spanish overseas empire and stripe her of all her possessions. The Philippines were in the midst of their own revolution against Spanish rule, similar to our revolution against the British, when the US intervened without being asked. Having whooped the Spanish, we then went to war with the Philippinos, who just wanted to have their own country. They finally got it after WWII. You really should read about the atrocities that the US committed during the Philippine-American War - it doesn't make good reading for "our side".

One of the few, maybe the only good thing, to come out of the Philippine-American War was, as someone posted the Colt M1911 pistol. It replaced the then issued Colt M1892 revolver in .38 Long Colt, which wasn't having much effect on the Moro warriors. Before issuing the M1911, the US Army even reverted to reissuing the M1873 single-action revolver in .45 Colt.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2016, 09:09:26 PM »

Another one that misses his mark!

We were past the Spanish-American War. The United States went there as a result of the events he describes. Stayed there and the Philippine-US War started. But again, this thread is not about the Spanish American War, nor the Philippine-US War but about Japanese attack 75 years ago!

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2016, 10:09:58 PM »

You will not understand why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, unless you understand the events in the Pacific that preceded it. Japan, not only had the US take-over of Hawaii, the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War as warning points. They also remembered the US forcing them to open their markets to US. The US Navy shelled Japan, until they agreed to open up. Where in international law is that a recognized negotiating tactic? The Japanese could also look to China and the European/American Opium Wars that resulted when China was forced to "open up". The US's hands are not entirely clean in the matter. In the end, we won, they lost, no apology required.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2016, 11:33:35 PM »

Since you insist on bringing events to explain "why," let's talk about opening Japan to trade with a bombardment.

Japan was so closed to Gaijins that even western shipwrecked sailors were killed. Gunboat diplomacy? Maybe needed at the time...
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2016, 12:05:22 AM »

So according to you, the US was justified in shelling a Japanese city and forcing them to sign an unequal treaty, under threat of greater force, because they allegedly executed shipwreck victims, who were fishing in their territorial waters (most were whalers). If that is your justification, then the Japanese certainly were justified in attacking the US for the even greater injury of cutting off needed raw materials.

Nor was the alleged "sneak attack" so sneaky. The war ultimatum was late due to translation problems. Several times and days ahead of the attack, the US Navy and War Department (Army) sent several warnings to all the Pacific commands. One was an out-and-out war warning. The Navy and Army leadership at Pearl Harbor simply defended against the wrong attack. They were defending against sabotage and not a direct attack. Basically, both the Pearl Harbor commands and the military leadership in Washington, DC were asleep at the switch. The whole "sneak attack" story was invented to protect the reputations of all involved, except for the two Pearl Harbor commanders, who were made scapegoats.

A simple matter of having submarines and aircraft patrolling north of the islands would have given ample warning of the attack. The western Pacific command took the war warning seriously and put all of its submarines out to sea, which is why they survived to fight another day. They were instrumental in the beginning of ravaging the Japanese merchant fleet, which was needed to transport good from the British and Dutch possessions back to Japan.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2016, 12:28:39 AM »

And we are in a circle.

Old US history. Berber pirates attack shipping. The US decides to invade to cut their threats. Just like in Japan. So you are telling me that the US has no business there? That US was wrong in sending Marines...?

Recent world history. China Sea. Pirates again attacking international shipping. International patrol. Are you saying the patrol has no right to stop the pirates?

In their view, these pirates are only looking for their welfare.

Recent US history. Somalia. If I hear you correctly, the US has no right to be there stopping the piracy going on there!

The Somali warlords are only looking to survive, and the benefit of their people.

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,361

« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2016, 12:38:49 AM »

http://pearl75.org/online-learning/

"Join the Museum for a free four-part Online Learning Series designed specifically for adults, exploring Japan's rise to power, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and key events of the early days of the Pacific war. With four live sessions accessible right from your computer, including the Museum's 75th Anniversary Commemoration, participants will see a variety of compelling sources and hear from a panel of experts to learn more about why and how the attack happened, and the challenges the United States faced after December 7, 1941."



Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
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: 737

« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2016, 10:09:30 AM »

Does anyone remember that the US purchased the Philippines in 1898??
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,361

« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2016, 10:18:07 AM »

Does anyone remember that the US purchased the Philippines in 1898??

Probably the Filipinos, I would imagine it comes up in conversation now and again...
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
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.

THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2016, 10:19:13 AM »

http://pearl75.org/online-learning/

"Join the Museum for a free four-part Online Learning Series designed specifically for adults, exploring Japan's rise to power, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and key events of the early days of the Pacific war. With four live sessions accessible right from your computer, including the Museum's 75th Anniversary Commemoration, participants will see a variety of compelling sources and hear from a panel of experts to learn more about why and how the attack happened, and the challenges the United States faced after December 7, 1941."





These are excellent. Parschall is THE expert on the IJN fleet, wrote the book on the Battle of Midway and is a frequent lecturer at the Naval War College.

His site: http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm has some excellent resources.


Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2016, 10:22:42 AM »

The pirates, old and new, were attacking US shipping. That is plenty of reason to stop them.

The US did not shell Japan during the alleged "opening" because of the alleged execution of shipwreck victims. We attacked Japan during the opening, simply to force them to trade with us on unequal terms. The "Great Powers" had done the same thing to China a bit earlier.

