A date that shall live in infamy !

[SteamWake]

Hrm... no posts here, nothing in the news.

Kind of sad really. :oops:

[Sailor Steve]

But several threads on other SS boards already.

Me, I don't start threads about historical dates. But I already started my morning by watching Tora! Tora! Tora! yet again.

[GoldenRivet]

Hrm... no posts here, nothing in the news.

Kind of sad really. :oops:

See the SH3 & Sh4 forums :yeah:

[ETR3(SS)]

I have three PH themed posters in my computer room here, so I always have a reminder. Not that I need one.

[Oberon]

I noticed a thread over in the SHIII forums which made me think "God, is it Dec 7th already?" and check the date on the computer calender.
Obviously it doesn't have the same tone over here as it does in the States, but it's still something that echoes throughout time as one of the most devastating military attacks that at the same time completely failed in its objective. It won't be long now, another two years in fact, before it's the 70th anniversary, seventy years and still the oil leaks from the Arizona, like a wound that will never heal, and for many veterans of that day, I guess that is the perfect analogy.

[longam]

West Loch Explosion, 1944

[mookiemookie]

But I already started my morning by watching Tora! Tora! Tora! yet again.

Thanks for giving me the idea, Steve. That's what I'm going to do tonight. Tuck in with Tora, Tora, Tora and a drink and raise the glass to the guys who lost their lives 68 years ago.

[Skybird]

A date that shall live in infamy !

I always ask myself 'Why?' when hearing that reference.

One could ask whether or not it was a clever decision to go to war. But to hold somebody else responsible for one's own fault to be too sleepy while the other already was executing with determination and had managed to hide the attack, is simply stupid.

[CaptainHaplo]

I was listening to the radio this afternoon to a local show that I like. Its usually local politics, but on historical dates, the host will spend a good hour dwelling on the lessons of history.

Today, as he often does, he had Dr. William Forstchen on. As a local professor, as well as well known author, Bill brings a knowledgable insight and seriousness to the subject.

The entire "Day of Infamy" speech was replayed, as well as a number of historical news announcements of the attack. The phones were flooded, as they always are on historical days with people filled with gratitude and honor for those of the Greatest Generation.

Just goes to show that while the "mainstream" can gloss over it - there is a lot of everyday people who enjoy taking a moment to remember the heroes of the time.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

You know, I was eating out earlier today and I saw an older man w/a Navy baseball cap which said "West Virginia" on it, w/a fair number of ribbons above the brim. He also had a red windbreaker which seemed to have the Marine logo on it. I wondered if he could have been a Marine stationed on the West Virginia on 12/7/41. I wasn't about to go up and ask.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I always ask myself 'Why?' when hearing that reference.

One could ask whether or not it was a clever decision to go to war. But to hold somebody else responsible for one's own fault to be too sleepy while the other already was executing with determination and had managed to hide the attack, is simply stupid.

Um, it's one of the opening lines of Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech to Congress asking for a Declaration of War on December 8th, 1941.

[SteamWake]

I always ask myself 'Why?' when hearing that reference.

Because it changed mankinds fate?

[Skybird]

Embarking on mass killing hundreds of thousands of people and destroying whole cities - and considering it to be of vital importance whether or not one wears a necktie, or gives a declaration of war. Hilarious. Or perverse, if you prefer.

If you have decided for war, f### all that civilised attitude, and better focus on ripping your enemy heart out of his chest as fast as you can and drink his blood and burn his home and let all heavens fall down onto his country.

You don't like that? Then be slow to start a war - that is wise, nevertheless always be prepared to defend yourself - that also is wise. America could and should have known what was coming, but allowed to get caught on the wrong feet. Blame yourself.

My sympathy were people want to remember the dead. But were you call your enemy infamous for having fought as best as he could, all you get is my laughter.

I just have exchanged PMs with somebody participating in this thread - he knows that I mean him when reading this. If he wishes he may quote me from that.

[antikristuseke]

Hindsight is always 20/20

[Dowly]

Because it changed mankinds fate?

How? :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

I noticed a thread over in the SHIII forums which made me think "God, is it Dec 7th already?" and check the date on the computer calender.
Obviously it doesn't have the same tone over here as it does in the States, but it's still something that echoes throughout time as one of the most devastating military attacks that at the same time completely failed in its objective. It won't be long now, another two years in fact, before it's the 70th anniversary, seventy years and still the oil leaks from the Arizona, like a wound that will never heal, and for many veterans of that day, I guess that is the perfect analogy.

Just think of the Royal Oak.

[nikimcbee]

How? :hmmm:

The Japanese learned the hard way what happens when atoms are split. I would say that was the best thing to come out of WW2. We've never used those awful weapons again and hopefully we never will.

[Ducimus]

Unless im mistaken, the reason why it was labeled a "day of infamy" was not just because it was a sneak attack, but because the attack occured before Japan had declared war. Yes they had the declaration in the works, and indeed was on its way, but the fact of the matter is, they instigated a full scale attack, BEFORE a declaration of war was delivered. If Japan had declared war or delivered some forceful ultimatum before instigating any attack against any US locale, I don't think we'd look at it in quite the same way that we do today.

[nikimcbee]

Unless im mistaken, the reason why it was labeled a "day of infamy" was not just because it was a sneak attack, but because the attack occured before Japan had declared war. Yes they had the declaration in the works, and indeed was on its way, but the fact of the matter is, they instigated a full scale attack, BEFORE a declaration of war was delivered. If Japan had declared war or delivered some forceful ultimatum before instigating any attack against any US locale, I don't think we'd look at it in quite the same way that we do today.

Next time, get someone who can type faster:o.

It's been interesting to see all of the research being put into the midget subs. They are so often just a minor footnote in the attack. I think it would make a great movie, the story of those 5 midget suba and their fates. (Not hollywood produced as they would ruin it)

[Ducimus]

What? No Micheal Bay direction? :haha:

edit:

MICHAEL BAY PRESENTS: EXPLOSIONS!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd16_rLQ9jU)

[CaptainHaplo]

Dowly - I am half German. (I am also part Scottish and part Irish - which makes for a really mean drunk!) My mother is a naturalized US citizen. I talked to an old man years ago. His wife, he and I started talking at a veterans gathering on a previous Pearl Harbor day. When the subject of Pearl came up, he shied away from it - and I politely steered the discussion elsewhere. His wife stopped us both, looked at him and said "Tell the young man." - and he did.

He was an Austrian Jew, 14 or so at the time when Pearl happened. He was "living" in a slave camp. He did nothing but work 18+ hours a day, to crawl back to his "bed" and do it all over again. He was ready to die, mentally. I forget the term he used, but he told me about a person who was in the camps too - a person who would collaborate with the guards to gain favor, but they would also do what they could to look out for their people. He had tears in his eyes when he told me about what happened. One day, as he was slaving away, this person came up to him, tapped his shoulder, and after making sure no guards were around - opened his coat to show him the front page of a newspaper. All he was able to read was the headlines - and they said "JAPAN attacks PEARL HARBOR, US declares war on JAPAN and GERMANY.". He broke down at that moment - and then composed himself. He slowly told me what that meant. It meant that he had hope. Before he saw that - he had none. When he saw it - he knew that we were coming. Hope is a powerful thing. That hope - helped keep him and others alive. 3 years later - the camp he was in was liberated. In that time frame - the people helped each other simply by reminding them of hope - we were coming. And ultimately, we did.

Make no mistake - had it not been for Pearl Harbor - the US entrance into the war would have been drastically delayed - if not inevitably delayed. I do not claim we won the war on our own, to do so would dishonor the memory of so many other peoples that made just as large sacrifices. But without that event - its very likely that you would be speaking German right now.

Yes - it changed the world. On a number of fronts. Some for the better - and perhaps some for the worse.

But I can tell you this - there is no doubt that for many men - the world changed that day, in many ways.

[magic452]

Very interesting story to hear how someone in another country and far different circumstances viewed the event and how it effected him.

We tend to only see Pearl Harbor as an American event.

My mothers brother was stationed at Pearl on 7 Dec. 1941.
Unfortunately I was never able to talk to him about it as he was killed in January of '44 on New Britain, South Pacific. Oddly enough he was still a private, but I guess that's no surprise as he was also German and Irish and if he's three brothers were any indication quit a hell raiser.

Magic

[Snestorm]

Without US entry, I don't think Europe would be speaking german.
More than likely, russian.
Thank you, USA ! ! !

[Sailor Steve]

But were you call your enemy infamous for having fought as best as he could, all you get is my laughter.
Roosevelt didn't use the term "Infamy" because the attackers fought the best they could. He used it in part because, as was previously described, it was an attack made before the declaration of war. He used it because he was angry, because he wanted to inspire his fellow Americans to the same anger, and, yes, there was a bit of propaganda involved, as there always is in any speech of that type.

As with any other discussion of war, including the many we've had on war crimes, the times and circumstances need to be taken into account before any judgement is made of the people who were involved.

[Lionclaw]

Wouldn't a decleration of war remove the element of suprise?

Psst! Hey, we're going to declare war on you, just so you know. So you'll be ready. :O:

Maximum damage to enemy forces is best achieved when you catch them unawares. Feels like a "Well, duh!" moment. :doh: :O:

No disrespect meant. :)



Didn't they see the incoming aircraft on radar, but they thought it was B-17's or something?

[Torplexed]

Wouldn't a decleration of war remove the element of suprise?

Psst! Hey, we're going to declare war on you, just so you know. So you'll be ready. :O:

Maximum damage to enemy forces is best achieved when you catch them unawares. Feels like a "Well, duh!" moment. :doh: :O:

No disrespect meant. :)



Didn't they see the incoming aircraft on radar, but they thought it was B-17's or something?

The Japanese Embassy was supposed to deliver the DOW at the about the same time as the attack took place. It was delivered over an hour late, due to the confusion that resulted when two "correction" messages were received: one amending a single word, and the other announcing that a sentence had been dropped in transmission. The first meant the retyping of one page, and the second two pages. As it was the 14 part message contained several typographical errors but Ambassador Nomura tired of the delay, delivered it anyway. Even if it had been delivered on time, it still would have been a surprise attack since there would have been precious little time to get a warning out. However, the DOW arriving after the attack had been delivered, compounded the outrage and anger many Americans felt at the time.

Yes, the incoming strike was observed on an experimental radar station, but was dismissed as B-17s from the mainland.

[Lionclaw]

The Japanese Embassy was supposed to deliver the DOW at the about the same time as the attack took place. It was delivered over an hour late, due to the confusion that resulted when two "correction" messages were received: one amending a single word, and the other announcing that a sentence had been dropped in transmission. The first meant the retyping of one page, and the second two pages. As it was the 14 part message contained several typographical errors but Ambassador Nomura tired of the delay, delivered it anyway. Even if it had been delivered on time, it still would have been a surprise attack since there would have been precious little time to get a warning out. However, the DOW arriving after the attack had been delivered, compounded the outrage and anger many Americans felt at the time.

Yes, the incoming strike was observed on an experimental radar station, but was dismissed as B-17s from the mainland.


Ok, thanks. :)

Saw now that Ducimus mentioned about the decleration of war, before I posted. :oops:

[Oberon]

It was a masterful attack, one cannot deny it but as Yamamoto said, its success was short lived. Could Japan have actually won the war against America? No...no, I don't think so, once America fully mobilised and got its factories up and running at strength, it was just a matter of time.

[Skybird]

Roosevelt didn't use the term "Infamy" because the attackers fought the best they could. He used it in part because, as was previously described, it was an attack made before the declaration of war. He used it because he was angry, because he wanted to inspire his fellow Americans to the same anger, and, yes, there was a bit of propaganda involved, as there always is in any speech of that type.

As with any other discussion of war, including the many we've had on war crimes, the times and circumstances need to be taken into account before any judgement is made of the people who were involved.

Roosevelt was not surprised by the fact that japan started war, because I follow those historians saying that provoking that attack by his stangling oil policy was his only way to bring america into the war, something the congress and the wide public strongly opposed untilm Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt most liekly was not surpsied by the Japanese attacking, but probbaly by the sheer scale of the initial attack. and it always is two different things to just talk about and plan for war, and then being confronted by real war in reality. The american policy left the Japanese only two choices, to either withdraw as a strategic major player from the Pacific and leave it to the US, or to hope defeating america in a war. cinsidering their imperial attitude oif that time and the mindset of their traditional code, it was to be expected that they would strike.

Declaration of wars - when you decided to start killing hundreds of thousands and destroy whole cities, i think these civilised acts of elaborated manners loose in relevance. leave them for times of peace and the dinnerhalls and the party at the embassy. In war, the dead are still as dead as before - with or without such a declaration.

Be hesitent to launch war, but when you do, let nothing, really nothing come between you and the ultimate destruction of your enemy. and that is what the Japanese followed. When they decided for war, they planned, prepared, hid as best as they could, and deceived the americans as best as they could, and then struck with all force like a lightning out of the blue sky. They acted with maximum determination and without hesitation form the moment on they decided for war. No time for romantising the bloody business that lied ahead! If it would have gone as the embassy planned, Washington would have gotten the war declaration just minutes ahead of the attck - an you want to tell me that it would have made or would have meant a difference...? You would complain about that they did not give oyu the warning time oyu needed to ready your forces in a better way. In other words: you expect the Japanese to act stupid, and then complain about them not complying with your intention. that is absurd!

