A Sad Fact

[royc]

Good read on the present day situation, a sad fact but very true.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe80.html


Roy

[chillbilly]

" It’s important to accept one fact about contemporary America: This is not a democracy, and certainly not a constitutional republic. America is actually a carefully concealed oligarchy. A few thousand people, mostly in government, finance, and the military-industrial complex, run this country for their own purposes. By manipulating the two-party system, influencing the mainstream media, and controlling the flow of campaign finance money, this oligarchy works to secure the nomination of its preferred candidates (Democratic and Republican alike), thus giving voters a "choice" between Puppet A and Marionette B."

Much as I hate to admit it, there is iron in that observation.

[glennac]

Much as I hate to admit it, there is iron in that observation.

Can't argue that. If we would have stayed out of WW1 there proably wouldn't have been WW11 because there would have been no winners in WW1 and everyone would have got tired of fighting and signed a reasonable peace treaty with no one getting screwed and Europe and the US would have been a lot better off.

[whec720]

Kinda agree with you, glen. However, as long as people believe they have something to gain, there will always be war.
Interesting perspective on how America is run. I honestly can not refute it. I think the first battle is to dismantle the two party system. It is way out of our control. Look how both parties want to handle illegal immigration. These guys and gals are feeding from the same trough, no doubt about it.

[Carnak]

you come up with some good ones roy but that one is on the fringe

[chillbilly]

you come up with some good ones roy but that one is on the fringe

Care to point out the "fringe" elements?

[Carnak]

Care to point out the "fringe" elements?
the oligarchy nuking the japs and the oligarchy going into vietnam because their intrests were compromised

[royc]

the oligarchy nuking the japs and the oligarchy going into vietnam because their intrests were compromised


Well lets see your explanation, why did we nuke the jap's and not the germans??

And why did we go in to Vietnam, and please dont say "Domino", cause you better have a pizza waiting, if you say that..lol

Roy

[The Doctor]

We went to war, starting with the Spanish-American war, because of the interests of the few. WWI was a blunder by Pres. Wilson, to allow us to become involved, but when the homework is done, there were interests for us to enrich. The resulting burden placed on Germany, was nothing less than WWII. And by keeping the Russians involved in WWI after the czar abdicated by offering the provisional gov't credits of $325 million, Wilson unwittingly paved the way for Lenin, and his successor, the murderer Joseph Stalin:eek:

These are reasons enough for us to evaluate our position of intervention around the world.

I noticed that this morning there are two articles about Dr. Paul on NRO. John Derbyshire still sticking his toe in the water and looking around....:rolleyes:
and another fellow who has a much less restrained view of supporting the actual conservative candidate--the fusion candidate, as he calls him.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fatalist just like Derbyshire. But our country deserves someone who has a record of conservatism, not just the lesser of two evils.
If we look at Dr. Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney(face it, who else is left?), doesn't your conservative side yearn to Dr. Paul?
If we vote for the candidate with a track record of conservatism tempered by the U.S. Constitution, and who has a strong libertarian streak which is moderated by his pro-life (it was the first position he took at the forum in Des Moines), and he came right out and said he thinks we should protect life, and pre-born life..then Ron Paul is your man.

Check him out, he's the real deal.

[bootlen]

Well lets see your explanation, why did we nuke the jap's and not the germans??

VE Day was 5-7-45. Nuke not ready. Bomb had been readied soon thereafter. VJ Day was 8-15-45.

BTW, while there was a threat of a 3rd nuke, it did not exist. We bluffed...they folded.

And why did we go in to Vietnam, and please dont say "Domino", cause you better have a pizza waiting, if you say that..lol

Roy

Suppose YOU answer that. What possible gain could there have been for an oligarchy to take us in that direction?

[acmanko]

we used the atomic bomb on Japan because of the estimated 1,000,000 Us soldiers that would have perished with an invasion of Japan's home Islands, the number of japanese that would have died is unfathomable. The war in Vietnam was indirectly tied to the defeat of the Japanese and communists filling the power vacuum left in SE Asia by the defeated Japanese

[Carnak]

Well lets see your explanation, why did we nuke the jap's and not the germans??

And why did we go in to Vietnam, and please dont say "Domino", cause you better have a pizza waiting, if you say that..lol

Roy

If it was an oligarchy controlling the involvement in Vietnam, then it must have been a French one ruling the USA from behind the scenes.

[jmac00]

Well lets see your explanation, why did we nuke the jap's and not the germans??

Technology and TIMING.........the bomb was not a "viable" weapon till Late 1945. Also "nuking" Europe would have been unacceptable to the folks living there. Japan on the other hand is an Island, and almost nothing else would be affected by a large bang:confused:


And why did we go in to Vietnam, and please dont say "Domino", cause you better have a pizza waiting, if you say that..lol

Roy

I got no clue why we did this??? I think this was a huge mistake that got worse when Congress got involved and made it political:rolleyes:

[bootlen]

BTW, roy. There HAD to be a very definitive defeat of Japan. Those guys don't quit easily. Did you know that Jap soldiers have been found as recently as 5 years ago on some SW Pacific islands, living off the land hiding from "round eye" people they had seen, thinking the war was still on?

In 1973, I think it was, a Jap soldier was found living in a cave on Guam. I remember the event because I was there when it happened. He thought all the B-52's flying out of there going to NVN were headed to Japan. He would have tried to fight his way out of there but had run out of ammo. Somehow, he was captured and given the news about WWII and wars fought since that time.

[acmanko]

What happened in Vietnam is exactly what could happen if we leave Iraq before the Government there can controll it's own destiny. AS bad as Saddam was, his ability to keep Iran in check will have to be filled before the ME settles down

[scrogdog]

This is a partial repost of some comments I made to Remember (remember him? :)) long ago on the topic of why the bomb was employed with regards to Japan.


My particular area of study in history is WWII, and even more specifically, the Pacific Theatre. It came to me one night while reading a book about the dropping of the bomb… something ain’t passing the smell test here.

Here’s how the story goes… if we had not dropped the bomb, tens of thousands of American lives would have been lost in an invasion of Japan. Yes, dropping the bomb was a terrible thing, but in the end, it was the lesser of two evils.

That statement taken at face value is true. But the message it attempts to convey is COMPLETELY false, in my humble opinion. Why? Because it implies that we needed to invade due to the *military necessity* of defeating Japan.

Japan, at that point, was truly beaten. After the battle of Leyte Gulf, the Japanese fleet was decimated. Their navy would not sortie again. It could be said that, at that point in the war, Japan had virtually NO fleet left. They were done.

To see why this is so, it is necessary to explore the reasons for Japan’s aggression in the first place.

Once it was decided to become an industrial power, it was clear resources would be required from an external source. Japan is essentially a couple of volcanoes sticking out of the ocean. They were quite short on the materials needed to become industrialized; notably, oil, rubber and ingot steel. These materials would have to be procured or traded for. Trade was heavy with the US for quite some time, but then they began to piss us off. We cut them off, and there was war. Thus, you see the overall strategy of seizing those needed resources in China and the East Indies early on in the campaign.

Once the navy was gone, the entire support structure was also gone. This is a PERFECT situation for a blockade. Why do we never see that being considered? Don’t go telling me that the war HAD to end quickly so we were willing to spend tens of thousands of lives to do it!

