Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Les from Hull
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 01:15 PM

Thanks, Lonesome, for that explanation. Is there a good book on the subject? Certainly it's an area that I could do to study more. I tend to only know a bit about other countries' historys where it mixes with ours. Well, if us Brits can't have an insular view, who can? **BG**

Les

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 12:55 PM

Les, much of the expansion of the United States during the 18th and 19th Centuries had to do with the concept of Manifest Destiny, the notion that the United States was to eventually encompass the entire North American land mass, replacing the European Colonial territories with free and democratic rule. This eventually failed in the case of Mexico and Canada because of two factors : American military inferiority to the British and the people's loyalty to the Crown in the case of Canada, and to American popular opposition and the physical barrier of desert wasteland in the case of Mexico. For better or worse, Native American populations were never perceived as "Nations" to be conquered. Territory inhabited by Indian tribes was claimed by countries like Britain, France, or Spain, who were seen as competitors to the emerging nation of the United States. These territories were annexed through war, compromise, and purchase.

In case you are of the opinion that the expansion of the US was a clear case of greed and land-grabbing, you need to keep one thing in mind: The United States was a new phenomenon in the 19th Century, a Republic whose leaders were elected by the citizens. This was a radical and threatening new concept to the European Monarchies, and though the French initially backed the revolt of the American Colonies, there was no European State who did not have some interest in seeing this democratic experiment fail. If the Russian Revolution was threatened by other imperial forces surrounding and meddling in its affairs, the US was at least as vulnerable when it viewed the British, Spanish, and French adjoining its borders. Expansion was, in many ways, a form of self-defense.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 12:44 PM

It is the 5th anniversary of the day I finally met in-the-flesh the woman who was to become my wife. :)

Alex

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Matt_R
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 12:25 PM

Does anyone else BESIDES me remember what today is?

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Les from Hull
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 11:28 AM

True, Mick, that was a bit patronising for Mudcat, where knowledge and intelligence are a bit in evidence than elsewhere. It stems from an American view more prevalent in the late 19th/early 20th century which condemned the British Empire while creating its own.

I'm not really certain what the reasoning was behind the expansion of the USA, other than to fill up the North American continent and to possibly reduce the influence of Spain in the Americas. European colonisation was a desire to secure markets and sources of raw materials and also jelousy between nations. Even Belgium had to join in!

My point was that Germany, Italy and Japan had not been through this expansion process and possibly there was a feeling that they had 'missed out'. And another similarity between Japan and Germany was they each thought themselves as 'superior' to their neighbours. (As an aside our forefathers probably had similar views about Native Americans and Africans)

It just takes the wrong sort of politicians to start a war, that's all.

Peace! Les

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 10:04 AM

OOPs, that should have been "comprised", not "compromised", but the implication could be funny, eh?

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 09:29 AM

kendall - Good point about Russia's lack of trust in the West! When you've got to fight several foreign armies in the process of launching a domestic revolution...and you are then isolated and treated as an international pariah for decades...you don't forget it. Nor have the French and German invasions been forgotten.

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 09:03 AM

Don't be patronizing, Les, nor should you presume to know what we Americans think. Of course we had an interest in an Empire, what the hell do you think that the United STATES of America is compromised of. And the Native populations of this country, including Alaska and Hawaii, would have something to say on the issue. As would certain Filipino and certain Puerto Ricans. But are you suggesting that there is some similarity in the expansionist history of the US and Nazi Germany and preWWII Japan? I agree completely with the Little Hawk's assessment of what it takes to get real world peace and refuse to believe it is never possible. But it is probably the most difficult task that man will ever achieve.

Mick

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Les from Hull
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 08:38 AM

Yes, Fionn, I suppose that common interest describes it better than common purpose. They didn't really act in concert in the way that Germany and Italy did. What I meant was that Germany and Japan (and Italy too) had similar but non-conflicting objectives.

I suppose that a historical reason for their wish for expansion was that, for different reasons, late unification for Germany and Italy and isolationism for Japan, that they had never developed the Empires that other nations had. And now I suppose we'll have a lot of Americans explaining that the USA never had any interest in acquiring an Empire.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 08:20 AM

Les, there was a time when USSR and USA each wished to dominate, but it doesn't follow that they had common purpose. Every dealing Hitler ever had with Japan was driven by pure self interest. Those two countries were one team only in the most limited sense. The Allies on the other hand did constitute a single enemy for the countries they were fighting. And there was a brief period when Germany did share common purpose with other national governments (Italy's in particular).

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 08:18 AM

Hawk, you are right, it is always the other guys' fault. However, Russia never landed troops on our soil after our revolution. They have never forgotten that we did, and, it is one of the reasons they dont trust us. We also invaded Canada during the war of 1812. We shoulda stood in bed! Toadfrog, what I'm saying is, according to all those knowledgable people, the central banks and the international banks are all the same in purpose, to control the money supply, and, it is still going on. As I asked before, where do you think Hitler got the money to bring Germany from its' knees to a world power in 6 years?

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Les from Hull
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 06:32 AM

No common purpose between Germany and Japan? Other than adding territory, which was what they were both very keen on doing.

