quote:

ORIGINAL: Aslanemperor

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

C4 news just reported that the head of the Japanese airforce is now looking for a new job after posting comments to a website that Japan was not an aggressor in WWII, contrary to the official Japanese govt position and likely to piss off the Chinese as much as the rest of us.

I think he might find his reception at the job centre be a bit "Pearl Harbor" so to speak

E

Wow!  This is hillarious.  I think we have another case of someone who's in trouble because he spoke the truth.
The fact was we cut Japan off from much needed oil suddenly and for no reason, and we put countless sanctions on their country which caused thousands to starve.  Pearl Harbor was retalliation for serious blows against their people, and the truth is that they wheren't trying to do anything more than punch the big bully in the nose so he'll leave them alone.  If they'd decided to take pearl harbor, at that time we would have been powerless to defeat them and the asian front of WWII would have played out very differently.  At the time they had much better quallity air carriers and better planes then us.  With Pearl Harbor, they would have been able to block American assistance while they took over Chinese and other oil reserves.  Using these they wouldn't have run into one of their worst problems during the war, which was fuel shortage.
Without Pearl Harbor, the US wouldn't have the ability to launch the nuke against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
<-----  Is a history buff

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The bomb was delivered to Tinian by the Indianapolis,which was in turn sunk by a Japanese sub returning from the delivery mission.The scene in Jaws where the Captain talks about being in the water for 2 days while the sharks feasted is based on that incident.The Indianapolis was under radio blackout....and whether they couldn't or wouldn't send a distress signal...is as far as I know unknown.I believe more than half the men that went into the water wound up as shark food.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well Hunter,I  thank you for that information...I didn't know that..Thanks seriously,though we bumped heads earlier I do appreciate that information.No hard feelings...

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aslanemperor

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

C4 news just reported that the head of the Japanese airforce is now looking for a new job after posting comments to a website that Japan was not an aggressor in WWII, contrary to the official Japanese govt position and likely to piss off the Chinese as much as the rest of us.

I think he might find his reception at the job centre be a bit "Pearl Harbor" so to speak

E

Wow!  This is hillarious.  I think we have another case of someone who's in trouble because he spoke the truth.
The fact was we cut Japan off from much needed oil suddenly and for no reason, and we put countless sanctions on their country which caused thousands to starve.  Pearl Harbor was retalliation for serious blows against their people, and the truth is that they wheren't trying to do anything more than punch the big bully in the nose so he'll leave them alone.  If they'd decided to take pearl harbor, at that time we would have been powerless to defeat them and the asian front of WWII would have played out very differently.  At the time they had much better quallity air carriers and better planes then us.  With Pearl Harbor, they would have been able to block American assistance while they took over Chinese and other oil reserves.  Using these they wouldn't have run into one of their worst problems during the war, which was fuel shortage.
Without Pearl Harbor, the US wouldn't have the ability to launch the nuke against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
<-----  Is a history buff

While I agree with much of your assessment of the causes of the Japanese involvement in WWII it is not even in the same zip code with reality that they could have occupied Hawaii.
The U.S. had broken the Japanese codes and knew the "who,what,when,where and why of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Japan also lacked the manpower and the ability to deliver them to Hawaii.
If I remember correctly the bomb was delivered to Tinian by the Cruiser Indianapolis so I am not sure what purpose Hawaii would have served in its delivery.
I would be curious to know why you feel the Japanese carriers were superior to U.S. carriers.
 
H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well if one chooses to be a "history buff" it would behoove them to know a little actual history.Whether or not you agree that Japan's invasion and subsequent rape of China was a valid reason,America certainly had reason....her own self interest first and foremost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aslanemperor
ok, here's why I say this.
It's well documented fact that Hawaii was a main halfway point for our forces in the asian campaign.
Actually it is only a bit over a third of the distance.


Why do you think all our ships where docked in Pearl Harbor for the attack?
Our ships were in Pearl Harbor because it was the home port for the pacific fleet


Also, Japan had more then enough force to occupy Hawaii which only had a very small force of soldiers who where mostly green troops being sent to mostly non-com positions.
Really???Just where were these troops and how many do you think it would have taken to attack and secure Hawaii?
Remember we had already broken the Japanese codes so we knew the attack on Pearl was comming and when it was comming.  Roosevelt let it happen because the American people were 92% against involvement in the war (gallup pole 1940)  If there was any thought on the Japanese part of occupying the island we would have been waiting for them.  As it was all of our carriers and modern subs were out to sea under "sealed orders" leaving only antique battle ships for the japs to play with.  of the 9 that were sunk one was a tow target.  The Arizona (an antique) was left as a monument.  Of the remaning 7 battle wagons 6 were operational in less than six months.