The alleged execution of shipwreck victims, if they occurred at all, was easily justified in Japan because the "victims" were fishing in Japanese waters and depriving Japanese fisherman of their livelihood and Japan of its natural resources. How many were executed (I've looked and can't find a single provable number) and how died due to their injuries remains unknown and unproven. The shipwreck victim justification is very similar to the proven false claim of the mining of the USS Maine that was used to justify the Spanish-American War or even the Tonkin Gulf to justify Vietnam. The US has a history of cooking up stories to justify war and war-like acts.
Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #45 on: December 12, 2016, 10:31:13 AM »

Does anyone remember that the US purchased the Philippines in 1898??

Let's see. The Philippinos declare a republic and begin a rebellion against Spain. Some time later, on cooked up charges, the US attacks Spain's overseas possessions. The Spanish lose and the US pays Spain $20 million. If the war was justified to start with, why did we pay Spain anything? But I digress. Remember the Philippinos had already declared a republic, just like we did on July 4,1776. The US doesn't recognize that republic, it wants a colony. So the goes to war with the freedom loving Philippinos and kills them off by the hundreds of thousands.

So by the logic of the first post, if France or Spain had paid England for the US back in 1776, the French or Spanish  would have been justified in crushing the American Revolution.
Logged
Damron
Suspended

Posts: 219
Unit: xxx

« Reply #46 on: December 12, 2016, 11:31:37 AM »

Quote

...the United States hadn't gone to war in the Philippines...


The US did not go to war in the Philippines, it initially got to war with Spain. Then it stayed.

China controlling Korea? That is new to me.

Anyway we were discussing Japan's actions, not actions by other nations.

The Philippines declared independence and later that year Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States. As Spain was no longer a combatant, it was certainly a war against the Filipinos.  If you want to view it as an insurgency, fine.  Don't get lost in trivia and ignore my point.  Japan viewed Spain and the United States as colonial powers in the Pacific, rivals.   

Read up on the First Sino-Japanese War, it was Japan's reaction to China's interest in controlling Korea.

You can't just look at Japan's actions and ignore the context and history, which certainly does involve other countries.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 11:44:21 AM by Damron » Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2016, 06:50:05 PM »

If I believe your logic, I will have to believe...

...that Japan was justified in attacking the United States...

...that Japan was justified in treating the United States and Philippinos like they did in the Bataan Death March...

...after all these prisoners had been killing Japanese soldiers, and since Japan did not have transportation for them nor they were ready for moving those POWs...

...and that Japan was right on applying their Bushido warrior ethic.

Logged

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

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #48 on: December 12, 2016, 07:02:54 PM »

If I believe your logic, I will have to believe...

...that Japan was justified in attacking the United States...

...that Japan was justified in treating the United States and Philippinos like they did in the Bataan Death March...

...after all these prisoners had been killing Japanese soldiers, and since Japan did not have transportation for them nor they were ready for moving those POWs...

...and that Japan was right on applying their Bushido warrior ethic.

From their point of view, yes. In every conflict, all of the combatants believe they are right or just or doing the will of God or making the world safe for democracy. The victors will always decide if the moral position of the vanquished was wrong or evil. By way of example, if the US had lost the Pacific war, LeMay would have been tried as a war criminal. As would Halsey, Vandegrift, MacArthur...because from the Japanese perspective, they committed many many war crimes against the Empire.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 07:06:17 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
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,645

« Reply #49 on: December 12, 2016, 07:36:58 PM »

If I believe your logic, I will have to believe...

...that Japan was justified in attacking the United States...

...that Japan was justified in treating the United States and Philippinos like they did in the Bataan Death March...

...after all these prisoners had been killing Japanese soldiers, and since Japan did not have transportation for them nor they were ready for moving those POWs...

...and that Japan was right on applying their Bushido warrior ethic.

From their point of view, yes. In every conflict, all of the combatants believe they are right or just or doing the will of God or making the world safe for democracy. The victors will always decide if the moral position of the vanquished was wrong or evil. By way of example, if the US had lost the Pacific war, LeMay would have been tried as a war criminal. As would Halsey, Vandegrift, MacArthur...because from the Japanese perspective, they committed many many war crimes against the Empire.

There were some who accused LeMay of war crimes for ordering the fire bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities.
Far more Japanese civilians died in the Fire Bomb raids then died in the Atomic Bombings.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #50 on: December 12, 2016, 07:41:26 PM »

If I believe your logic, I will have to believe...

...that Japan was justified in attacking the United States...

...that Japan was justified in treating the United States and Philippinos like they did in the Bataan Death March...

...after all these prisoners had been killing Japanese soldiers, and since Japan did not have transportation for them nor they were ready for moving those POWs...

...and that Japan was right on applying their Bushido warrior ethic.

From their point of view, yes. In every conflict, all of the combatants believe they are right or just or doing the will of God or making the world safe for democracy. The victors will always decide if the moral position of the vanquished was wrong or evil. By way of example, if the US had lost the Pacific war, LeMay would have been tried as a war criminal. As would Halsey, Vandegrift, MacArthur...because from the Japanese perspective, they committed many many war crimes against the Empire.

There were some who accused LeMay of war crimes for ordering the fire bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities.
Far more Japanese civilians died in the Fire Bomb raids then died in the Atomic Bombings.

Yep but he was never tried or even reprimanded because the Allies won the war.
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: 2,391

« Reply #51 on: December 12, 2016, 09:25:48 PM »

And Sir Harris, the British Bomber Command commander saw heavy criticism because of his decisions. Like LeMay, he suffered.
Logged

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

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2016, 09:39:12 PM »

And Sir Harris, the British Bomber Command commander saw heavy criticism because of his decisions. Like LeMay, he suffered.