Both countries saw themselves as the dominant nation in their area and it was their expansionist policies that led both of them into conflict with their neighbours - Germany with France and the UK over Poland and Japan with the USA because (initially) of the desire to secure their eastern flank while taking over former French Indo-China and the Dutch East Indies.

The common pupose was that there were countries which would not agree to their expanding into any territories they thought they had the right to - namely the USA, the UK and France, and, of course the countries themselves - China, Poland, the Soviet Union.

Tha amount of actual co-operation between Japan and Germany was limited by the distance between the countries and the communications difficulties. But the Germans did send military secrets to Japan (rocket engines, radar) in exchange for strategic materials (rubber, tungston) by submarine.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Jun 01 - 05:58 AM

On the nail again, Little Hawk. My only quibble with you is about nuclear proliferation. As long as a handful of nations like USA and UK have nuclear weapons without anyone batting an eyelid, then surely India, China, Israel, Ukraine and for that matter every other sovereign state is entitled to be on the same playing field.

Toadfrog, OK I guess we're both right, or at least not wrong. You say there was a formal pact between Germany and Japan, which obviously there was. I still say there was no common purpose between them.

Not sure why you think I'd have difficulty "admitting" that Hitler was a bit unreliable in the honesty department? I put him among the half-dozen worst leaders of the last century without the slightest hesitation.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 11:01 PM

This discussion has taken a whole lot of interesting turns. A few comments...

The Axis Alliance - the Japanese did not do Hitler the favor of making their specific war plans known to him as far as I know. The smart thing for Hitler to do, the astute political move, would have been to say..."We agreed to help Japan if anyone attacked them, but no one has. They have not helped us fight Russia for the same reason. Therefore Germany is under no obligation to declare war on the USA and has no reason to seek such a conflict with the USA." His people would have accepted that with the greatest relief, I'm sure, and America probably would have taken another 6 months or a year to get around to declaring war on Germany...maybe longer. However, Hitler did not do the smart thing. He did the emotional thing.

Doug R - If a book has been withdrawn or banned...I would generally suspect that it is because it states a really unpleasant truth that certain very powerful players want to keep under wraps...rather than because it tells lies. Lies, after all, can usually be exposed as such without too much difficulty...but whaddya do about the truth???? Ban it.

It doesn't look like this particularly applies one way or the other to "Bankrolling The Enemy", however, as it does not appear to have been banned in the first place. I'm not even slightly surprised that some American banks and corporations helped finance the Nazis. Those guys follow the money trail wherever it leads them. There have been plenty of cases in history of big financial houses funding both sides of a war from beginning to end. Anyone want to sing "Masters of War" at this point?

***********

If I were to swing way back to the very beginning of this thread, I think it's vital for populations everywhere to lose faith in the whole process and mechanism of war. There has already been much progress in that regard in the more developed world. The two world wars helped to destroy the romantic mythology of war to a great extent in the minds of the ordinary public. The horror of WWI trench warfare, and WWII bombing of civilian centers really brought home to ordinary people that war is a miserable business.

And then the atomic bombs underlined it. When you live in constant fear of being fried in your own back yard at a moment's notice, it's hard to feel an excited sense of anticipation at the thought of war breaking out.

My grandparents were in Vienna, Austria, when the 1st World War began, and they said the streets were filled with crowds of jubilant people, in an ecstatic mood, throwing flowers at the marching soldier boys who were heading off to fight the Russians and Serbs. Everyone was sure it would all be over in 6 weeks. 4 years later they were scavenging the city for rats and potato peels to eat. There wasn't bloody much else to be had. Their romantic illusions were over, and their empire was falling to pieces.

The Germans and Japanese definitely learned their lesson by the end of WWII, and resolutely turned their backs on militarism, and it payed off bigtime for them in the next few decades.

During that same period, the USA and Russia, still very much attached to militarism, wasted collossal amounts of money and resources on the Cold War, which was so expensive that it finally bankrupted the Soviets. It also did a lot of harm to the whole world, and caused many smaller wars. Both sides will swear that it was the other guy who was to blame for that. (It's always the other guy.)

Perhaps the most seductive and misleading thing that can happen is for a country to win a really big war. It keeps the military mythology alive that much longer, and we all pay an ongoing price for that.

To provide for a viable defence force, by the way, costs a lot less than to prepare for attack. I have no objection to any country maintaining an adequate defence force. That's not what America and Russia were up to at all between 1945 and 1989. They were each, in their own fashion, seeking world domination.

Ask me who I (as a Canadian) want to be dominated by? Neither. I would prefer America, but my answer is still: neither. Ask a Gaul if he had wanted to be dominated by Rome or Carthage, and his answer would have been the same. Neither one of them.

What worries me now is countries like India, Pakistan, and China. They are playing with new military toys, and they may get around to using them one of these days. I hope not.

And the Middle East. That always worries me. Who will have the wisdom to break the cycle of vengeance? Who will have the courage to see the "other guy" as equal...or even as (GASP!) the same?