There is one war movie aboiut WWI, where an american squadron arrives in europe, and one american pilot refuses to follow all this nonsens thing abiut honiur and muttual respect between English and Germna pilots. He behaved like a wild boar in the sky and shot and killed everything that moved, refused to save injured enemies, and payed them no respect whatever. Initially them English attacked him for that. they were not sitting in the trenches and suffered the misery of the ordinbary infantryman, but were fighting like knights in the sky and considered themselves to be gentleman members of the same noble class like the german pilots. that way, they lost against the Germans - and even saluted then Germans for their superiority! BIG TIME BULLSH!T. That American flyer was right from the first day on, the air war became more nasty, and the dominance of the german air force started to wane.

I have another famous story, that is attributed to a heroic figure in Japan, Musashi. He is said to have gotten into hot argument with a local landlord where he stayed. Samurai that they are, they fix a duel for the morning of the next day, and Musashi leaves. On the next morning, the lord has a little parade, and his guards and the servants and the flag carriers all leave the castle and marchd to the beach. No Musashi there. They wait, but Musashi does not come. the lord becomes angry, but you are a lord and a samurai, you see, so you just keep your countenance. He waits. It becomes noon - No Musashi anywhere. the lord is boiling in his own anger, and tries to rather keep his face unmoved. The hours pass. when the sun starts to set, a boat appeares on the sea, and approaches the beach. The lord calls his servants to order, a nice looking parade, and althoug being angry, he feels the need to follow the rules of staying calm and polite and he starts to greet his oppent, planning his death soon after. They stand on the beach, where the boat just hits the sand. The lord starts greeting Musashi. Musashi does not greet in return, just jumps out of the boat with his sword over his head, let hear his war cry and smashes the lords skull with one powerful stroke. then he is back in the boat and rudders back to the sea, leaving behind a completely stunned audience. - That'S how it is done, Steve. All that rules of honour and politeness and the parade and paying respect - once the war, the fight is decided, all that does not change a thing, it does not mean anything, it only is BIG TIME BULLSH!T. When you have decided for the fight - be a raging bull with mean eyes: strike, shatter, kill. Simply that.

You fight, or you don't. Let there be no in-between. And if God himself steps in your way hindering you to kill your enemy - kill God first, and then kill your enemy.

America did not udnerstand this. And that'S why Pearl Harbour became possible. It was an American failure, a lacking understanding of the culture and nature of the enemy and the way he is ticking. the japanese in return underestimated the industrial potential of the US, and the way a war would rally american public opinion around the flag. but even if they knew it I wonder if they would have taken the alternative to voluntarily withdraw as a big player from the Pacific gameboard. I doubt it.

[Oberon]

I see where you're coming from there Skybird, and agree that the United States and indeed the world completely underestimated the Japanese way of the warrior, and the Bushido spirit which presented itself in the kamikaze attacks, Banzai charges and holdouts. Heck, I, as a westerner, find it very hard to get my head around the mentality of that.

What you describe is a very basic view of war and fighting and at the end of the day it is what it boils down to, however over the years there have been rules and codes of conduct, even to some extent the Bushido, drawn up around conflict as an attempt by humanity to elevate ourselves above animals, but when it boils down to single one on one hand to hand conflict in a foxhole, you don't wait for the other guy to draw his weapon first, you maximise your potential to survive the battle and you strike first whilst he is unprepared, he dies and you survive.

But, this sociological discussion is far from the point of the opening post which is not to discuss the political ramifications of the attack of December the 7th, but to remember those on Hawaii who died during the attack, who, due to the modern nature of war and the chain of command, never saw the attack coming until the first torpedo detonated against the hull of the first target.

[Skybird]

I see where you're coming from there Skybird, and agree that the United States and indeed the world completely underestimated the Japanese way of the warrior, and the Bushido spirit which presented itself in the kamikaze attacks, Banzai charges and holdouts. Heck, I, as a westerner, find it very hard to get my head around the mentality of that.

What you describe is a very basic view of war and fighting and at the end of the day it is what it boils down to, however over the years there have been rules and codes of conduct, even to some extent the Bushido, drawn up around conflict as an attempt by humanity to elevate ourselves above animals, but when it boils down to single one on one hand to hand conflict in a foxhole, you don't wait for the other guy to draw his weapon first, you maximise your potential to survive the battle and you strike first whilst he is unprepared, he dies and you survive.

But, this sociological discussion is far from the point of the opening post which is not to discuss the political ramifications of the attack of December the 7th, but to remember those on Hawaii who died during the attack, who, due to the modern nature of war and the chain of command, never saw the attack coming until the first torpedo detonated against the hull of the first target.

I said somewhere above that remembering the dead is okay, and has my sympathy. Just the "infamous Japanese" thing is what got my attention, and raises my opposition.

On the rules and codes you said that have been invited over the times, we shall not forget that especially the socalled asymmetrical war with for example enemies hiding in civilian crowds puts the practability (right word?) of the Hague Landwarfare Convention or the Geneva Convention into doubt, for the faction following their principles - while the other does not - accepts immense, and as we have learned: decisive handicaps to it's chances to crush the enemy and avoid getting defeated. In this context I again remind of this reading: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158490

Ways to elevate ourselves over animals. Well, animals don't wage wars over political or religious claims, and they do not show that monumental ammount of self-aware cruelty like mankind does, so ethically one could argue that they are superior to and more innocent than us . However, war is the absence of a status of peace, it is it's opposite, by it's mere existence if means the absence of order and civilised values, and while your desire is perfectly understandable in a state of peace, entering the state of war means we leave all that behind, and enter a new working mode, a new world, if you want, where other values and priorities rule. So, if we want to elevate ourselves over animals, as you put it, a precondition to do so is finding ways of not needing to enter the state of war. Once we are at war, that idealism is misplaced, and the ambition already has failed.

What it comes down to, is this: War is not civilised, and all claims how to make it more civilised are just self-deceptions, imo. And that'S why there are so many wars, and often fought so half-heartedly. Follow my argument, and you will have far more brutal wars - but not many of them. People would be too afraid to launch them like they were afraid to start a global nuclear war.

[Oberon]

I meant more in the mind of society rather than my own thinking, as I wholeheartedly agree with you in that in a manner of speaking, animals are elevated over us. We, as a society, generally have it drilled into our heads from birth that killing someone is wrong, thus it makes it that much harder to move from a condiction where you shall not kill, to a condiction where you should kill. It's one of the many reasons I dare say that professional army training takes the time it does, that and the teaching of learnt self-preservation instincts plus the acceptable western rules of combat, however some people seem to have less of that restraint than others, perhaps through the negative influence of society or their upbringing, hence we find murderers and such forth.
But, at the basic core of every human being, there is a murderer, it reminds me of a quote from my favourite Star Trek series, Deep Space Nine:


"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Holosuite) are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Klingon). You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..."


Alas, I am wondering off the conversation here and into another topic which is the effect of society on the human psyche, however, getting back to the subject at hand, yes, the rules of war are all well and good so long as both sides play by them, but you get a situation where you are fighting guerrilla fighters and these people are basic warriors, and they use any tactic they can to survive and to kill, rules of war be damned. This is the problem we are facing in Afghanistan, the problems we faced in Malaysia and the problems that have been faced by many other nations over the globe whenever they have gone up against guerrilla fighters and tried to fight using the codes of war...and the word I think you were looking for was 'practicality' but I think I got what you meant ;)
You make a very good point about Basic war, which in a way I guess is a more thorough version of Total war, there are no rules, no conventions, just destruction and I suspect that one day, perhaps sooner than we think, we may find ourselves staring at that again. By making war that slightly less than Basic, by dressing it up in conventions and such forth, we make it more socially acceptable to wage it. In a way, in the western world, war has been shaped around society, whereas in other sections of the planet, and certainly it could be argued in Japan, society has been shaped around war and is thus easier to wage something closer to Basic war which gives you an initial advantage over an enemy confined by regulations and conventions, and also it gives you a socialogical advantage in that your population are more resiliant to the effects of war and support it longer. It wasn't until the Fall of France and the Battle of Britain that the British public really realised that they had to put their muscle behind the war effort and prepare to fight a Basic war to stop a German advance, Churchill knew this, he was prepared to be the first to use chemical weapons, use the young and the old in the Home Guard, anything to kill the enemy and slow or halt his advance. In a similar vein, the Battle for Berlin, with children manning anti-tank guns, another example of basic war, and of course, children are more easily swayed by the words of men than men themselves and their fear of death is not as sharp as that of elder men, perhaps partly due to their shorter time on this planet where that fear of death is driven into them, I have no doubt that many on those guns soon learnt to fear it, and by god I feel sorry for them. Again, I have rambled, but you raise many good socialogical points on humanities view of warfare and I am in a socialogical mood...perhaps this is something I should have studied at university? :haha:
I shall end my long ramble with another quote, from a man who I think understood warfare at a more basic level, as he fought in a more basic time:


Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

[Skybird]

There is a lot on what we agree, Oberon.

DS9 is also a favourite of mine, btw. :)

[Snestorm]

@Skybird
@Oberon

Excellent posts, gentlemen.
A man I've always admired for being much more basic than his contemporaries was the US general, William T Sherman. He made some remarkable achievements.

[Biggles]

December seems to be the months of deaths and sad news. We have the attack of Pearl Harbor, (the 7th), the death of Alfred Nobel on the 10th (whom I greatly admire) and, ofcourse, today:
http://photoallan.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/john-lennon.jpg
The murder of one of the greatest musicians in modern times.

(sorry to hijack the thread lads).:nope:

[Skybird]

Who's that?

[Biggles]

Who's that?

In case you are serious, that is John Lennon. Easily discovered by right clicking the picture;)

[Skybird]

And ETR3 just said in another thread I have no humour.

:O:

[August]

Remember Pearl Harbor.

[Sailor Steve]

Roosevelt was not surprised by the fact that japan started war, because I follow those historians saying that provoking that attack by his stangling oil policy was his only way to bring america into the war, something the congress and the wide public strongly opposed untilm Pearl Harbour.
I would say Roosevelt was most definitely surprised that the attack fell where it did, because American intelligence was convinced that Japan would attack in the southwestern Pacific, which was where the oil and steel they needed were to be found. The Japanese also didn't want an actual war, and there is some evidence that the Pearl Harbor attack was meant as a warning to America to stay out of Japanese business. Yamamoto knew he couldn't beat the United States in a protracted war, and though he planned the attack he did so under protest.

Roosevelt most likely was not surpsied by the Japanese attacking, but probably by the sheer scale of the initial attack. and it always is two different things to just talk about and plan for war, and then being confronted by real war in reality.
The US may have talked, but we never really planned for that war, and were very much taken by surprise.

The american policy left the Japanese only two choices, to either withdraw as a strategic major player from the Pacific and leave it to the US, or to hope defeating america in a war. cinsidering their imperial attitude oif that time and the mindset of their traditional code, it was to be expected that they would strike.
But, as I said, not directly against American soil. We expected an attack, but not that one.

Declaration of wars - when you decided to start killing hundreds of thousands and destroy whole cities, i think these civilised acts of elaborated manners loose in relevance. leave them for times of peace and the dinnerhalls and the party at the embassy. In war, the dead are still as dead as before - with or without such a declaration.
It seems you don't understand the Western approach to war. In pretty much every Western war in history, war was declared months beore the first battles took place. Armies were organized and moved into place, and much maneuvering took place before the armies actually met.

Be hesitent to launch war, but when you do, let nothing, really nothing come between you and the ultimate destruction of your enemy. and that is what the Japanese followed. When they decided for war, they planned, prepared, hid as best as they could, and deceived the americans as best as they could, and then struck with all force like a lightning out of the blue sky. They acted with maximum determination and without hesitation form the moment on they decided for war. No time for romantising the bloody business that lied ahead! If it would have gone as the embassy planned, Washington would have gotten the war declaration just minutes ahead of the attck - an you want to tell me that it would have made or would have meant a difference...? You would complain about that they did not give oyu the warning time oyu needed to ready your forces in a better way. In other words: you expect the Japanese to act stupid, and then complain about them not complying with your intention. that is absurd!
As I said before, Roosevelt's speech was part propaganda. The purpose of any war speech is to convince the people of the necessity to fight, and that usually requires whipping up at least a little hatred.


I have another famous story, that is attributed to a heroic figure in Japan, Musashi.... That'S how it is done, Steve. All that rules of honour and politeness and the parade and paying respect - once the war, the fight is decided, all that does not change a thing, it does not mean anything, it only is BIG TIME BULLSH!T. When you have decided for the fight - be a raging bull with mean eyes: strike, shatter, kill. Simply that.
Thanks for the lecture. I'm surprised you don't believe in some God, given the sermon you just preached.

