Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on December 07, 2004, 10:00:08 am
-
President Franklin D. Roosevelt: Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of American was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the secretary of state a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese government also launched as attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Wake Island.
This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implication to the very life and safety of our nation.
As commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. . .
-
Wondering if anyone would bring this up, especially with all the politcal talk about...
-
oh yeah...duh that's today. Been too busy working on exams to notice
-
Well yesterday now. Well where I am anyway. GMT +10
-
I was only only bringing it up as a matter of memory since this was the event that triggered America's "official" involvement in WWII.
-
I feel some 'what if' discussion should be placed here.
What if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbour?
Or, what if the secret of nuclear power had never been found?
-
God, grant to rest those that fell in that war and peace to those that remained behind.
-
Despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both of which are still paying the price for bombs dropped 55 years ago, I am still relieved that Ameica deisgned the Nuke first to be honest.
Considering Nazi germany were getting there as well.... and it wouldn't have been limited to 2 if they had got there first, they would have started on an instant war of Global proportions before anyone else could get a bomb working. And America would have suffered worst of them all if that had happened :(
-
Originally posted by Clave
I feel some 'what if' discussion should be placed here.
What if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbour?
Or, what if the secret of nuclear power had never been found?
Oh yes, the eternal burden of war freaks. What ifs.
Well, had the Japanese not attacked PH, they would have had a bit more time in their hands. However, US more or less direct involvement in Pacific was pretty much guarantiined by the time. Japanese did manage to sink a ****load of ships, but as the carriers were out sailing the high seas, the long-term effect, given US industrial capacity, could only be measured in months or couple funny years.
It allowed the Japs to get an initiative and press on in Pacific much more freely than if they hadn't dispatched the battleships and would operate under fear [if we are still believing that US would involve sometime] of more powerful US convoys.
Or something.
Had the nuclear power never been found, we wouldn't be doing this [POSTING IN AN INTERNET]. Ending the war against Japan would have required either insane amounts of firebombing or insane amounts of men. Actually, propably insane amounts of both. Also, chances of another major war erupting again in 1960s-1970s would be muuuuch higher and even more people would be dying in PA diseases.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
God, grant to rest those that fell in that war and peace to those that remained behind.
Amen to that.
-
There was never a point in history where Japan could have succesfully started a war with America. Well, except before it was colonised maybe, Ninja vs Brave... hmmmm......
-
Originally posted by Flipside
There was never a point in history where Japan could have succesfully started a war with America. Well, except before it was colonised maybe, Ninja vs Brave... hmmmm......
Yup, in a sense we nowadays associate with WW2. However, if the Japanese had actually managed in removing better parts of USN (carriers) and digging in deeper, while making a conventional war look like a stupid, stupid thing to do, then they might have stood a chance of US basically saying "**** it". Highly hypothetical and not likely to happen, but sometimes bold and swift strike is indeed a way to act if facing overwhelming odds.
[remember the goddamn resource problem]
-
There's times I wish the Japs had kept it in their pants.
-
If the atomic bomb hadn't been invented, Japan would have been razed in a firebombing campaign that would have put Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shame. The only thing that forced them to surrender was the sheer shock of a single bomb doing all that damage, and the fact that they knew the United States had more.
-
Exactly. Even the Commander of the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor knew they had bitten off far far more than they could chew from day one.
'I fear we have awoken a Dragon'. That quote from the original Pearl Harbor film was actually in his Log.
Indeed, the whole 'dishonour' that resulted from the communications error that meant the attack happened before the declaration of War (everyone does know this happened by accident, right?), made Japan enter the fight feeling like cowards. This was physcologically not good.
-
we could produce one nuclear bomb every six days
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Exactly. Even the Commander of the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor knew they had bitten off far far more than they could chew from day one.
'I fear we have awoken a Dragon'. That quote from the original Pearl Harbor film was actually in his Log.
Indeed, the whole 'dishonour' that resulted from the communications error that meant the attack happened before the declaration of War (everyone does know this happened by accident, right?), made Japan enter the fight feeling like cowards. This was physcologically not good.
Yeah, IIRC the Japanese only attacked because they thought they had to get a killer blow (or rather, a delaying one) in first before the US entered the way against them. Of course, it only delayed the Us something like 6 months, and the Japanese never managed to hit any of the key aircraft carrier targets.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
and the Japanese never managed to hit any of the key aircraft carrier targets.
command level arrogance is a ***** isn't it
-
The original plan was to declare war at Midday iirc, and then the attack took place early afternoon, but because of a bungle due to time zones, it never happened.