I am not sure either really suffered. They waged a Clausewitzian war and were rewarded richly for their service.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
EMT-83
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,770

« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2016, 09:40:21 PM »

Although this thread has strayed somewhat from the original topic intended, it's great reading. A mostly respectful debate of a subject which has been debated for 75 years.

Thanks go to the moderators for not shutting it down.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2016, 09:53:49 PM »

Although this thread has strayed somewhat from the original topic intended, it's great reading. A mostly respectful debate of a subject which has been debated for 75 years.

Thanks go to the moderators for not shutting it down.

Seconded! This has been great fun
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,645

« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2016, 10:24:08 PM »

And Sir Harris, the British Bomber Command commander saw heavy criticism because of his decisions. Like LeMay, he suffered.

Sir Arthur earned his heavy criticism for not changing tactics after Bomber Command suffered continued very heavy losses.
Though in the end they accomplished their goal, it was at a very high price.
Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2016, 11:04:03 PM »

To add to the discussion, why make a big deal about the Pearl Harbor Attack? According to Wikipedia's article "List of Most Lethal American Battles", Pearl Harbor ranks 27th. Above Pearl Harbor are several US Civil War battles. The casualty counts for those includes the enemy, the Confederates. If you take out the Confederate numbers, some Civil War battles remain above Pearl Harbor, but Pearl Harbor only makes it to 19th place.

D-Day (Normandy) holds first place and there are usually some commemorations around that day. But you would be hard pressed to find any wide scale commemorations of the battles that lie between D-Day and Pearl Harbor. The top 4 have almost ten times more dead than Pearl Harbor. So why the single out Pearl Harbor for special mention?
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2016, 11:16:54 PM »

First reason.

Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the war.

It may have happened anyway, that the US may have been drawn any other way, but we will never know.

Others...?
Logged

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

Posts: 5,645

« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2016, 01:10:03 AM »

The Germans waging "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" off our East Coast including sinking American vessels would have most likely had us in the war sometime in 1942.
Logged
ColonelJack
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,323
Unit: SER-GA-153

« Reply #59 on: December 13, 2016, 08:12:41 AM »

To add another dimension (if possible) to the discussion, I find myself struck by the similarities between 1916 and 1940.  In both years, a sitting U.S. President was running for re-election (Wilson, Roosevelt) while a "world war" was raging in Europe.  In both years, said president made the centerpiece of his campaign the promise to not get involved in the European conflict.  In both years, said president was, indeed, re-elected ... and within a year (or so) of inauguration was forced by circumstances to become involved in the very war he swore he'd stay out of.

Jack
Logged
Lt. Col. Jack Bagley, Civil Air Patrol
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #60 on: December 13, 2016, 08:53:54 AM »

You can also add 1964 and LBJ's reelection campaign to your list. He wasn't going to send American boys half way around the world to do what Asian boys should be doing for themselves, which is what he claimed AuH2O would do. And we all know how that turned out.
Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #61 on: December 13, 2016, 08:58:27 AM »

The Germans waging "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" off our East Coast including sinking American vessels would have most likely had us in the war sometime in 1942.

Operation Drumbeat didn't start until after Pearl Harbor and was Hitler coming to the aid of his allies. The Germans did perform unrestricted submarine warfare at the beginning of WWI and they were right and the US government lied. The RMS Lusitania was carrying a lot of war material, which made her a valid target. Both the US and UK governments lied for years about the illegal cargo. And used the sinking as an excuse for the US to enter the war.
Logged
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 737

« Reply #62 on: December 13, 2016, 10:13:21 AM »

"The casualty counts for those includes the enemy, the Confederates."  we in the South do not see it that way....

"The Germans waging "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" off our East Coast including sinking American vessels would have most likely had us in the war sometime in 1942."  And just how long would the Germans kept up that foolishness with those little yellow airplanes harassing them? 

History seems to be a mystery...
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #63 on: December 13, 2016, 10:41:21 AM »

The Germans waging "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" off our East Coast including sinking American vessels would have most likely had us in the war sometime in 1942.

Operation Drumbeat didn't start until after Pearl Harbor and was Hitler coming to the aid of his allies. The Germans did perform unrestricted submarine warfare at the beginning of WWI and they were right and the US government lied. The RMS Lusitania was carrying a lot of war material, which made her a valid target. Both the US and UK governments lied for years about the illegal cargo. And used the sinking as an excuse for the US to enter the war.

Drumbeat aside, it wouldn't have even taken unrestricted sub warfare to draw the US into the war in Europe. Eventually, an American ship would have been sunk without warning and it'd be 1917 all over again. As it stood, with the US pushing its "Pan-American Security Zone" to the east, US flagged ships were being put at risk. There were a few cases of ships being sunk by the wolfpacks. That would have to be shut down eventually. Would it have drawn the US into the land war? Eventually. But there should would have been a lot of shooting in the Atlantic.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2016, 08:36:54 PM »

"The casualty counts for those includes the enemy, the Confederates."  we in the South do not see it that way....

You may not see it that way but the US Army has the battle streamers to prove it. Nor is the south monolithic in its interpretation, too many Yankees have moved south (me included) to really speak of a "southern" interpretation. The Lost Cause is just that, a group of rebellious traitors (Lee, Jackson etc took oaths to support and defend the US Constitution) lost the war. The kindly north decided to mostly forgive the southern transgressions and the south then invented the Lost Cause myth to justify their treason.