The one element that really sealed it was the positioning of our surface fleet as a cordon and blockade around the islands. This was unnecessary. Firstly, transport fleets are SLOW – our fast carrier groups would catch and annihilate them in short order. We had air supremacy and many subs with which to perform the surveillance. There was no need to be that close. Carriers are tactical platforms but there were no requirements for tactical raids or fighter sweeps. And finally, if ships had sortied, we knew EXACTLY where they were going! In other words, an effective blockade and cordon could be done perfectly well even if we had withdrawn the fleet beyond kamikaze range.

So what was it then?

Near the end of the war, our “allies” the Soviets declared war on Japan. In August of 1945, they occupied the Kurile Islands. This sent many warning signs to Washington. The threat was obvious – they would attempt to scoop up lands in mainland China occupied by Japan in an attempt to create a land-link with Communist China. I believe Washington was correct to fear this. Even though this union was tried and failed at a later time, who could know?

There was only one way to stop it. The war had to end. And quickly.

And so, we leave our fleet in kamikaze range, and when they come, we jump up and down and say “look, our boys are dieing! We MUST do something NOW!!!”

So, we get back to the initial story. Yes, lacking the bomb we would have HAD to commit forces to invade Japan. But not because of any military necessity with regards to Japan. Got that? What are you going to tell the Moms and Dads, eh my friend? That Johnny died to stop our “allies”? What are we going to say in history texts? That we fire-bombed many Japanese civilians to stop the Soviets?

This should not turn in to a discussion regarding intentionally targeting civilians in WWII. This was an accepted tactic, from London, to Dresden, to Hiroshima. Civilians as targets were not addressed by Geneva Convention until the 1960s.

The history that was written is bogus, but I can understand its writing. This isn’t going to sound exactly good, but America needed some comfortable conscience-soothing rhetoric. And that’s what we got.

Now, I personally think that it is time to start telling it like it is. This won’t happen quickly, if it even does. The time for conscience soothing is done. We should be able to face the facts at this point.

[acmanko]

This is a partial repost of some comments I made to Remember (remember him? :)) long ago on the topic of why the bomb was employed with regards to Japan.
you must mean about the recent discovery of Japans active research inot their own Atomic bomb, which would have been targeted on the US.

[scrogdog]

You forget that they would have had no way to deliver it, even if they had completed it.

[glennac]

The war in Vietnam like Korea was to stop the communist from expanding their empire in the cold war. The problem was like Korea we were not allowed to win. And unlike Korea we withdrew and allowed the communist to take over S Vietnam. This was the result of a president who was afraid to fight to win (LBJ), the anti war press and the anti war Democrats in Congress who were in control at that time. Public support for the war dropped after LBJ drastically limited our AF and Navy in their actions against N Vietnam and allowed them a sanctuary in the North expect for a very limited bombing campaign against the North. The North put anti aircraft sites on dams, next to schools, hospitals etc and they then became off limits to attack by a timid LBJ.

[acmanko]

You forget that they would have had no way to deliver it, even if they had completed it.
They had ballons that they could launch into the trade winds which would land on North America. There was actually a family of 6 living in Oregon that were killed by this method, only with conventional bombs. also if they had succeded our military in the pacific could have been targeted and decimated.

[scrogdog]

They had ballons that they could launch into the trade winds which would land on North America. There was actually a family of 6 living in Oregon that were killed by this method, only with conventional bombs. also if they had succeded our military in the pacific could have been targeted and decimated.

Out of about 9000 "balloon bombs" launched in November of 1944, about 1000 reached the US mainland. Of those, 285 caused a "bomb incident". Of those, 6 deaths occurred.

Not exactly a successful campaign. If you think that Japan would take thier most valuable device and committ it to something as uncertain as a balloon attack... you are not thinking clearly. :)

It would take a flat out miracle to score any sort of hit on the Pacific Fleet with such a device. Plus an atomic device weighs a lot more than 500 pounds (the weight of the bombs actually used in the balloons that flew).

[jmac00]

Out of about 9000 "balloon bombs" launched in November of 1944, about 1000 reached the US mainland. Of those, 285 caused a "bomb incident". Of those, 6 deaths occurred.

Not exactly a successful campaign. If you think that Japan would take thier most valuable device and committ it to something as uncertain as a balloon attack... you are not thinking clearly. :)

It would take a flat out miracle to score any sort of hit on the Pacific Fleet with such a device. Plus an atomic device weighs a lot more than 500 pounds (the weight of the bombs actually used in the balloons that flew).

theres one point you failed to mention?

How do you explain the Japanese willingness to die rather than surrender????

Remember, VERY FEW Japanese soldiers surrendered, most committed suicide.

[scrogdog]

theres one point you failed to mention?

How do you explain the Japanese willingness to die rather than surrender????

Remember, VERY FEW Japanese soldiers surrendered, most committed suicide.

Well, let me put it this way. If they have no ships... if we keep the fleet out of kamikaze range... if we choose to not invade and simply blockade until they implode instead... what difference does it make how they fight or if they have some strange compelling urge to throw thier lives away? They would have had no way to attack us.

Your suicide comment is completely untrue, btw.

[jmac00]

Well, let me put it this way. If they have no ships... if we keep the fleet out of kamikaze range... if we choose to not invade and simply blockade until they implode instead... what difference does it make how they fight or if they have some strange compelling urge to throw thier lives away? They would have had no way to attack us.

Your suicide comment is completely untrue, btw.


?????????? If you say so ???????? I think your using suppositions that are great for today, but in 1945, the intelligence and information available wasn't that good. So the military and congress did what it thinks was necessary to end a conflict that the nation wanted to be over as soon as possible.

But again, your looking BACK at history. If you were there, I think you may come to a different conclusion.

We can second guess what happened, all day long, the results remain the same.

You do have an interesting theory! whether it is a "workable solution" to a conflict that occurred 60 years ago, is another matter:rolleyes:

[royc]

theres one point you failed to mention?

How do you explain the Japanese willingness to die rather than surrender????

Remember, VERY FEW Japanese soldiers surrendered, most committed suicide.


Same reason why many dont believe that this country is going to suspend our rights if we dont insist on Ron Paul...

its called brainwashing

Roy

[royc]

As Scrog pointed out correctly, there was no need to invade Japan. The main reason the A-Bomb was used, was first of all to let Russia know we had it, and for us to be the occupiers and not them, and further more forgetting about the timeline, America would have never used that bomb on white europians, for reasond that should be obvious.

Roy

[scrogdog]

?????????? If you say so ???????? I think your using suppositions that are great for today, but in 1945, the intelligence and information available wasn't that good. So the military and congress did what it thinks was necessary to end a conflict that the nation wanted to be over as soon as possible.

But again, your looking BACK at history. If you were there, I think you may come to a different conclusion.

We can second guess what happened, all day long, the results remain the same.

You do have an interesting theory! whether it is a "workable solution" to a conflict that occurred 60 years ago, is another matter:rolleyes:

While it is true that I approach this with 20/20 hindsight, as I mention at the beginning, the Pacific Theatre is a favored area of study in history for me which has been ongoing for over 30 years.

