quote:

ORIGINAL: JustDarkness

found this by accident..lol. IT seems soem one has this discussion (We having) by itself. LOL..the first sentence (afther the quote) made my laugh.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers178.html

I was looking for the god emperor of Japan in WW2

and from an interview

quote:


When you were in the war, did most people think Emperor Hirohito was a god?2
Oh yeah. We were always taught in school that the emperor was a god. We were supposed to sacrifice anything for him. Of course there were some people that doubted and said because he had all the bodily functions of a normal human being, he couldn’t be a god, but most people definitely believed he was a god, including myself.  

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/i4tamura.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

The point others have made quite clearly is the AVG only existed because of clandestine support of the US military.  Chenault was allowed access to people, documents, staff, etc.  It would be like saying Saudi Arabia and UAE weren't involved in 9/11 because they issued official denials.  Give me a fucking break.

If the US military had wanted to stop the creation of the AVG it would never have been formed.

Japan was an aggressor, deserved to be nuked BUT to act like we were all nice and peaceful and they were the axis of evil is horseshit. 

Chenault could just have easily went through the British government.  Wait.  He did.  They gave up their order of 100 planes to the AVG for an offer of having better planes from the manufacturer, who was run by a friend of Chenault's.

A force would have been formed regardless.  They would probably not have been as effective but they would have been formed.  History will show that there is never a problem finding men willing to fight and kill other men.  The US allowed it to happen and made it easier but it would have happened anyway.

As for denying that we were an aggressive state, I never have.  I merely stated that to deny that Japan was an aggressor is a lie just as calling a mercenary force funded by the Chinese an American military unit is a lie.  We are not squeaky clean but that does not change their guilt either.
Have you ever thought that the request of the Chinese might have had something to do with the allowances made for the AVG?  Perhaps, when they asked for help, the AVG was the best we could do.  Unofficial help that most military men stated were doomed to fail in a month.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

Your posts subtle distortions to make your case are pretty obvious.
Officers in the U.S. military serve at the pleasure of the president.  To resign your commission and go to another country to fight against someone the U.S. is not at war with is a court martial offense.  For an enlisted man it is even worse because they serve by contract and to turn in your ID card and dog tags just does not work unless the U.S. government says it is OK.  You will note that when the AVG disolved that all but one of its members returned to U.S. service with no loss of time in grade or rank,including Chenault.  Your claim that Chenault was retired is not true.  Chenault resigned just like all the other pilots in the AVG.
The point of your post is not entirely clear to me.  To the best of my knowledge all but one  member of the AVG were american military personel who reentered the U.S. military upon the entry of the U.S. into WWII.  That one non American was Gerhard Neumann who was given U.S. citizenship by act of congress and went on to become a VP at General Electric's jet engine division.  The AVG was incorporated into the 14th. Airforce.  If you look at what we do to U.S. citizens (who are not part of the military) who go to fight for foreign governments it is hard to come to any other conclusion that the AVG was sponsored by the U.S. government.  Your assertion that the AVG was paid by the Chinese is accurate only in that the Chinese were the paymaster but the money came from the U.S. treasury ...read taxpayers... .
That the P40 was inferior in many ways to the Zero is well known but to imply that it was not a supurbe aircraft in its own right is unfair to say the least.  Following tactics devised by Chenault (maneuvers later named "thatch weave and dive and climb") the highly skilled pilots that Chenault had handpicked  gave a admirable accounting of themselves and their "inferior" aircraft.
If the North Koreans or the Iranians were to form a group like the AVG and inject themselves into the sand box do you think the U.S. govt would not consider that an act of war by the sponsoring countries?

H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dnomyar

Just a little side  about God. If you read your history on Gods. Israel's God . The one that is worshiped now was originally a God of war for a battle. They won it and built up their God on that. After they won they had to make up a lot of stuff to make their God almighty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

You don't consider a blockade a form of aggression ? What if someone did that to us ?

T

I totally agree it was aggression. The US blockade was not about international peace, it was every bit about power as Japanese actions were.  The west is always disingenuous about its acts of aggression, seeing them as benigh while seeing its enemy's as malicious. They are both the same. The situation in the thirties didn't happen in a vacuum. Just like Iran didn't happen in a vacuum. Another case where the west refuses to acknowlege its responsibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


What blockade as I have asked ? What were the US actions specifically and when was it ? This business of the west (US) throwing its weight around the Pacific is horseshit as everybody in the Pacific was on the defensive by 1933 when Japan went on the war path invading Manchuria which wasn't even strategic to Japanese domination in the Pacific theater.