As for the ships, Japanese carriers where larger and far more technologically advanced because they where way ahead of us in developing them.
You said that before but so far you have not listed just what those technological superiorities were. 


We wasted time in the developement of carriers because they didn't seem very important to us at the time as we wheren't having to fight that kind of battle yet.
I was not aware that the U.S. was involved in any naval wars from the time of the Washington naval treaty of 1922 and 1941.


Also, Japanese planes, while less armored then American planes where faster and more manueverable.
The AVG with slower and less maneuvrable aircraft out scored the Japanese by something like 20:1 


Japanese soldiers where better trained and fearless because they considered it an honor to die in battle and they didn't surrender.
Is that why the Marines kicked the living shit out of them every time they fought.  The only losses the Marines encountered were at Wake Island where they were outnumberd about 4:1 and Battan where McArthur left them out to dry with no supplies and no support.




In a battle for Hawaii, Japan could have easily obliterated Amercan forces and then held the island with their air carriers and superior troops.
450 Marines held off Japans invasion force for more than two weeks with nothing but audacity.  With the tens of thousands of men and huge quantities of supplies on Hawaii your premise is just not doable.
Look at the logistics that it took for the Marines to mount successful attacks on the pacific islands.  The Japanese just did not have that capability.  Look at the huge losses the Japanese suffered at Wake against only 450 marines.

With Hawaii as a buffer, it would leave them free to pursue their campaign in Asia which would bring more oil, and thus strengthen their hold on Hawaii.
The big IF here is ...if they had been able to take Hawaii....just not logistically possible.

Actually, if you want to check the scenario I'm talking about, the first time I thought about it was after reading this book.  It's an Alternate History book.  The guy who writes the books, "Harry Turtledove", takes a moment in history and writes based on history what could have happened had a single change.  For instance, Japan deciding that instead of a simple air raid, they would attempt a takeover.  The name of the book is "Days of Infamy" and is a great novel.  You can choose how much of it you like, but after looking into some of the things he mentioned in the books, I found that they where actually correct.  Japan's biggest mistake was not following up the air raid with an immediate invasion of Pearl harbor and then Hawaii as a whole before the Mainland could send in reinforcements. 
Alternative history is an interesting set of what ifs.  The crux of this particular "what if" is baised on the non existant ability of the Japanese to mount the logistical support to invade Hawaii and the fact that the U.S. knew all about the comming attack and the exact extent of it.  If the Japanese had the logistical ability to invade Hawaii  the U.S. would have been waiting in force. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aslanemperor
The fact is that Japan didn't "Rape" China, they took back land that was orriginally theirs before it was forced from their hands at gunpoint in WWI by the Allies just because they allied themselves to the so called "Axis" powers.
You may want to go back and reread that particular chapter in the history book.  Japan was a U.S. ally in WW 1.
You might also be interested in knowing that no part of mainland China ever belonged to Japan during the almost 4000 years of Chinese history.  China predates Japan by about 1500 years. 
Yes the Japanese did "rape" China but not without a bit of provication.  The Chinese had spent a couple of thousand years butt fucking the Japs on a regular bassis...payback can be a bitch.

The other thing is, it's all nice to spout about America's self interest, but how is it in our interest to put trade sanctions on someone who up until then was one of our most major trade partners.  Shoot, there was a HUGE japanese imigrant population in Hawaii all by its self.
What do you call huge....Hawaii had less than a half million people when the war started.  Something on the order of ten percent were ethnic Japanese.


The fact is that wasn't about our self interest, that was about being a bully.
Being a bully is all about self interest...that is why the bully is a bully.


"I don't like your friends, so I'm gonna take your lunch money!"  Seriously.  This is one example on top of hundreds where America has gone and hurt people and then blinks in surprise when the little country it was picking on hit back!  Do you notice that you don't see Britain, France, Germany, Spain or any of those other countries trying to do anything in Iraq?  Do you know why?  Because they don't do getting involved in other nation's business.  Britain only got involved because of pressure by us, seeing as we where their allies.
You should do a little more research before you post...Britain is our largest ally in the "sandbox" Spain only left bush&co lately when they found themselves on the recieving end of a bit of retaliation.
If you read history you will note that Germany,France,Spain and Great Britain have all been impearlist bullies at different times in their history as has Japan and China.
 