In Japan there is nothing more cowardly than attacking an unaware enemy in the back. This is why Ninja were actually reviled in their homeland, they were dishonourable warriors.
-
I can't help but wondering what they thought they'd achieve, anyways - a short delay? Was US entry into the war a certainty prior to Pearl Harbour (I thought it was still an issue of debate)? Especially as they thought - knew - they couldn't win any sort of protacted war with the US.
-
I've never really figured out Japans motivation in that respect, hopefully someone better versed in history can clear that up.
-
If they'd followed through with an invasion, Japan coulda taken a ton of key cities.
But for some reason they didn't.
Also, they realised that with the US sitting back and continually shipping supplies to the UK, there'd be no chance of invading England.
-
Japanese also missed the oil tanks at pearl harbor. With out fuel we would not have been able to respond and commense the Island hopping campaign.
-
The attack on Pearl Harbor was in response to a fuel and scrap metal embargo that the US placed on Japan.
-
Speaking as a Brit(I can feel the flamethrowers appraoching, so I shall I be brief), I have to say that Pearl Harbour was a slap in the face for America. Almost every single other country in the world was involved and with your policy of "splendid isolation" earning you a ton of money shipping arms, I, frankly, believe that America needed some kind of crippiling blow. If anything the war helped define your country (prodominatnly anti-Communist).
Something that made me think the other day when chatting to my American bud (apparently his great grand father invented the Jacuzzi), they have Veterans day, instead of Remeberence day (11th Nov). It struck me as odd, and quite an intresting difference of view and way of thinking of the past. What do you lot think?
EDIT: also in response to Anon, it was very unlikely that Japan we even interested with the UK at this point. Thier main concern was with Hong Kong and other Empire controlled areas.
-
IIRC correctly Japan was in similar position to the UK in that they had to import most of the important stuff (fuel, food, ore etc)
-
Ok, here's the thing: China's main strategy, and the strategy being touted by most of her admirals at the time, was that the "big guns" like battleships and destroyers and the like, would win the war. They didn't realize the power they had with air power, until it was found that the campaign in the Pacific was being won by airpower.
So, it might show that even though the Japanese were actually trying to hit the carrieres (although I don't think this is the case), they went after the US's big guns because they thought a similar strategy/thinking might be employed.
If you think about it this also makes sense, because Nimitz had to devise a completely new battle plan for taking the Pacific (the island hopping strategy).
And Ford, I highly doubt that. It may have been a tiny part of the cause, but I doubt a very large one.
-
It was a very large part of the cause. We studied this extensively in my AP history course.
-
If you say so.
I'd also like to comment on this:
'I fear we have awoken a Dragon'. That quote from the original Pearl Harbor film was actually in his Log.
That's actually true, and that commander also said that the Japanese could not hold out for longer than six months against the US. Oddly enough, this turned out to be true, almost to the exact day.
-
The oil and scrap metal plus a few other materials are a big part of why they attacked. They only had a year's worth of oil after the embargo until they took Southeast Asia.
They never thought they would be marching on Washington, but they figured the Americans would be shaken and try to get to the peace table quickly to remove the embargo. There were many cultural misjudgments about each others' society. i.e. Japanese was seen as less than human by most Americans. And Americans were viewed as gangsters and fancy people that couldn't take the hardships of war. Obviously both were quite wrong.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The attack on Pearl Harbor was in response to a fuel and scrap metal embargo that the US placed on Japan.
Which was in response to aggression towards China in 1937 and siezing of Manchuria in 1931.
http://www.worldwariihistory.info/in/Japan.html
-
I wasn't taking a position, simply stating a historical fact.
-
hehehehe I can't help it...
So let's get this straight. Japan was running low on Oil, and started a War because of it.....? ;)
-
:lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
hehehehe I can't help it...
So let's get this straight. Japan was running low on Oil, and started a War because of it.....? ;)
Yeah, but there weren't any 'No War for Oil' protest signs or 'Powered by 'Murkan Blood' bumper stickers on their Mitsubishi SUVs ;)
-
As I said before on something similar, subtle you ain't Flipside :p
-
hehehehe ;)
I guess it just sometimes makes me laugh to watch mankind perform the same mistakes over and over again, each time adding a new layer of 'justification' to it, as though that makes it ok.
My own species cracks me up sometimes ;)
-
Japan already knew that the US would screw them up once they got us "officially" involved.
