RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 9 [10]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 8/23/2007 9:37:25 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Thompson

Preparations are one thing- firing shots is another. My source is the Ragged Rugged Warriors by Martin Caidin (paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to dig out the book) but he's quite clear, the AVG did not fire a shot until after Pearl Harbor, although as you correctly pointed out, the planning for the organization certainly goes back some months prior.

Lots of people sold the Chinese aircraft prior to the AVG and the direct US entry into the war- they had Russian, French, US and I suspect even a few German planes trying to fight off the Japanese. Is selling weaponry grounds for a "sneak" (well, it wasn't planned that way- but an hours warning is pretty lame anyhow) attack?

If you can't distinguish the difference between an imperialist war of aggression and one of defense and claiming that both sides are just money grubbing assholes, you've got some pretty selective vision. Mind you, if you then claim that the US has no more moral justification in Iraq than the Japanese in WWII, I might agree.

Sam

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 181

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 8/23/2007 12:05:47 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Now I get it, the US really was engaging in social work, as was all the other western powers in South East Asia. The USA was a colonial power in South East Asia. This attitude of our empire is good, theirs is bad doesn't wash.

No one said Japan was an innocent in WWII, you are putting words into people's mouths. It was pointed out that western powers were in South East Asia exploiting the locals for their materials which the Japanese were copying.

What doesn’t wash is this notion that somehow America is to blame for everything. I swear to God you (and other’s on these threads) probably blame America for the extinction of the dinosaurs! We have enough sins of our own to atone for, we don’t need to pile other’s on top of ours.

Nobody may have said outright that Japan was an innocent but it certainly seems implied with all the excuse making and bullshit about "copying." But I’ve already said my piece on that.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 182

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 8/23/2007 12:45:16 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Manchuria is China.

Depends on who you ask, but that’s beside the point. Japan invaded Manchuria and created the puppet state Manchuko (or something like that) in 1931. Japan invade China proper in 1937.

quote:

That China and Japan were having a war is their business and not ours.

Only to a certain extent. We were, as has been pointed out, Japans major source of oil and steel until we cut them off – an act some people use to blame the U.S. for starting the war. But inaction can carry just as much consequences (and moral blame) as action. If we didn’t stop the supply of oil, would we not have been aiding and abetting Japan in it’s war of aggression? Sometimes you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

quote:

You were speaking of Japan firing the first shot (Pearl Harbor) and thus starting a war with the U.S. The facts are that the U.S. fired the first shot at Japan by sending General Chenault and the AVG to make war against Japan.

World war two in the Pacific may have officially started on December 7th, 1941, but in fact was merely a continuation of Japanese aggression going back to the early 1900's.

quote:

That Japan took so long to retaliate indicates an enormous amount of restraint on their part.

Actually it shows cold calculation. The attack upon Pearl Harbor was not retaliation. It was the opening move of a new campaign. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in order to destroy the U.S. fleet so that Japan could then have a free hand in conquering itself an empire. I seriously doubt that :Pearl Harbor was a delayed reaction to the AVG. Even if it was, don’t you think that it was overkill (no morbid puns intended)? The U.S. loses a couple of buildings and a few thousand people (most of them civilians) on 9-11, and many consider even the attack upon Afghanistan to be an overreaction. Japan loses a few planes (military planes engaged in outright military aggression) to some drunken adventure seekers and so decides to take out an entire naval base (as well as some air bases) in response. Now that would be an overreaction (also, let’s not forget that Pearl Harbor wasn’t the only target the Japanese struck that day – other U.S. as well as British targets were hit as well).

quote:

Please do not misunderstand me here...there are no good guys or bad guys here just a bunch of money(power) hungry assholes

That’s what I’ve been saying all along.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 183

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 8/23/2007 5:45:02 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Thompson

Preparations are one thing- firing shots is another. My source is the Ragged Rugged Warriors by Martin Caidin (paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to dig out the book) but he's quite clear, the AVG did not fire a shot until after Pearl Harbor, although as you correctly pointed out, the planning for the organization certainly goes back some months prior.

