Let us not forget Pearl Harbor

Peanuts and corn? What the fuck are you talking about, SLOBBRIN?

Peanuts and corn? What the fuck are you talking about, SLOBBRIN? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

My dad was playing baseball for UC Berkley in 41, would have been his third season in the spring. When he got back to Montana for Christmas break, he ended up enlisting in the Army Air Corp. and flew in B-26 & B-25 medium bombers. Walked away from 2 crash landings both in the UK but also survived an emergency landing on June 8th in Normandy at a partial captured air field. Got recalled for Korea and ended up staying in until 69 and retired a Lt Col. Also did a hitch right after Korea for 6 months in a place called French Indochina. He went back when they called it Vietnam.

My dad was playing baseball for UC Berkley in 41, would have been his third season in the spring. When he got back to Montana for Christmas break, he ended up enlisting in the Army Air Corp. and flew in B-26 & B-25 medium bombers. Walked away from 2 crash landings both in the UK but also survived an emergency landing on June 8th in Normandy at a partial captured air field. Got recalled for Korea and ended up staying in until 69 and retired a Lt Col. Also did a hitch right after Korea for 6 months in a place called French Indochina. He went back when they called it Vietnam. Originally Posted by SAUrbanAnimal

I want to let you know. I thank your father for his service. He is one hell of a man!

At the age of 22 my Dad piloted a B-24 Liberator and led 9 other men into batttle over Nazi Germany. He returned home without a scratch.

At the age of 22 my Dad piloted a B-24 Liberator and led 9 other men into batttle over Nazi Germany. He returned home without a scratch. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

They were all heroes of the Greatest Generation. Did your dad fly with the 8th, 9th or 15th Army Air Force? Did he make the Ploiesti raid?



Note the (lack off) altitude.

Why am I not surprised that you would come up with total crap like this. You're totally uneducated aren't you. You want to know why? I'll tell you why. As Japan saw it there was anarchy in the world as long as every nation had absolute sovereignty; it was necessary for Japan to fight to establish a hierarchy, under Japan of course, since Japan alone represented a nation truly hierarchical from top to bottom and hence understood the necessity of taking 'one's proper place'. Japan, having attained unification and peace in her homeland should, according to Japanese premises of hierarchy, raise her backward younger brother China. Being of the same race as Greater East Asia, she should eliminate the United States and after her Britain and Russia from that part of the work and 'take her proper place.' Unfortunately for Japan the countries she occupied did not see it in the same light to say the least. At the time of the Pearl Harbor attack Japan needed resources as their attacks on China was using up all available. They set their eyes on Dutch East Indies as a place to gain resources. So they had to find a way to prevent the US from fighting with them until they conquered the Dutch East Indies. That's when they planned Pearl Harbor. The goal of Pearl Harbor was to disable the American fleet for a few months to give them enough time to conquer the Dutch East Indies and to absorb its resources to finance their war in China and the US once the US' navy was rebuilt. And THAT is why the attack came about. How weak or strong the US was at that time was never a consideration.

And see if you can response without calling names and asking for a link. This is something I learned over a life time, there is no one single link. Originally Posted by BigLouie

I'm surprised...no, I'm not surprised. I have answered this question more than once on this site. The United States had how many aircraft carriers in the Pacific when the war started? Huh? The answer is three and a half. Three fleet carriers and the USS Langley which was a kind of carrier but not really. Do you think the Japanese would have attacked the US Navy if it had six aircraft carriers (with the supporting ships)? I don't think so. They rolled the dice as it was and to achieve success required that they disable or destroy the aircraft carriers. They failed but they tried. So for the cost of three carriers, three destroyers, three or four minesweeps and other support vessels the US was set up for the attack. Leave it to the democrats to ALWAYS err on the side of being penny wise and pound foolish. World War I, we disbanded our navy and army under a democrat. World War II, we disbanded the largest navy and air force in the world and reduced our army to a bare minimum under a democrat. Korea, we DID NOT disband our military under a republican. Vietnam, after everything was said and done, it was Jimmy Carter who deconstructed our military again. What party is Jimmy Carter? That's right....a democrat. Ditto for Bill Clinton. You can whine and you can bitch but who is trying to reduce our military right now? It sure isn't John Boehner.