To tie this back to the original post. The south and Japan faced the same problem - how to fight and win against a numerically superior (in population) and more industrial enemy. They both came up with the same losing solution - they had to strike a crippling blow and hope the enemy sued for peace very quickly. When that didn't happen they both went to Plan B - fight a battle of attrition and hope the allegedly weak-willed Yankees gave up before the allegedly more valorous enemy lost too much manpower and land. Second big failure.  Lucky for both Japan and the south, the Yankees were more forgiving after a time, then the former enemies had any right to expect.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,645

« Reply #65 on: December 13, 2016, 09:54:45 PM »

The Germans waging "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" off our East Coast including sinking American vessels would have most likely had us in the war sometime in 1942.

Operation Drumbeat didn't start until after Pearl Harbor and was Hitler coming to the aid of his allies. The Germans did perform unrestricted submarine warfare at the beginning of WWI and they were right and the US government lied. The RMS Lusitania was carrying a lot of war material, which made her a valid target. Both the US and UK governments lied for years about the illegal cargo. And used the sinking as an excuse for the US to enter the war.


Drumbeat aside, it wouldn't have even taken unrestricted sub warfare to draw the US into the war in Europe. Eventually, an American ship would have been sunk without warning and it'd be 1917 all over again. As it stood, with the US pushing its "Pan-American Security Zone" to the east, US flagged ships were being put at risk. There were a few cases of ships being sunk by the wolfpacks. That would have to be shut down eventually. Would it have drawn the US into the land war? Eventually. But there should would have been a lot of shooting in the Atlantic.


A number of American ships were sunk by the Germans before Pearl Harbor. That's why we had the "Neutrality Patrol" in the North Atlantic in 1940.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #66 on: December 13, 2016, 10:16:17 PM »

Some time ago for a high school class I was asked to do a power point presentation on the road to the second World War. Here is what I found on the ships attacked by U-boats in the Atlantic.

SS Robin Moor, cargo ship torpedoed and sunk by U-69 North Atlantic May 41. No loss of life but crew adrift in the Atlantic for days.

USS Kearny, destroyer, damaged by torpedo from U-568 17 October 1941. Eleven sailors lost.

USS Reuben James, destroyer, sunk by U-Boat torpedo in the North Atlantic 31 October 1941. A hundred sailors lost.

And let's not forget the USS Panay, a gunboat of the US Asiatic Fleet on the Yangtze river patrol in China. Sunk by a Japanese air attack 12 December 1937 with three sailors dead...
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 10:20:15 PM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #67 on: December 13, 2016, 10:20:47 PM »

This article mentions three encounters between the German and American navies prior to Pearl Harbor. In no case, could the US said to be acting as a neutral power.

Quote
The U.S. Navy’s first clash with the Kriegsmarine occurred in April of 1941 when the USS Niblack attacked a Nazi U-boat off the coast of Iceland. After departing its base in Newfoundland as part of a mission that would see American troops occupy the mid-Atlantic island nation, the Niblack broke from formation to respond to a distress call from a torpedoed Dutch cargo vessel. While bringing aboard survivors, sonar operators aboard the warship detected an unidentified submarine moving in for the kill. The Niblack attacked the sub with depth charges. Although the weapons failed to damage the U-boat, the encounter represented America’s first hostile action of the Second World War.

Germany was at war with Holland. So the "neutral" US ship attacks the German sub, while the German sub was engaged with its enemy.

Quote
On Oct. 17, the USS Kearny along with two other vessels left their anchorage to assist a squadron of Canadian warships struggling to defend a convoy from a concerted U-boat attack. In the ensuing action, the U-568 fired on the Kearny’s starboard side, damaging the vessel and killing 11 crewmen. The ship limped back to port for repairs.

Since Germany was at war with the UK and the Commonwealth, the Canadian ships were legitimate war targets for the Germans. And the "neutral" US intervened again.

Quote
Five weeks before Pearl Harbor and Washington’s subsequent declaration of war on Japan, the German U-boat U-522 torpedoed and sank the American destroyer USS Reuben James in the North Atlantic. The American vessel was steaming from Newfoundland towards Iceland on Oct. 31 1941 when the British convoy she was escorting came under attack by a pack of German subs. Just before dawn, the Reuben James was herself hit near the forward magazine by a torpedo. The ensuing blast tore the bow section right off the World War One vintage Clemson-class destroyer. She sunk in minutes, taking 115 of her crew down with her. Forty-four survived the attack.

What the heck is the supposed "neutral" US ship doing escorting (a military function) a belligerent convoy. Her presence and function made her a legitimate target.

Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #68 on: December 13, 2016, 10:29:53 PM »

Of the three incidents you mentioned, the USS Niblock was rescuing survivors of a torpedoed ship. The kill had been made already, and the sub was putting the US vessel, on humanitarian aid, in peril.

Or are you telling us the Niblock was supposed to standby while the sub fired torpedoes in its vicinity, which may well have damaged the Niblock?

How do you explain the SS Robin Moor, identified with a big US Flag in the middle?
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #69 on: December 13, 2016, 11:10:56 PM »

The US Neutrality Patrol, of which the three US Navy ships mentioned were part of, was formed to escort ships around American waters. So that there would be no attacks of ships in American waters.