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: toadfrog
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 10:29 PM

Kendall: We are on separate wavelengths. My quetion was, do you actually subscribe to the belief which you attribute to Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, among others, that "international bankers," are "evil," by which you seemed to mean that said bankers start all the wars International bankers, and their purported tendency to start all the wars, are the villians in one of the standard conspiracy theories. But I don't see what that has to do with Jackson's denouncing the Bank of the United States, which by definition was not an "international" bank.
Large banking families like the Rothschilds did finance wars in the eighteenth century; but this was pretty much obsolete by 1870 or so.

Fionn: You said I was crazy to suggest that Hitler and the Japanese were "partners." So I pointed out that they had a formal alliance, and that Hitler followed Japan into the war. And your response is that Hitler often broke his word. True enough, he did, although it must hurt you to admit it. But its also irrelevant to the point, which is that Hitler was Japan's ally, and its partner, so that what I said was correct.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 08:53 PM

Toadfrog, I dont know how to make it much plainer. What I am saying is, all those famous men had, at one time or another, railed against the concept of central banks. I remember Andrew Jacksons' stand on central banks from my college history. Do you not know how to dig up such information, or, are you telling me my post is lacking what you need? I dont think you are trying to start an argument, we are just not on the same wavelenght, thats all!

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 08:41 PM

Must have garbled the html. I'll try that clicky again: Bankrolling the Enemy.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 08:36 PM

LEJ, I don't think the UK took on Hitler to save the Jews. There was probably as much anti-semitism in the British establishment as in pre-war Germany. Also I'm not sure that things ever fall out quite as simplistically as you imply. I have pointed to a scenario in which there would have been many millions fewer (civilian) deaths, even if the Madagascar plan had still been superseded by the Final Solution. I can't be sure it would have panned out according to my plan, obviously, but it's a reasonable hypothesis. What I can be sure of is that absolutely no-one who was involved in opting for war - not even anyone on the winning side - predicted anything like the outcome that we have now got.

(Just by way of an aside to those who have blind faith in American moral superiority, it's worth remembering that the term "useless eaters" - coined by Nazi prison-camp doctors to describe the camp inmates - came in handy for CIA director William Colby, as a way to describe the people of Mexico.

Toadfrog, you said it. That really was a crazy idea you had. Surely in all that studying, you must have stumbled on the Stalin-Hitler pact. That should have given you one little clue about Hitler's regard for ratified treaties. Then there were those concordats he signed with the catholic church, to secure among other things the disbanding of Germany's biggest political party. Still, some of the detail will get overlooked if you're going to race through a higher-degree course in just 20 years.

Your pride in knowing Hitler declared war on the US suggests you might not be on the UK side of the water. I can't remember ever not knowing this, but during three months of travelling in the US I was surprised at how few Americans knew the sequence of events after Pearl Harbour (among those I met, at any rate). Since then, I'm afraid I've rather laboured the point, as here, for instance.

DougR, that book I mentioned turns out to have been by Charles Higham. On checking I can find nothing to support my vague recollection that it was banned in some states, so who knows - it stands some chance of being half right. Do you go along with censorship whoever's doing it, by the way, or only in the good ol' US of A?

Anyone interested in checking the extent of American funding for Hitler's war effort will find loads on the interne. (Maybe just check with the Republican brotherhood before dipping in though, Doug.) Try Bankrolling the Enemy for starters. (It's a hard site to read - it's easier if you download/paste the text into another file.)

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 01:41 PM

Spud: that is an interesting story, and one that I'm sure could have been written by many young men of your age. My only regret (at the time) was I was only 11 years old and I COULDN'T join the Marines. I have learned better.

The one thing I do remember reading about in the newspapers and listening to radio in those days, was there was a great deal of criticism about our selling junk metal to Japan, and how the Japanese envoys were in peace negotiations that later proved to be only a ploy. Of course we got a considerable amount of that junk metal back during the Pearl Harbor attack.

DougR

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: toadfrog
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 12:20 PM

Kendall, with all due respect, and with no intent to start an argument, the "sources" you are asking me to "check out" are "the speeches of Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson" etc. about international bankers. You could equally reasonably have directed me to "historians of the war," or "all those books published in the 50's and 60's." If you really wanted people to check your sources; you would give the title, author or editor, date, publisher and page. And I very much doubt that reading one of Mr. Jackon's speeches will tell me what you are trying to say. Are you saying international bankers, or maybe the Jesuits, Freemasons, Illuminati, and perhaps also the Jews, caused all those wars?

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Les from Hull
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 11:27 AM

Fionn - Hitler's 'gameplan' was war with the United Kingdom but not before 1948. His naval building plans were designed to provide some sort of local parity with the Royal Navy by that date. He was hoping for appeasement until then, and as such had no firm plans for invading Britain. Without naval superiority (which he could not obtain without extensive building) he was hoping for overwhelming air superiority - hence the Battle of Britain.

Les

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 11:03 AM

Well, the Arabs no doubt would see it that way...it all depends what side of the barricades you're on, doesn't it? Everything is a mistake from the point of view of someone who doesn't like it.

As for me, I'm staying out of that particular squabble.

If you don't really watch carefully how you say things in a discussion like this it degenerates into a prizefight between various extremist positions...

Spud - That was a hell of an interesting story. I think war with the USA looked inevitable to people in Japan too, and they knew the USA had much greater resources at its disposal. So...they indulged in some wishful thinking, as people do when they've painted themselves into a corner, and went on the assumption that Americans had grown too soft and decadent to face a war with serious losses.