You fight, or you don't. Let there be no in-between. And if God himself steps in your way hindering you to kill your enemy - kill God first, and then kill your enemy.
Another pretty speech, which leads me to the question: Have you ever fought in a war? Have you ever killed anyone? If not, then I have to lump you with the so-called Chickenhawks, who talk big about war but don't really know what they're talking about. The politicians who've never seen the elephant, but are more than willing to tell others how it's done.

Your opinions on Japan's intentions, and what they would have done if they had known the American reaction in advance, are certainly valid, and I agree. But Japan was led by a ruling class who were certain they were invincible, undefeatable, and the rightful rulers of the Earth. They were terribly mistaken about all three, and about what would happen. Even if they could have seen the future and the exact outcome they still wouldn't have believed it. That's what no one anywhere in the West understood about Japan, and what the Japanese didn't understand about the West.

[Arclight]

Remember Pearl Harbor.
I remember.

:salute:

(that salute looks way to cheerfull, but I'm sure it's intention is clear)

[Skybird]

It seems you don't understand the Western approach to war. In pretty much every Western war in history, war was declared months beore the first battles took place. Armies were organized and moved into place, and much maneuvering took place before the armies actually met.

Oh I know that. I just do not agree with that view. where time for preparation is needed, that cannot be helped, but to think it is mandatory to be given that time or to give it to the other side - that is - well, I stay polite and say i don't agree with that. Playing by rules is for peace, not for war.

Thanks for the lecture. I'm surprised you don't believe in some God, given the sermon you just preached.
After just having told me that I did not understand the Western tradition of war declarations, it seems you do not understand the nature of war yourself. could it be that there is a link between both statements of yours? ;)

Another pretty speech, which leads me to the question: Have you ever fought in a war? Have you ever killed anyone? If not, then I have to lump you with the so-called Chickenhawks, who talk big about war but don't really know what they're talking about. The politicians who've never seen the elephant, but are more than willing to tell others how it's done.
No I never fought in a war, but I saw places of war, and the rubble still smoking and the meat still smelling, in Kurdish/Eastern Turkey and in Algeria. And I must tell you that most wars since WWII, if not earlier, have been launched by people expecting them to be short and humane and civilised, and not knowing what that means: war. Maybe you do not like the grim cruelty in what I say, but you must live with the fact that it is not my view, but the opinion that wars could be civilised and tamed, that increased their number beyond the inevitable wars, and what made them being fought half-heartedly so that they would last long, and - that is my conviciton - in the end leads to more suffering and higher death tolls and more innocents suffering, then if you would go at the enemy'S throat at all cost from the beginning on. This was not done in Vietnam (give Paris a chance) , not in Korea (beware the Chinese), not in Iraq (Bush'S illusions), not in Afghnaistan (shift forces fromt here to Iraq) - insteasd one foolishly played around, politically controlled and limited the war fighting, took diplomatic care, hesitated because of third parties or innocent getting affected, was scared of using the ultimate weapons. All these wars put high death tolls on the civilians, but still count as defeats, the mission objectives postulated before were not achieved, the enemy after the war sometime was stronger than before. In several other limited military operations against weak, small-sized enemies of no equal capability, mission objectives were acchieved, but still saw the military struggling at times due to ROEs and civilised concerns.

This is a basic, a most fundamental difference in thinking, Steve, what you point at and what I say. and if you look at the aerial mass bombing of cities in WWII with the declared intention to break public moral by terrorising the civil population, you see that the US has once fought by my rules, too, and even more obvious that is in the drop of the two atomic bombs. Whether the air terror doctirne was acchieving its desired result or not, can be argued, obviously it did not, but that is not the point. the point is that the determination to do what is needed to break the enemy, was there. I do not call for the intentional targetting of civilians - but the presence of civilians cannot be an escuse of not targetting your enemy and kill him, at all cost. That is determination to win the war and to kill the enemy. Today you do not see that that uncompromised anymore. Not in Vietnam. Not in Korea, not in Afghanistan. Not in Pakistan. Not in Iraq. Not in Lebanon. the result: failure over failure. we have the superior weapons and armour, like the Western knights had during the crusades. But the other side - has superior fighting spirit and superior morale, even the willingness for self-sacrifice and to slaughter innocents to help it's cause seeing victory. Also our warriors are so highly trained and armed that they are incredibly expensive, a precious ressource that ha sbecome rare and that we simply cannot even afford to lose in too high numbers. You think I am cynical, or big-mouthed. I am not. I am just realistic. We have better weapons, but we lack in numbers, and fighting spirit. And that seats us on the looser's side of the street.

I am the first to admit what I call for is inhumane and brutal. It is. War is like that. War never is civilised. So I say: be slow to start wars, be sure that the issue you fight over is worth it for you, so tht you can justify it before your conscience, because if you wage war, you better do it by unleashing all hell there is. The lie that war can be given a humane face is what made it more probable, and has triggered several stupid wars that would not have been started with less illusions about their possibilities, or would have been fought with more determination and uncompromised basic attitude. And always the troops will be home again before christmas, and Traraaa and Tiriliiih and Tadareda and fanfares. Pah!

I was against the Iraq war, if you remember, and I still am. I also called for a massive major correction Afghanistan very very early on - or to pull out completely, if you remember. I u-turned on my support for the Israelis in 2006 when I realised how ill-prepared they were and that their politicians lacked the needed determination. So don't call me an easy mind or a boaster when it comes to deciding on war. Maybe I just have far lesser illusions than those civilised crusaders they think they can tame the beast and still win the battle...?! ;) and if I am so wrong and the civilised war supporters are so right, I wonder why since WWII all major conflicts have been lost by the US or have been given up by prematurely ending the conflict (1991)? Not to mention the UN with all it's bigmouthed good intentions. In war, good intentions and a civilised posture - means nothing.

[nikimcbee]

I'll just add, the Japanese had been planning to fight the US Navy ever since the 1900's when we started building bases in the Pacific. It was just a matter of time. The problem with the Japanese strategy was, they were too married to their Mahanian naval doctrine. Yamamoto was able to change part of it. (AC vs BB)

[Sailor Steve]

Oh I know that. I just do not agree with that view. where time for preparation is needed, that cannot be helped, but to think it is mandatory to be given that time or to give it to the other side - that is - well, I stay polite and say i don't agree with that. Playing by rules is for peace, not for war.
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant to the discussion that started with you calling Roosevelt's choice of words "laughable". I merely explained why I think he used the wording he did. You insist on pushing your opinion that the Japanese view of war is the correct one.

After just having told me that I did not understand the Western tradition of war declarations, it seems you do not understand the nature of war yourself. could it be that there is a link between both statements of yours? ;)
Is the wink to convince me that I should listen to your superior wisdom?

And I must tell you that most wars since WWII, if not earlier, have been launched by people expecting them to be short and humane and civilised, and not knowing what that means: war.
I agree, to a point. Long before the Second World War people told themselves that their war would be a short one. But you keep condescending to people in an apparent attempt to convince them that you're the only one who knows what's right. And I tell you that if you haven't actually experienced it then everything you say is all talk. You may actually be right about some of what you say, but you don't know.

What follows was one heck of a run-on sentence. I had to divide it up to make any sense with my replies.

Maybe you do not like the grim cruelty in what I say,
Really? Grim cruelty? What you say is mostly rhetoric.

but you must live with the fact that it is not my view,
But it is your view. Again you talk down to people rather than discuss it.

but the opinion that wars could be civilised and tamed, that increased their number beyond the inevitable wars
It took me a little time to make sense of that phrase, but I think I have it now. Which wars would have been inevitable, and which ones would not, but came about due to the opinion that wars could be civilized and tamed?

, and what made them being fought half-heartedly so that they would last long, and - that is my conviciton - in the end leads to more suffering and higher death tolls and more innocents suffering, then if you would go at the enemy'S throat at all cost from the beginning on.
Robert E. Lee agreed with you in part, when he said "It is well that war is so terrible, or else we should grow too fond of it." But do you mean that if I disagree with someone I should "cut his throat" before he has a chance to cut mine? And countries should do the same?

This was not done in Vietnam (give Paris a chance) , not in Korea (beware the Chinese), not in Iraq (Bush'S illusions), not in Afghnaistan (shift forces fromt here to Iraq) - insteasd one foolishly played around, politically controlled and limited the war fighting, took diplomatic care, hesitated because of third parties or innocent getting affected, was scared of using the ultimate weapons. All these wars put high death tolls on the civilians, but still count as defeats, the mission objectives postulated before were not achieved, the enemy after the war sometime was stronger than before. In several other limited military operations against weak, small-sized enemies of no equal capability, mission objectives were acchieved, but still saw the military struggling at times due to ROEs and civilised concerns.
Now you're turning this into a diatribe against limited wars? I could discuss each of them in detail, including Vietnam and the War of 1812, but you're dragging this a long way from your original statement, and it's making less and less sense.

This is a basic, a most fundamental difference in thinking, Steve, what you point at and what I say.
That's because you keep meandering.

and if you look at the aerial mass bombing of cities in WWII with the declared intention to break public moral by terrorising the civil population, you see that the US has once fought by my rules, too,
Yes, once the war was underway we changed the rules as we went along. But we were trying to end the war (albiet by winning it), and they had a pretty good idea what was coming. I'm not saying that makes it right, but we were already at war in that case, and made decisions based on that fact; not planning to attack a nation with whom we were not at war.

and even more obvious that is in the drop of the two atomic bombs.
A decision that was fraught with doubts and questions.

Whether the air terror doctirne was acchieving its desired result or not, can be argued, obviously it did not, but that is not the point.
Then why bring it up?

the point is that the determination to do what is needed to break the enemy, was there.
Yes, to break the enemy. Not to pre-emptively attack a potential enemy while he wasn't looking. This discussion is about Roosevelt's words, and nothing else.

I do not call for the intentional targetting of civilians - but the presence of civilians cannot be an escuse of not targetting your enemy and kill him, at all cost. That is determination to win the war and to kill the enemy. Today you do not see that that uncompromised anymore. Not in Vietnam. Not in Korea, not in Afghanistan. Not in Pakistan. Not in Iraq. Not in Lebanon. the result: failure over failure. we have the superior weapons and armour, like the Western knights had during the crusades. But the other side - has superior fighting spirit and superior morale, even the willingness for self-sacrifice and to slaughter innocents to help it's cause seeing victory. Also our warriors are so highly trained and armed that they are incredibly expensive, a precious ressource that ha sbecome rare and that we simply cannot even afford to lose in too high numbers. You think I am cynical, or big-mouthed. I am not. I am just realistic. We have better weapons, but we lack in numbers, and fighting spirit. And that seats us on the looser's side of the street.
Now you're off on a tangent about how we have to be prepared for what we're facing now. Cynical? I don't know. Big-mouthed? No, but certainly long-winded. What you are is unable to argue a small point without writing a book. And changing the subject a dozen times.

I am the first to admit what I call for is inhumane and brutal. It is. War is like that. War never is civilised. So I say: be slow to start wars, be sure that the issue you fight over is worth it for you, so tht you can justify it before your conscience, because if you wage war, you better do it by unleashing all hell there is.
But this discussion is about one leader's reaction to a war we didn't start. The Japanese, at least some of them, tried to play by the accepted rules by delivering a declaration before the attack. We suddenly found ourselves in a war we didn't necessarily want, and you're defending the attackers by talking like a warmonger yourself. Again I say, go fight, go kill someone, then tell me how you feel.

The lie that war can be given a humane face is what made it more probable, and has triggered several stupid wars that would not have been started with less illusions about their possibilities, or would have been fought with more determination and uncompromised basic attitude. And always the troops will be home again before christmas, and Traraaa and Tiriliiih and Tadareda and fanfares. Pah!

I was against the Iraq war, if you remember, and I still am. I also called for a massive major correction Afghanistan very very early on - or to pull out completely, if you remember. I u-turned on my support for the Israelis in 2006 when I realised how ill-prepared they were and that their politicians lacked the needed determination. So don't call me an easy mind or a boaster when it comes to deciding on war. Maybe I just have far lesser illusions than those civilised crusaders they think they can tame the beast and still win the battle...?! ;) and if I am so wrong and the civilised war supporters are so right, I wonder why since WWII all major conflicts have been lost by the US or have been given up by prematurely ending the conflict (1991)? Not to mention the UN with all it's bigmouthed good intentions. In war, good intentions and a civilised posture - means nothing.
Now you've done a bunch of repeating yourself, and explaining why you feel the way you do. None of which has anything to do with the discussion you started.

[Skybird]

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant to the discussion that started with you calling Roosevelt's choice of words "laughable".

What? I think you remember someone else there. I did not say something like that.

Is the wink to convince me that I should listen to your superior wisdom?
No, just a hint that you are very aggressive and may want to listen to yourself. ;)

I agree, to a point. Long before the Second World War people told themselves that their war would be a short one. But you keep condescending to people in an apparent attempt to convince them that you're the only one who knows what's right. And I tell you that if you haven't actually experienced it then everything you say is all talk. You may actually be right about some of what you say, but you don't know.
Nonsense. Ypou do not know why you want and should fight me off when I come over to you and start putting my boot in your face with strength? Get your emotions cool again. Don't read something into my words, just take them as what I actually have said.