You are right though, it's only a theory. We may never know all the true facts. However, most of the valuable histories were written by folks who were either there, or a lot closer to the event than you or me. :)

[bootlen]

As Scrog pointed out correctly, there was no need to invade Japan. The main reason the A-Bomb was used, was first of all to let Russia know we had it, and for us to be the occupiers and not them, and further more forgetting about the timeline, America would have never used that bomb on white europians, for reasond that should be obvious.

Roy

Yeah. Like the fact the war was already over in Europe; the fact that France had already been liberated; the fact that Italy had already been liberated; the fact that ALL of Eastern and Western Europe had already been liberated.

Did ya notice we didn't drop a nuke on Northern Africa either? Whaddya make of that?

[bootlen]

Hey, royc. Ya got any movies of a missile hitting the Pentagon on 9-11? Might as well take this thread to the hilt.

[Carnak]

Yeah. Like the fact the war was already over in Europe; the fact that France had already been liberated; the fact that Italy had already been liberated; the fact that ALL of Eastern and Western Europe had already been liberated.

Did ya notice we didn't drop a nuke on Northern Africa either? Whaddya make of that?

or yeah like the US was going to accept anything other than an unconditional surrender and you are going to starve the japs into that? A naval blockade, hey that would work as good as the embargo on Cuba.

The japs would fight to the end. Could have nuked a little atoll and told them to come and take a look I suppose. Then what if it was a dud?

The Russians, would not have been a Korean War conflict if you did not have your Russian Allies declare war on Japan.

[Carnak]

America would have never used that bomb on white europians, for reasons that should be obvious.

Roy

there is truth there, they never locked up German immigrants either, so anyways roy, that link is on the fringe.

I am surprised it did not have an oiligarchy mentioned about Iraq

[scrogdog]

The japs would fight to the end.

I understand what you are saying, but without an invasion or leaving the fleet too close, they had no way to fight us.

Why committ tens of thousands of lives to stop.... nothing (our alternative had we lacked the bomb)?

The allies needed to not only demonstrate that they HAD such a terrible weapon, but that they were willing to use it.

[Carnak]

I understand what you are saying, but without an invasion or leaving the fleet too close, they had no way to fight us.

Why committ tens of thousands of lives to stop.... nothing (our alternative had we lacked the bomb)?

The allies needed to not only demonstrate that they HAD such a terrible weapon, but that they were willing to use it.

Okay I can accept the 'willing to use it", but no way in hell you are going to get an unconditional surrender from a blockade.

[scrogdog]

Okay I can accept the 'willing to use it", but no way in hell you are going to get an unconditional surrender from a blockade.

That has been debated a lot by historians.

Again, though, there was no pressing need for unconditional surrender if they had no way to attack us. Give a blockade 6 months... coupled with conventional strategic bombing... see what happens. Certainly, even if they did not surrender then thier will and ability to fend off invasion would have been severely downgraded.

Remember what happened with bunkered Iraqi soldiers in the first Gulf War circa 1991? After repeated carpet bombing by B52's many of them welcomed surrender... many even exclaiming things like "Thank God!" when American soldiers showed up. :)

We didn't have the 6 months, however, in the face of what the Soviets were doing.

[scrogdog]

Incidentally, I do not agree with your comparison to Cuba. As I mentioned early on in my re-copied post, Japan was and is a couple of volcanoes sticking out of the ocean with not much in the way of resources. Cuba in not comparable in that regard (partially why they do not aspire to have a fleet). A naval blockade would affect them less than Japan. This is the very reason that Japan, without its fleet, was toothless.

[Carnak]

Well the first gulf war is a bad analogy because you just ended up going back. Never had to re-invade Japan

[Carnak]

Incidentally, I do not agree with your comparison to Cuba. As I mentioned early on in my re-copied post, Japan was and is a couple of volcanoes sticking out of the ocean with not much in the way of resources. Cuba in not comparable in that regard (partially why they do not aspire to have a fleet). A naval blockade would affect them less than Japan. This is the very reason that Japan, without its fleet, was toothless.

Cuba has less resources than Japan had and the embargo has been inneffective. When Fidel dies there will be an oligarchy itching to get in there and build resorts.

You would have to go and get them

[Carnak]

In the first gulf war you were not fighting people who figured Saddam was a God. The Emperor of Japan was divine.

Kamakazi is a "divine wind" like a typhoon that saved them from an earlier invasion.

Surrender was dishonourable to them, you were lower than low if you surrendered. Part of the reason they were so hard on the people they captured, they figured warriors who surrendered were snivelling dogs. Better to fight to the death than be a snivelling dog is how they looked at it.

[scrogdog]

Cuba has less resources than Japan had and the embargo has been inneffective. When Fidel dies there will be an oligarchy itching to get in there and build resorts.

You would have to go and get them

Well, Japan does export far more goods than Cuba. It would still be a mistake to say that is because they have more resources.

Similarly, China is the world's largest producer of steel right now. One should not infer from that that China contains the world largest supply of iron ore, it means that they are the world's largest consumer of iron ore.

According to the CIA factbook, Cuba ranks 58th in the world in oil reserves with 259,000,000 barrels. Japan ranks 77th with 59,000,000. Cuba ranks 63rd in natural gas reserves with 70,970,000,000 cubic meters while Japan comes in at 68th with 59,000,000 cubic meters.

Cuba also has far more agricultural land than Japan does.

In short, I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. :)

[jmac00]

That has been debated a lot by historians.

Again, though, there was no pressing need for unconditional surrender if they had no way to attack us.


oh yes there was, we DEMANDED a unconditional surrender because of what the Japs did four years earlier.

Again, you trying to apply todays standard to yesterday's events. Carnak is right(oooh, that freaking hurt), we "could have blockaded Japan", but the surrender would have been in 1960, instead of 1945:confused:

The Japanese were not just going to give up, there mentality (at the time) was "no surrender" at any cost. And blockading a island the size of Japan would be virtually impossible considering the cost involved. Even if the USA would have put every available ship around Japan, a significant number of boats could get through

[scrogdog]

In the first gulf war you were not fighting people who figured Saddam was a God. The Emperor of Japan was divine.

Kamakazi is a "divine wind" like a typhoon that saved them from an earlier invasion.

Surrender was dishonourable to them, you were lower than low if you surrendered. Part of the reason they were so hard on the people they captured, they figured warriors who surrendered were snivelling dogs. Better to fight to the death than be a snivelling dog is how they looked at it.

I am well aware of that. However, it was not really the common man that needed to surrender, it was the corrupt generals that used the emperor for thier own purposes. And they did finally come to see that surrender was the only way out. We agree to disagree on whether or not this could have been achieved with a blockade, but even if you are correct, there should have been no hurry if Japan was the sole concern.

[scrogdog]

oh yes there was, we DEMANDED a unconditional surrender because of what the Japs did four years earlier.

Again, you trying to apply todays standard to yesterday's events. Carnak is right(oooh, that freaking hurt), we "could have blockaded Japan", but the surrender would have been in 1960, instead of 1945:confused:

The Japanese were not just going to give up, there mentality (at the time) was "no surrender" at any cost. And blockading a island the size of Japan would be virtually impossible considering the cost involved. Even if the USA would have put every available ship around Japan, a significant number of boats could get through

Um, Japan had vitually NO ships remaining after the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Again, if you read my earlier post, the US subs and aircraft BY THEMSELVES had the surviellance locked up already without the use of a single American surface vessel.