Ba-a-a-a-a-d assumption! Genda and Yamamoto were absolutely correct in their pessimistic assessment of the situation, but like all good loyal Japanese officers they did their utmost to follow orders once they were given.

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 06:35 AM

Fionn, "the mistake that is Isreal?" explain. Toadfrog, check out those sources I mentioned, then ask that question.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 01:00 AM

Scuze me! Damned Altzheimers again. 1890, NOT 1990.

Spud

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 12:49 AM

I don't much like writing about serious things. People tend to get a little rancorous at times, and that takes the fun out of most serious discussions. Assuming none of us here are so inclined to stir up hate and discontent I will share an anecdotal account of how I came to join the Marine Corps.

In the waning days of September, 1941 my family was gathered around the dining table enjoying some after dinner conversation and the subject of that conversation was the Japanese 'Sphere of Influence' in east and southeast Asia and the west and southwest Pacific. If you are not acquainted with that term it is the major tenet of Article VII of the Agreement of July 1, 1990 between Great Britain and Germany divying up East Africa between those two nations. The problem with the Japanese "Sphere of Influence' was that it was imposed unilaterally and by a nation of funny looking little yellow men. Read up about it. The archives of your local newspapers are replete. (1935/41) It makes fascinating reading.

In the middle of that conversation I benignly asked my mother "When war starts with Japan, can I join the Marine Corps?" Please note that I said "WHEN," NOT "IF." Nobody, not politicians, not military leaders, not FDR, not mediots, not even your Aunt Alice, believed that war with Japan was avoidable. The problem was that everbody assumed that when that day came Troop 37 of the Boy Scouts of America could whip the Japanese in about a week and a half. The question was not If?, it was When? and Where? And Hawaii, with its military installations and home of the Pacific Fleet was an unlikely place for it to start. I know that there are those among you who will dismiss my assertion of the inevitability of the war as the product of my imagination, or obsession or because I am a communist or a member of the Birch Society, or whatever. But remember, I have an advantage over most of you: I was there. And Oh, yes.....in answer to my question my Mother said "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!"

I had some other motivations for wanting to join the Marine Corps aside from the desire to save civilization. I was sick of the depression and the desperate circumstances my father had to cope with to feed his family. Sick of never having a quarter to just piss away on a movie, milking cows morning and night to sell the god damn milk at 6 cents a quart to buy a three dollar second hand locket for a Mother's Day present. And then there was the fact that I was flunking French and Algebra and I couldn't face the consequences of that when my family found out. Yeah....at sixteen war looked like a pretty good deal to me.

And in addition to helping you escape death from monotony they even paid you thirty bucks a month. And all you had to do was be seventeen and get your Mother's permission!

Lacking it, on December 8, 1941 I ran away from home and forged some needed documents and presto!!!...I was a United States Marine. Six months later little yellow men were shooting at me, trying to kill me. Nothing personal, mind you. They just wanted to kill me. Five months later, on Gudalcanal, it did get personal and I decided I really didn't like those little sons-a-bitches.

Anybody that tells you thatt FDR ever conspired in the smallest way to encourage the Japanese to attack Pearl, or any other American territory, is full of bullshit! (And I'm no democrat)

By the way, Genda Minoru was not in favor of the Pearl Harbor attack, initially fearing there would be a much greater loss of Japanese Air strength and later, like Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku he felt that the raid would incite America's Military Forces to heightened efforts to seek revenge.

Spud

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 12:46 AM

Fionn: do you really think that a book that has been, "withdrawn, banned or otherwise interferred with," would be considered a credible resource?

DougR

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 01 - 12:31 AM

Hitler certainly hoped to get Britain and even maybe France to help him fight the Soviet Union. No doubt of that. But it would not have been in anyone's interest except Hitler's if they had.

Churchill hated the Soviets, but I believe he hated the Nazis even more. Mind you, he hated the Japanese too, come to think of it...anyway, he was enough of a pragmatist to do everything possible to help Russia once Germany had attacked them.

I regard both the Nazi regime and the Stalinist regime as monstrosities.

The Final Solution? Hard to say what might have happened with that, given different circumstances. I'm not going to stick my neck out and hazard any guesses.

The citizens of all the involved countries did their utmost on the whole to support the war effort. In this they demonstrated the patriotism and courage which is typical of embattled populations everywhere. I feel sorry for those who lost their lives, their property, and their loved ones...in whichever country.

I would far rather live in a world where the USA, England, and Russia emerged triumphant, given the choice. The Russians eventually overthrew Stalinism, and moved on to better things.

Toadfrog pointed out that Germany declared war on the USA. Yes! What an act of madness on Hitler's part! By doing so he signed his own death warrant. I do not believe for a moment that the Japanese would have done him a similar favor. In fact, they gave him no assistance whatsoever in fighting Russia, which was a matter of life and death for Germany. They studiously avoided any conflict with Russia until the Russians finally attacked them in the last few days of the war (Stalin was hoping to gobble up some more territory while there was still time to).

