poopshovel wrote: As an adult interested/slowly immersing my self in American history - specifically as it relates to war and politics, I often find myself disgusted by the inaccurate and non-factual garbage I was taught in government schools.
Its even worse now. Kids are taught to standardized tests and the dialog between a teacher and classroom/student, that facilitates learning is now kaput.
Anyone recall the 'politically correct' version of the Enola Gay's display? http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/chrono.asp That one tried to paint the Japanese as the victims. Yes, there were horrible civilian mutilations and massive death tolls from both bombs, but what if they had not been dropped? The alternative would have been even more terrible. I can't fault Truman for giving the go ahead, and I bet there were many times he woke at 3AM and said 'my God, what have I done?'.
The liberals who are for whatever reason ashamed of this great country which gives them the right to say whatever they damn well please pitch a fit when faced with the possibility that there are no black and white decisions but only varying shades of gray. Once they try to revise history to paint those decisions as either right or wrong and then get told well, there really isn't a right or wrong, just a terrible choice between the somewhat better of two horrible alternatives retreat into their simplistic world views, slam their hands over their ears and start chanting 'Not listening to you'.
Then there was Eisenhower's assessment of the German concentration camps. Once he saw what was really happening there, he directed his people to take as many pictures as possible of the camps. The reason? Paraphrasing, 'So some son of a bitch can't come along and claim this never happened'. He has been proven correct; many have tried to claim that never happened but the sheer volume of photos and documents has over and over proven that it did.
I find myself continually reminded of Winston Smith's 'memory hole' in the Ministry of Truth. Only it's not a government agency but rather the lamestream media doing it. Orwell would have stood aghast at what's happened.
Despite that, this nation's not perfect, but if you look at what's happening elsewhere on this ball of mud (quick examples: North Korea's nukes, China and Google, Iran's so called elections, Russia's slide back toward totalitarianism, the ongoing tribal wars in Africa, the rampant corruption in Mexico, I could go on for a while) it's pretty damn good. So I will, like the true red state ignoramus that I am, continue to celebrate the birth of this grandest experiment in governance that the world has ever seen.
NYG95GA wrote: RE: The re-write of Pearl Harbor
It seems to me that that both versions your father got were incomplete.
Yes, it was a surprise attack. That was a failing on our part - we were warned by the Japanese that any oil embargo would be seen as an act of war. We embargoed, they attacked. They were not overly pleased with our empire building efforts in the Pacific to begin with and had their own ideas of natural resource gathering going on. We were well pleased to expand into the Pacific and saw the threat in them. It was a war looking for an excuse to happen. The propaganda machine here used the surprise attack as a means to motivate a fighting force with great effect. We won, and the victor gets to write the history book so it never includes their own failings.
The tour guide tailors it to the audience - a pile of soldiers get the victim-turned-hero story, the Jap tourists get the attacker-wins-the-day-loses-the-war slant (no pun intended)
Good point, GPS..
NYG95GA wrote: A few years back, dad visited Hawaii again, this time as a tourist. He took the Harbor tour again, and was shocked how much the "history" had changed. The tour guide explained to his group that the event happened "because of unfortunate situations that forced Japan to guard it's homeland.", or words to that effect. It's important to note that most of the tourists were from Japan.
I wasn't on the same tour your dad was on, but when I visited Pearl 2 years ago the tour guide said nothing remotely like that.
Every college should be required to have one of these history teachers.
D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
NYG95GA wrote: Dad was livid for a while, but as a student of history, soon realized that what he had seen first hand was the insidious re-writing of the facts.
He also saw pandering for tourist dollars.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:NYG95GA wrote: RE: The re-write of Pearl HarborIt seems to me that that both versions your father got were incomplete. Yes, it was a surprise attack. That was a failing on our part - we were warned by the Japanese that any oil embargo would be seen as an act of war. We embargoed, they attacked.
I also seem to remember reading something mentioning that the attack at Pearl Harbor wasn't intended to be a sneak attack. Japan intended to declare war, then attack, but the telegram or whatever method of communication was used, was held up for whatever reason and the US never received the message.
