Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2017, 04:47:06 AM
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 4 5  All Print
Author Topic: 75 Years Ago Today...  (Read 5428 times)
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,803

« 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: 1,334
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: 488

« 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: 2,497

« 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: 885
Unit: GA-001

« 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: 9,993
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: 885
Unit: GA-001

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

Nah, thanks   :)

Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,497

« 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: 488

« 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: 27,824

« 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: 5,807

« 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: 2,497

« 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: 488

« 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: 2,497

« 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: 488

« 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: 2,497

« 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: 488

« 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: 2,497

« 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
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 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 0.153 seconds with 20 queries.