The Japanese were pragmatists. Hitler was not. He was an idealogue of the most dangerous sort...and he no doubt believed that God was on his side. His decisions were based on emotion, not logic. Scary stuff. I pity the career officers and ordinary soldiers who served under him, and who were again and again asked to do the impossible.

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: toadfrog
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 10:34 PM

Gee, Kendall, good to know you agree, conspiracy theories usually don't work. Now, one could infer from your message, that you thought a conspiracy by international bankers brought about all our problems. But I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.

Fion: The reason I got the crazy idea that Japan and Germany has a "partnership," is that they signed an agreement, named the "Rome-Berlin-Tokio Axis." That committed Germany to go to war if Japan did. Hitler considered that a sufficient reason to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. We did not declare war on Germany. They declared war on us. Were you aware of that?

O.k. Fionn. You have been chewing on World War II for several months. I spent some 20 years obtaining a Ph.D. in European history, so I think I know a little about it. And if you believe that Big Red and McGarvey are wrong in believing Adolf Hitler was bad, you are coming from a very weird place. It is really scary to think that there are still people who believe the British should have joined Hitler to attack the Soviet Union.

I think it is very unfair to Little Hawk, to suggest he would agree with that.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 10:30 PM

Well, no Fionn, actually wars are about a lot of different things, most often acquistion of territory, sometimes racial or political differences. What I'm talking about is the natural human urge to strike out against aggression and iniquity, and the sometime human urge to wrest gain unfairly from the defenseless. Example: If you think that it would have been a better plan for the British to co-exist with a Nazi Empire in Europe because it would have somehow contained the Soviet Union, and because Hitler was pressured into executing 6 million Jews instead of exiling them, then I think you need to re-evaluate your revisionism. The only thing peaceful co-existence would have bought was more of Chamberlain's "Peace in our time", and the opportunity for Hitler to consolidate his gains and pursue his Final Solution even more thoroughly. Do YOU really think that's a rational argument for avoiding war?

Peace through compromise and understanding is a noble aim, but when the Bully is possessed of awesome force and the willingness to use it, compromise will never stop or satisfy him, and unwillingness to risk war only results in submission.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 10:07 PM

Sorry to send that twice - the system locked. Spot on post, Kendall. But LEJ, I couldn't see the point of your analogy. I mean do you really believe that's what wars are all about? Aand if so, which old lady was the US rushing to defend in WW2, or in Vietnam for that matter?

Just going back to Kendall's question about who funds war, I've mentioned before a first-class book called "Trading with the enemy" which lists the extent of American funding for Hitler's war effort. Can't remember the author - Charles Tremayne or similar name? - and the book is hard to find. (I believe it was withdrawn, banned, or otherwise interfered with.) If anyone has a copy, I'd cross his (or her) palm with silver....

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 09:49 PM

Little Hawk, as ever I salute your energy, patience and resilience. If you get just one or two of us here at Mudcat to see things slightly differently, you'll have done your bit for a better world.

If Yankee Gal is more than about three, she should know the US went to war because half their navy got bombed. There had been plenty of opportunity to get into the fight earlier, if the issue had been that other stuff she mentioned.

Toadfrog's idea that Germany and Japan were in partnership is a bit wide of the mark. Pearl Harbour was the last thing Hitler wanted, for exactly the same reason that Churchill probably prayed for it.

The Big Red and mcgarvey arguments seem to me to depend on an assumption that "We are good; they are bad." A narrow view at the best of times.

The test of Little Hawk's thesis is to consider a war - any war - and think through what might have happened if the guns had stayed in the cabinet.

I've been chewing over WW2 in this way for some months now. I soon had to ditch my first assumption, that without the war, the UK would have been over-run by Hitler. If the UK had just looked the other way (again) while Poland was invaded, Germany and the UK could have co-existed uneasily together, much as the US and USSR actually did for 40 years. Taking on the UK had never been in Hitler's game plan anyway. Without WW2, the Soviet Union would have been the natural enemy much sooner than actually happened. If it had come to war on that front, Stalin would have been up against the colossal might of the German and British navies, and Germany of course would not have been fighting on another front. The Soviet Union could have been quickly overwhelmed without anything like the staggering - utterly staggering - losses incurred in Barbarossa, etc. Europe's Jews would have been packed off to Madagascar (Hitler's original plan) but at least they would have been alive. The mistake that is now Israel would almost certainly not have happened, and the US would not be the superpower that it now is, if only because German brainpower would have stayed in Germany.