What follows was one heck of a run-on sentence. I had to divide it up to make any sense with my replies.


Really? Grim cruelty? What you say is mostly rethoric.
No. It is a reality. And youb are the one currently dealing plenty of rethorics. I wonder how your day has been. I almost do not recognise you.


But it is your view. Again you talk down to people rather than discuss it

It took me a little time to make sense of that phrase, but I think I have it now. Which wars would have been inevitable, and which ones would not, but came about due to the opinion that wars could be civilized and tamed?

WWII was a war of need. Iraq was a war of choice, and you allowed to get talked into it, being told that it would be just, and bring freedom and democarcy to them, and would soon be over. All the sweet lies by Wolfowitz, oerls and bush and rumsfield - were bought all too willingly. Come on, Steve, what's the matter with you today.


Robert E. Lee agreed with you in part, when he said "It is well that war is so terrible, or else we should grow too fond of it." But do you mean that if I disagree with someone I should "cut his throat" before he has a chance to cut mine? And countries should do the same?
Again steve, what is wrong with oyu today, you never have put so often words into my mouth like you did today. I mean that you should be very hesitent to decide for war (more hesitent than in 2003, for example), and that you should be very sure that you think your acceptance of war (if having the choice and war is not forced upon you) is over reasons that you can now and forever justify to your conscience, before anything and anyone else. And if then you still decide for war, for the reason to you are important and valid enough, you should indeed kill the enemy before he kills you.

Now you're turning this into a diatribe against limited wars? I could discuss each of them in detail, including Vietnam and the War of 1812, but you're dragging this a long way from your original statement, and it's making less and less sense.
To me, you make no sense in here. You have not understood what I say, not even closely. And you give me the impression you are seeking a rumble - that's all. But I will not comply. Your limited war in Vietnam - has killed how many people, and lasted how many years? Your limited war in Iraq has costed how many more people their lives than Saddam tryranny on averga would have killed in the same time? Your self-limitation in Afghnaistan has turned the operation into - well, into what?

I have two problems with that attitude of yours, and this is what I say all about. your illusions - are dangerous, simply that, and they have caused more wars to happen instead of less, and made them probably much more harmful to more people, than if they would jhave been kept as short and hard as I say. you seem to be very proud of the intention to limit wars and making them more civilised, but that5's why there are more wars, and why the suffering of the people lasts longer. and this self-deceptive illusion has made america so uncritcally go Hooray over the Iraq war in 2003.

That's because you keep meandering.
No, that is becasue your thinking about what war should be and my thinking about what war is are totally different. That is why Pearl Harbour was possible, and why until today you cannot understand the Japanese attack, and the stregnth of it, and for that vreason call them "infamous".

I try to understand why you are so totally different a person today than i ever heave read you before. Do you have family members directly affected by the attack? A father or grandfather having been there? Is this the reason why you react so aggressive to my different assessment of the attack, and the nature of war? At least that I could understand as a motivational factor, then.

Yes, once the war was underway we changed the rules as we went along. But we were trying to end the war (albiet by winning it), and they had a pretty good idea what was coming. I'm not saying that makes it right, but we were already at war in that case, and made decisions based on that fact; not planning to attack a nation with whom we were not at war.
Well,later presidents did right that, didn't they. However, you admit that there was determination invo9lved in WWII, and that is what I am talking about. you were going after the quickest possible, most total defeat of your enemy you could plan for, with he smallest risk to your own troops possible, and not allo9ung third parties, ethical coincerns and civilised sorries coming in your way to distract you from that intention of yours.


A decision that was fraught with doubts and questions.


Then why bring it up?


Yes, to break the enemy. Not to pre-emptively attack a potential enemy while he wasn't looking. This discussion is about Roosevelt's words, and nothing else.

Then I do not know with whom you think to discuss, becasue nowhere I have adressed "roosevelt'S words", they do not interest me at all. To what are you actually replying, then? I am about calling the japanese attack "infamous" , and that I agree with those historians arguing that he pressed the japanese into a position where they would attack - so that he finally could enter the War in europe, and later in the thread i was about fighting a war uncompromised and determined, but to quesiton one's motives for going to war thoroughly. Roosevelts words, nowhere i have referred to them, nor is this thread explicitly about them. I'm sure that Roosevelt, like every politician, always spoke honest and true and never tried to manipulate the public. ;) Hm. I fear your are not in the mood today to smile over an attempt of irony, so just delete the last sentence.


Now you're off on a tangent about how we have to be prepared for what we're facing now. Cynical? I don't know. Big-mouthed? No, but certainly long-winded. What you are is unable to argue a small point without writing a book. And changing the subject a dozen times.

No, just illustrations for wars that failed because the support for them was corrupted, and determination was weakened over "civilised2 concerns. That way they turned into a mess, and defeats. and that'S why I am talking about.

But this discussion is about one leader's reaction to a war we didn't start. The Japanese, at least some of them, tried to play by the accepted rules by delivering a declaration before the attack.
Well, if I ever mean you any harm and want to kick you, i must remember to give you a polite warning just a second ahead, so that you have notnime left to react. that makes a big difference, don't you agree. and it is a real important thing considering that I am about to skin you alive and break every bone in your body - politeness never is wrong, isn'T it?
Ah, not your irony day, sorry, I forgot again. Delete the last paragraph.

We suddenly found ourselves in a war we didn't necessarily want,
The public and congress: yes, they did not want to go to war, not against Japan, not in europe. And that was the porblem, because Roosevelt wanted to enter the war in europe for sure. What the public wnated, and what the leader wnated, was not the same, and the latter thus had to trick the first in ortder to convince them. being attacke from the outside - helped. Like 9/11 helped George Bush to declare war on Iraq, although he had to take an unplanned extra route via Afgzhanistan, and still gave wrong reasons for Iraq. Sometimes outside enemies are your best friends.
and you're defending the attackers by talking like a warmonger yourself.
Hell, for the xth time: I am saying that you should be very very careful whether or not you enter a war, I am more hestient to accept a war than most members in the Gt forum. But those I will - i do will to fioght with much more detmerination and vigour, in an uncompormised effort to make it a short business with decisive results. warmonger? No. with my method you would see far fewer wars a slong as there is no powerful dominant side that is invulnerable to the others.

Again I say, go fight, go kill someone, then tell me how you feel.

such pathetic stuff really makes me angry now, after all your lament.

Well, i can tell you how i felt when they started to carry out the wounded at the LaBelle, a bombing attack in Berlin that I witnessed from outside when I was 19, just out of school. I can try to describe how it feels when for the first time you have the smell of burned flesh in the nose, and see almost all huts in that poor village your are being in, turned to rubble or being black with ashes and smoke and the people sitting aphatic, many children looking at you with eyes like long tunnels , making you feel like a martian in the wrong place. I can tell you how I felt when all of a sudden I was attacked by a junkey who put his knife into my side three year ago for no reason, just so, and only years of training and reflexes enabled me to survive and take him out in an action you probably would also consider to be uncivilised and excessive in force, taking him out and hurting him seriously - but made sure he could not strike a second time, and could not escape. Or maybe you want to know how i felt when two years ago I almost killed a trainee by accident, because I had that new job and was running the instruction and overestimated his blocking skills, thus shattering his skull and neck and almost ending his life: I quit after just one week and for months felt in a hole, and worked on in my old job instead. Or during my university time when I voluntarily engaged in a project that saw doctors bringing torture victims from the Balkans to cities in northern Germany and trying to give therapeutic assistance for their traumas. Maybe you want to know how you feel when you sit in a room with a girl aged 17 and you have been told she has not spoken for three months, and you sit with her for one day and half the night and don't dare to move or speak because that could make her panic, so that she just can experience that a human can be around without wanting to hurt her again, and when you leave her, all of a sudden you hear a silent whisper, just one word, like an apology: "Thanks", and you know it is a huge win for her and the first time since long that she had spoken at all, and yu leave the room and break in tears yourself. Do you want to know how it is if you come through a village where the night before the turkish artillery has not left one stone on the other, or a village in Algeria where also over night most adults did not wake up in the morning because they had cut throats - and your boss with just business-as-usual voice gives the command to start shooting with the camera? If that is not to your taste, I could tell you about a former buddy of mine, maybe? He returned from Afghnaistan in 2005, traumatised. You want to help, but he is unavailable to you.you see him loosing his wife, his kid, his job, his future, and you see him becoming tikcing more and more dangerously, and you just canot do anything. I lost him, he dissapeared, nobody knows where he turned to, and most even felt lucky that he bis gone, since they felt threatened, intimidated.

Don't lecture me on violence, and suffering and dying, Steve. I've seen it.

On the japanese thinking, and the way of fighting with determination, or not to fight at all, I also add this, briefly. My mentor and first fighting trainer was Japanese, and quite proud of his family's tradition. From him I learned many of these things, and meditation, and Bushido. Not because he lectured me, but because I saw his example that he lived himself, and found it convincing. He was a colleauge of my father, and became my second father.

One thing you have to understand, Steve, and I mean that serious: you must no necessarily be a soldier and having fought in war in order to understand it's basic nature, or to understand the nature of elemental, physical violence. War is no complicated thing, you see, it is very simple: war is evil, is chaos. People kill, and people die, and those who are left, are changed, will never be the same persons again that they have been before. Violence means to damage and to take life. Not complicated at all. Very simple. nEither you do it, or you dont. No inbetween. No inbetween. So just save me your damn hypocritic remarks on limited wars and the worth of civilised behavior in war. I see every day in the TV news how wonderfull at humane it works. Your good intentions may be meant idealistically, but they only help to make it worse, by making youbweak, making the ar longer, and letting more and more people beign affected by it.

I don't think you understand all this. Like you also do not understand the Japanese "Why" behind the Pearl Harbour attack. Lost in cultural difference, maybe. that does not chnage the fact that America allowed to get caught on the wrong foot. and a declaration, a different tune in the radio, or Roosevelt having tea instead of coffee on that morning, would not have changed anything. america still would have gotten caught off guard.

Now you've done a bunch of repeating yourself, and explaining why you feel the way you do. None of which has anything to do with the discussion you started.
honestly said, i do not even understand what you want from me.

[Onkel Neal]

http://photoallan.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/john-lennon.jpg
The murder of one of the greatest musicians in modern times.



Neil Diamond is dead? :o

[Onkel Neal]

I would say Roosevelt was most definitely surprised that the attack fell where it did, because American intelligence was convinced that Japan would attack in the southwestern Pacific, which was where the oil and steel they needed were to be found. The Japanese also didn't want an actual war, and there is some evidence that the Pearl Harbor attack was meant as a warning to America to stay out of Japanese business. Yamamoto knew he couldn't beat the United States in a protracted war, and though he planned the attack he did so under protest.


That's always been my understanding, and supports why the attack was such a devasting success--the US really did not expect Japan to sail halfway across the Pacific and launch a massive air attack on PH. Some of the vets I worked with on Cavalla resoration indicated they thought a war was coming with Japan, but when it actually arrived, it was difficult to believe the reality.

[Skybird]

That's always been my understanding, and supports why the attack was such a devasting success--the US really did not expect Japan to sail halfway across the Pacific and launch a massive air attack on PH. Some of the vets I worked with on Cavalla resoration indicated they thought a war was coming with Japan, but when it actually arrived, it was difficult to believe the reality.

The japanese majority saw the pacific fleet as the greatest threat, and yamamoto, having seen America, also saw the industrial potential. It is said he indeed did not wish the war, but the rest of the generals and admirals did not agree. From an American point of view, an element of uncertainty about the when and where of course was existent, but to think the japanese meant Pearl Harbour as a warning only imo is absurd, and completely underestimates them, even more it means to underestimate yamamoto who had collected some experience with the american mentality. I also think that with better cultural understanding on the US side one could have forseen that the Pacific fleet would be the target of their first strike. Unaware of the industrial potential of america, the vast majority of the Japanese military must have seen the American fleet as the greatest immediate threat. And seeing it assembled in just one small place was absolutely irresistable. I never understood why the fleet was so very much amassed even when the diplomatic service had signals that the Japanese would go to war. It would be interesting to know if Roosevelt had any say in that decision. If he ordered it, it would not be the smoking gun proving the theory of him provoking an attack, but it would be a possible hint.

[Torplexed]

Unaware of the industrial potential of america, the vast majority of the Japanese military must have seen the American fleet as the greatest immediate threat. And seeing it assembled in just one small place was absolutely irresistable. I never understood why the fleet was so very much amassed even when the diplomatic service had signals that the Japanese would go to war. It would be interesting to know if Roosevelt had any say in that decision.

I think Japan did recognize the industrial superiority of the United States, although the full enormity of that disparity could not have been fully anticipated in 1941. She failed to acknowledge, however the capacity for American durability in a struggle lasting a number of years. Japan tried to fight the Pacific War as it had fought previously fought imperial China and Russia. Limiting the conflict by escalating it's material and moral costs beyond what Western Powers, the US in particular, were willing to pay. The strategy was predicated not on American softness or weakness, but American rationality. Americans were businessmen, not samurai. Eventually they would calculate the costs and benefits and come to terms with the realities created by Japanese arms.