Lots of people sold the Chinese aircraft prior to the AVG and the direct US entry into the war- they had Russian, French, US and I suspect even a few German planes trying to fight off the Japanese. Is selling weaponry grounds for a "sneak" (well, it wasn't planned that way- but an hours warning is pretty lame anyhow) attack?

If you can't distinguish the difference between an imperialist war of aggression and one of defense and claiming that both sides are just money grubbing assholes, you've got some pretty selective vision. Mind you, if you then claim that the US has no more moral justification in Iraq than the Japanese in WWII, I might agree.

Sam

Sam:
My point was that the U.S. had positioned combat forces in the theater. Lets suppose that Iran or China were to do the same thing in Iraq. Bush & co. are already trying to stir up enough shit to get an invasion going in Iran....Now if it were China sending a fighter wing or a few divisions to Iraq I doubt that Bush & co. would be quite so trigger happy.
You really seem to be dancing around the question and trying to check if all the t's are dotted and the i's crossed. You are not unacquainted with the particulars of that conflict.
China and Japan had been in a pissing contest for over a thousand years. All of the posturing about who or what was the precipitate cause is just so much nonsense. A bunch of old rich fat guys walking around with their cocks out bragging about how big theirs is. The bottom line is that rich guys send poor guys out to kill other poor guys so that rich guys can have more money that they will never count.
I enjoy speculating about the hardware,strategy and tactics of the encounter but the rest is just mindless bullshit.....(he hit me first....but he took my marbles.....yeah but your sister is a tramp....and on and on and on.
thompson

ps:
In another post you mentioned that the Brits used the F4U on carriers...was it the straight winged version or the gull wing one we are all familiar with? Do you have a cite for it? I am a Corsair junquie.

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 184

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 8/23/2007 7:21:02 PM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Thompson

I'm gonna agree with Marc-the Japanese were not so aggravated about having a lousy 100 airplanes with US "advisors" flying with Chinese markings in China- they were aggravated about the US cutting off their oil and rubber supply- plus the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1925 which limited Japan to 3 capital ships to the US and Britain's 5 was seen as a terrible humiliation. Not to mention that after Pearl Harbor they went on a rampage in the Philippines as well, where the US response even after the debacle at Pearl Harbor was pathetic.

About the Corsair- dug out two references for you- the books in this house have been rearranged, and I can't find anything. However, I'll cite Angelucci's The American Fighter- which comments that the only major European engagement of Corsairs was when they escorted a raid against the Tirpitz (think this was the Barrucuda raid). Most RAF Corsair II's had their wingtips clipped 8" to fit in the carriers. Apparently there are a bunch of them on the ocean floor around Sydney- the UK had to pay for aircraft returned, but not lost, so by war's end they just shoved them off the ships- makes you wanna cry, doesn't it? Not to mention that at today's prices, that's hundreds of millions of $$. The RAF got 2102 of them, and they were cleared for carrier service a year before the USN did. The Fleet Air Arm did have to deal with high operational losses, although the Corsairs number of victories was second only to the Hellcat. (Jane's gives very short shrift to the Corsair in service.) From Flight Journal's Winter 2004 issue on the Corsair, Capt. Eric Brown commented that the English were desperate- the Seafire and Sea Hurricane sucked, and the Corsair, although hard to land due to the limited view over the nose, was quite capable. Simulated dogfights with a P-51, P-47, and P-38 at 20,000 feet had the Corsair coming out on top.

However- straight wing? the V-143 was a straight wing airplane, but it's really not the prototype for the Corsair. The Double Wasp with the 3 blade prop necessitated an inverted gull wing configuration to keep the gear short enough for carrier use- although the airplane originally had a lot of trouble with the gear as well- bouncing over barriers. I'm still not sure why they say the Corsair is such a large single engine carrier fighter- having seen Corsairs next to a Hellcat, the Hellcat looks much larger.