If a ship of the Russian Navy, or the Chinese Navy coming near the United States, do you think the USN is going to standby and cross their arms?

In fact, if the United States allowed a ship from the Ukraine be attacked and sunk by a ship from the Russian Navy in or near US waters, wouldn't / shouldn't Ukraine complain and sue the US?

Let's look at efforts of some neighborhoods.

Some citizens band together to escort neighbors in areas riddled with crime. Or is anyone going to accuse those patrolling and helping those neighbors?


« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 11:14:13 PM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #70 on: December 13, 2016, 11:22:59 PM »

Or are you telling us the Niblock was supposed to standby while the sub fired torpedoes in its vicinity, which may well have damaged the Niblock?

A neutral ship is not supposed to interfere between two belligerents. It is very simple.

Quote
How do you explain the SS Robin Moor, identified with a big US Flag in the middle?

I didn't discuss the Moor since it was a merchant ship not a navy (military) ship. But you may find this tidbit from the Wikipedia article about it of interest:

Quote
In Congress, isolationist Senator Burton K. Wheeler (D-MT) claimed that 70% of the ship's cargo constituted the kind of materials meeting both German and British standards for contraband, defended the legality of Germany's right to destroy her, and characterised Roosevelt's message as an effort to bring the United States into the war.[

And what was her cargo? From the same article:

Quote
The ship held "items of every conceivable description that would go into a general cargo", including over 450 autos and trucks, steel rails, tools, agricultural chemicals, over 48,000 U.S. gallons (180,000 L) of lubricant in drums, cases of shotgun shells, and a few .22 caliber rifles destined for sporting goods stores.[

Cars and trucks are easily converted to military use, as is just about everything else on the list. The Oklahoma City Bombing showed how easily fertilizer is converted to a bomb. Given the chemical composition of most agricultural chemicals, they are also the feedstock for explosives.
Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #71 on: December 13, 2016, 11:27:44 PM »

The US Neutrality Patrol, of which the three US Navy ships mentioned were part of, was formed to escort ships around American waters. So that there would be no attacks of ships in American waters.

The US government decided that about half the Atlantic Ocean was "American waters". That is a position that has no precedent in international law then or now. If you look at where the combat took place, there were not in American waters as classically defined - either the 3, 12 or 200 mile limit. The latter is just an economic exclusion zone. The American government was deliberately trying to provoke Germany into action - and it got it. Then it tried to claim it was the injured party.

A neutral party does not take sides in a fight between belligerents. Once the fight is over and one or both parties leave the scene, then the neutral party can rescue survivors.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #72 on: December 13, 2016, 11:55:40 PM »

Re-read the article you quoted.

The Reuben was already picking survivors. For what it may be, the conflict between those two ships was over. And the so-called conflict was between a cargo vessel and a warship. A big, powerful "conflict" the cargo vessel had no hope of winning.

You see a bully shoving an old man in the street... A bully that has pummeled a child... the child is bleeding. Do you let that poor child on the ground, and wait for the bully to leave? Wow!

It may be that the US was trying to provoke Germany, but how come that Germany knew that was the cargo of the Moor?

A nation can claim whatever it wants as their waters. That does not give another nation an excuse to attack their ships.

The US Navy fired the Captain of the ship in a recent incident where some Chinese airplanes flew near his ship. He did not even turn on his weapons. China and the US are not technically at war... Or you are saying that the USN brass are trying to provoke China into an armed conflict?

China claims that Taiwan is a rebellious part of them. Yet no one is stating that China can get them by force.
Logged

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

Posts: 737

« Reply #73 on: December 14, 2016, 09:55:12 AM »

"Nor is the south monolithic in its interpretation, too many Yankees have moved south (me included) to really speak of a "southern" interpretation. The Lost Cause is just that, a group of rebellious traitors (Lee, Jackson etc took oaths to support and defend the US Constitution) lost the war. The kindly north decided to mostly forgive the southern transgressions and the south then invented the Lost Cause myth to justify their treason."

And that my friend is why we don't mind you visiting the South, but we sure hate to see you stay...
Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #74 on: December 14, 2016, 10:32:59 AM »

Re-read the article you quoted.

The Reuben was already picking survivors. For what it may be, the conflict between those two ships was over. And the so-called conflict was between a cargo vessel and a warship. A big, powerful "conflict" the cargo vessel had no hope of winning.

I think you have two incidents confused. The Reuben was escorting a British convoy (not the action of a neutral party) from Newfoundland (Canada) toward Iceland. That path is far outside any internationally accepted definition of US waters. By escorting ships belonging to one belligerent power in international waters, the Reuben made herself a valid war target of the other belligerent party.

The Niblack was the ship that was picking up survivors. Nothing in the narrative suggests that the Niblack was in any danger herself. The German sub was within the rules of war to sink the Dutch ship. Ask yourself this, would the Niblack have done the same if it was a German merchant ship that was being attacked and it was a British sub doing the attacking? I think not.

Quote
You see a bully shoving an old man in the street... A bully that has pummeled a child... the child is bleeding. Do you let that poor child on the ground, and wait for the bully to leave? Wow!

What happens on a street is vastly different from what happens in international relations. If a nation claims neutrality, it means that it cannot take sides - no matter what. The Red Cross had its origins in the Civil War. The Red Cross didn't go out on the battle field when one side was obviously losing and stop the battle to tend the wounded. It had to wait until the battle was over.

