RE: Ask A Historian
September 19, 2015 at 1:13 am
(This post was last modified: September 19, 2015 at 1:14 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
We're discussing various conspiracies, now. That we knew they were going to hit us, that we very likely set things up to where they had to hit us, somewhere (yes the Philippines was the obvious choice), seems little in-doubt. It's also probable that they felt that even if the Japanese managed to hit Hawaii, the damage done at Pearl, even if the Japanese fleet could get close enough, would be minimal, since they expected to have enough warning to get the planes off the ground, and thought the harbor too shallow for torpedoes and the battlewagons impervious to the carrier aircraft bombs. (The lesson of the lethality of the dive bomber hadn't been yet learned, either.)
I think they expected a general attack against numerous military targets, with the Japanese fleet spread out to attack each, and that would be damage we could weather. They didn't anticipate Yamamoto's plan to make a "decisive" strike against our seemingly-impregnable forward fleet base with practically every ship he had, and to successfully cross half the Pacific Ocean undetected. We (our politicians and Generals/Admirals) simply didn't think they were smart enough to come up with something that good.
It's not quite simple American racism or idiocy; despite their reputation as fierce warriors, and their surprise attack on Port Arthur in the previous decades, the Japanese Admiralty were known for being cautious/conservative, and not wanting to stick their necks out much.
It's a damned shame, too. Those were such beautiful ships. The Brits could build 'em!
By the way, M, you should know that most people (at least in the USA) consider "Jap" to be a racist epithet against the Japanese. I know you don't mean to use it in a derogatory fashion, but it makes me cringe each time I see it.
I think they expected a general attack against numerous military targets, with the Japanese fleet spread out to attack each, and that would be damage we could weather. They didn't anticipate Yamamoto's plan to make a "decisive" strike against our seemingly-impregnable forward fleet base with practically every ship he had, and to successfully cross half the Pacific Ocean undetected. We (our politicians and Generals/Admirals) simply didn't think they were smart enough to come up with something that good.
It's not quite simple American racism or idiocy; despite their reputation as fierce warriors, and their surprise attack on Port Arthur in the previous decades, the Japanese Admiralty were known for being cautious/conservative, and not wanting to stick their necks out much.
(September 18, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The UK sent Repulse and Prince of Wales to intercept the Jap fleet but it was 1941 and the lesson about capital ships operating without proper air cover had yet to be learned.
By December 8, everyone had gotten that message.
It's a damned shame, too. Those were such beautiful ships. The Brits could build 'em!
By the way, M, you should know that most people (at least in the USA) consider "Jap" to be a racist epithet against the Japanese. I know you don't mean to use it in a derogatory fashion, but it makes me cringe each time I see it.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