As for this...


oh yes there was, we DEMANDED a unconditional surrender because of what the Japs did four years earlier.

With all due respect, that is the very thing that you do NOT want to do as a leader... committ troops in anger or for revenge. You committ troops to what makes military sense, not because you are mad.

[royc]

Yeah. Like the fact the war was already over in Europe; the fact that France had already been liberated; the fact that Italy had already been liberated; the fact that ALL of Eastern and Western Europe had already been liberated.

Did ya notice we didn't drop a nuke on Northern Africa either? Whaddya make of that?


Did I mention "forgetting about the timeline".

Roy

[scrogdog]

Well the first gulf war is a bad analogy because you just ended up going back. Never had to re-invade Japan

My point was not how we won or how we should have won in Japan. It was what happens to men when they are repeatedly bombed with no way to fight back.

[bootlen]

Did I mention "forgetting about the timeline".

Roy

Must've. It ain't there.

What's your point?

[jmac00]

As for this...



With all due respect, that is the very thing that you do NOT want to do as a leader... committ troops in anger or for revenge. You committ troops to what makes military sense, not because you are mad.


absolutely correct, thats why we dropped the big one. The "brass" did not want to invade japan. They knew it would be a blood bath.

[scrogdog]

There was no military need to invade Japan. They were defeated and had no way to attack us UNLESS we invaded. The war only needed to end quickly because of what the Soviets were doing.

It was a smoke and mirror show. In all of the years that I have had this discussion with both military personnell and not, not one has YET properly explained the postioning of American carriers in kamikaze range! Were they conducting fighter sweeps... no. Were they conducting tactical bombing raids... no. Was the fleet conducting bombardment... no... but even if they were it could have been done at night. There is only one thing that makes sense to me, they wanted the carriers to be attacked to validate the idea that a blockade was impossible (when in fact it should have been at least tried) to gain support for the use of the bomb without explaining the true reason.

The surface fleet was not needed to blockade... only to persue if a sortie was identified by subs or aircraft.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories usually, but I like for things to make sense. :)

[bootlen]

There was no military need to invade Japan. They were defeated and had no way to attack us UNLESS we invaded. The war only needed to end quickly because of what the Soviets were doing.

It was a smoke and mirror show. In all of the years that I have had this discussion with both military personnell and not, not one has YET properly explained the postioning of American carriers in kamikaze range! Were they conducting fighter sweeps... no. Were they conducting tactical bombing raids... no. Was the fleet conducting bombardment... no... but even if they were it could have been done at night. There is only one thing that makes sense to me, they wanted the carriers to be attacked to validate the idea that a blockade was impossible (when in fact it should have been at least tried) to gain support for the use of the bomb without explaining the true reason.

The surface fleet was not needed to blockade... only to persue if a sortie was identified by subs or aircraft.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories usually, but I like for things to make sense. :)

What was the range of a kamikaze plane that had to go only one way with only one bomb as opposed to an American plane that had to get to target, drop multiple bombs, and return to the fleet, hmmm?

THAT would necessitate a closer location, no?

[jmac00]

I'm not much for conspiracy theories usually, but I like for things to make sense. :)

:D :D :D yes you are ;) :D

[scrogdog]

What was the range of a kamikaze plane that had to go only one way with only one bomb as opposed to an American plane that had to get to target, drop multiple bombs, and return to the fleet, hmmm?

THAT would necessitate a closer location, no?

Yes, IF they were bombing. As I said, they were not. There were no requirements for tactical raids of any sort at the point, and none were conducted by carrier based planes or otherwise. Besides, carrier aircraft were not able to carry multiple bombs back then... a single 500 lb or 1000 lb bomb was all they could carry, not only because of weight, but because there was only room for one mounting on the fuselage.

Further, allied planes used drop tanks to extend thier range.

That's why we have multi-role aircraft. Strategic bombing was an impossibility for carrier-based aircraft back then. The bombing of Japan was occuring, but by land based air assets. That's the whole reason that we invaded Okinawa, for the airbases.

[scrogdog]

:D :D :D yes you are ;) :D

:D

[acmanko]

Yes, IF they were bombing. As I said, they were not. There were no requirements for tactical raids of any sort at the point, and none were conducted by carrier based planes or otherwise. Besides, carrier aircraft were not able to carry multiple bombs back then... a single 500 lb or 1000 lb bomb was all they could carry, not only because of weight, but because there was only room for one mounting on the fuselage.

Further, allied planes used drop tanks to extend thier range.

That's why we have multi-role aircraft. Strategic bombing was an impossibility for carrier-based aircraft back then. The bombing of Japan was occuring, but by land based air assets. That's the whole reason that we invaded Okinawa, for the airbases.if I remember correctly some pilot named Dolittle bombed Tokyo just weeks after Pearl Harbor with a bomber launched from a carrier

[bootlen]

if I remember correctly some pilot named Dolittle bombed Tokyo just weeks after Pearl Harbor with a bomber launched from a carrier

You DO remember correctly.

[scrogdog]

if I remember correctly some pilot named Dolittle bombed Tokyo just weeks after Pearl Harbor with a bomber launched from a carrier

Yup... and how did that work out?

There is no possibilty of a light bomber landing back on a carrier. One shot deal. Carriers could not sustain that operation, and it was not attempted again after early in the war.

[Carnak]

There was no military need to invade Japan. They were defeated and had no way to attack us UNLESS we invaded. The war only needed to end quickly because of what the Soviets were doing.

It was a smoke and mirror show. In all of the years that I have had this discussion with both military personnell and not, not one has YET properly explained the postioning of American carriers in kamikaze range! Were they conducting fighter sweeps... no. Were they conducting tactical bombing raids... no. Was the fleet conducting bombardment... no... but even if they were it could have been done at night. There is only one thing that makes sense to me, they wanted the carriers to be attacked to validate the idea that a blockade was impossible (when in fact it should have been at least tried) to gain support for the use of the bomb without explaining the true reason.

The surface fleet was not needed to blockade... only to persue if a sortie was identified by subs or aircraft.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories usually, but I like for things to make sense. :)

you have quite the theories on this one. Was it an oligarchy or not though?

[scrogdog]

further more forgetting about the timeline, America would have never used that bomb on white europians, for reasond that should be obvious.

I had to give this one some thought before I jumped in.

Basically, I think you are correct, but not for the reason that you state. The goal of war is to remove the enemies ability to wage it against you. Europe, even while occupied was not enemy territory, yet the German's sure were using the factories and resources in the occupied territories. What to do?

Well, pretty much what we did. Even though there was significant production capability outside of Germany, key industries remained inside. Specifically targeted were things like ball bearing production facilities, because that would affect all assets; naval, air and ground.

What I think you are saying is that it would have been unacceptable to our allies to conduct long-term strategic campaigns (atomic OR conventional) on thier homelands. We did not try to terror bomb and start firestorms in France via conventional bombing, for example, but we did so in Germany (Dresden).

Your position sounds a bit more racist than it needs to be the way you worded it, in my humble opinion. Not that I am calling YOU a racist, mind you, only that I don't think race had a lot to do with it.