However, I respect all the soldiers, both men and women, of the WWII Era.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Indeed, the whole 'dishonour' that resulted from the communications error that meant the attack happened before the declaration of War (everyone does know this happened by accident, right?), made Japan enter the fight feeling like cowards. This was physcologically not good.
Meh, declaring war half a day before a prepared attack is the equivalent of setting a trap for someone and telling them just before you spring the trap on them after they've walked in.
-
Possibly, but it's a question of honour, Japan dishonoured itself right at the start of the War, that dishonour lived with them throughout.
-
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with the morale problem of the "dishonour".
I'm just stating that thinking that telling someone just before your fist connects with their face, "I challenge you to a duel!" isn't exactly "honourable".
What do I know? It's just my own view and has no bearing at all on how the japanese thought back then.
-
Originally posted by Fergus
EDIT: also in response to Anon, it was very unlikely that Japan we even interested with the UK at this point. Thier main concern was with Hong Kong and other Empire controlled areas.
Any blow to the American navy would've reduced their ability to defend British supply lines and expedited the fall of Great Britain, which in turn would've freed up Axis resources and allowed Hitler and Mussolini (and the Romanians and other backwater countries) to basically cut a swathe through Russia and China. And with the Royal Navy out of the way there'd be a ****load of German U-boats free to come help defend the Pacific. Combined, that would've allowed Japan free-run of the entire Pacific Ocean with hundreds of islands and neighbouring countries to invade as it pleased without fear of the sea routes being blockaded by Allied ships.
Basically, anything that weakened the American Navy would strengthen the Axis' position across the board. Unfortunately they failed to capitalize on the loss of the Pacific Fleet and underestimated the USA's industrial capacity.
-
Not really, Great Britain was never in danger of being invaded, Hitler dropped that plan in 1940 when it proved unfeasible to mount an amphibious invasion. After the BEF was routed in France he figured correctly that it'd be a good few years before the brits could muster up the forces to invade continental europe by which time he'd have dealt with Russia. German U-Boats didnt have the range to operate in the pacific anyways. Besides Japan had quite a large submarine fleet themselves including some of the biggest boats at the time, including a few capable of carrying and launching planes. they were quite capable of conducting a similar campaign against US convoys in the pacific as the atlantic but chose instead to use them against warships, with limited success.
-
I thought Japan had secured it's oil supply by invading Singapore?
But whatever... Lets hope their ambitions stay limited to trade from now on eh?
Because you know the next time it would be some kind of nano-tech war, and it would be all over before George could push the button...
-
Theres a little watermark on the circuitry between the Red Button and the Silo's, that Watermark is on the all the circuitry, and it says 'Made in Japan'.....
-
I think it says 'Made in Taiwan' nowadays; much cheaper :D
-
Mainland China mostly, much cheaper than Taiwan.
-
I don't know which is more depressing and frightening, the fact that Red China is manufacturing several major weapons systems for Western powers, or the fact that we're letting them.
-
Or the fact we're selling weapons to them! (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=635356)
Even though it's bussiness, I don't like the idea of selling hi-tech weaponry to goddamn China. Even though it would propably benefit my own country, but **** it. **** it up the ass.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Not really, Great Britain was never in danger of being invaded, Hitler dropped that plan in 1940 when it proved unfeasible to mount an amphibious invasion.
The only reason for that was because the Nazi's believed the RAF to have seemingly unlimited numbers of fighters, when infact they were pretty much ****ed. Reducing the American Navy would've increased the superiority of the German Navy in the Atlantic, reduced British supply lines and made it impossible for the Americans to keep supplying the British with the supposed squadrons of new fighters that had prevented the initial invasion attempts during Operation Sealion.
After the BEF was routed in France he figured correctly that it'd be a good few years before the brits could muster up the forces to invade continental europe by which time he'd have dealt with Russia.
Moot.
German U-Boats didnt have the range to operate in the pacific anyways. Besides Japan had quite a large submarine fleet themselves including some of the biggest boats at the time, including a few capable of carrying and launching planes. they were quite capable of conducting a similar campaign against US convoys in the pacific as the atlantic but chose instead to use them against warships, with limited success.
A penny saved is a penny earned. For every U-boat defending a Japanese harbour, there'd be another Japanese submarine free to go cruising the Pacific.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The only reason for that was because the Nazi's believed the RAF to have seemingly unlimited numbers of fighters, when infact they were pretty much ****ed.