Unfortunately for Japan, Admiral Yamamoto engineered the most politically disastrous naval operation in history. Not only did he fail to sink any US carriers, his principal goal, the attack had the effect of uniting and enraging an isolationist America against Japan. Yamamoto was also disappointed to discover the Pearl Harbor attack had been executed before the Japanese declaration of war was issued. The psychological effect on Yamamoto was so great that he became determined to sink the USN carriers thus stumbling into the avoidable disaster at Midway and the catastrophic air war of attrition in the South Pacific afterward from 1942-43. I've never understood why he's so highly regarded by his peers.

[Snestorm]

There is something else which is very significant about FDR's speech.

It's the last time a USP asked Congress for a Declaration Of War, before sending troops off to their deaths. In that instance, he was the last USP to adhere to the US Constitution.

Had following USPs followed the US Constitution most, if not all, military actions involving USA, in all probability, would not have occurred.

Perhaps it's time for the American People to demand the re-instatement of the US Constitution, without "interpretation", as it was written to be understandable by the common man.

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.

[Sailor Steve]

What? I think you remember someone else there. I did not say something like that.
You're right, it was a slight misquote on my part.
My sympathy were people want to remember the dead. But were you call your enemy infamous for having fought as best as he could, all you get is my laughter.

No, just a hint that you are very aggressive and may want to listen to yourself. ;)
Aggressive? I started off trying to explore why Roosevelt used the words he did. You turned it into an attack on everything American.

Nonsense. Ypou do not know why you want and should fight me off when I come over to you and start putting my boot in your face with strength? Get your emotions cool again. Don't read something into my words, just take them as what I actually have said.
I'm not emotional at all. And what you've said is that you understand war better than people who have fought them, and everyone should listen to you.

No. It is a reality. And youb are the one currently dealing plenty of rethorics. I wonder how your day has been. I almost do not recognise you.
What exactly have I said that was rhetoric? You said that you spoke truth, not opinion, and indicated that anyone who didn't listen to you was ignoring the truth. I replied that it was just your opinion, pure and simple.

WWII was a war of need. Iraq was a war of choice, and you allowed to get talked into it, being told that it would be just, and bring freedom and democarcy to them, and would soon be over. All the sweet lies by Wolfowitz, oerls and bush and rumsfield - were bought all too willingly. Come on, Steve, what's the matter with you today.
I actually agree with your comments on Iraq. But this is a thread about commemorating Pearl Harbor, and once again you're turning your "Day of Infamy" comments into a personal diatribe about current American behaviour. I'm more than willing to discuss that, but this was never the place for it. You're using this thread to run your own agenda. And that's what is bothering me today.

Again steve, what is wrong with oyu today, you never have put so often words into my mouth like you did today. I mean that you should be very hesitent to decide for war (more hesitent than in 2003, for example), and that you should be very sure that you think your acceptance of war (if having the choice and war is not forced upon you) is over reasons that you can now and forever justify to your conscience, before anything and anyone else. And if then you still decide for war, for the reason to you are important and valid enough, you should indeed kill the enemy before he kills you.
Exactly what words have I put into your mouth? All I've said is that the line of argument you've been taking (and you do it again in this paragraph with the "Deciding for war" and "killing before being killed" comments) is not appropriate for this thread. And the "words I put in your mouth" were based directly on previous "killing before being killed" statements.

To me, you make no sense in here. You have not understood what I say, not even closely. And you give me the impression you are seeking a rumble - that's all. But I will not comply. Your limited war in Vietnam - has killed how many people, and lasted how many years? Your limited war in Iraq has costed how many more people their lives than Saddam tryranny on averga would have killed in the same time? Your self-limitation in Afghnaistan has turned the operation into - well, into what?
You say I don't understand you, and then you start into the same rant again! What is wrong with me? How many times do I have to say it? What's wrong with me today is you using a commemorative thread as a springboard for your personal agenda about how you think war should be conducted.

I have two problems with that attitude of yours, and this is what I say all about. your illusions - are dangerous, simply that, and they have caused more wars to happen instead of less, and made them probably much more harmful to more people, than if they would jhave been kept as short and hard as I say. you seem to be very proud of the intention to limit wars and making them more civilised, but that5's why there are more wars, and why the suffering of the people lasts longer. and this self-deceptive illusion has made america so uncritcally go Hooray over the Iraq war in 2003.
And you say I'm misunderstanding you? I seem to be very proud of the intention to limit wars etc? Where have I said anything like that?

No, that is becasue your thinking about what war should be and my thinking about what war is are totally different. That is why Pearl Harbour was possible, and why until today you cannot understand the Japanese attack, and the stregnth of it, and for that vreason call them "infamous".
Again, you don't know what I think about war. That isn't why I responded in the first place. All I wanted to do is give my opinion on why Roosevelt may have said what he said. You turned it into a fight and a soapbox.

I try to understand why you are so totally different a person today than i ever heave read you before. Do you have family members directly affected by the attack? A father or grandfather having been there? Is this the reason why you react so aggressive to my different assessment of the attack, and the nature of war? At least that I could understand as a motivational factor, then.
No, my grandfather was too old and my father was too young. So don't try to analyze my motives, because there aren't any. I did have a couple of uncles there, but I don't even remember what they looked like, much less their personalities.

Well,later presidents did right that, didn't they. However, you admit that there was determination invo9lved in WWII, and that is what I am talking about. you were going after the quickest possible, most total defeat of your enemy you could plan for, with he smallest risk to your own troops possible, and not allo9ung third parties, ethical coincerns and civilised sorries coming in your way to distract you from that intention of yours.
All that you say here is true, but again you're having your own personal argument with me and it's not even what I've been talking about.

Then I do not know with whom you think to discuss, becasue nowhere I have adressed "roosevelt'S words", they do not interest me at all.
Really?
One could ask whether or not it was a clever decision to go to war. But to hold somebody else responsible for one's own fault to be too sleepy while the other already was executing with determination and had managed to hide the attack, is simply stupid.
Just the "infamous Japanese" thing is what got my attention, and raises my opposition.



To what are you actually replying, then? I am about calling the japanese attack "infamous" , and that I agree with those historians arguing that he pressed the japanese into a position where they would attack - so that he finally could enter the War in europe, and later in the thread i was about fighting a war uncompromised and determined, but to quesiton one's motives for going to war thoroughly. Roosevelts words, nowhere i have referred to them, nor is this thread explicitly about them. I'm sure that Roosevelt, like every politician, always spoke honest and true and never tried to manipulate the public. ;) Hm. I fear your are not in the mood today to smile over an attempt of irony, so just delete the last sentence.
I would rather label that as sarcasm, and yes I agree that Roosevelt was no more nor less than most politicians in that area. In fact I suggested that that was exactly what he was trying to do in his speech. And I agree that he was indeed trying to get us into the war; there's altogether too much evidence to suggest otherwise. But after I did that you went off on a tirade (actually it started before I came along) insisting on American blindness and Japanese integrity and pretty much derailing the whole purpose of the thread in the first place.

No, just illustrations for wars that failed because the support for them was corrupted, and determination was weakened over "civilised2 concerns. That way they turned into a mess, and defeats. and that'S why I am talking about.
And that's what got me going, you making the thread about your personal opinion of war and all the rest.

Well, if I ever mean you any harm and want to kick you, i must remember to give you a polite warning just a second ahead, so that you have notnime left to react. that makes a big difference, don't you agree. and it is a real important thing considering that I am about to skin you alive and break every bone in your body - politeness never is wrong, isn'T it?
Talk is cheap.

Ah, not your irony day, sorry, I forgot again. Delete the last paragraph.
You should have deleted it yourself. You don't know me nearly as well as you think you do. And Irony doesn't always come through in the printed word.

The public and congress: yes, they did not want to go to war, not against Japan, not in europe. And that was the porblem, because Roosevelt wanted to enter the war in europe for sure. What the public wnated, and what the leader wnated, was not the same, and the latter thus had to trick the first in ortder to convince them.
There you're completely wrong. Much of the congress was divided, as were the public.

being attacke from the outside - helped. Like 9/11 helped George Bush to declare war on Iraq, although he had to take an unplanned extra route via Afgzhanistan, and still gave wrong reasons for Iraq. Sometimes outside enemies are your best friends.
Quite true, and I won't argue that point at all.

Hell, for the xth time: I am saying that you should be very very careful whether or not you enter a war, I am more hestient to accept a war than most members in the Gt forum. But those I will - i do will to fioght with much more detmerination and vigour, in an uncompormised effort to make it a short business with decisive results. warmonger? No. with my method you would see far fewer wars a slong as there is no powerful dominant side that is invulnerable to the others.
I am very much against all war, unless it's truly needed; and I only see that need being when one is attacked first.

such pathetic stuff really makes me angry now, after all your lament.
What lament is that? I started off trying to give you my opinion concerning a single comment. You've been fighting a one-sided battle through this entire thread.

Well, i can tell you how i felt... Don't lecture me on violence, and suffering and dying, Steve. I've seen it.
I feel for you. But have you caused it? Have you had people thank you for the death you've caused? Have you had people shun you just because you did your job?

So just save me your damn hypocritic remarks on limited wars and the worth of civilised behavior in war. I see every day in the TV news how wonderfull at humane it works. Your good intentions may be meant idealistically, but they only help to make it worse, by making youbweak, making the ar longer, and letting more and more people beign affected by it.
"Damn hypocritic remarks"? "Your good intentions"? I have not said one single thing in support of limited war, or of war of any kind. You accused me earlier of putting words in your mouth, of being "different" than I usually am, and of not understanding what you're saying. After that last paragraph it seems to me that they one you should be saying these things to is yourself. Not one angry thing you've accused me of has had anything to do with anything I've said - only your own projections.

I don't think you understand all this. Like you also do not understand the Japanese "Why" behind the Pearl Harbour attack. Lost in cultural difference, maybe. that does not chnage the fact that America allowed to get caught on the wrong foot. and a declaration, a different tune in the radio, or Roosevelt having tea instead of coffee on that morning, would not have changed anything. america still would have gotten caught off guard.
What have I said that makes you think I don't understand the Japanese thinking behind the attack? No, none of it makes any difference. We were blind, and we were ignorant. I'll say it again: I only responded to one comment you made, and you ran with that and turned it into this huge long tangled fight; for what reason only you know. Nothing I said involved limited war, or Japanese intentions, or the nature of war, or anything other than one simple word: "Infamy". You did all the rest, and it's obvious that what you think of my opinions and attitudes have very little to do with reality, or with anything I've said.

honestly said, i do not even understand what you want from me.
Nothing, really, except perhaps to try taking other people at face value, addressing what they say rather than by what you want them to have said.

[Skybird]

You turned it into an attack on everything American.
Quatsch. Simply Quatsch.

I'm not emotional at all. And what you've said is that you understand war better than people who have fought them, and everyone should listen to you.
Quatsch. I did not compare to people having fought in wars. but maybe you want to talk with me about how many soldiers of those being sent into wars return traumatised but with inadequate medical and therpautical treatement at home (something Oabma has not chnaged, he also has not chnaged the pensions cuts introduced by Bush). Although I have known people who have fought in wars, British and Germans - and agreed with me after that experience, while for the most have disagreed with me before they had their share of war, they say.


What exactly have I said that was rhetoric? You said that you spoke truth, not opinion, and indicated that anyone who didn't listen to you was ignoring the truth. I replied that it was just your opinion, pure and simple.
In simplifying and on some occasions having put wrong content in my mouth, you have been rethorical. And are again right here.


I actually agree with your comments on Iraq. But this is a thread about commemorating Pearl Harbor, and once again you're turning your "Day of Infamy" comments into a personal diatribe about current American behaviour. I'm more than willing to discuss that, but this was never the place for it. You're using this thread to run your own agenda. And that's what is bothering me today.

My first and intended only posting i here was this: "I always ask myself 'Why?' when hearing that reference. One could ask whether or not it was a clever decision to go to war. But to hold somebody else responsible for one's own fault to be too sleepy while the other already was executing with determination and had managed to hide the attack, is simply stupid."

Then a discussion started, and everybody starting a thread in GT must expect that this eventually will happen, even more so when posting on controversial issues. first I got PMailed by somebody also posting in here, and I send a long reply, at that time not knowing that the disucssion already had gone on. Else i would have cut that reply shorter, and the PM's content would have gone into the thread. Now I have typed it a second and third time again. A second time becasue what the OPM was about I have been confronted with in the board discussion again, and then you started to mess around with what I said and trying to give it a shift that I did not meant nor expressed. why this disucssion is going on? Becasue I defend myself against some of your - sometimes simply wrong - accusations to me which I do not just accept to happen and having to swallow them, without reaction.


Exactly what words have I put into your mouth? All I've said is that the line of argument you've been taking (and you do it again in this paragraph with the "Deciding for war" and "killing before being killed" comments) is not appropriate for this thread. And the "words I put in your mouth" were based directly on previous "killing before being killed" statements.