[scrogdog]

you have quite the theories on this one.

Yeah. Trust me I know what you mean. :)


Was it an oligarchy or not though?

I'm not sure that I am prepared to state that or deny it. However, I will say this.

If there is one thing that most people can agree on, it is that politicians do things for other reasons that what they claim. The best example that I can think of to illustrate this is JFK's "to the moon" speech.

I am not singling out JFK or calling him bad, BTW. It is just what they do.

Imagine the situation that the president faced in the early 1960s. Russia has a lead in the space race, and while scientific discovery was what was being talked about among common men, the white house had deeper concerns... namely that the Russian's had superior technology in rocketry, which meant that they led us in the ability to deliver nuclear weapons as well.

Space is a very strategic place. Some wonder if the moon program would have received funding at all if it were not for the importance of the military applications of rocketry.

Ok, so... now you want to do this thing. Can you say the real reason? No. You must use the rhetoric reason; "we do not do these things because they are easy, but because they are hard." What a load. :)

That said, we DID see mega-science and technology progress throughout the program. It is still tough to consider that it was done solely for science, especially considering what has gone on with funding and NASA since that time. Science WAS part of the reason. Had it been the sole reason, we may have never gone to the moon.

Similarly, I am not necessarily casting aspersions against the presidency to put forth the notion that the true reasons for a-bombing Japan were probably not the stated ones.

[glennac]

Boy, I sure hope they never shut down the ARP form. Some of you on here would have to go get a life. Apparently there is none outside this form.

[acmanko]

I find it hard to believe we still have people who think we landed on the moon.

[scrogdog]

Some of us prefer debate to comic books, Glenn. What can I tell you?

Guess you are trying to change all that though... seeing as how you voted for *yourself* as one of the new forum cops.

[glennac]

Some of us prefer debate to comic books, Glenn. What can I tell you?
Guess you are trying to change all that though... seeing as how you voted for *yourself* as one of the new forum cops.

Hey I love debate. I'm just amazed at the time spent at it. It was meant as a joke. You are wound up a little to tight dog. Lighten up and crack a joke once in a while. It'll help your blood pressure.

[scrogdog]

Alright, sorry.

How's this?

This guy goes to a supermarket and as he's shopping he sees this very attractive woman and she waves at him. Not recognizing her at all, he approaches her and asks, "excuse me, miss, do I know you?"

She says, "I think you are the father of one of my kids"

In a flash, the man's mind goes back in time to the only time that he was ever unfaithful to the woman he married. "My God! Are you the stripper who on the night of my bachelor party I made love too on the pool table while all my buddies watched while your partner whipped my butt with a piece of wet celery?"

The woman just calmly looked at him and said, "No, I am your son's teacher".

[royc]

I had to give this one some thought before I jumped in.

Basically, I think you are correct, but not for the reason that you state. The goal of war is to remove the enemies ability to wage it against you. Europe, even while occupied was not enemy territory, yet the German's sure were using the factories and resources in the occupied territories. What to do?

Well, pretty much what we did. Even though there was significant production capability outside of Germany, key industries remained inside. Specifically targeted were things like ball bearing production facilities, because that would affect all assets; naval, air and ground.

What I think you are saying is that it would have been unacceptable to our allies to conduct long-term strategic campaigns (atomic OR conventional) on thier homelands. We did not try to terror bomb and start firestorms in France via conventional bombing, for example, but we did so in Germany (Dresden).

Your position sounds a bit more racist than it needs to be the way you worded it, in my humble opinion. Not that I am calling YOU a racist, mind you, only that I don't think race had a lot to do with it.

Well the fact that the Japaneese got rounded up into internment camps and the Germans didnt, shows something in itself, whether it was partly motivated due to the race difference I'm not sure of. When I was talking about the use of an atomic weapon on Japan rather then Germany, I was stating a hypotethical situation, not a historical one. I would bet that if that situation had arisen, and there would have been the choice between Germany and Japan, the choice would have been Japan.

Roy

[glennac]

Well the fact that the Japaneese got rounded up into internment camps and the Germans didnt, shows something in itself, whether it was partly motivated due to the race difference I'm not sure of. When I was talking about the use of an atomic weapon on Japan rather then Germany, I was stating a hypotethical situation, not a historical one. I would bet that if that situation had arisen, and there would have been the choice between Germany and Japan, the choice would have been Japan.
Roy

Roy, I have to point out that Germans as well as Italians were rounded up but not just wholesale like the Japanese, citizens or not. It you were a foreign national from Germany or Italy or if you belonged to the American Bund or even were known to attend there meetings you were rounded up and put in internment camps.

The dropping of the bomb on Japan instead of Germany was simply a matter of timing. I can guarantee you that if we had the bomb before Germany surrendered that our government would have used them exclusively on Germany until they surrendered and then use them on Japan. After Germany surrendered a lot of the scientists working on the bomb petitioned the President not to drop it on Japan they only wanted to drop it on Germany. The firebombing of purely civilian targets in Germany should tell you that. Dresden was a refuge center of German civilians fleeing the Red Army and it was deliberately targeted to kill off the women and children who were fleeing into the city. There were fighter planes strafing the civilians fleeing to the river to escape the fire storm. 80% of the war effort was directed at Germany and their allies and only 20% was used to fight the war in the Pacific. All this can be goggled for those who care too.

[The Doctor]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, is there enough substance to the person of Dr. Ron Paul to take this man's candidacy beyond "also ran"?
He has demonstrated exceptional commitment to principle during his careers in medicine and his time in representative gov't.

Have conservatives resigned themselves to strict interventionism, rather than strict constructionism?

Have men resolved themselves to be led by women, as in the case with abortion, as it relates to no restraints worth even mentioning beyond the Republican party platforms? What candidate in the vaunted middle has not said, "well, I'm personally against it, but I' would never force my views on someone else?'

Who is going to cut our losses in the Middle East and place the burden of freedom and the needed impetus for change squarely on the people of the region? Let's face it, Iraq doesn't have enough of their own money from oil to pay us back half a trillion dollars for our war efforts. But how many times was this effort sold to us with that bait?

Who will do any of these things, rather than keep us in the hands of the status quo, the oligarchy, as it were?

Or are we resigned to the struggle between fascism and socialism with no return to the roots of our Constitution?

[chillbilly]

the oligarchy nuking the japs and the oligarchy going into vietnam because their intrests were compromised


Dropping bombs on Japan becaused they would have never surrendered otherwise is hardly a fringe element.
In fact, it was absolutely necessary that Japan be scorched into submission.
The fact that Douglas MacCarthur was there to follow up helped both America and Japan after the war too.

Vietnam is a much better example of an American oligarchy as in the military industrial powers flexing their muscle.

[The Doctor]

Dropping bombs on Japan becaused they would have never surrendered otherwise is hardly a fringe element.
In fact, it was absolutely necessary that Japan be scorched into submission.
The fact that Douglas MacCarthur was there to follow up helped both America and Japan after the war too.

Vietnam is a much better example of an American oligarchy as in the military industrial powers flexing their muscle.

I second the motion that nuking the Japanese was unfortunately necessary to end that war.
It seems that one would have a difficult time postulating that it was fringe, at least difficult to substantiate.
As Robert E. Lee said, "It is good that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it."