But try this with any war - Vietnam, Falklands, Peninsula, Crimea, whatever. You might come up with surprising scenarios. Would there still be institutionalised slavery in the US now, if the Civil War had somehow been averted? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: kendall
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 09:01 PM

What really pissed me off was her accusing me of living in la la land! I'll put my knowledge of history up against her, or anyones' fantasy world. I dont take that kind of disrespect from anyone.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: kendall
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 08:55 PM

And those bullies will be backed by the international bankers, the real villians! Did you ever wonder where Hitler got the money to build Germany up from nothing? Think about it. Read the speeches of Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson on the subject of international bankers. According to them, central banks, including the federal reserve are evil. We are all puppets and they are pulling the strings.Even Warren G Harding saw what was up with them. How do you get people to go to war? create a depression, tighten the money supply. When ww2 broke out, the USA ranked 19th in firepower. Now, if FDR wanted to go to war, what did he plan to fight it with? If Japan had killed the carriers, we would have been in a world of hurt. As it was stated, our gross national product put us on a war footing at lightening speed. I will never believe that FDR would commit such a crime. I wouldn't believe that of a republican! On the other hand, General Billy Mitchell warned the government that the US was vulnerable to air attack. He called the lack of preparation in the defense dept."criminal" What did he get for his trouble? Court Marshall. Stupidity and bad planning are more apt to be the culprits than conspiracy. Sorry about the rant, but, revisionist historians are a pain in the ass. I just ended a friendship with a republican friend who believes all that conspiracy twaddle just because she doesn't like FDR. I cant abide people who choose to be blind.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 08:42 PM

I can't fault your reasoning there, LEJ. Some fights are unavoidable, and so are some wars...from the point of view of those who have been attacked. Once you're in a war you do your level best to win it.

further example: You could also grab a baseball bat, yell "Hey, leave that lady alone!" and start running toward them...in which case the guy may very well run away. If not, be prepared to use the bat.

I hope that our civilization gradually evolves toward a less warlike mentality, that's all. I don't expect an overnight miracle on this. One step at a time. I do know that I am most unwilling to be talked into joining any war at this point.

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 08:21 PM

Picture this...

you are sitting on your front porch on a pleasant summer night. An elderly lady passes by on the sidewalk, smiles and waves. A man walking the opposite way suddenly grabs her purse and knocks her to the ground. She refuses to let go of her handbag, and he begins pulling her down the street.

You

A) Offer a reasonable argument to him why this sort of behavior is inhuman

B) Pause for a moment to consider whether he is simply so destitute that he needs the purse worse than she does

C) Punch him in the jaw and help the lady up

D) Run into your house, call the police, and hope they'll get there before "the situation deteriorates"

Now, War comes in all forms, but the ribbons, uniforms, parades, and jargon are icing on the cake that starts as the basic human desire to intercede on behalf of what is right. Many young men, including my Dad and his two brothers, joined the Armed Forces in the wake of the raw agression and slaughter at Pearl Harbor. Perhaps they were victims of the intentional propaganda and mind control imposed by the American Government. But I think that basically they were just mad as hell, and had reason to be.

Little Hawk, if its you and me, sure we can end violence and war. But there will always be a bully on the street who refuses to play by those rules, and we will always be faced with those decisions.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 07:59 PM

Right on, Spud. I shuddered when I saw those fighters flying between the buildings too...no pilot would have been stupid enough to try that stunt. Even if you could survive such a manuever, you'd be losing peripheral vision to both sides while doing it, which would be most unwise during a dogfight.

As for the Spitfire...yeah, I wouldn't try taking them on in a P-40, that's for sure! They were far better dogfighters. So were the Zeros, but the Americans found ways of dealing with them through better tactics after a while.

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 05:34 PM

That's nice. I was beginning to wonder.

re: Pearl Harbor (If that's still the topic) You don't fly a P-40 below the roof tops and you sure as Hell don't put one (or even a Mitsubishi A 6M) in a 90 degree bank forty feet off the ground and continue to live. Computer graphics and symphonic cacophony in lieu of cinematic quality seem to please those drawn to Star Wars and other fantasies but they have no place in historic settings that reflect on the heroic actions of a past generation. And if the romance was intended to sustain an otherwise hopeless and useless waste of time money and effort, it also was bogus. If a boy of that era ever kissed a girl in the fashion that is commonly portrayed in today's movies, and was graphically demonstrated in this piece of trash, he most likely would have got his face slapped. Mouths were thought to be made for kissing and talking, not conjuring up images of oral copulation.

George R. MacClanahan Fox Company 2nd Raider Battalion FMF, Pacific, USMC

Battle of Midway June 1942 Battle of Guadalcanal (Long Patrol) November 1942

PS Little Hawk: I built a one-fifth scale RC P-40 78" wingspan Powered with an OS-70 and powered it in from about 300 feet as a result of loss of control in a dogfight with an RC Spitfire. Just goes to show you. Those damn limeys did know what they were doing, even when that Rolls Royce was built by Packard and stuffed in a P-51.

Spud

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 01:32 PM

I'm on Roosevelt's side, Toadfrog. He was a smart fellow, and did pretty much what had to be done under the circumstances. Like you, I do not believe he had any idea Pearl Harbour would be hit, but he knew perfectly well that war was coming...it was just a question of when and where.

When he stated that the attack was "unprovoked" he was doing what politicians always do...speaking for the benefit of his own constituency. It was only unprovoked in a strictly military sense.

My father saved many newspaper clippings from the early war years in England. It's fascinating to look at them now, and see the distortions, misleading statements, and outright lies that were fed to the British public in their media about how the war was going. All this was in an attempt to build up morale on the homefront, of course, as well as to possibly spread disinformation which might confuse the Germans if they got hold of it.