Yes, the surprise part of the attack was an accident (translation delays in Washington by the Japanese delegation). It was meant to be very short notice. The surprise part actually worked very much against the Japanese, it provided VERY good propaganda and recruiting motivation for the US (remember how many joined up after 9/11?). Even without that it was a false cause. As Yamoto (designer and leader of the attack) said "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant", the Japanese were in no position to oppose the industrial might of the US.
The fact that they would attack Pearl Harbor was no real surprise either. It was partially wishful thinking on the US's part (as in "don't worry, we are at peace") that made it as bad as it was. I have read that designing an attack on Pearl Harbor was the standard thesis for graduates of the Japanese naval academy(!). No one of knowledge was really surprised when it happened.
Then again, had the American aircraft carrier group been moored in the harbor and destroyed, the Pacific theater may have had a far different result.
Without carriers, the US would have experienced great delays in mounting any kind of counter-attacks. That delay would have allowed Japan to firmly establish its' empire throughout the Pacific, render Australia as a non-entity and made the possibility of a brokered peace far more likely.
Japan imported oil from the US in the 1930's, oil which they used to drive their growing war machine. This meant that US oil exported to Japan was being used to fuel their war efforts; they had, since the late 1890's, invaded and fought wars with pretty much everyone around them including Russia and China.
Interesting summation of the events leading to Dec 7 1941: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_quest_empire_01.shtml
The US had its own problems dealing with the Depression etc and since WW I was still pretty fresh in people's minds there was a strong isolationist movement in this country. So a lot of people in government took the view 'if we don't mess with them, they won't mess with us'. For that reason, US policy was pretty much 'hands off' even during the Japan-China war, which started in 1937. The Japanese delegation to the League of Nations walked out in 1933 over what they perceived as Western meddling in their affairs, thus showing they had no intention of working things out.
In July 1941, Japan invaded various Pacific Rim countries including Vietnam and Korea and were still fighting a war in China. In response the US government cut off oil exports to Japan. Instead of seeking oil elsewhere, the Japanese military decided the best plan was to attack Pearl Harbor, maybe to force the US to export oil to Japan again. In retrospect, not the best policy.
So the whole 'the US oil embargo of Japan was solely responsible for Pearl Harbor' argument leaves out the backstory and the Japanese government's growing aggression.
The delayed translation story is a red herring, it didn't matter whether war was declared an hour before or an hour after the attack, the fact remains that Japan intended a hopefully crippling surprise attack against the US Pacific Fleet.
Admiral Yamamoto said later 'I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant'. How right he was; when the first bomb hit in Pearl Harbor that was the end of US isolationism. Germany had signed pacts with Japan (thus creating the 'Axis' powers) and declared war on the US shortly afterward, so far from being a victim of US imperialism instead Japan started that little E36 M3storm trying to expand their territory and being in a constant state of war.
Trivia: as a 'reward' for being on the side of the Allies in WW I, Japan was given Germany's colonies in the Pacific.
They're beginning to cast doubt on the fact there was supposed to be a declaration of war immediately before the attack. Some certainly did, but they're questioning whether certain military officials deliberately delayed it because they did not agree.
The fascinating thing about WWII is that so many times things would've turned out differently for a misstep here or there.
There is no dispute that some of Japan's military leaders were 'cooking the books', so to speak. Fudging a declaration of war would fall right in line with what they were already doing.
The timing of the declaration left too small a window for a well thought out US response but it was equally troublesome for the Japanese side. Let's say that Yamamoto dropped anchor 100 miles off Hawaii and waited for the word that there was a declaration of war, even if it were only 1 hour before his intended attack time. His planes would have already been launching and joining formation, but now his target is waking up. Not good, from his standpoint. Even 10 minutes notice would have had US soldiers manning guns and trying to get planes in the air. His troop's casualties might have been double or triple.
So put me in the 'the whole declaration timing and translation delay is a load of horseE36 M3' camp.
For anyone implying the "innocence" of Japan, I suggest the reading of "The Rape of Nanking."
Page 1: Look at these idiots who can't answer basic American History questions! ...
Page 4: Japan was innocent! / No they were not!