[scrogdog]

Well the fact that the Japaneese got rounded up into internment camps and the Germans didnt, shows something in itself, whether it was partly motivated due to the race difference I'm not sure of. When I was talking about the use of an atomic weapon on Japan rather then Germany, I was stating a hypotethical situation, not a historical one. I would bet that if that situation had arisen, and there would have been the choice between Germany and Japan, the choice would have been Japan.

Roy

Ok, let's say that is true. In fact, in the hypothetical that you present, I agree that it would have been Japan first for the nuke.

But, in reality, US policy was always Germany first... to keep the alliance alive.

But again, I agree for different reasons.

There is sufficient reason to be angry with anyone who makes war on you without declaration, in my view. That was not Japan's intent, but who cares for intent when something like that goes down? :) Remember, for all that Germany did, they did not attack us by surprise. In fact, Hitler declared war on the US not actively with an attack, but passively with a declaration.

Anger is not necessarily racism, though our anger probably made it seem that way for a time. But, to me, true racism is more deeply rooted than was shown for the relatively short period of time in which we were angry with the Japanese people.

[glennac]

Ok, let's say that is true. In fact, in the hypothetical that you present, I agree that it would have been Japan first.

But again, for different reasons.

There is sufficient reason to be angry with anyone who makes war on you without declaration, in my view. That was not Japan's intent, but who cares for intent when something like that goes down? :) Remember, for all that Germany did, they did not attack us by surprise. In fact, Hitler declared war on the US not actively with an attack, but passively with a declaration.

Anger is not necessarily racism, though our anger probably made it seem that way for a time. But, to me, true racism is more deeply rooted than was shown for the relatively short period of time in which we were angry with the Japanese people.

Gentlemen, with all due respect both you and roy would flunk history. Germans and Italians were rounded up. Granted not on the same scale as the Japanese but a lot of innocent Europeans suffered also. I do agree entirely with the rest of your comments though.

[scrogdog]

When did I say they were not? :confused:

[glennac]

When did I say they were not? :confused:

Sorry after rereading your previous post I now conclue that you were not refering to all of roys post including the interment of only Japanese. I will still agrue and all the evidence shows that we would have used the bomb exclusively on Germany untill they surrendred and then Japan. Like I said 80% of the war effort was directed at Germany not Japan.

[Carnak]

Dropping bombs on Japan becaused they would have never surrendered otherwise is hardly a fringe element.
In fact, it was absolutely necessary that Japan be scorched into submission.
The fact that Douglas MacCarthur was there to follow up helped both America and Japan after the war too.

Vietnam is a much better example of an American oligarchy as in the military industrial powers flexing their muscle.


So you agree with roy's link then that a few elite people pull all the strings and run the USA. A priviledge elite said to nuke the japs, the privildged elite caused the USA to get involved in Vietnam because their financial interests in SE Asia were being compromnised?

[scrogdog]

I will still agrue and all the evidence shows that we would have used the bomb exclusively on Germany untill they surrendred and then Japan. Like I said 80% of the war effort was directed at Germany not Japan.

Ok, bud. But doesn't your view sort of ignore the Russians? If you really look at it, here was what D-Day ended up being; a race to take as much of Western Europe under US control as we could... and perhaps meet in Germany. As it worked out, the Russians (in my view) wisely stopped IN Germany... and waited for us.

If we had not landed... or it had been turned back or otherwise failed, the world would be very different today. The Soviets would have squashed the remains of Germany and taken all of Western Europe.

Point is... I don't think we really needed the bomb in the West. I mean.. if we had always had it... there would have never been WWII. :) Hypotheticals are difficult.

[whec720]

So you agree with roy's link then that a few elite people pull all the strings and run the USA. A priviledge elite said to nuke the japs, the privildged elite caused the USA to get involved in Vietnam because their financial interests in SE Asia were being compromnised?

Sorry to jump in but I noticed that you were on to something. I love my country, the USA, but do realize it has a corrupt under tow. That corrupt under tow is the rich elite. I hate to say it but power in the the USA is sold to the highest bidder. Its not that much different then the rest of the world. So I guess I would have to give a marginal yes. Only because I disagree the wealthy elite having any say on the dropping of the bombs on Japan. Vietnam a definite yes.

[royc]

What is telling is that Ron Paul did well in the debates, and the MSM ignored him. Also from what I can tell, he get most of the hits in Google/youtube, and still one is hard pressed to hear anything in the MSM.

I listen to talk radio and I still dont hear hardly a mention of him.

Thats just not right, and I dont like to say conspiracy, but if it walks like it and quacks like it....well..

Roy

[glennac]

Ok, bud. But doesn't your view sort of ignore the Russians? If you really look at it, here was what D-Day ended up being; a race to take as much of Western Europe under US control as we could... and perhaps meet in Germany. As it worked out, the Russians (in my view) wisely stopped IN Germany... and waited for us.

If we had not landed... or it had been turned back or otherwise failed, the world would be very different today. The Soviets would have squashed the remains of Germany and taken all of Western Europe.

Point is... I don't think we really needed the bomb in the West. I mean.. if we had always had it... there would have never been WWII. :) Hypotheticals are difficult.

Hey I entirely agree with that. I'm glad we never used the bomb in Germany, like you implied it wasn't necessary but that does not remove the fact that there were some fanatical anti Germans in our State Department who wanted to do just that. Ike held Patton up so he could not get to Berlin first. We should have stopped the Russians in Poland but there is no use arguing over old issues. Yalta set the particioning of Germany. The British and American troops had to pull back from parts of Northern Germany and let the Russians move in after the end of the war. Just like Patton pulled out of Chezsolivakia. :(

[whec720]

What is telling is that Ron Paul did well in the debates, and the MSM ignored him. Also from what I can tell, he get most of the hits in Google/youtube, and still one is hard pressed to hear anything in the MSM.

I listen to talk radio and I still dont here hardly a mention of him.

Thats just not right, and I dont like to say conspiracy, but if it walks like it and quacks like it....well..

Roy

He doesn't fit the two party mold, so no, the MSM won't give him any traction. That would qualify as a conspiracy. It just one in a million layers that the media glosses over. Besides, don't you want to know about Linsay Lohan?:D

[chillbilly]

I second the motion that nuking the Japanese was unfortunately necessary to end that war.
It seems that one would have a difficult time postulating that it was fringe, at least difficult to substantiate.
As Robert E. Lee said, "It is good that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it."

Damned skippy.
Robert E. Lee was a damned fine general and an even better human being.

[chillbilly]

So you agree with roy's link then that a few elite people pull all the strings and run the USA. A priviledge elite said to nuke the japs, the privildged elite caused the USA to get involved in Vietnam because their financial interests in SE Asia were being compromnised?

I agree that the military machine had it's way in VietNam, yes.

I disagree that the battles stretching from Pearl Harbor to Okinawa and the defeat of Hitler in Europe were the result of an America that was an oligarchy.
I have 2 parents who are still alive and were a part of WW2.
They have told me many stories of the struggles and sacrifices of ordinary and powerful Americans to overcome insurmountable odds.
I believe this nation was at it's pinnacle when we were able to defeat Japan and Germany and I believe it was a collective effort amongst everyone from the elite to the whiskey bum.