For example, they go on and on about the imagined deficiencies of the Messerschmitt BF-109 German fighter, while praising its stablemate, the twin-engine Bf-110 in another article as a virtual masterpiece. The fact was, the 109 was a deadly little machine, as good as anything in the sky at the time....while the 110 was dead meat when confronted with British fighters...because it just wasn't manueuverable enough. The article fails to mention this.

Did they actually hope to get the Germans to read that nonsense and fly more 110's to their doom over England? I have no idea, but it's certainly strange to read it now with the benfit of hindsight.

War is full of disinformation, and Roosevelt certainly was not going to reveal to his own public that he had used a trade embargo to drive Japan into war.

To point these things out is not to take sides with the Axis, whose war aims were unjustifiable from the start. Roosevelt was absolutely right to take them on.

It's simply telling both sides of the story, that's all.

I'm just as glad as you are that the Axis lost the war.

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From:
Date: 04 Jun 01 - 01:20 PM

The time is not yet here for us to lay down our arms. The world is just too unstable. And quite hostile to us in many areas. We need a very strong and very mobile military...who can make, if they are not otherwise committed, great contributions to the betterment of the world through supply, medical care, construction etc. Less polishing tanks and more mobile response units to various disasters etc...which would also keep military preparedness high, at least in the support areas. mg

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: toadfrog
Date: 03 Jun 01 - 03:52 PM

Ah, gentlemen. Roosevelt did not know we would be hit at Pearl, and the fact that this myth has persevered without even the slightest substantiation is evidence of the infinite capacity of the human mind to believe in conspiracies. As for the war being "provoked" by the U.S., one is reminded of A.J.P Taylor, who developed the theory that the allies "provoked" Hitler into attacking Poland. Japan was Germany's ally, they were jointly and severally in the process of grabbing the world; any fool could plainly see that that was what was happening. Anything effective Roosevelt could have done that tended to prevent this would have "provoked" a war. And he pretended that wasn't so, which I suppose was "deceitful." And the alternative to such "deceit" would have been to connive at what the Axis was doing. So what's the point? There are only two standpoints on the war, Roowevelt's and Hitler's. Those are your choices. So who's side are you on?

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 01 - 02:25 PM

Fiolar - Yeah, they hated them with a vengeance...not surprising under the circumstances.

I knew a man who had been a marine sergeant in the Pacific, and he was on most of the islands where heavy fighting occurred...not Guadalcanal, I don't think, but pretty well all the others after that.

He told me that very few Japanese surrendered, but sometimes some of them did. He said that the problem he then had was he could not keep these prisoners alive (which he wanted to, in order to garner information, and because he considered it the right thing to do in a normal military sense). There were too many men in his unit who would march these Japanese to the rear while he was busy commanding at the front line, and simply shoot them as soon as they were out of his sight. He was aware it was happening, but he never really found a solution to it, mainly because he was too busy with more pressing matters that were right in his face...like a major firefight with dug-in Japanese troops.

In another unit, some guys took a captured Japanese kid of maybe 20 who was obviously terrified, and eager to cooperate in any way he could, despite not knowing any English....and they patiently taught him that "thank you" in English is the phrase "son-of-a-bitch-US-Marines!". They then sent him off to the tender care of the next unit.

The Japanese were generally equally vicious to prisoners and sometimes even more so.

That's what happens when you simply cannot grasp that the other guy also has a mother, and a sister, and a country he loves, and a life he holds dear. Military training does everything it can to denigrate and dehumanize the "enemy". We see the horrific results on the battlefield.

Bid Red - Yes, you are right about the tides of history, and everyone has done misdeeds, Native Americans included. It's always important to hear both sides of the story. As for evil, well, I guess you can call it that if you want...the results certainly are evil, whatever the original intentions.

paddymac - Yep. That war was cooly, deliberately, provoked by the Roosevelt administration, which knew exactly what it was doing. However, I still doubt that they realized the Japanese were going to hit Pearl Harbor...at least not with anything like the amount of force that they did.

And the Maine? Well, yeah, one ship is a small price to pay for gaining an overseas empire in 2 oceans. But it may have been an accident, due to spontaneous combustion in the coal bins causing a magazine explosion. Such things happened now and then. If so, it was very fortuitous for Washington, seeing they wanted a war. One thing for sure, the Spanish didn't do it! Nothing could possibly have been less in their interest at the time. They were most eager to avoid war with the USA...a war which they really had no hope of winning.

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Fiolar
Date: 03 Jun 01 - 11:50 AM

The politicians have always manouevered public opinion in one way or another. According to a recent TV programme, millions of Russians still long for the return of Stalin. In Britain, thousands still revere the memory of the great destroyer Thatcher. It has been alleged that Churchill allowed the carpet bombing of Coventry of which he had knowledge beforehand so as not to leak to the Germans that the Enigma code was broken. In regard to "Pearl" it is now valid to compare the film "Tora, Tora, Tora" with it. That film I think stands up well in comparison. Take away Pearl's special effects and it falls down. Would the Americans of 1941 call the Japanese "suckers"? I think the "s" would be replaced with an "f."

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: paddymac
Date: 03 Jun 01 - 10:41 AM

Perhaps the biggest lie of all was Roosevelt's characterization of the attack as "unprovoked." The US at the time was in a very isolationist frame of mind. It is probably true that we would not have gotten into the war until very much later (perhaps too late) had the Pearl Harbor raid not occured. For a close look at how Roosevelt engineered the attack, I recommend reading "Day Of Deceit" by Robert Stinnet (ISBN 0-684-85339-6).