No, that simple it is not, but I will not analyse this whole thread again just to find the exact quotes and their context again. Just that you called me a warmonger where in fact I speak out against stupid wars that are easily decided for, like the ones I quoted for example, and then sees a lot of killing and destruction going on for nothing but follish illusions and final defeat becasue one wanted that silly war but was not willing to get one'S hands really dirty and go for what I call the enemies throat, no matter what - that accusation to be a war monger that was a bit too rich.
Tell me, how many people lost theirmloives in Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? All these wars were fought with at least one hand bound on the back. millions got killed, whole countries were messed up.The communists rule in Vietnam. north Korea is a reality. Afghansitan and Iraq are lost, are failed states, and are breeding grounds for more terrorists than there have been before the war. That's the glory of your limited wars, steve. A whole waste of life - for nothing. Enjoy your civilised approach to war. Maybe you think I must have been a soldier myself to talk aboiut this. You know what I think? That I cannot justify to my conscience to send people under my command into fire for causes like this, if I were a military commander, and that I cannot justify to my conscience the suffering of so many civilians for so little valid missions objectives getting acchieved.

and here is a quote by a British soldier who once lived here, in my second year in my current hometown. He said somehting like this: "All those badhges, and ceremonies, they are just meant to deceive us veterans over the fact that we just got wasted for nothing."

Must you really be a soldier to understand the bitterness and anger and desperation in these words? Check some statistics of your veterans organisation, over traumatisation and brain damages. 30.000 additional troops in Afghnaistan - translates into 7000 additionally wounded. and many of them will not get the propper tratement when they return to the US.

If that all is not a waste of hman life for nothing, then I don't know. Optimists estimate the civilian casualties in Iraq to be around 150.000. Pessimists rate them in excess of 750.000. Terror is on the rise once again. the government is corrupt, the relgious are lying in wait to take over. Was it worth it for you?

In 1995, the Republik of Vietnam relased number ssaying that the war costed 4 million civilions and 1 million troops their lives. The US won every groudn engagement, they say, but it lost the war, fled the country, pulled out from Saigon uner fire. The communists took over. Due to the Paris talks and cuation regarding china, the enemy was not attacked at his heart and thoat, was allowed to rest and resupply, and his ammo stores and SAM sites around Hanoi stayed untouched. that was very diplomatic, very reasonable. And it lost the war. 5 million dead - was the outcome wortzh it for you?

Afghanistan is again the gratest supplier of poppy on the global market, and in our hometown streets young people mess up their lives over drugs, and ome suffer and others die. the ****ry is a failed state, the central government - as always - powerless beyond the Kabul city wall - corruption blossoms everywhere, the enemy moves around at will and can hold out as long as he wants, always evading into pakistan. we can only imagine how many people got killed since 2001. The opportunity to fight there already is very much reduced due to the specific characteriszics of the place and cultural situation, it gets further dmaged by years being wasted with headless military experiments and lacking support for really enage thgere in full strength and maximum detemnrination, doing the fighting that needs to be done and inclduing that of palistan that must be included. It's a ridiculous eggdance of help organisation, politicians, and militaries. Since 2005 I say on this board that I consider Afghanistan to be a stratgeic loss. Once again, it is only about face saving, but the ultimate truth is that the obekective have not been achievd and will not be acchieved, there will be no lasting results in conformity with the intentions anniucned before the war. A defeat, therefor. Another one. Was it worth it, in your opinion?

the Israelis launched the Lebanon war, and soon we learned they were ill prepared, their intel was bad, and they stalled, and even more the politicians lacked the longtime breath to stick to the effort, but collapsed under international pressure to not shoot at enemies if they hide in civiial grouops - which was the norm. Thousands of houses got destroyed, the ifnrastructure seriously damaged, the nimbus of the Israeli armky to be amost invncible got lost, and 2000 civilians got killed. Was it worth it?

And you call me a warmonger!

You say I don't understand you, and then you start into the same rant again! What is wrong with me? How many times do I have to say it? What's wrong with me today is you using a commemorative thread as a springboard for your personal agenda about how you think war should be conducted.

If you would not have accused me with wrong allegations, some of which are simply offensive, all our long talking would notn have taken place. And I was not the only one shifting this thread. BTW. that a topic chnages it's content, is a regular phenomenon in GT. everybody launching a thread has to expect that this could happen.


And you say I'm misunderstanding you? I seem to be very proud of the intention to limit wars etc? Where have I said anything like that?
It is a conclusion done on the basis of the content you said.


Again, you don't know what I think about war. That isn't why I responded in the first place. All I wanted to do is give my opinion on why Roosevelt may have said what he said. You turned it into a fight and a soapbox.
You already admitted early above that you adressed the wrong person for that. As long as I have not missed something, or a compete post, I even did not had it on my mind to deal with Roosevelt's words. I wonder why you are so focussed on that. I have not adressed his words, and did not comment on them.


I would rather label that as sarcasm, and yes I agree that Roosevelt was no more nor less than most politicians in that area. In fact I suggested that that was exactly what he was trying to do in his speech. And I agree that he was indeed trying to get us into the war; there's altogether too much evidence to suggest otherwise. But after I did that you went off on a tirade (actually it started before I came along) insisting on American blindness and Japanese integrity and pretty much derailing the whole purpose of the thread in the first place.
Also a way to give a twist to what I actually said. but however. If you still have not gotten what I am after, another explanation attempt more would not chnage that, I assume.

And that's what got me going, you making the thread about your personal opinion of war and all the rest.
You know what got me started? that people deceive themsleves about how noble they are and how wicked the others were, were the simple fact of the matter is that theothers acted strong and detemrined and oneself acted weak and sleepy and lazy and allowed to get surprised although one could have known it better. I do not buy into that american pöathos about Pearl Harbour, Steve. I'm sorry, but the lives lost oin that day to me are not more and not less special than those sailors surprised on the merchant that got sunk by a submarine. the infantry that got killed on Guadalcanal.The families wiped out in Nagasaki. the prisnoer dying in the japanese camps. on the 6th of Decembre, America allowed to get caught on the wrong foot, by its very own mistake. I could have done better. One's own weakness is not the mistake of the others. It's one's own fault.

Talk is cheap
So why overestimate the impornce of rites and manners in the face of war-scaled killing and destruction.

There you're completely wrong. Much of the congress was divided, as were the public.
I never had any history source, wether book nor film, saying that a significant part of the American public or congress was ready to go to europe. the overwheliing majority, I nunderstand, wamnted to stay out oif it, and only wanted to contribute by material assets to it.

I am very much against all war, unless it's truly needed; and I only see that need being when one is attacked first.
then it could be too late. You ant to make sure you strike at least that decisive second earlier than the other that secures your survival and knocks out the enemy. the argument is over what "that second means". bush's concept of preemptive warfare it certainly as not. your concept of not striking before one already got hit, it cannot be either.

basdic principle in fighting, whether it be war or martial arts or swords or chess or self-defence: you do not want to react. You act.


What lament is that? I started off trying to give you my opinion concerning a single comment. You've been fighting a one-sided battle through this entire thread.
Mostly because of you and some undeserved attack of yours. With the others I came out quite clear, and mostly in agreement.


I feel for you. But have you caused it? Have you had people thank you for the death you've caused? Have you had people shun you just because you did your job?

If you mean that trainee, he survived, and even forgave me, he was a pro and knew it was a trainign accident, no intention. He is even back in the business. He fully recovered, although he spend months in hospital. the only death I ever have caused with intention was a dog that strolled around our camp and that I killed with an arrow, because it looked ill and I did not wish to risk that we would get bitten while sleeping. that junkey also survived. What to some degree I regret. He sued me over "use of excessive force". Later he withdraw, but the court/the state attorney initially accepted the case, which really angers me until today.


"Damn hypocritic remarks"? "Your good intentions"? I have not said one single thing in support of limited war, or of war of any kind. You accused me earlier of putting words in your mouth, of being "different" than I usually am, and of not understanding what you're saying. After that last paragraph it seems to me that they one you should be saying these things to is yourself. Not one angry thing you've accused me of has had anything to do with anything I've said - only your own projections.
then you are not aware of how the complete set of what you expressed comes over here. You accuse me of warmongering, you asked at one point wether I want to criticise you over limited wars (your words), and so on.


What have I said that makes you think I don't understand the Japanese thinking behind the attack? No, none of it makes any difference. We were blind, and we were ignorant. I'll say it again: I only responded to one comment you made, and you ran with that and turned it into this huge long tangled fight; for what reason only you know. Nothing I said involved limited war, or Japanese intentions, or the nature of war, or anything other than one simple word: "Infamy". You did all the rest, and it's obvious that what you think of my opinions and attitudes have very little to do with reality, or with anything I've said.

I assume you mean postings 24 and 29. My reply to you back then was not meant, and I think it did not indicate that, as a reference to Roosevelt'S choice of words. I was abiout the general, widepsread, public perception of the Japanese conduction of their attack having anything to do with beign infamour, or whatever other chamring compliments one wants to use to describe it. and so I explained why I think that is not fair, nor true.

I said quite clearly very early on that remembering the dead has my sympathy, just thatn I do not buy into that infamy!-claim.

Maybe we got stuck in this duelling over something that got very early lost in the long string of words we both have produced, me, but you also. I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for that internet figure named Sailor Steve as he present himself on this board, and I have absolutely no desire to let this fight now go on until we do serious damage and poison relations forever. It seems here are so many knots know that it is unlikely we ever will solve them all again. so i leave it to this status quo now, and just ignore the contradictions and disagreements that still exist. No doubt we could continue to accuse each other of what he said or should have said but has not said and so on, but there is no constructive point in continuing the battle anymore.

So I leave it to this. I hope any eventual hard feelings will dissolve again sooner or later.

[Skybird]

I think Japan did recognize the industrial superiority of the United States, although the full enormity of that disparity could not have been fully anticipated in 1941. She failed to acknowledge, however the capacity for American durability in a struggle lasting a number of years. Japan tried to fight the Pacific War as it had fought previously fought imperial China and Russia. Limiting the conflict by escalating it's material and moral costs beyond what Western Powers, the US in particular, were willing to pay. The strategy was predicated not on American softness or weakness, but American rationality. Americans were businessmen, not samurai. Eventually they would calculate the costs and benefits and come to terms with the realities created by Japanese arms.

Unfortunately for Japan, Admiral Yamamoto engineered the most politically disastrous naval operation in history. Not only did he fail to sink any US carriers, his principal goal, the attack had the effect of uniting and enraging an isolationist America against Japan. Yamamoto was also disappointed to discover the Pearl Harbor attack had been executed before the Japanese declaration of war was issued. The psychological effect on Yamamoto was so great that he became determined to sink the USN carriers thus stumbling into the avoidable disaster at Midway and the catastrophic air war of attrition in the South Pacific afterward from 1942-43. I've never understood why he's so highly regarded by his peers.

Interesting perspective, and some new input for me. I need to let it sink into my mind for some time.

[Tribesman]

I do not buy into that infamy!-claim.

Well since the date has gone down in history as one of infamy so the fact that you don't buy it speaks volumes about your objectivity.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Remember Pearl Harbor.

However...I just can't get over Macho Grande. Those wounds run...pretty deep.

[Sailor Steve]

Quatsch. Simply Quatsch.
Possibly.


Quatsch. I did not compare to people having fought in wars.
You insist that you know more than me. That's one.

In simplifying and on some occasions having put wrong content in my mouth, you have been rethorical. And are again right here.
How exactly? Again, specifics.


My first and intended only posting i here was this: "I always ask myself 'Why?' when hearing that reference. One could ask whether or not it was a clever decision to go to war. But to hold somebody else responsible for one's own fault to be too sleepy while the other already was executing with determination and had managed to hide the attack, is simply stupid."
And that's when I explained what I thought he was doing in saying that. And that's when you started in on "limited wars" and your own agenda. And that's when I protested. Where exactly do we disagree on this?


Becasue I defend myself against some of your - sometimes simply wrong - accusations to me which I do not just accept to happen and having to swallow them, without reaction.
What accusations? That you're using a thread about WW2 to forward your personal agenda concerning modern wars? Show me where I'm "simply wrong".

No, that simple it is not, but I will not analyse this whole thread again just to find the exact quotes and their context again.
You don't have to. I gave you your exact quotes, and you refused to address them.

Just that you called me a warmonger where in fact I speak out against stupid wars that are easily decided for
I don't believe I called you a warmonger, but if I did it would certainly be for your "attack first" philosophy. I keep agreeing with you on "stupid wars", and you keep ignoring that fact.

A defeat, therefor. Another one. Was it worth it, in your opinion?
No, and I've said as much many times. But I see no connection between that and a thread commemorating Pearl Harbor. Again I do accuse you of using the thread for your own personal agenda. And you haven't answered that one yet, even though I've said it many times.

And you call me a warmonger!
When?


If you would not have accused me with wrong allegations, some of which are simply offensive, all our long talking would notn have taken place.
What allegations? Again, please try to be specific.

And I was not the only one shifting this thread. BTW. that a topic chnages it's content, is a regular phenomenon in GT. everybody launching a thread has to expect that this could happen.
Yes indeed. I've even done it myself more than once, and when called on it I've apologized. And posted something about the original topic. But you haven't really posted anything at all about the original topic, except as a springboard for your diatribe.