Close but not true. Their efforts in China were using all their resources at a tremendous rate. They needed more resources and taking over other areas was the best option in their eyes. However they were afraid the US would race across the Pacific to come to the aid of the Dutch. Little did they know that the US had decided against that option. The Japanese made another blunder because they thought the war would be fought between battleships. They did not comprehend the role of air craft carriers and airplanes and subs in modern war. So they took out all the battleships in Pearl and made no effort to take out the carriers. What came as a total shock to both Germany and Japan was the manufacturing capabilities of the US. They had no idea the US could crank out what they needed as fast as they could. Neither country had a counter and it doomed them.

And as far as killing all the Japanese. At this time the people of Japan still thought of the Emperor as a god-like figure. For the US to lay their hands on him and take him into custody they would have had to kill every man, woman and child in Japan to do it. The US estimated a loss of life on the US side at 1 million as the cost of the invasion of the mainland. Which is why we dropped the bomb. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Talk about uneducated. The Japanese expected to find the aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor so they understood the importance of aircraft carriers. They also developed special torpedoes for use by carrier aircraft and the best carrier plane at the time in the world. No, idiot, the Japanese understood the importance of aircraft carriers more than we did. They also understood that beaches needed to be shelled and cruisers needed to be killed hence they also built the most advanced battleship in the world. What would you expect from a naval power?

Why am I not surprised that you would come up with total crap like this. You're totally uneducated aren't you. You want to know why? I'll tell you why.

How weak or strong the US was at that time was never a consideration.

And see if you can response without calling names and asking for a link. This is something I learned over a life time, there is no one single link. Originally Posted by BigLouie

I think I can. Since you were not there with the decision makers in Japan, from where did you get your version of history and the decision to take Hawaii?

As for "links" ... there are lots of links on lots of shit. I suspect you acquired your "special knowledge" BEFORE the internet. So a "link" would be irrelevant.

They did not comprehend the role of air craft carriers and airplanes and subs in modern war. So they took out all the battleships in Pearl and made no effort to take out the carriers. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Which is why they used battleships to attack Hawaii? BL. Please?

Here's an inventory of our shit at the time of the attack:

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-2.htm

I don't see any carriers. Do you? Here is why?

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-9.htm (a "link" for you):


"Pearl Harbor Attack, 7 December 1941 Carrier Locations

"On 7 December 1941, the three Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3).

"Enterprise: On 28 November 1941, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel sent TF-8, consisting of Enterprise, the heavy cruisers Northampton (CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers under Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., to ferry 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats of Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 211 to Wake Island. Upon completion of the mission on 4 December, TF-8 set course to return to Pearl Harbor. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found TF-8 about 215 miles west of Oahu.

"Lexington: On 5 December 1941, TF-12, formed around Lexington, under the command of Rear Admiral John H. Newton, sailed from Pearl to ferry 18 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators of Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 231 to Midway Island. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found Lexington, heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers about 500 miles southeast of Midway. The outbreak of hostilities resulted in cancellation of the mission and VMSB-231 was retained on board [they would ultimately fly to Midway from Hickam Field on 21 December].

Saratoga: The Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor."

As for "subs in modern war" ....comment:


You want the "link"? For the attack the Japanese had around 30-40 subs.

There was an internal debate in Japan regarding the wisdom of the attack, and diplomatically who such at attack would piss off the U.S. while ongoing discussions were progressing. By the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. was already engaged in assistance to both China fighting the Japanese and Russia fighting the Germans.

Your "premise" even shows the lack of logic. Had the U.S. been militarily "ready" and capable of responding immediately Japan would not have attacked, KNOWING that an immediate response would have followed, but KNOWING the U.S. was incapable of an immediate response if they were hit hard in a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor the "pro-attack" faction in Japan won the discussion. The local intelligence was flawed and the forced communication silence with restricted access to make the final legs of the journey resulted in them not knowing that all ships were not "at home."

In fact, if Japanese intelligence was GOOD, and they were acting on that GOOD intelligence, just the reverse of your statement is true: they conducted the attack at a time when the U.S. did NOT HAVE any carriers in the area to intercept the attack fleet, because they respected and comprehended the role of carriers in sea battles.

BL,
With respect to your comment ..