Sam

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 185

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 8/23/2007 8:43:55 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

Sam:
Thanx for the dope on the Corsair. From my research the Corsair originally had a straight wing and rather spindly landing gear. The Navy had the gear beefed up to take the impact of carrier use and bent the wing so the pilot could see the LSO as he turned up wind for his approach. As you mentioned the beefed up gear was shorter so the bent wing also kept the prop off of the deck.
......................................................................................................
The Japs had a lot of beefs with the ABCD (American,British,Chinese and Dutch) but the Washington Naval treaty actually allowed them to build up and forced the Big boys to build down so it was a net winner for the Japs. They built the two largest battleships in the world (for all the good it did them). Interesting sidelight. The huge shipyard that produced these monsters was prevented by the terms of the treaty ending the war to make anything bigger than a row boat so some guy from Nebraska (I think) made a deal with them to sell him the ship yard (if I remember correctly the price was $100 bux)and he in turn promised to hire Japanese to work in the ship yard and began building super tankers.
My point was that the Japanese really did not want to get into a pissing contest with the U.S. but Roosevelt needed some provocation to get the U.S. into WW II. Through a series of maneuvers he conspired with the ABCD group to embargo strategic materials, send lend lease to China and put mercenaries into the conflict. It was the totality of these shenanigans that allowed him to get us into WW II. The Germans were adamant about not involving the U.S. in the war. Even after we sunk a couple of their subs they still did not declare war on us. It was not until we declared war on their ally Japan that they were forced to declare war on us.
If we disregard the ethics of the whole thing one must give Roosevelt credit for masterful Machiavellian gamesmanship to achieve the effect he desired.
thompson

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 186

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 8/24/2007 4:31:01 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Now I get it, the US really was engaging in social work, as was all the other western powers in South East Asia. The USA was a colonial power in South East Asia. This attitude of our empire is good, theirs is bad doesn't wash.

No one said Japan was an innocent in WWII, you are putting words into people's mouths. It was pointed out that western powers were in South East Asia exploiting the locals for their materials which the Japanese were copying.

What doesn’t wash is this notion that somehow America is to blame for everything. I swear to God you (and other’s on these threads) probably blame America for the extinction of the dinosaurs! We have enough sins of our own to atone for, we don’t need to pile other’s on top of ours.

Nobody may have said outright that Japan was an innocent but it certainly seems implied with all the excuse making and bullshit about "copying." But I’ve already said my piece on that.

Who said America was to blame? I said 'as was all western poewers'. The US along with Britain and other powers imposed unfair treaties on countries in south east asia. Something that was the height of humiliation in cultures were keeping face is paramount. Japan was the one country that realised it had to modernise and militarise to confront the western threat and to keep its independence.

Japan was guilty of starting a war it couldn't finish but it hasn't been guilty of anything western powers haven't also done. The western powers have also a brutal and cruel history and I include Britain and the US in that despite what their popular national myths claim.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Profile

Post #: 187

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 8/24/2007 6:05:04 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Thompson

On the Corsair-don't think it was the Navy that came up with the gull wing idea- think it was the engineers at Vought. The V-143 can only really be considered to have some family heritage, it's a very different airplane from the Corsair- check out what the XF4U looked like- it's all there. In terms of cockpit position-I think they did move it forward, know that they raised it up some. But the Corsair necessitated a curving approach for landing, whereas all other Navy aircraft could be flown straight in. The RN came up with it- as mentioned before they were desperate.

In terms of the Japanese not wanting to get into a war with the US- don't agree. Yamamoto certainly didn't want a war with the US (Read the Reluctant Admiral) but there were plenty of jingoistic saber rattlers in the Japanese military who overruled him. Hence, Japan was certainly a willing dance partner for Roosevelt who absolutely wanted the country to go to war. (which at the time, was the correct action- it was the only way to stop the horrors of Nazi Germany and Japan- and as noted by others in this thread- Japan committed plenty of atrocities as well as Germany, just not as well known.) Agree with you that Hitler was very reluctant to involve the US directly, and had he not declared war on the US to support Japan, it might have been tough back then to come up with a reason to declare war on Germany. It's amazing how relevant all this stuff is- look at the situation today where an Afghan national commits a terrible crime against the US (I still think the correct response is to take Osama- dead or alive-preferably dead- and throw him in jail), and our response is to declare war on Iraq. And what's still baffling to me is that we swallowed this nonsense. I do think things were a bit different back then....

Sam

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 188