It is a conclusion done on the basis of the content you said.
No, it is a conclusion you jumped to based on nothing I've said. I've tried to stay away from your "limited wars" agenda, and when I have given in I've mostly agreed with you. So again, show exactly where I've tried to justify "limited wars". You can't, because I haven't. Again, you have indeed put words into my mouth.

You already admitted early above that you adressed the wrong person for that.
No, I admitted that my "laughable" comment was a little misplaced. Not much though, since your exact words were "But were you call your enemy infamous for having fought as best as he could, all you get is my laughter."

You know what got me started? that people deceive themsleves about how noble they are and how wicked the others were, were the simple fact of the matter is that theothers acted strong and detemrined and oneself acted weak and sleepy and lazy and allowed to get surprised although one could have known it better.
And that had nothing to do with the topic, but to allow you to vent about your own beliefs. Which is okay, I guess, but you took it a lot further than that.

I do not buy into that american pöathos about Pearl Harbour, Steve. I'm sorry, but the lives lost oin that day to me are not more and not less special than those sailors surprised on the merchant that got sunk by a submarine. the infantry that got killed on Guadalcanal.The families wiped out in Nagasaki. the prisnoer dying in the japanese camps. on the 6th of Decembre, America allowed to get caught on the wrong foot, by its very own mistake. I could have done better. One's own weakness is not the mistake of the others. It's one's own fault.
I agree completely, and I agree you were right to say so. And we could have had that discussion, but you turned into a rant about "limited wars". You keep saying I put words in your mouth, but do you deny that's what happened?

So why overestimate the impornce of rites and manners in the face of war-scaled killing and destruction.
My comment was a direct answer to your offer to skin me alive and break every bone in my body. And yes, I know you weren't really addressing that to me personally, but you didn't catch that I wasn't either.

I never had any history source, wether book nor film, saying that a significant part of the American public or congress was ready to go to europe. the overwheliing majority, I nunderstand, wamnted to stay out oif it, and only wanted to contribute by material assets to it.
When Charles Lindbergh made an anti-war speech in September 1941 he was booed by the audience. Even the biggest spokesman for isolationism, Wendell Wilkie, backed the lend-lease act, and congress had to ratify it before it could be put into play.
http://www.harwich.edu/depts/history/HHJ/iso.htm

then it could be too late. You ant to make sure you strike at least that decisive second earlier than the other that secures your survival and knocks out the enemy. the argument is over what "that second means". bush's concept of preemptive warfare it certainly as not. your concept of not striking before one already got hit, it cannot be either.
So you do advocating starting a war because you think your enemy might start if first.

basdic principle in fighting, whether it be war or martial arts or swords or chess or self-defence: you do not want to react. You act.
Sounds like Poland.

Mostly because of you and some undeserved attack of yours. With the others I came out quite clear, and mostly in agreement.
Lament makes it sound like I was whining, or crying. Where exactly did I do that. And again, what attack are you talking about.

If you mean that trainee, he survived...
I have absolutely no idea who or what you are talking about. I thought it would be obvious I was referring to my own experiences.

I said quite clearly very early on that remembering the dead has my sympathy, just thatn I do not buy into that infamy!-claim.
Your privilege. That's strictly a matter of opinion, and I welcome that. I disagree, but I welcome it.

So I leave it to this. I hope any eventual hard feelings will dissolve again sooner or later.
I haven't had any hard feelings over this. I just stated my case and made my arguments. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to dissolve.

[Skybird]

And more unprecise interpretaiton of yours of what I said or meant, in your opinion. Especially the Poland thing this time is a true highlight, nevertheless totally wrong and not representative for what I said.

Steve, this has become a very complex situation, and adressing all the points one by one, and their implications and crossreferences, would cost me one or two hours or more, and that it simply is not worth it for me. I have made sure that where I said you misinterpret me or misquote me, that was for sure what I really have read in your replies. And that is why I stick to everything I answered to you - and refuse to spend half an hour to find every single paragraph, line and word number becaue you ask for the dot above the i . And honestly said: I start to lose oversight here. Not losing it earlier, but now, with your latest reply.

As my second attempt to bring this to a peaceful end now, once again what is the decisive thing for me in all this wordfighting. You may see it different, but that is not what I got from your replies, then. A case of miscommunication, then.

If you are not at war, you have not really enemies, but rivals at best. If you call them already enemies, then why do you do that if you are not at war with them, and they with you.

If you are in the situation of having enemies, you are at war, therefore, and in war it is wise to avoid getting hit by his bomb, but to bomb him before he can hit you. That is called an "active strategy", if you want. it separates the dead from the surviving. My trainer just called it: "always readiness and action: just one".

To bomb somebody who is not at war with you, just because eventually later he may launch a war of surprise against you, is not "active war strategy", but a war of aggression. Bush's preemptive war doctrine qualifies as that.

Your reference to Poland in the context you did, is invalid, because Poland never threatened germany, and thus the german attack was no active war strategy, but a war of aggression. But I was talking not in defence of wars of aggression, but the difference between acting and reacting, as you can easily see in the context. To indicate that I mean to attack a peaceful neighbouring country is an exmaple illustrating what in that context I said about acting and reacting in war, is - misleading, and unpolite, to put it that way. Germany was not threatened by Poland, and I have no reason to propagate a war against them as just a war action that can be defended, or a war that was ustified. Do you see the difference?

Now compare to Iran, a possible military strike or war against them. You maybe are tempted to think that we are at peace with them, and if we initially strike them, that would be a war of aggression. But fact is that the Iranians already are engaged in war against the West and israel and already are engaged in killing our people, by money, by assiatnce, and by their own commandos. The word to watch out for here is "terrorism" and the funding of it. the situation compares to the moral argument to why the war against afghanistan assisting Bin Laden is said to have been justified. As I see it, we already are at war with Iran, becasue they have stzarted to wage war on us longer time ago, wether we like it or not. and that is why I do not rate a sudden military strike against them as a war of aggression in the way germany attacked Poland. - If I currently think a military strike is justified or can achieve what it hopes to achieve, is something totally different, and I leave it out of the discussion, so do not refer to it. It has nothing to do with the point I am about.

and the point is, true for ancient wars, modern wars, personal fights and conflicts in general: either you are in a state of conflict, or you are not. Both are two totally different states, especially in case of war and peace, and needs to be seen by different rules, priorities and values. If you are not in a conflict, do not touch your enemy, for you have no enemy. If you have decided that you are in a state of war, strike first, strike hard, strike by suroprise, stay focussed on the enemy's killing, don't get distracted, don't allow scruples to hinder you. KILL HIM as fast as you can, with as little risk for yourself as you can, don't wave flags and don't hold speeches, don't pray and don't accept anybody cming between him and you, even accept the chance you get killed yourself (if you don't , then the war is not worth it for you) - KILL HIM.

That is all I am about. And what I say obviously is situation dependant, something that you atv least sometimes have not realised as I conclude from several comments.

the Japanese' imperial policies are one thing, and can be questioned. I did not touch them much. but the way they fought once they decided they were in a conflict that has been enforced on them by the situation around the oil, they fought - and very much like I outlined you should fight once you are in a fight.

Be hestitent to accept a state of conflict if it is not enforced upon you. Test your conscience, check your motives over and over again. Don't be easy to accept fight/war/conflict. Try to influence situations so much in advance that conflict is not needed. that is meant by saying: winning without fighting.

Now do not take something out of context again, or make assumptions on what it eventually could mean when I say this or that - just take my very word in its context, not more, not less.

And then prove me wrong, if you can.

I understand you are against war in general. So am I, but i also know that sometimes war is enforced on us, and leaves us no choice, refusing it then does greater damage then to fight it. many confloicts we find ourselves in, in politics and the ME, we have created ourselves, they are just echoes of old policies of ours. Some conflicts we cannot avoid. I see such occasions to be much rarer than politicians claim. But to quote from the Lord of the Rings: those refusing to take up a sword - still can get killed by a sword. Weakness is no virtue. Weakness is: weakness. It leaves you no choice. Choices you only have when you are strong. Be strong, therefore, and be ready - but be hesitent to use your strength if you can avoid it, do not use it for no other reason that you have it. Because being strong also means: to have the choice not to use it.

Either you agree with this fighting attitude, or you don't. Either you understand the fighting-related part of Bushido, or you don't. Fighting is part of bushido, but bushido is not only about fighting.

But to continue this insanely pinpoint-focussed communication in writing, imo is wasting time, and plenty of it. what I said about quotes of yours, is true, I said those replies carefully every time I did, becasue I really do not like to be locked in a fight with you here, with some people on this board I simply do not wish to fight. If you really are interested in finding all the examples, then analyse this thread yourself again, which already is a very time.-consuming thing. I just don't spend another hour in here.

:) Sky

[Skybird]

Neal, can I somehow turn on "quotes in quotes", when quoting other people's posts? In such a complex situation like here, quoting Steve's reply and adress it point by point, but his quotes of me to which his paragraphs refer not being visible in the reply I write, doe snot help and makes it incredibly difficult. I spend more time with scrolling up and down and reading to what he was refering, than with writing.

This communication here with Steve easily qualifies as the most complex dead end I have ever been confronted with in ten years. That'S why i think it is impossible to solve it adequately. there is too much quotes regarding reference to a reference to a reference that before was referenced to.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - in your discussion - you have now answered your original question.

"Why is a day of infamy?"

Allow me to quote you on your above quote to Sailor Steve:

To bomb somebody who is not at war with you, just because eventually later he may launch a war of surprise against you, is not "active war strategy", but a war of aggression.

By that statement - you recognize that Japan - not being in a state of war with the US on or prior to December 7th, launched a war of aggression against the US. That is why it is a day of infamy to America.

[Skybird]

You are about buraucratic formalities of war. And I think I have said in all clearness, that leaves nothing to be desired, what I think of formalities like that in the face of war-like destruction. You also misunderstand the meaning of "killing the enemy once you have decided to fight."

the Japanese decided for war before they planned the attack. From that moment on - they were at war. what you refer to, is for peanut counters. And they lost their head.

BTW, the officers with the fleet mujst have assumed that the note was given and even formally they were at war indeed. that it was delayed they learned - afterwards. Not that I care. As I see it, if the note would have reached the WH ten minutes or so in advance, it still would have not made any difference, and would have meant nothing.

What does it mean? Nothing. You wave a piece of paper, considering it to be precious. You have a parade at the beach, and considering the rules of politeness - Musashi jumps out of the boat and cracks open your skull. Who is the winner here? What does your paper and your parade change in that? it reminds me a bit of Chamberlain leaving the plane, waving his prcious paper, too. The dice already had fallen differently, and he should have known that his paper meant nothing.

That'S what I mean when I said: even if God comes between you and your enemy - kill God first, and then kill your enemy.

Japan has committed acts of great cruelty in China, and throughout asia. much of that was not covered by what I describe as fighting determination. they targetted civilians for no other purpose than targetting civilians without having a military gain from that, and no enemy around, and no enemy infrastructure effected. That is no fighting spirit, but a useless massacre. All war is a massacre, but if the massacre brings a military gain, it is called a war, if it does not have that gain it is called a massacre. Word games - like the war declaration. the dead are still as dead. in the end they only tried to bring the war declaration in time so that these formal, though hollow, accusation could not be brought up against them once they had won the war: that their strike was infamous. That is not good for later diplomatic relations.

does it tell you anything that they planned to deliver the note just minutes in advance, and not hours or days?

[Platapus]

However...I just can't get over Macho Grande. Those wounds run...pretty deep.

:yeah:

Striker was the squadron leader. He brought us in real low. But he couldn't handle it.

Buddy couldn't handle it? Was Buddy one of your crew?

Right. Buddy was the bombardier. But it was Striker who couldn't handle it, and he went to pieces.

*Andy* went to pieces?

No. Andy was the navigator. He was all right. Buddy went to pieces. It was awful how he came unglued.

*Howie* came unglued?

Oh, no. Howie was a rock, the best tailgunner in the outfit. Buddy came unglued.

And he bailed out?

No. Andy hung tough. Buddy bailed out. How he survived, it was a miracle.

Then Howie survived?

No, 'fraid not. We lost Howie the next day. Excellent movie.

Now we return back to the argument already in progress.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - therein lies the rub. To the US frame of mind - and you saw it again on 9/11 - that "declaration" - or its absence - has a substantial meaning.

Many recall the 1776 Declaration of Independance - where we notified the king of England that we were no longer his subjects. However - how many here remember the 1775 Declaration of Arms? In that document - sent a year in advance of its better known sibling, we listed our grievances and gave the king the opportunity to work with us to address them. In that Declaration, we laid out a rationale that gave us a moral ground from which to stand should we have to declare independance. To the US - from our inception to the present day, we feel that our presence in a conflict should be from a higher moral position than our enemies.

Every conflict, from the Revolution, through the Spanish - American war, both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam, to the actions today in the middle east, have all tried to be presented to the people of America as not only necessary, but morally justifiable. Many of the arguements interal to the US are about that morality of the current conflicts.