That is not a trait that an oligarchy possesses.

[royc]

He doesn't fit the two party mold, so no, the MSM won't give him any traction. That would qualify as a conspiracy. It just one in a million layers that the media glosses over. Besides, don't you want to know about Linsay Lohan?:D


Whats funny is, I had to google Linsey Lohan to see who that was.

lol

Roy

[bootlen]

Well the fact that the Japaneese got rounded up into internment camps and the Germans didnt, shows something in itself, whether it was partly motivated due to the race difference I'm not sure of. When I was talking about the use of an atomic weapon on Japan rather then Germany, I was stating a hypotethical situation, not a historical one. I would bet that if that situation had arisen, and there would have been the choice between Germany and Japan, the choice would have been Japan.

Roy

This is strictly mu own perception...right or wrong.

Japan attacked the US...Germany did not. I would imagine that would jeopardize the lives of many Oriental types inside the CONUS because of Pearl. Interment may have been as much for their protection as anyone's.

Just a thought.

[geerair]

Japan attacked the US...Germany did not. The Merchant Marines would disagree with that assertion.

[bootlen]

Uht...Right you are. I guess I was thinking land mass. Still, teh masses don't get nearly as upset over a sea-going vessel as land mass. Why not? Who knows. My point, I believe, remains valid (with an "l"...not a "p" :cool: ).

[glennac]

The Merchant Marines would disagree with that assertion.

Correction on that. Our Navy was conducting offensive operations against the German Navy including armed Merchant Marine ships under orders from Rosevelt. There was a show on the History channed a few years back on that. We even had a aircraft carrier in the Mederteranian Sea allow British fighter bombers land on it after attacking the Germans with them in hor pursuit but they backed off when they landed on our ship.

[geerair]

Correction on that. Our Navy was conducting offensive operations against the German Navy including armed Merchant Marine ships under orders from Rosevelt. There was a show on the History channed a few years back on that. We even had a aircraft carrier in the Mederteranian Sea allow British fighter bombers land on it after attacking the Germans with them in hor pursuit but they backed off when they landed on the ship.Could you post a link of these offensive operations conducted by the Merchant Marine fleet?

[geerair]

Uht...Right you are. I guess I was thinking land mass. Still, teh masses don't get nearly as upset over a sea-going vessel as land mass. Why not? Who knows. My point, I believe, remains valid (with an "l"...not a "p" :cool: ).Yeah, those hundreds of men now resting in Davey Jones' locker are of no importance.

[glennac]

Could you post a link of these offensive operations conducted by the Merchant Marine fleet?

When I get time I will try and look it up but all of what I said is true. There was a show on the History cannel where it said that we were violating our nutrality laws under orders from Rossevelt to push the Germans into declareing war on us and to aid the British.

[acmanko]

I can think of a few around here that can't seem to forget the USS Cole and stay extremely upset. I suppose 60 years from now it will be just a footnote.

[glennac]

I can think of a few around here that can't seem to forget the USS Cole and stay extremely upset. I suppose 60 years from now it will be just a footnote.

a lot have already forgotten the Liberty.

[bootlen]

Yeah, those hundreds of men now resting in Davey Jones' locker are of no importance.

I don't subscribe to that. It's just the way it is, shamefully. But what got Congress to agree to go to war? Not the attacks on the MM's. It was the attack on Pearl.

[bootlen]

a lot have already forgotten the Liberty.

Yes. And acmanko makes my point. NOTHING was done about the Cole.

[geerair]

I don't subscribe to that. It's just the way it is, shamefully. But what got Congress to agree to go to war? Not the attacks on the MM's. It was the attack on Pearl.But you asserted that Germany didn't attack the U.S.

[geerair]

Yes. And acmanko makes my point. NOTHING was done about the Cole.Nothing? You sure about that?

[glennac]

But you asserted that Germany didn't attack the U.S.

That's true Geer. Germany did not attack us. We did attack them on the open seas however and we lost some men because of it.

[bootlen]

But you asserted that Germany didn't attack the U.S.

Yes. I did. I also admitted my mistake (something you apprently are incapable of even with the many you make).

I assume you are trying to make a point but likely will end up not doing so, as per usual.

[geerair]

That's true Geer. Germany did not attack us. We did attack them on the open seas however and we lost some men because of it.Could you list these attacks by the U.S. Merchant Marine?

[bootlen]

Nothing? You sure about that?

Nothing that could be counted as being effective.

[geerair]

Nothing that could be counted as being effective.And what would you consider effective?

[bootlen]

As I recall, our Navy was escorting MM's hauling supplies to our future WWII allies and there were battles in the process.

Semantics are at play here.

Glenn, you probably will not lose this argument but geer will stand his ground, even in the kneeling position (it's what he is most accustomed to).

[tonys]

on his knees?

ha haa.

another one of your homo-erotic posts.

ask your maker for forgiveness...it's always available, lucky.

[bootlen]

And what would you consider effective?

Something that would have prevented the events of 9-11. Or at least discourage them.

Specifically? Well, I think you know the answer to that.

[bootlen]

on his knees?

ha haa.

another one of your homo-erotic posts.



What in crap are you talking about?

[geerair]

As I recall, our Navy was escorting MM's hauling supplies to our future WWII allies and there were battles in the process. Ah, I see.

So after Germany had mined U.S. waters and sunk unescorted Merchant Marine ships, you are under the impression that these ships should continue to go unescorted?

Also, you are saying that if U.S. shipping is attacked by hostile forces then they shouldn't defend themselves?

So, you agree with glenn that the merchant marine was conducting offensive operations?

You did claim to be in the military right?

[bootlen]

Ah, I see.

So after Germany had mined U.S. waters and sunk unescorted Merchant Marine ships, you are under the impression that these ships should continue to go unescorted?

Also, you are saying that if U.S. shipping is attacked by hostile forces then they shouldn't defend themselves?

So, you agree with glenn that the merchant marine was conducting offensive operations?


Gee, geer. Is that what I posted?

Fire your 4th grade reader. He's really reading the wrong stuff to you.

[geerair]

on his knees?

ha haa.

another one of your homo-erotic posts.

ask your maker for forgiveness...it's always available, lucky.Yeah, it seems to be the conservlicans and christian fundies who are obsessed with homo-erotica. They are constantly talking about it. :eek:

[geerair]

Something that would have prevented the events of 9-11. Or at least discourage them.

Specifically? Well, I think you know the answer to that.You are the military man.

Tell us what you would have done in response to the Cole that would have discouraged or prevented 9/11.

While your at it, tell us what your boy Bush did about it before 9/11 except ignore a dire warning about Al qaeda.

[glennac]

Ah, I see.

So after Germany had mined U.S. waters and sunk unescorted Merchant Marine ships, you are under the impression that these ships should continue to go unescorted?

Also, you are saying that if U.S. shipping is attacked by hostile forces then they shouldn't defend themselves?

So, you agree with glenn that the merchant marine was conducting offensive operations?

You did claim to be in the military right?

Geer I did see a 1 hour show on the subject on the History channel. I have only be able to google a book on the subject. I am not going to buy it to argue the point but here it is.

he Undeclared War, 1940-1941. Martin B. Travis, Jr. ... to at least tacit accept- ance of undeclared and limited war against Germany in the Atlantic. ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162(195405)293%3C164%3ATUW1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=related:links.jstor.org/sici%3Fsici%3D0002-7162(195405)293%253C164%253ATUW1%253E2.0.CO%253B2-I)

If I get the time I'll research it some more.