...
Page 17: Miata
Jensenman wrote: Germany had signed pacts with Japan (thus creating the 'Axis' powers) and declared war on the US shortly afterward
Had Germany waited longer to declare war, the outcome of the war probably would have been different. Instead, they immediately declared war on the US because we were at war with Japan, and our troops went over to Europe as well. If that hadn't happened, who knows how powerful Germany could have gotten before the US intervened?
Jensenman is spot on. Japan was very aggressive prior to WWII in expansion. They needed oil, lots of it, and wanted China, and the Soviet Union too actually. China was within their grasp for a time and they almost defeated Russia as well. In response to the aggression, the US was placing bases in the Pacific to be able to respond to that threat. Japan had also taken over a few islands with private party US transport bases for Clippers, with several US citizens killed or captured. Not much is mentioned about that anymore.
Had the US had to invade the Japan mainland, the results would have been devastating to both sides. People forget the mindset of the Japanese people at the time. They were taught to die for the emperor at any cost, and they bought into it. Men, women and children all would have died fighting. And as bad as dropping the Atom bombs were, the fire bombings of Tokyo were almost as bad, the the Japanese feared a Russian invasion even more. They knew what the Russians would due to them and instead chose to surrender to the US.
Ironically, it was the US that taught Japan to industrialize and build ships and planes.
The US was already very much involved in Europe before the declaration of war (just not "officially"), when Germany actually declared it really would not have made much difference. Almost a formality, Germany had already shown that it could not invade England.
captain_napalm wrote: The fascinating thing about WWII is that so many times things would've turned out differently for a misstep here or there.
I will make a slight counter point to this. Yes there were many "missteps" and "crazy" events, Midway, Taranto (carefully studied by the Japanese btw), D-Day, Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain, the H-bomb. But in the long view, many of those were just short cuts to an eventuality, and some where entirely predictable in retrospective (Battle of Britain)
The fact of the matter was that the US was very isolated from the rest of the world (geographically) and had tremendous industrial potential (obviously realized) and a large population. Russia was not quite as isolated but had almost the same industrial and population situations (also realized). Some thing pretty crazy would have had to happen for things to turn out differently (e.g. German A-bomb)... WHEN it finished was really the variable part.
On topic? What really scares me about all of this is that the US couldn't win this war if it happened today. We are a mindless Bob Costas version of our former selves.
Page 18: Bacon-wrapped Miata cooked with A-bomb.
racerdave600 said: Had the US had to invade the Japan mainland, the results would have been devastating to both sides. People forget the mindset of the Japanese people at the time. They were taught to die for the emperor at any cost, and they bought into it. Men, women and children all would have died fighting.
I couldn't agree more. I worked in Japan for 4 months. My coworker told me of his Japanese grand-mother-in-law who at 12 years old would go out at recess for "sharp stick training." In preparation for the impending US ground attack, all students would grab a pre-made sharp stick (spear) and practice stabbing life-size dummies representing American soldiers.
The a-bomb (in that situation) saved millions of lives.
tuna55 wrote: On topic? What really scares me about all of this is that the US couldn't win this war if it happened today. We are a mindless Bob Costas version of our former selves.
tr00f. TR said it best: 'talk softly but carry a BIG stick'. I think the military is up to it, but the politicians in Foggy Bottom are so busy holding a finger in the wind that they don't have the intestinal fortitude to carry anything through to a conclusion.
Add to that the lamestream media's habit of squawking about how we need to help these poor people somewhere or other until Congress sends troops, then once the troops are there something gets blown up and someone gets hurt (that is what soldiers do , after all) then these same goobers freak out and start screaming for us to pull them back out and we wind up with: can't win.
I am not sure if you are talking about WWII or the Revolutionary War (July 4th). In the case of the Revolutionary War, war (separation) would need to be declared and there may be some truth to that, but in the case of WWII, I don't think there would be any chance of not getting into the fight and once in we are WAY more powerful militarily than any other nation (likely any two or three).
The big difference of course is those were "real" wars against real nations, much different (even in the case of Iraq really) than what goes on these days.
You'll need to log in to post.