Quote
It may be that the US was trying to provoke Germany, but how come that Germany knew that was the cargo of the Moor?

I believe the article mentions that a spy sent the info to the Germans. It isn't clear whether he just sent the sailing date or also the cargo contents. Even if the cargo contents weren't sent, it doesn't matter much. Just about anything sent to a belligerent party, in the modern era, can serve a dual purpose - which is why neutral parties aren't supposed to be trading with any belligerent. The US wanted it both ways - it wanted to stay out of the war (at least for the moment) and it wanted to keep its economy going by exporting goods to one side of a war.

Quote
The US Navy fired the Captain of the ship in a recent incident where some Chinese airplanes flew near his ship. He did not even turn on his weapons. China and the US are not technically at war... Or you are saying that the USN brass are trying to provoke China into an armed conflict?

Since the captain failed to take any action to safeguard his ship, the Navy was right. Having your defense ready is a lot different then taking offensive action, which is the case in the incidents we have been discussing.

Quote
China claims that Taiwan is a rebellious part of them. Yet no one is stating that China can get them by force.

Only because the US Navy is over there. Pull out the US Navy or let the Chinese think for one second that we will not defend Taiwan and Taiwan will be "Red" in a heart beat.

Taiwan presents an interesting problem. The Nationalist fleeing mainland China just took over Taiwan. At no point were the local Taiwanese consulted whether they wanted the Nationalist there or not - see what happens when you don't control your borders.
Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #75 on: December 14, 2016, 10:38:15 AM »

And that my friend is why we don't mind you visiting the South, but we sure hate to see you stay...

Well I've been here 18 years and I have no plan on leaving. FWIW - in 18 years I have met only 1 person over the age of 35 (a good friend) who was born and raised in Florida. When I moved here 18 years ago, the local paper ran an article that the majority of Florida's population either came from somewhere else or were the direct descendent of a transplant. I forget if it is Beck or Hannity who complain the same thing is happening in Texas. And which ever one it is, they are also a transplant. You can find similar situation developing in the Carolinas and Georgia.
Logged
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 737

« Reply #76 on: December 14, 2016, 02:48:37 PM »

I stand by my statement.  I was born at MacDill AFB, Tampa Florida....  Florida has never been as Southern as other states.  We don't have an accent in Florida... 
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2016, 04:59:51 PM »

No accents in Florida?

When it appears that more than half of Florida residents are Hispanic?

Maybe that is the reason why there is no southern accent....

UmmMMmmmmMMMMmm!
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2016, 05:23:54 PM »

I meant the Niblack.

The narrative states the Niblack was picking survivors, when the U-boat returned for the kill.

That states the U-Boat returned. That, to me, puts the Niblack in danger.

As to your question, whether the US would have done the same... We will never know. I do think like you, that probably it would not. However that is immaterial...

But remember that when the United States iterated on its neutrality it stated that it would sell materials of war it would do so if the buyer used its own ships. Great Britain for whatever reasons was able to do so. Germany again for whatever reasons was not able to do so. Tough!

The United States government had plenty of reasons to behave in the way it did regarding Germany.

1. The Government had shown it was not going to respect any treaty, and any agreement was not to be respected.
2. Again and again it reneged on treaties and agreements made with neighbors.
3. Remember the Ruhr valley?
4. Remember how it dissected Czechoslovakia?
5. How it went back on Chamberlain's pact?
6. How it went against Luxembourg, a neutral nation?
7. How it went against Belgium, another nation that had declared neutrality?
8. How it rearmed itself. It does not matter it was a result of an onerously harsh treaty.

If I am walking with a Red Cross flag, and state I am neutral, and you fire at me, don't get too upset if I fire at you. More so when I see you have done it several times before.

9. And during WW I it instigated an attack from Mexico.

It was felt in one generation, the same people behaved in a treacherous manner twice.

The United States government felt that these actions were necessary to defend the nation from an overly aggressive nation that would have stopped at nothing.

The US Armed forces were woefully inadequate to defend the nation against an attack. Germany was far, far superior to what the United States had. And far less in quantity.


Logged

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

Posts: 737

« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2016, 06:16:52 PM »

Luis, most of the Hispanics were not born there and the ones that were speak good English..  And probably good Spanish also, but I am no judge having gotten a F- on my college Spanish final because I wrote no habla Espanol.  I thought I done good, but noooooo...  There is a story that goes with that, but living and going to College 15 miles from the border and most of my Spanish training was south of the border, so I guess... I can speak Tequila fairly good...
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2016, 06:25:41 PM »

I knew that...

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2016, 09:06:43 PM »

I meant the Niblack.

The narrative states the Niblack was picking survivors, when the U-boat returned for the kill.

That states the U-Boat returned. That, to me, puts the Niblack in danger.

We will have to agree to disagree. All we know that survivors were being picked up. Survivors of a torpedoed ship are usually in the water. The U-Boat was going to sink the cargo ship. As far I can tell, the Niblack was in no danger. It is also the Niblack's statement that the U-Boat returned. I have done extensive reading on WWII U-boat operations. They usually don't leave the scene. The U-boat would have been there all along and simply moving in closer for the kill.

Quote
But remember that when the United States iterated on its neutrality it stated that it would sell materials of war it would do so if the buyer used its own ships.

If that is all the US did and did it equally for all parties, we wouldn't have an argument. But the US went well beyond just selling. It provided armed escorts in international waters for only one side and attacked only the other belligerent party. That is not the actions of a neutral party.