Sick and tired of the revisionist history and pure prejudicial speculation about America's involvement and so-called aggression in the Pacific.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

I have distorted nothing.  If there is any distortion it is in your head.  Where on earth did you come up with the Americans paying China to hire the AVG?  That is a lie and you well know it.
Roosevelt gave the Chinese 25 million dollars in 1940.  The AVG only cost them 8 million.
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm



The P40B was considered an inferior aircraft even by the US.  The engines were too weak and the plane did not even have a targeting site for its guns.  That is why they came out with a newer model.  It was not just an inferior aircraft to the zero, it was inferior to most other aircraft of the time.  Th fact that the AVG did so well was due to superior piloying and tactics, not the aircraft.
In 1940 the U.S. had the p38,p39,p40 and the f4hellcat and the Brewster Buffalo.  For purposes of both use and availability the P40 is the only logical choice.  At the time it was as state of the art as fighters got in the U.S.



The Avg was not incorporated into any airforce.  It was disbanded.
Its commander and all of its aircraft and supplies became part of the 14 airforce.



Chenault was retired prior to forming the AVG.  Deny it all you want but the dates on record show that he was retired.
If he was retired how was it that he was awarded the distinguished service medal for his work with the AVG.  You can only be awarded medals in the U.S. military for service as a member of the armed services.  We do not give military medals to civilians.  It might also interest you that ten of the "civilian" pilots of the AVG were also awarded the distinguished flying cross.  Again... the military does not give medals to civilians.

I have no more time for lies and fairy tales from you.
If you feel incompetent to discuss this further that is your choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 
About the Flying Tigers and AVG...
The group first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days after Pearl Harbor . It achieved notable success during the lowest period of the war for U.S. and Allied Forces, giving hope to Americans that they would eventually succeed against the Japanese.

The situation as you call it in the 30's was a Japanese situation and the US had only a small presence in the Philipines, Guam and Wake.
The Phillippines were a U.S. colony with General Douglas McArthur as the Governor General.  Hardly a small pressence.

Wow, we must have really been on the move and even at 1000's of miles away gee, we must have been a real threat to peace in the Pacific. To interpret our presence in the Pacific as aggression is unmitigated bullshit.
If you take a country by force and make it your colony isn't that by definition agression.  Neither Hawaii nor the Phillippines asked to be a U.S. colony.



What blockade as I have asked ? What were the US actions specifically and when was it ? This business of the west (US) throwing its weight around the Pacific is horseshit as everybody in the Pacific was on the defensive by 1933 when Japan went on the war path invading Manchuria which wasn't even strategic to Japanese domination in the Pacific theater.
Perhaps you might avail yourself of a history book.  Baring that a few keystrokes will take you to google.

Sick and tired of the revisionist history and pure prejudicial speculation about America's involvement and so-called aggression in the Pacific.
If you believe that "Victory at Sea" is history and not  propaganda  then anything that is contrary is,to you, revisionist.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well Hunters,I have read a few history books in my time,and I can state unequivocally that prior to the start of hostilities the United States of America did in no way,shape or form have a blockade of the Japanese home islands,Your repeating it over and over will not make it so.The U.S. did not at the time have available enough warships in the pacific( they were operating,despite avowed neutrality,convoy's in the Atlantic at the time)...an embargo is not and never has been a blockade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well Hunters,I have read a few history books in my time,and I can state unequivocally that prior to the start of hostilities the United States of America did in no way,shape or form have a blockade of the Japanese home islands,Your repeating it over and over will not make it so.The U.S. did not at the time have available enough warships in the pacific( they were operating,despite avowed neutrality,convoy's in the Atlantic at the time)...an embargo is not and never has been a blockade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well Hunters,I have read a few history books in my time,and I can state unequivocally that prior to the start of hostilities the United States of America did in no way,shape or form have a blockade of the Japanese home islands,Your repeating it over and over will not make it so.The U.S. did not at the time have available enough warships in the pacific( they were operating,despite avowed neutrality,convoy's in the Atlantic at the time)...an embargo is not and never has been a blockade.

You are responding to the wrong poster.  I have mentioned that the ABCD group (America,Britian,China,Dutch)  had embargoed strategic materials to Japan.  I have not said anything about a blockade.

H. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well Hunters,I have read a few history books in my time,and I can state unequivocally that prior to the start of hostilities the United States of America did in no way,shape or form have a blockade of the Japanese home islands,Your repeating it over and over will not make it so.The U.S. did not at the time have available enough warships in the pacific( they were operating,despite avowed neutrality,convoy's in the Atlantic at the time)...an embargo is not and never has been a blockade.

I said blockaded when I meant to say embargoed. There is a complete difference in meaning to the objective viewer. But to the Japanese perception there wasn't a huge a difference nor to any other country I would imagine that is subject to one. Blockade was definitely the wrong word and totally false.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

My bet if Saudi Arabia and Venezuela et all refused to sell the US oil, the US would see it as an act of war and you know it.