Understanding this will make it clear that to the American mind - Japan committed a dishonorable, treacherous act by launching that attack without the declaration first. Hours would have made no difference to the American psyche - because it was clear the attack was begun not on that morning - but weeks before when the forces were massed and then launched. It was not a matter of hours - but a matter of WEEKS in which a nation attacked us without our knowledge. That, to the American mind, constituted the most contemptable, dishonorable conduct, and enabled an astute politician to unite the country by GIVING it the moral high ground to enter the war and see it through.

Had we gotten the declaration BEFORE Nov 26th, the actual sailing date of Operation Z forces, then there would have been no "day of infamy" had the attack still succeeded. It should be noted that the "14 part message" is noted as follows (from wikipedia):

The final part of the "14-Part Message", is sometimes described as a declaration of war, but in fact "neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Even after, there was no clear declaration in the diplomatic message that was delivered.

[Skybird]

Well, you said it yourself: "to the american mind", you write. Neither the Japanese nor Bushido is american mind, so why do you think they must obey to it? they did not care so much for YOUR cultural rules. and on the detail discussed here, I also don't read so much importance into it. If you read so much culturally influenced meaning into it, fine, maybe that is part of your identity. But they did not, and I don't either. as I see it you allowed to get kicked big time in your lower bottom, althoiugh you could have avoided it. If you think your cultural identity is worth that, okay. I can only say that I do not tick that way, and even do not really understand it. As I realist I only can realise that you claim you are like that. Why you are like that, can be historically explained, like you tried. But that does not mean that it is useful to be like that. On that day in decembre, it obviously was not.

"Gentlemen, protect yourself at all times", boxing referees say. Bck then america failed to follow that, and trusted in that mishaps or ignoring of rules by the other could and would not happen. Big mistake.

"Readiness is all." :)

[Sailor Steve]

And more unprecise interpretaiton of yours of what I said or meant, in your opinion. Especially the Poland thing this time is a true highlight, nevertheless totally wrong and not representative for what I said.
I know. It was meant as a jab.

As my second attempt to bring this to a peaceful end now, once again what is the decisive thing for me in all this wordfighting.
But as I see it you want to bring it to a "peaceful end" on your own terms; i.e. "I win, now don't bother me anymore". That's unfair.

If you are not at war, you have not really enemies, but rivals at best. If you call them already enemies, then why do you do that if you are not at war with them, and they with you.

If you are in the situation of having enemies, you are at war, therefore, and in war it is wise to avoid getting hit by his bomb, but to bomb him before he can hit you. That is called an "active strategy", if you want. it separates the dead from the surviving. My trainer just called it: "always readiness and action: just one".
A great point. But the US was not at war with Japan, so the 'Infamy' charge is justified.

To bomb somebody who is not at war with you, just because eventually later he may launch a war of surprise against you, is not "active war strategy", but a war of aggression. Bush's preemptive war doctrine qualifies as that.
And so did the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

Your reference to Poland in the context you did, is invalid, because Poland never threatened germany, and thus the german attack was no active war strategy, but a war of aggression. But I was talking not in defence of wars of aggression, but the difference between acting and reacting, as you can easily see in the context. To indicate that I mean to attack a peaceful neighbouring country is an exmaple illustrating what in that context I said about acting and reacting in war, is - misleading, and unpolite, to put it that way. Germany was not threatened by Poland, and I have no reason to propagate a war against them as just a war action that can be defended, or a war that was ustified. Do you see the difference?
You're right, it was unfair of me, doubly so because you apparently missed my meaning. As I said above, it was meant as an underhanded slam on Germany, and nothing to do with Poland itself.

Now do not take something out of context again, or make assumptions on what it eventually could mean when I say this or that - just take my very word in its context, not more, not less.

And then prove me wrong, if you can.
Again you seem to be missing the point that I AGREE WITH YOU! All I ever tried to do was put some context into the 'Infamy' phrase. The whole rest of the argument was one-sided - you trying to prove your points and me not really caring about that. You are the only one fighting here.

I understand you are against war in general. So am I,...and blah blah blah.
And there you go again, of on your personal agenda.

I really do not like to be locked in a fight with you here
You're the only one fighting here. You seem to be so wrapped up in yourself that you didn't even seem to notice my "personal experience" reference. For the last time, I never even took part in your 'limited war' rant. That was all you.

You're right, we're done. But I don't mean that the same way you do.

[Skybird]

Bye, Steve. My patience just found it's limit.

[August]

Ha ha Well done Steve!

[Tribesman]

That was highly entertaining, a position that went full circle and contradicted itself in just about every way possible.
And all because of an objection to the use of the word infamy which has gone down in history.

[breadcatcher101]

LOL

Sailor Steve and Skybird-- "A Conversation That Will Live In Infamy!"

[SteamWake]

Bye, Steve. My patience just found it's limit.

Shirly you jest :haha:

[Catfish]

Hello,

ahem Skybird, reading your more Samurai-like take on the outbreak of hostilities towards the USA in WW2, i would really like to hear your take on this "scrap of paper", how chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg described it, about the violation of belgian neutrality in 1914, and England's declaration of war thereon ?

Greetings,
Catfish

[AVGWarhawk]

Bye, Steve. My patience just found it's limit.

I love doing this to Skybird! :D

[August]

I love doing this to Skybird! :D

If Skybird keeps this up eventually the entire board will be on his ignore list and he'll see the apparent lack of responses as quiet acceptance of his radical views.
:yeah:

[Skybird]

Hello,

ahem Skybird, reading your more Samurai-like take on the outbreak of hostilities towards the USA in WW2, i would really like to hear your take on this "scrap of paper", how chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg described it, about the violation of belgian neutrality in 1914, and England's declaration of war thereon ?

Greetings,
Catfish

There is a differenbce between Japan WWII, and Germany WWI. the Japanese were much more pressed for the war, than germany in WWI. I can understand their view of things much better, than I understand Germany's reason to got o war in 1914.

However, der Schlieffen-Plan. It was prepared to counter the enemy in case of a two-front-war. It wanted to deal with the french army first by passing it on the flank via the Blegium and Dutch country, and then from that position pushing the French towards the Alps and the South. When this was acchieved, the german army should bo shifted to the eastern front. Have i rcalled this right, allm in all? guess so.

So you could argue the germans, once they had decided for war, did what they had to do to carry out their attempt to defeat the enemy. They willed the war, and did what they think they had to do in order to win it.

But as I just said, I question the german mtoive for that war, and the mtoives of the others as well. Germany was not under life-threatening economic pressure by France. The shortness of oil however was threatening for the japanese.

As I see it, you want to discuss etehr or not the German were right to ignore the Blgians and just roll over them. Thy did that again in WWII, didn't they. It is called Blitzkireg, and passing the Maginot line through the Netherlands was part of the Blitz. But in both cases, and in the case of the blitz against Poland as well, what we really have to discuss is the morivation for the war, it's reasons. Once there as war, both the Japanese and the Germqany in WWI and WWII did what they did to assure victory, which for example also included the shelling of Warsaw. to me, all ths comes and goes as a consequence of war. The question that I find more important is how one assesses the nation's motives to go to war and attack this or that country.

In WWI, there were strong national sentiments present in europe, in all nations. And glory and pride and lings and emperors and arsitoicrats and all this stuff. All this blinded people and made them easy call for war over reasons that from our perspective today maybe appears as just this: foolish.

The german attack in WWII, the motivation, no doubt must be labelled as criminal and unexcusable. It can be explained by hitler's megalomania and the economic crisis of which he made use, but that is an explanation only, no excuse.

The Japanese attack, as I said imo was wanted and provoked by Roosevelt whco tialired the oil policy that it was a real threat to the Japanese economy. Some people may say the Japanese could be understood that they struck. Others may want to point out that they have had the choice to give up imperial attitudes, leaving the playfield to the US as a dominant player in the pacific, and by that avoiding the need to wage war. As I saee it, it only makes ssense to see it nbot by ideals of the present time'S moral, but by seeing it from the perspwective of the actors back then, and for the Japanese, simply giving up was unimaginable for cultural reaosons that at that time were even more boosted by the nationalism that was strong back then.

But you see, the motives for war are one thing, and as I said: questions yourself often, and check your motives time and again and do not go to war easily. But the motives for going to war - are not the ways in which a war is fought once it is there. that are two different things.

that is probably not the kind of answer you hoped for, but it is the only answer I can give you. If you ask whether or not I find the german motive for going to war in 1914 acceptable: no, I don't think it was. WWI costed the lives of 17 million, and imo it was a very, very stupid and completely unnecessary war from A to Z. But if you ask whether or not I have a problem with the Schlieffenplan: no, I have no problem with it. If the only way to victory in war is to set the whole continent ablaze, I would do it once i am in war and accept to fight it. My motives of going to that war - that is a completely different issue.

check your motives of why you accept to fight a war, be slow to accept war. But if you accept to fight it, let nothing, really nothing hinder you to destroy your enemy - not even Belgium in 1914. Or chinese diplomqatic immunity in Hanoi. Or Hamas setting up battle positions on the roof of civilian houses to provo0ke civilian casualties. go for the enemy, always.

For the same reason, since that may be the next question on your mind, i fully support the german order to the american bomber to drop that 500 pound bomb on those two hijacked fueltrucks in Afghanistan without giving the Taliban a warning first - so that they could escape and on another day fight back and shoot german soldiers. The trucks got neutralised, and as many enemies got killed as was possible. That is positive. maybe they called in villagers to catch some fuel to make the trucks lighter so that they could move on from where they got stuck. Maybe they called the villagers in to provoke civilian casualties and win a propaganda score by that. Civilians got killed, too, we must base on that as fact. That'S war, and that'S what makes war so evil. Nowhere i said to intentionally target civilians (or neutrals nations) for the purpose of targetting and killing civilians . What I say is don't allow the presence of civilians (or neutral states) to go after your enemy'S throat as viciously as you can. that is not the same. Taliban, hezbollah and hamas, on the other hand, intentionally try to provoke the killing of civilians of their own people so that they can boast into the microphones over that, and Hamas and hezbollah intentionally do aim at Israeli civilians for terror purposes, although they do not gain a military benefit from that. the japanese showed great cruelty in the treatmeent of civlians in conqeured cities, and in prisoner camps - for no military gain. All that - is NOT the warrior's way.

[SteamWake]

See I knew he couldent stand it.

[AVGWarhawk]

If Skybird keeps this up eventually the entire board will be on his ignore list and he'll see the apparent lack of responses as quiet acceptance of his radical views.
:yeah:

I do not ignore Skybird. I do like talking with him. It's all good!

[Skybird]

See I knew he couldent stand it.
Hm?
Catfish asked a valid question, I answered. If he did not mean it as a question, but rethorical only, then I failed - and still fail - to realise that. In both cases you must not feel concerned. ;)

I do not ignore Skybird. I do like talking with him. It's all good!
In fact we get along quite good despite obvious disagreements.

It's like that with many disagreeing people I meet on this board. But certainly not with all. Those who cannot differ between personal offence and opposing argument, are gone. What includes August.

Regarding Steve, I will not say a bad word about him just because of this communication meltdown we just have had. One event does not define all his identity, and since years I have learned to respect and to like him, for valid reasons, even if we never had much to talk personally. These reasons do not just disappear just because of this thread. - Scratch this one event off the list, move on. And if he does differently and avoids me from now on, that still cannot be a reason for me to change the way I see him due to his many other posts over the years.

In the end I am quite aware that I necessarily must raise opposition by what I say on the nature of war. Compared to today's majority opinion, what I say in here IS radical and brutal, and IS a provocation and IS violating self-comforting paroles people in the West have grown fond of so much. Or does anyone here seriously believe I am not aware of that...?

[August]

Or does anyone here seriously believe I am not aware of that...?

Me for one.

[Tribesman]

The japanese economy was only under threat from lack of oil because they went to war in China.
The cause of their "justification" for the attack on America was of their own making so it wasn't a justification at all.

[nikimcbee]

Shirly you jest :haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGSRmemHxlo
:haha:
Did you think I could pass up on this one?

[nikimcbee]

Ha ha Well done Steve!

Sailor Steve; chess master:salute:

:haha:

[I-25]

Just on a interesting note..

7 December 1941: The Attack on Pearl Harbor:
At dawn, the CYNTHIA OLSON is exactly on the projected point of interception. Cdr Yokota establishes her nationality, surfaces and fires a warning shot. The schooner sends a SOS signal and lowers her two lifeboats. The I-26 fires 18 shells from her 140-mm aft gun at a range of 1,000 meters, but the schooner refuses to sink. Twenty minutes after the first shot the I-26 receives the signal "Tora, tora, tora!" Cdr Yokota submerges and fires a torpedo from 450 yards. It passes astern because the burning schooner is still making headway. Yokota fires 29 more shells and the OLSON starts to settle. Two hours later, concerned about a possible American air attack, Cdr Yokota decides that the OLSON is sinking and departs. Later, the OLSON does sink at 33-42N, 145-29W. She is the first American merchant to be sunk by a Japanese submarine in World War II.

[Snestorm]

@I-25

Excellent post. Can you post it in the SH3 section too?
There are some folks over there that think a 20mm should be able to sink things.
It's a very small minority but, well, you get the idé.

[I-25]

link plz n.n