No it was because he didnt have the ships needed to mount an amphibious assault against the UK. He also didnt want to spare the manpower needed to take the island from his assault on bolshevik slav russia.
Originally posted by an0n
Reducing the American Navy would've increased the superiority of the German Navy in the Atlantic,
The German navy never had anything approaching superiority in the Atlantic, in fact most of its ships were either sunk very early or hid in harbours.
Originally posted by an0n
reduced British supply lines and made it impossible for the Americans to keep supplying the British with the supposed squadrons of new fighters that had prevented the initial invasion attempts during Operation Sealion.
there were no initial invasion attempts, air attacks dont count as such. Neither did the US supply the UK with any substantial amounts of fighters in the early years of the war. Neither would fighter planes, designed for air to air combat have had any great influence in a ground invasion.
Originally posted by an0n
Moot.
like your whole argument?
Originally posted by an0n
A penny saved is a penny earned. For every U-boat defending a Japanese harbour, there'd be another Japanese submarine free to go cruising the Pacific.
U-Boats dont defend harbours.
-
You're letting facts get in the way of the argument...
-
We all know that history is written by winners.
Have you ever asked yourself on the real motives that made america react so quickly on the Pearl Harbor attack? And why in the world would 2/3 of the Pacific fleet be present at a given time in a single Harbour? And why would the only 3 ships in the whole U.S navy who could possibily have a chance to defeat the four JIN attack groups (the 3 carriers the U.S had in the Pacific at that time, the Lexington, the Saratoga and the Enterprise) be at large, really FAR away from Hawaii?.... Something that no one ever say, possibily in respect for all the victims (on all sides, both civilian and military), but it's become a personal belief lately.... i do seriously think that what the U.S needed after the 29's crack was a war. Nothing is better than a war to revive a degrading ecomomy. That's an historical fact: every major empire that as existed on earth has gone to war for that same reason, an the U.S where (and are) no different. They needed a war and they got one. A simple, but deadly equation.
p.s.: The Japanese invented the so called "Air-Power Combined Fleet" tactic. Not the U.S.
p.s.s: Never, never base your opinions on war films from the 50's. They are obviously Pro-American. In every sense.
-
Originally posted by Gank
No it was because he didnt have the ships needed to mount an amphibious assault against the UK. He also didnt want to spare the manpower needed to take the island from his assault on bolshevik slav russia.
He didn't have the resources to invade directly, that was the entire point of Operation Sealion's opening stages - to weaken Britain enough to make the invasion viable.
The German navy never had anything approaching superiority in the Atlantic
They would have if the Japanese had done their job, which was my point.
there were no initial invasion attempts, air attacks dont count as such.
The air attacks were to weaken the RAF, reduce the UK's ability to bomb the **** out of invading troop transports and destroy any hope of Great Britain being able to mount anything resembling a viable defence of England.
And as part of Operation Sealion, I class the air attacks as being part of the planned invasion.
Neither did the US supply the UK with any substantial amounts of fighters in the early years of the war.
....he says with hindsight.
Neither would fighter planes, designed for air to air combat have had any great influence in a ground invasion.
Are you dense? The only way to invade Britain would've been to have ****ed up all the infrastructure, destroyed bridges - basically bombed the **** out of us. Which is what they were trying to do. But the British fighters kept kicking the asses of all the bombers, which ****ed the attempts to destroy airfields, which resulted in massive Nazi bomber losses and few RAF fighter losses, which ****ed the attempts to pave the way for a ground invasion, which caused Hitler to go "**** it" and abandon plans to invade England.
The key to taking Britain is and always will be - maintaining air superiority. With control of the skies, the Nazis could bomb ships and troops at their leisure. The RAF denied them that.
The Luftwaffe resigned themselves to the 'fact' that the British were building and/or shipping in fighters faster than the Luftwaffe could destroy them and thus the entire invasion would be subject to the RAF pounding the **** out of the Nazi army.
U-Boats dont defend harbours.
Attacking the enemy is defending.
-
Originally posted by CmdKewin
Have you ever asked yourself on the real motives that made America react so quickly on the Pearl Harbor attack?
Oh and the 1500+ plus dead and dying in Hawaii had nothing to do with it...
I love how people assume that the USA always has ulterior motives in everything they do. There is such a thing as Right and Wrong and it's still something that children get taught in this country. It was the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that caused the USA to join open hostilites in WW2. We would've joined eventually anyway. Most of the populace was more than willing to sit in the safety that the Atlantic provided...until the Japanese attack.