They did not comprehend the role of air craft carriers and airplanes and subs in modern war. So they took out all the battleships in Pearl and made no effort to take out the carriers. Originally Posted by BigLouie:

Yamamoto .. considered by most to be the "mind" behind the Pear Harbor attack ... (Japan was reportedly (in articles) talking about the power of aircraft carriers in the late 1920's) .. began trying to sell an attack on Hawaii .. he always factored in an aircraft raid by carriers .. and the only "issue" was how many would be needed. It is also "reported" that his focus on battleships had to do with the psychological impact on the U.S. citizens thinking their infatuation with battleships as a classic extension of seapower would result in a lower of their resolve and morale to wage war against Japan ... it had nothing to do with his failure to believe in carrier strength ...

to emphasis that fact ... and the intelligence failure theory ... the 2nd wave of the attack was to be directed at the carriers in port .... since the air fields were to be struck (and were) in the first wave. It is my recollection of reading that returning airmen from the first wave reported no carriers at Pearl Harbor and that sounded an alarm in the command of the Japanese fleet ... fear they had been forewarned and were enroute to intercept what was the major part of the Japanese fleet ... and the Japanese carriers.. 6 of them.

I found this article:
http://www.thehistoryreader.com/mode...-pearl-harbor/

Close but not true. Their efforts in China were using all their resources at a tremendous rate. They needed more resources and taking over other areas was the best option in their eyes. However they were afraid the US would race across the Pacific to come to the aid of the Dutch. Little did they know that the US had decided against that option. The Japanese made another blunder because they thought the war would be fought between battleships. They did not comprehend the role of air craft carriers and airplanes and subs in modern war. So they took out all the battleships in Pearl and made no effort to take out the carriers. What came as a total shock to both Germany and Japan was the manufacturing capabilities of the US. They had no idea the US could crank out what they needed as fast as they could. Neither country had a counter and it doomed them.

And as far as killing all the Japanese. At this time the people of Japan still thought of the Emperor as a god-like figure. For the US to lay their hands on him and take him into custody they would have had to kill every man, woman and child in Japan to do it. The US estimated a loss of life on the US side at 1 million as the cost of the invasion of the mainland. Which is why we dropped the bomb. Originally Posted by BigLouie

One concession to your POV, BL. The Japanese were inordinately focused on capital ships. They did imagine, per Mahan, that there would be one titanic battle between battleships where they would prevail as they did against the Russians at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. Nevertheless, the Japanese were pioneers in naval aviation, and they were submarine masters. And while the Japanese did have some of the war's best submarines, they did focus on sinking capital ships, e.g., the Indianapolis, and failed to protect their own merchant marine lifeline.

I think the premise that the lack of U.S. military strength and resolve had nothing to do with the Germans and Japanese progressing in their joint effort to control the World has been sufficiently debunked, not only in history, but on this board.

Such "conclusions" are, IMO, found in justifications for dismantling the U.S. military.

Look what is occurring as we post!

I think the premise that the lack of U.S. military strength and resolve had nothing to do with the Germans and Japanese progressing in their joint effort to control the World has been sufficiently debunked, not only in history, but on this board.

Such "conclusions" are, IMO, found in justifications for dismantling the U.S. military.

Look what is occurring as we post! Originally Posted by LexusLover

And you would be wrong in your premise.

"The Americans are good about making fancy cars and refrigerators, but that doesn't mean they are any good at making aircraft. They are bluffing. They are excellent at bluffing." Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering, 1942.

"At the present time the United States Fleet in the Pacific is inferior to the Japanese Fleet and cannot undertake an unlimited strategic offensive in the Western Pacific. In order to be able to do so, it would have to be strengthened by withdrawing practically all naval vessels from the Atlantic except those assigned to local defense forces. An unlimited offensive by the Pacific Fleet would require tremendous merchant tonnage, which could only be withdrawn from services now considered essential. The result of withdrawals from the Atlantic of naval and merchant strength might well cause the United Kingdom to lose the Battle of the Atlantic in the near future." Admiral Stark and General Marshal to FDR, November 5, 1941.

And you would be wrong in your premise. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

My "premise"?

What is "your premise" mean when you post the above quote:

And you would be wrong in your premise. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It "looks" like your posts do exactly what I posted, and that is ...

"debunk ... the premise that the lack of U.S. military strength and resolve had nothing to do with the Germans and Japanese progressing in their joint effort to control the World"...

That is what I posted!

PERHAPS you are not familiar with the meaning of "debunk" ...

"expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)."