Quote
The United States government had plenty of reasons to behave in the way it did regarding Germany.

I have no issue with the issues you mentioned. However, the people of the US, at the time, wanted no part of another European war. The US government did everything it could, short of declaring war, to make it happen. Even US senators were calling FDR out on that issue. If you have reasons to go to war, then go to war - if the people are behind it.

Quote
If I am walking with a Red Cross flag, and state I am neutral, and you fire at me, don't get too upset if I fire at you.
.

If you are with the Red Cross, you aren't supposed to be armed. If you are then you just made yourself a valid target. The example was a Red Cross worker, trying to stop a on-going battle. That isn't going to happen. The RC might risk their life trying to save another one, but none of them would expect one side to stop shooting just so they could aid someone.

Quote
And during WW I it instigated an attack from Mexico.

The infamous Zimmerman Telegram.

First of all, the telegram was an offer of alliance. The offer was that if the US entered the war against Germany, then Mexico would enter the war against the US and Germany would help Mexico recover its lost territory. Mexico refused the offer. Your statement implies that an actual attack from Mexico happened. None did. From the German point of view, the offer made perfect sense. The US was breaking every convention in international law at that time that governed neutral nations in war. The Germans were right to view the US as a non-neutral. So it makes sense to try to have an alliance with another party that had "issues" with the US. If you think US/Mexico relations are bad now, they were worse in that period. Black Jack Pershing and the Punitive Expedition had recently invaded Mexico and failed to capture Pancho Villa. A few years earlier the US seized Veracruz and there was almost another war with Mexico. That was barely averted. Mexico declared itself neutral in WWI and that allowed the Germans to operate in Mexico, much to the dismay of the US. But what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.


Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2016, 09:17:54 PM »

No accents in Florida?
When it appears that more than half of Florida residents are Hispanic?
Maybe that is the reason why there is no southern accent....

The following are some very broad generalizations, in the that every group can be found in just about every part of Florida. However, the following is generally considered "home turf" for various groups.

South Florida - Dade/Miami, Broward and parts of Palm Beach County. Hispanic.

Palm Beach County - the ocean side or east side of the county, much older population due to being some of the first arrivals. Mostly white, very liberal Democratic. West county - newer gated communities, mostly white, younger lean independent or Republican

Atlantic Coast of Florida - Georgia border to Dade/Miami. Most New England, New York and Atlantic seaboard transplants move here.

Gulf Coast of Florida - mostly transplants from mid-west settle in this part of the state.

Orlando area - mixture of everyone

Central part of the state, between the coasts, north of Orlando and stretching into the panhandle - Florida Cracker country (most of them are proud of the label). If you are trying to find a multi-generational "real" Florida native, this is where to look. This is the original and still surviving "cowboy" country of Florida. Okeechobee, which is south of Orlando and north of the lake still has rodeos.

So if you have an accent or not, will depend on where you come from and what part of Florida you move to. In my area, I don't have an accent but we can all pick out those people from New Jersey.
Logged
USACAP
Forum Regular

Posts: 101
Unit: MV0181

« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2016, 10:15:38 PM »

The number of hoplophobes here is somewhat surprising.
And disappointing.

Was someone boneheaded enough to compare Curtis Lemay's strategic air campaign to the barbarous murder the Japanese committed?
Insane.
Are you on drugs? You must be.

Finally: this made me laugh out loud.
Victors write history, but I guess you never read the Constitution.
We also named quite a few military installations after those "traitors."
The Lost Cause is just that, a group of rebellious traitors (Lee, Jackson etc took oaths to support and defend the US Constitution) lost the war.
Logged
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 737

« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2016, 10:23:19 PM »

General Lemay is the man.  Too bad he wouldn't be able to wear Air Force Blue today because of the weight standards.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2016, 11:24:03 PM »

Quote

First of all, the telegram was an offer of alliance. The offer was that if the US entered the war against Germany, then Mexico would enter the war against the US and Germany would help Mexico recover its lost territory. Mexico refused the offer.


Skips the issue. The point I made is, the offer was made. Period.

Quote

Your statement implies that an actual attack from Mexico happened. None did.


Where did you read that? Do not put any words in what people write!

Quote

If you are with the Red Cross, you aren't supposed to be armed. If you are then you just made yourself a valid target.


Another instance of you putting words into what I wrote. If I am fired at after I declare myself neutral, I will arm myself. Like Belgium and Luxembourg. And Netherland. You did not say anything about the points I made. I restate that after all those 9 items happened, all the things the US did were attempts to protect itself.
Logged

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

Posts: 5,645

« Reply #86 on: December 15, 2016, 01:21:11 AM »



If you are with the Red Cross, you aren't supposed to be armed. If you are then you just made yourself a valid target.


Another instance of you putting words into what I wrote. If I am fired at after I declare myself neutral, I will arm myself. Like Belgium and Luxembourg. And Netherland. You did not say anything about the points I made. I restate that after all those 9 items happened, all the things the US did were attempts to protect itself.
[/quote]

If you're with the Red Cross YOU CAN NOT SHOOT BACK!!!!!  The only time you're allowed to shoot back is to save the life of your patient. You don't count. Just the patient.
Of course if you're the Red Cross they're not supposed to shoot at you in the first place!
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #87 on: December 15, 2016, 10:00:16 AM »

The number of hoplophobes here is somewhat surprising.
And disappointing.