-
I clarely stated that i respect all the deads from WW2. The fact his, that the US goverment needed a pretext to force the population to support the entrance in Europe's War. That's what I'm trying to say. They "put a bait", as you may want to call it, impossible for the Japanese to resist (remember they where already stressed by the resource embargo).
p.s.: Everyone has an hidden agenda. Even you and me, poor common people. And, i'm sorry, there's no other country as the U.S to prove that.
-
Well, et's not say ulterior motives, let's instead say....
There is not a person in the world that will not try and get the best for themselves out of any situation.
I think that's possibly a more accurate description of what happened ;)
-
The US government wanted to get into the war anyways. And I wouldn't rule out the massing of the ships in Pearl Harbour to have been the beginnings of an attack on Japan.
They simply used Pearl Harbour as a propaganda tool.
-
Originally posted by an0n
He didn't have the resources to invade directly, that was the entire point of Operation Sealion's opening stages - to weaken Britain enough to make the invasion viable.
Meh, you're partially right, the RAF did put up a good fight and it did put the germans off somewhat but there were a lot of other reasons it was cancelled. The german navy couldnt guarantee they would be able to defend the invasion fleet from the Royal Navy, the length of time needed to prepare the fleet would have interfered with Hitlers plans to invade russia, plus the fact that Hitler never wanted to invade anyways, he regarded the existence of the British Empire as a neccessity to the world. Anyways its all got jack **** to do with your original argument, the sinking of the US Pacific fleet would have had no effect on Hitlers plans for Britain, because he was off playing in Russia at the time, and we all know what happened there.
Originally posted by an0n
They would have if the Japanese had done their job, which was my point.
No they wouldnt Anon, the British had the german Navy effectively bet before the Pearl harbour attack, the US Pacific fleet had absoloutly nothing to do with it. the Royal Navy outnumbered the Kreigsmarine 10:1.
Originally posted by an0n
....he says with hindsight.
Umm, do you think the Germans were that stupid that they had no way of knowing the planes they were flying against were British made or not?
Originally posted by an0n
Attacking the enemy is defending.
You usually dont find the enemy in your own harbour.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Meh, you're partially right, the RAF did ............... the Kreigsmarine 10:1.
I'm totally ignoring all this as you're failing to grasp the simple concept of cause-and-effect in regards to deployment of forces.
Umm, do you think the Germans were that stupid that they had no way of knowing the planes they were flying against were British made or not?
So you can tell the size of a car's spark plugs by the colour of it's paint, can you?
And the Germans had no idea what the **** was going on. All they knew was that the Americans were shipping **** to the UK to help the war effort and the RAF seemed to have unlimited numbers of fighters.
You usually dont find the enemy in your own harbour.
No, because if you do, you've already lost the battle.
If they're out patrolling near the harbour, they're still defending it.
Like if you decided to come to my house and burn it to the ground, but I went to the end of the street and sat in a tree with a sniper rifle and waited for you to come around the corner, I'd still be defending my house from your hostile intentions.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I'm totally ignoring all this as you're failing to grasp the simple concept of cause-and-effect in regards to deployment of forces.
And you're ignoring the fact that Germany was unable to invade Britain when Japan hit Pearl Harbour, nor was it ever in a position to after either. The loss of three aircraft carriers in the pacific would not have changed the outcome of the war in any way. None. Whatsoever. The US was launching carriers 4 months after the were laid down shortly after the outbreak of war.
Originally posted by an0n
So you can tell the size of a car's spark plugs by the colour of it's paint, can you?
Do you know what a spy is? Britain was full of fascists in the 30-40s, quite a few of them worked for the Nazis. If you have massive shipments of planes coming in on boats, somebodys going to notice. These planes need to fly around in the sky in order to go place. Anyone can see them in the sky.
Originally posted by an0n
No, because if you do, you've already lost the battle.
If they're out patrolling near the harbour, they're still defending it.
Like if you decided to come to my house and burn it to the ground, but I went to the end of the street and sat in a tree with a sniper rifle and waited for you to come around the corner, I'd still be defending my house from your hostile intentions.
I think the object in starting a war is to go and defeat the other person before he comes to get you.
-
Which is what the Japanese would have been doing while the Germans were sitting in the tree with the sniper rifle.
I'm ignoring the rest as you're just plain wrong and I don't feel like reciting the events and motivations of WW2 in all their complex subtlety just to win an argument on the internet.