There are historians argue well that the same "fraudulent attack" stratagem was used in the attack on the battleship Maine, and I think most people believe that Johnson's "Tonkin Gulf" affair was also a fraud. I would suspect that other governments have used the "device" as well.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Jun 01 - 10:39 AM

Hope there's a younger generation tuned in with enough interest to focus on this discussion. I admire your patience, Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Big Red
Date: 03 Jun 01 - 01:07 AM

Little Hawk---We must recognize the tides of history. Native Americans (who we characterize as being in tune with nature) had war---war of conqufest, war of honor, war of greed, etc. We must seek to find the answers but we must never let our guard down while evil (to me, no other word fits) still exists in teh world. While evil will always be in the world, it is possible to religate it to such a low status its threat will be negligable. How we accomplish this has been given to us by those (and others) you named. All we need to do is listen with our hearts.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 01 - 12:43 AM

Big Red - I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure "evil" is exactly the right word for it. It's more mundane than that...disunity, fear, ambition, greed, manifest destiny...things like that. Very few aggressors see themselves as evil. Quite the contrary. The USA has many times been an aggressor (ask the Indians and the Mexicans, among others), as have virtually all powerful nations in their time. That doesn't mean I write off the USA as "evil".

You are right that as long as humanity is in a state of great fear and disunity (which it still is), then a certain amount of military preparedness is necessary for any given nation. It will take time to change that situation.

Yankee Gal - Marvellous, Yankee Gal...

Thanks for completely missing the point, and for so beautifully demonstrating the divisive "us and them" psychology that leads to all wars and invasions in the first place, including those perpetrated by the Japanese and the Nazis.

Terrific. You've given me my laugh of the day on Mudcat. :-D Then, upon reflection, I got kind of irritated about it. So, here's your explanation...

My advice was toward all humanity (as a unified whole), not toward Americans exclusively. If all humanity had a little more sense and awareness of what a human life is worth...then millions of Germans and Japanese would not have given their support to militarist and authoritarian governments...and Hitler and Tojo would never have come to power.

You see...it's knee jerk reactions...the old us and them psychology...that was motivating the patriotic young men who enthusiastically enlisted in the German and Japanese forces in the 30's and 40's. Most of them had absolutely NO idea that they were serving a wrongful and destructive regime. Most of them were dead sure that they were defending their country from some form of vile and unjustifiable threat from some "enemy", foreign or domestic. The Japanese public, for instance, thought that the Chinese had attacked them first when the China war began. The typical result of domestic propaganda.

If you can't imagine that, then you are one naive gal.

Now, once the actual fighting starts...it takes its own inevitable course, like any fight...so get this:

NO, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT "we" (meaning Canadians and Americans, I presume...) "should have allowed the Japanese to continue to rape Chinese women and to allow Hitler to wipe out all the Jews." (to use your words) War was inevitable once the first shots were fired, by either Hitler in Europe or the Japanese in the Pacific.

(Furthermore, it would be damned naive to assume that the USA went to war to save any Chinese women from being raped...they haven't gone to war to stop the Indonesians from raping and killing thousands of ethnic Chinese in much more recent times. Indonesia, you see, is no threat to American interests on the world scene at present.)

So don't make up something really incredibly stupid, and logistically inconceivable under the historical circumstances, and suggest that it's my idea. Where did your brain go?

We don't have power to alter the past, but we do have power of choice in the present. I am suggesting that here and now and henceforward ALL human beings on this planet start putting their efforts into peace and international cooperation, and stop idolizing organized murder in the form of war and romanticizing it...and stop spending vast amounts of money on the weapons and infrastructure of war. I think it's about 40% of the budget in the USA. I suggest that's 30% too much under our present circumstances.

What I am suggesting is just what Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi recommended, by the way. They didn't see the world as divided into "us and them" either. It's just us here on this planet, period. There is no them.

- LH

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Big Red
Date: 02 Jun 01 - 11:57 PM

Little Hawk---You are absolutely right----and absolutely wrong. A world without war is the ideal and attainable. But---evil is only restrained by strength. We must accept that evil does exist and defend against it. And---we must work to educate the world that there are better ways to resolve (and avoid) conflict.

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: GUEST,Yankee Gal
Date: 02 Jun 01 - 10:47 PM

yeah, I agree, and we should have allowed the Japanese to continue to rape Chinese women and to allow Hitler to wipe out all the Jews. ..... where did your brain go?

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 02 Jun 01 - 10:35 PM

No shit Brother -

Subject: RE: Further thoughts on Pearl Harbour
From: Matt_R
Date: 02 Jun 01 - 10:22 PM

I saw a "making-of" special on the movie, and I still want to see it.

LH, my thoughts EXACTLY! My family listened to me splutter for an hour about how late model green A6M3 Zeros were being used INSTEAD of the earlier silver & white A6M2's.

There were 8 planes actually used for the Zeros, including the only surviving Japanese Zero. The rest were post-war replicas made in Russia.