Was someone boneheaded enough to compare Curtis Lemay's strategic air campaign to the barbarous murder the Japanese committed?
Insane.
Are you on drugs? You must be.


Finally: this made me laugh out loud.
Victors write history, but I guess you never read the Constitution.
We also named quite a few military installations after those "traitors."
The Lost Cause is just that, a group of rebellious traitors (Lee, Jackson etc took oaths to support and defend the US Constitution) lost the war.

How very leaderific of you. Take a few seconds and actually read what was written. Take more time and actually look at the events and the circumstances. If Japan had won the war, Le May would have been hung.
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: 737

« Reply #88 on: December 15, 2016, 10:09:23 AM »

However, your point is moot.  With leaders like Truman and Lemay, there was never any question about Japan winning the war.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,746

« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2016, 10:13:17 AM »

However, your point is moot.  With leaders like Truman and Lemay, there was never any question about Japan winning the war.

That was actually the conversation about differing points of view.
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: 2,391

« Reply #90 on: December 15, 2016, 03:32:53 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on Yesterday at 11:24:03 PM

If you are with the Red Cross, you aren't supposed to be armed. If you are then you just made yourself a valid target.
Another instance of you putting words into what I wrote. If I am fired at after I declare myself neutral, I will arm myself. Like Belgium and Luxembourg. And Netherland. You did not say anything about the points I made. I restate that after all those 9 items happened, all the things the US did were attempts to protect itself.
Quote
From PH:

If you're with the Red Cross YOU CAN NOT SHOOT BACK!!!!!  The only time you're allowed to shoot back is to save the life of your patient. You don't count. Just the patient.
Of course if you're the Red Cross they're not supposed to shoot at you in the first place!

Please stop reading between the lines. Again if it was not clear, I was speaking figuratively and you are grabbing at straws and missing the forest for looking at the trees.

The situation was Germany did A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P. The US was thus justified in doing all they did without an actual declaration of war since it was a certainty that Germany would have done Q! The same with Japan!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 03:37:31 PM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #91 on: December 15, 2016, 09:54:07 PM »

The situation was Germany did A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P. The US was thus justified in doing all they did without an actual declaration of war since it was a certainty that Germany would have done Q!

As a matter of international law you are wrong. If Germany did A thru O and they mostly likely did to the Europeans, that does not justify the US attacking any element of Germany, including their Navy, short of a declaration of war by the US. Your own record shows that the US was the aggressor in the Atlantic before Pearl Harbor. The US violated international law regarding neutrality, self-serving declarations do not hold any weight, in international law. They only hold up under victors justice.
Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #92 on: December 15, 2016, 10:09:40 PM »

The number of hoplophobes here is somewhat surprising.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. the term was originally coined by the legendary Col Jeff Cooper and is a
Quote
pejorative to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons." It is also used to describe the "fear of firearms" or the "fear of armed citizens."

 It is quite a stretch to infer someone's opinion on that topic from their opinion on the origins of various and sundry American wars.

The opposite of hoplophobe is hoplophile.

Quote
We also named quite a few military installations after those "traitors."

And there is a movement afoot to change those. I know some public schools in Florida ditched the traitors' names from buildings in Florida over the last several years.

I know that last year there was made much ado about a military installation in NYC, where several streets are named after the traitors. The problem is that some of the traitors, before they violated an oath they took several times, were heroes of the Mexican-American War. I doubt the US military, whose flags carry battle streamers reflecting combat against the traitors in the Civil War, would honor their later treachery as opposed to recognizing their earlier bravery.

Also don't forget the US had a policy of forgiving traitorous behavior. See Shay's Rebellion (limited to MA but most participants pardoned), the Whiskey Rebellion and Fries's Rebellion. The fact that the traitors and rebels were eventually pardoned doesn't lessen the fact that they were traitors.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #93 on: December 15, 2016, 10:19:50 PM »

Quote

...that does not justify the US attacking any element of Germany...


In my view it does. Self-preservation. If it was done mostly to Europeans, what assurance will I have we would have been treated differently? None.

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 486

« Reply #94 on: December 18, 2016, 09:34:22 AM »

What you are describing is a preemptive or first-strike, which is not allowed in international law. The US has specifically stated for decades that it would use nuclear weapons in a first strike, for example.

And if first-strike is your justification for us attacking the German Navy, while allegedly neutral, then you have also justified the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had many reasons to fear that the US, in particular, and Western Civilization in general, was about to do to Japan what the west had done to China.

Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #95 on: December 18, 2016, 12:59:18 PM »

This back-and-forth continues!

What I described was not a pre-emptive strike considering all the previous agreements and violations.

Which was the same with Japan.

1. Remember the Panay?
2. And others in China...?

What you find justifying Japan and Germany, others and me find justifying for the US!

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander...


 >:D


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,258
Unit: Classified

« Reply #96 on: December 18, 2016, 03:20:20 PM »

The US has specifically stated for decades that it would use nuclear weapons in a first strike, for example.

Really because everything I have read and learned about use of such weapons says otherwise.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,645

« Reply #97 on: December 18, 2016, 07:53:22 PM »

The US has specifically stated for decades that it would use nuclear weapons in a first strike, for example.

Really because everything I have read and learned about use of such weapons says otherwise.

The 12 years I was in SAC I was always told that the US would not do a First Strike. But we would do a massive retaliatory strike though.
At least that's what I was taught while I was studying and certifying the various SIOP sorties I was standing alert for.
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 0.55 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me