[tonys]

apperently,

a memo entitled: "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S." didn't do the trick.

Especially the part about:
"...FBI information...time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."


I guess this wasn't 'enough' warning...so, why not go Golf'n instead!!!

[glennac]

Ok I got this off the History Channel web page. Please read at least the last sentence if you read nothing else. I rest my case.

U.S. Aid to Britain

http://www.history.com/minisites/worldwartwo/images/wwii_plunged_page3.jpgThe U.S. abandoned strict neutrality in the European war and approached a confrontation with Japan in Asia and the Pacific Ocean. U.S. and British conferences, begun in January 1941, determined a basic strategy for the event of a U.S. entry into the war, namely, that both would center their effort on Germany, leaving Japan, if need be, to be dealt with later.
In March 1941 the U.S. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act and appropriated an initial $7 billion to lend or lease weapons and other aid to any countries the president might designate. By this means the U.S. hoped to ensure victory over the Axis without involving its own troops. By late summer of 1941, however, the U.S. was in a state of undeclared war with Germany. In July, U.S. Marines were stationed in Iceland, which had been occupied by the British in May 1940, and thereafter the U.S. Navy took over the task of escorting convoys in the waters west of Iceland.
In September President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized ships on convoy duty to attack Axis war vessels.

[scrogdog]

Plenty of skirmishes happened before the US officially entered.

Not surprising... giving 50 destroyers to Britain could be seen as an act of war. However, like the many proxy wars fought between the Soviets and the US, or Red China and the US, the US could choose to interdict such intervention at thier own peril. Germany faced this same choice.

I'm not sure that Germany tried to deliberately provoke the US in to war. Instead, I think they were saying "don't think you aren't going to get dirty if you choose to play in the mud". Further, on 11/24/1939, Germany warned ALL neutral ships to avoid the war zone or be prepared to risk being sunk. On 8/17/1940, Hitler announces a full blockade of the British Isles and that all neutral ships of any kind that approach the zone will be sunk without warning

Ultimately, the skirmishes did not lead to war, because of the isolationist views of the common man on the street.

The point still is, from my point of view, that Germany did not launch an all-out surprise attack against the US as thier method of declaring all-out war. In fact, they warned us of the consequences of supporting the allies pretty much from day 1, war or not.

It is funny how things are percieved sometimes... such as the traitorous Vichy French. Technically a nuetral state, that did not stop the British from, on 6/27/1940 from seizing any and all French ships that were currently in British ports or on 3/17/1940 when 59 French warships that had sought refuge in Portsmouth and Plymouth were also siezed. These were acts of war. Did Vichy declare war and throw in with the axis? No. Consider that while judging the French. :)

[geerair]

Ok I got this off the History Channel web page. Please read at least the last sentence if you read nothing else. I rest my case.

U.S. Aid to Britain

http://www.history.com/minisites/worldwartwo/images/wwii_plunged_page3.jpgThe U.S. abandoned strict neutrality in the European war and approached a confrontation with Japan in Asia and the Pacific Ocean. U.S. and British conferences, begun in January 1941, determined a basic strategy for the event of a U.S. entry into the war, namely, that both would center their effort on Germany, leaving Japan, if need be, to be dealt with later.
In March 1941 the U.S. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act and appropriated an initial $7 billion to lend or lease weapons and other aid to any countries the president might designate. By this means the U.S. hoped to ensure victory over the Axis without involving its own troops. By late summer of 1941, however, the U.S. was in a state of undeclared war with Germany. In July, U.S. Marines were stationed in Iceland, which had been occupied by the British in May 1940, and thereafter the U.S. Navy took over the task of escorting convoys in the waters west of Iceland.
In September President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized ships on convoy duty to attack Axis war vessels.Yes, this does nothing to refute the fact that Germany attacked the U.S.

[glennac]

Yes, this does nothing to refute the fact that Germany attacked the U.S.

Ok where is your "fact" that Germany attacked the US.

[scrogdog]

5/21/1941 - Against strict orders not to attack American vessels, the US merchant ship Robin Moor is sunk by U-69 (Kptlt. Metzler). This sinking of a neutral American vessel is publicly denounced by President Roosevelt and becomes yet another argument for him in his secret desire for bringing the United States into war against Germany. An RAF reconnaissance plane sight the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen in the port of Bergen, allowing the British Home Fleet time to ready plans to intercept them in the earlier hours of the 22nd May.

8/12/1941 - US Navy takes over patrolling convoy routes in the North Atlantic and tracking German submarines for the Royal Navy in violation of Neutrality Act.

9/4/1941 - U-652 attacks the US destroyer Greer off Iceland after being tracked and harassed by it.

9/15/1941 - The US Navy begins to take over the convoying of British ships as far as Iceland, which is seen as an un-neutral act by the German government.

10/17/1941 - Destroyer USS Kearny damaged by German torpedo off Iceland.

10/31/1941 - The US destroyer Reuben James escorting Convoy HX-156 is sunk by U-552 (Kapitänleutnant Erich Topp) with the loss of 100 of her crew. The destroyer is the first US naval casualty in the hitherto undeclared war between Germany and the United States that has existed after President Roosevelt authorised the use of American naval vessels to escort Lend-Lease convoys bound for Britain

11/1/1941 - The German government issues a statement denying the charges made by President Roosevelt that the US destroyers Greer and Kearney were attacked by German submarines without any provocation; that the exact opposite was true in that the U-boats fired torpedoes only after they were tracked and depth-charged for hours by these US vessels.

11/6/1941 - The German blockade runner 'Odenwald' which is disguised as a US merchant, is captured by the US cruiser Omaha and the destroyer Somers.

12/7/1941 - The Japanse attack Pearl Harbor

12/9/1941 - Hitler lifts the ban on U-boats operating in US territorial waters, two days before he declares war on the USA. This was to allow Dönitz to deploy 5 U-boats along the USA's eastern seaboard in order to be available for immediate action when the declaration of war was made.

[tonys]

that's some solid cut'n-and-past'n,

bravo!

[scrogdog]

It's hard to keep every little detail about WWII in this old head. :)

The post before that was my own words though. ;)

[tonys]

as always - very informative.

[geerair]

as always - very informative.Ditto

[chillbilly]

I scuba dive on wrecks that litter the east coast that are mainly sunken vessels attributed to German U-Boats and U-Boats themselves.

[scrogdog]

I scuba dive on wrecks that litter the east coast that are mainly sunken vessels attributed to German U-Boats and U-Boats themselves.

Too f-ing cool!

You should take some photos down there some time and post them!

That must be a blast.

[chillbilly]

Too f-ing cool!

You should take some photos down there some time and post them!

That must be a blast.


OK scrog. I will post some for you.
Took a 9 lb. flounder off of a tugboat wreck this year.
It's great. The further south I go to spearfish, the better the visibility
(if the wind cooperates) ;)
The reason I brought it up was because I had been reading about the German reconnaissance of our eastern coast and that they had been sinking merchant and military vessels long before we actually declared war against them.