H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Suzykeu

Harry Turtledove is a fiction writer, you have to remember that. The thing that Turtledove looks at is military force, and with that it is absolutely probable that Japan could overrun the American forces. But what he overlooks is logistics.

On Dec.7, 95% of all Japanese transport vessels were being used. In order to win the war they needed to take Singapore in order to protect the entrance of the Pacific. They needed to seize the Phillipeans in order to prevent the Americans from choking off oil from Indonesia (which they also needed to seize), they needed to seize Hong Kong for the same reason.

The remaining ships weren't enough to transport the bare minimum 2 divisions of troops that would be needed for an amphibious assault on Oahu along with their supplies and the extra fuel for those ships and vehicles that would be used. Then the massive number of ships would increase the size of the fleet, making it more detectable not only from an air patrol standpoint, but also with logistic tracking espinoige, so it would be a terrible risk for the Japanese to undertake that they couldn't undertake anyway.

As for Japanese vs American carriers? Well, there were few real differences. The Americans' carriers were a little larger but had a bigger "island" and the Japanese smokestacks made a ubend to leave a larger field of vision. However, the Americans had advantages in Radar which (while primitive) was useful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have just been catching up on this thread and have to correct several misconseptions.
1. We had only broken the administartive and diplomatic codes, thus we had the Japanese ultimatum befor the Japanese ambassidor.  We had to wacth administrative communication to find out the target of the June offensive was Midway.
The U.S. had broken the JIN purple code which allowed us access to naval communications.

2. Japan had twice as many carriers than the U S but our carriers were larger and on the average carried half again as many aircraft.  At the outset the Japanese understood the use of carriers better, we had to learn because the battleships were out of commision.
Japan had ten carriers and the US had seven plus one auxilary carrier.

3. There was no blockade, a blockade is when ships stand off an enemy coast and stop ships from going in.  See Cuban missle crisis.
4. The modern term for embargo is sanctions, the prefered "action" of all who oppose U S military action.    

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aslanemperor

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

C4 news just reported that the head of the Japanese airforce is now looking for a new job after posting comments to a website that Japan was not an aggressor in WWII, contrary to the official Japanese govt position and likely to piss off the Chinese as much as the rest of us.

I think he might find his reception at the job centre be a bit "Pearl Harbor" so to speak

E

Wow!  This is hillarious.  I think we have another case of someone who's in trouble because he spoke the truth.
The fact was we cut Japan off from much needed oil suddenly and for no reason, and we put countless sanctions on their country which caused thousands to starve.  Pearl Harbor was retalliation for serious blows against their people, and the truth is that they wheren't trying to do anything more than punch the big bully in the nose so he'll leave them alone.  If they'd decided to take pearl harbor, at that time we would have been powerless to defeat them and the asian front of WWII would have played out very differently.  At the time they had much better quallity air carriers and better planes then us.  With Pearl Harbor, they would have been able to block American assistance while they took over Chinese and other oil reserves.  Using these they wouldn't have run into one of their worst problems during the war, which was fuel shortage.
Without Pearl Harbor, the US wouldn't have the ability to launch the nuke against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
<-----  Is a history buff

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

...that colonialist imperialism does not allow ANYTHING politically of their slaves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

To refuse oil to the self-appointed superior imperialist Japan was one the wisest defensive moves that FDR could have done without firing shot. The world and the US didn't owe the Japanese anything. We were and are not now obilgated to do business with any power and currently have perfectly legal prohibitions against dealing with terrorist regimes now. Iran comes to mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
If Iran attacks Israel...are we being the aggressor to refuse them the technology and arms to do it ? Would Iran then have a pretext to launch a surprise bombing attack on America ? Don't you see how ridiculous this begins to seem ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Since it appears that America forcing Japan in the mid 19th century to open up it seaports and sign treaties it found humiliating doesn´t appear to be classed as imperial, that takes care of most of the British Empire. People like to conveniently forget it was the west´s and America´s hard lessons in imperialism that altered the course of Japanese history from one of a reclusive nation to that of a country with imperial ambitions.