-
Originally posted by CmdKewin
We all know that history is written by winners.
Have you ever asked yourself on the real motives that made america react so quickly on the Pearl Harbor attack?
It took three hours after the attack for the message to finally reach the government. After THAT, well, hmm...you just got your main naval base in the Pacific bombed to hell by a military giant. Are you gonna deliberate for days as to what to do?
And why in the world would 2/3 of the Pacific fleet be present at a given time in a single Harbour?
Refuiling/repair. Also, the US saw that Japan was building up, so they had to be safe.
And why would the only 3 ships in the whole U.S navy who could possibily have a chance to defeat the four JIN attack groups (the 3 carriers the U.S had in the Pacific at that time, the Lexington, the Saratoga and the Enterprise) be at large, really FAR away from Hawaii?
They were on training excersizes, this is a well known fact.
p.s.: The Japanese invented the so called "Air-Power Combined Fleet" tactic. Not the U.S.
While this may be true, the strategy being toted by most of the high-ranking Japanese naval officers was the strategy of the battleship. Most of the Japanese were still thinking in the time when the biggest gun won. Why do you think Japan built the largest battleships ever constructed?
p.s.s: Never, never base your opinions on war films from the 50's. They are obviously Pro-American. In every sense.
No ****. I dunno about whoever you were arguing against, but I base all my facts on my actual research of WWII, not movies.
For once, I agree with Liberator: Why must America ALWAYS have an ulterior motive?
-
Complex subtlety? I hope you're being sarcastic.
-
NB: It's worth noting (RE the Battle of Britain) that British troops were still fighting in North Africa and that British aircraft would presumably be able to bomb targets in Germany / occupied europe if 'left alone'.
-
I don't mean "1 - Kill Jews....". I mean "Oh, look, this bridge was taken which means we'll need to move these men here to protect this area of land because it has oil that the loss of will mean we lose this area of sea and you smell of fish."
-
Oh right, because what you were describing earlier sounded like a computer game.
-
Yeah, I gleaned my entire knowledge of WW2 from the Call of Duty games.
:doubt:
I should probably mention that I tend to spend at least 12 hours a week reading through Wikipedia and Encarta articles on WW2.
-
We had a few lucky breaks. They could have kept bombing our radar stations and southern airfields, which would have been a disaster, but changes in strategy on both sides worked in our favour. Look up 'Douglas Bader' and 'Big Wings' - thier effect on German morale was huge....
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion
Musta missed this one.
-
Originally posted by Clave
We had a few lucky breaks. They could have kept bombing our radar stations and southern airfields, which would have been a disaster, but changes in strategy on both sides worked in our favour. Look up 'Douglas Bader' and 'Big Wings' - thier effect on German morale was huge....
The Big Wing wasn't actually used by Fighter Command until after the BoB though, wasn't it?
-
Originally posted by Gank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion
Musta missed this one.
The 'Battle of Britain' page goes into more detail.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yeah, I gleaned my entire knowledge of WW2 from the Call of Duty games.
:doubt:
I should probably mention that I tend to spend at least 12 hours a week reading through Wikipedia and Encarta articles on WW2.
I wasn't refering to anyone on this forum in particular. :) But i know quite a few people who do think that way.
The Japanese obviously underestimated the U.S industrial capacity as well as it's spirit (but really no one in the world had even the slightest idea of what they could do. WW2 was the first real international engagement the U.S was involved with. WW1 U.S involvement was really minimal). If not, they wouldn't have lost. But the U.S underestimated the Japanese training as well: they considered the Jap. pilots to be low on C vitamines (so basically blind) and equiped with inferior technology. They basically proved them wrong. Aside from Midway (which was only a major victory for the U.S because they where lucky enough to recover a Jap deciphering machine... same as for the German Enigma machine... but that's another story.), the U.S had to fight for almost a year and a half on an equal ground (until the Guadalcanal battles IIRC). And for a Nation 1/10 the size and industrial manpower, i'd say that's quite an achievement :)
p.s.:I'm a fanatic of the Japanese Imperial Navy, so bare with me. They may have built massive Battleships which where no real use, ok, but the U.S did that too. The only difference is that a Yamato Class BB look WAY cooler than any Iowa class you can throw at me ;7
-
Actually, I think the Japanese - maybe not exactly - that the US industrial capacity would lead to them losing any war they fought against them; so Pearl Harbour was an attempt to simply buy a bit of time before their inevitable entry into the war.