(April 28, 2011 at 9:02 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I recall that Patton wanted to take on the USSR after defeating Germany in '45.

I think he would've received a very nasty shock.

Pure bluster on his part, of course. We were cycling troops to the PTO even before the ETO was officially over. Taking on the Russians while the Japanese were undefeated would have been madness. Stalin reportedly considered taking all of Germany and a few odd bits from neighboring countries as "legitimate war booty", but by then he had begun to listen to his generals and backed off that idiot idea.

(April 28, 2011 at 9:17 am)Gawdzilla Wrote: Taking on the Russians while the Japanese were undefeated would have been madness.

Not really, at least as far as the Japanese were concerned, they were only a few months away from defeat anyway.

Don't forget Admiral Yamamato's comments that if they didn't win in 6 months they were doomed.

And he was right.

One could make the valid claim that the WORST thing the Japanese did was attack Pearl Harbor.

If they had just gone ahead and attacked in Malaysia etc,thereby attacking the possesions of colonial powers that were occupied by the Germans or too busy fighting in Europe to effectively deal with them, it would have made for easy conquests.

Roosevelt would've struggled to make a case for war in the face of the strong isolationist movement in the U.S.

Pearl Harbour united America in a way that no amount of propaganda could ever have done( and for the cost of three obsolete ships,quite cheap when you think about it)

(April 27, 2011 at 1:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Japanese lost the war the moment the first plane cleared the deck on the way to Pearl Harbor. Oddly, they knew they had no chance but attacked anyway. Strange thinking.

Actually, not so strange. Yamamoto knew the Japanese had no chance at defeating the US. He surmised their only hope was a devestating, surprise attack that would knock out our Pacific Fleet and give the Japanese free reign. He nearly achieved this. What saved us was the fact that our carriers were out to sea on the day of the attack. Yamamoto would have gladly traded sinking battleships for destroying aircraft carriers.

I always wondered what might have been the result if the Japanese didn't just attack with planes and leave. What if they tried to invade Hawaii in concert with the aerial attack? Imagine if the US lost Hawaii at the outset of the war. It would have been impossible to support our other bases in the Pacific, and our Pacific Fleet's main base would have been San Diego! This would have made the task of defeating the Japanese much more difficult and costly.

(April 28, 2011 at 10:04 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(April 28, 2011 at 9:17 am)Gawdzilla Wrote: Taking on the Russians while the Japanese were undefeated would have been madness.

Not really, at least as far as the Japanese were concerned, they were only a few months away from defeat anyway.

True in hindsight, but at the time we thought it would be 1946 before Japan was subdued. Remember, on May 8th, 1945 we hadn't exploded the first atomic bomb yet.

Quote:Don't forget Admiral Yamamato's comments that if they didn't win in 6 months they were doomed.

And he was right.

"If we go to war, I will run wild for six months to a year. After that I guarantee nothing." Hardly "doomed".

Quote:One could make the valid claim that the WORST thing the Japanese did was attack Pearl Harbor.

If they had just gone ahead and attacked in Malaysia etc,thereby attacking the possesions of colonial powers that were occupied by the Germans or too busy fighting in Europe to effectively deal with them, it would have made for easy conquests.

Roosevelt would've struggled to make a case for war in the face of the strong isolationist movement in the U.S.

There was no "strong isolationist movement" in the US at the time. Care to look at the Gallup Polls for '39-'45?

Quote:Pearl Harbour united America in a way that no amount of propaganda could ever have done( and for the cost of three obsolete ships,quite cheap when you think about it)

Gee, I guess the ~2,500 dead men, women and children don't count in the tally then?

Gawdzilla Wrote:Gee, I guess the ~2,500 dead men, women and children don't count in the tally then?

Not to me, but the public is a very fickle creature when it comes to a small numbers of people dying to a single unexpected event.

(April 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:

Gawdzilla Wrote:Gee, I guess the ~2,500 dead men, women and children don't count in the tally then?

Not to me, but the public is a very fickle creature when it comes to a small numbers of people dying to a single unexpected event.

The deaths were more important that the ship losses to public opinion. Firstly, the actual amount of material damage was concealed at first. Secondly, men vs. metal is not even a contest. It's incredibly callus to simply write those folks off.

(April 28, 2011 at 12:25 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: The deaths were more important that the ship losses to public opinion. Firstly, the actual amount of material damage was concealed at first. Secondly, men vs. metal is not even a contest. It's incredibly callus to simply write those folks off.

..and for any side, wether Russian, American, or German. Massive deaths like that deserve to be approached with caution REGARDLESS of your personal or political feelings.

(April 28, 2011 at 12:31 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(April 28, 2011 at 12:25 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: The deaths were more important that the ship losses to public opinion. Firstly, the actual amount of material damage was concealed at first. Secondly, men vs. metal is not even a contest. It's incredibly callus to simply write those folks off.

..and for any side, wether Russian, American, or German. Massive deaths like that deserve to be approached with caution REGARDLESS of your personal or political feelings.

I get über pissed off when some conspiracy nut on the web posts that FDR would willingly kill so many people to get into a war on the other side of the planet. Because they're not only besmirching Roosevelt, but every other person who "knew about it and did nothing". It's coming up on the 70th anniversary this year, and we still don't have any evidence that FDR "just let it happen". But that doesn't stop people from claiming Bill Halsey, among others, allowed ships he had served on for years, and sailors and officers he had served with for the same time, to be killed on the off chance that Hitler would declare war on the US after the Japanese attacked us in a move that would have drawn the USN off the Atlantic and given der Führer a golden opportunity in the Battle of the Atlantic. Such logic is sick beyond my comprehension.

I just realized I'm arguing for evolution on a history forum and against conspiracy theories on an atheist forum. Excuse me, but I have to go expound the virtues of rocky road ice cream on the Top Gear forum. BRB.

(April 28, 2011 at 2:01 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: I just realized I'm arguing for evolution on a history forum and against conspiracy theories on an atheist forum. Excuse me, but I have to go expound the virtues of rocky road ice cream on the Top Gear forum. BRB.

Perhaps you could explain what was going on with the Japanese oil embargo before Pearl Harbor.