Goering in later days was bombastic and inept, but during WW1 he was great fighter pilot, one of the best.
Had I won the war and managed to capture Hitler, I’d have amputated a leg and arm from each and sewed Hitler, Goebbels and Mengele together like Mengele did to twins, and turned them loose to wander a devastated Germany until they rotted away and died.
Have a nice day. ;j
And I would add to your chimera Trumann and following presidents who used American soldiers as a guinea pigs in testing nuclear weapons .
That’s “Truman”, my little aryan friend.
;j
Only at first, until they realized what Hitler was like.
Considering that Hitler saw Slavs as only one rung above the Jews, it’s not likely that eastern Europe would have been much better off.
He gave the “call me Meyer” speech (which the newspapers did after the RAF began bombing German cities in retaliation for German bombings of Britain) but I don’t remember anything about the building he was in being bombed at the time. Most of my knowledge comes from reading a handful of excellent books, one of them (Townsend’s Duel of Eagles) within the past three weeks…
nonpolar, my disgust for your pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi opinions grows on a daily basis. I will answer your comment, then proceed to ignore further rantings of this sort from you.
Churchill and Truman allied with Stalin because Stalin was actively fighting Hitler - supporting one madman against the madman you’re fighting to make the second split his resources on a lost cause (the Russian front, in this case) is nothing but sound military doctrine. The Allies knew damned well that Stalin was bad news, they also knew that he was in no position to offer an immediate threat, which Hitler was. Deal with the immediate threat, and if the future threat can help you in that regard while exhausting his own resources, so much the better. Especially if he needs your help to prop himself up - there’s nothing better than an opponent that relies on obsolete hand-me-downs from your own forces.
The world most certainly would not be better if Nazi Germany had not been crushed, brought down, and relegated to history. The Nazis, and Adolf Hitler, are an embarassment to humanity and an illustration of the worst that humankind can stoop to. They were walking, talking excrement, and the only thing worse than a Nazi is a modern Nazi apologist or sympathizer.
Get this through your thick skull - the Nazis never liberated anybody. They conquered, opressed, murdered and destroyed. They portrayed themselves as liberators, but those they “liberated” were likely to wind up with a bullet in their skull or a cheaper death by starvation.
The only thing you’ve said with any scrap of truth, nonpolar is that during WWI Goering was a gifted fighter pilot. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe - and fortunately for the Allies - by the time the Nazis took power and Goering took leadership of the Luftwaffe his ego had inflated to the point where reality for him was shaped by what he wanted to believe and little else.
Please, drop the pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler drivel. They did nothing of value, and caused only sorrow, death, and horror.
I find this thread facinating. Thanks for all the info! I definantly want to read some of the mentioned material and “get up to speed”.
In many of the history books I’ve read (when I was much younger so I can’t quite remember it all) wasn’t this effectively true? Didn’t the US stop oil and material shipments (blockade) to Japan and effectively force Japan’s hand?
Also, why is Pearl Harbor a sticking point for Americans? AFAIK “sneak” attacks are fair game in the field of battle. Wasn’t D-Day effectively a “sneak” attack?
I do hope Japan doesn’t try to hide what it was 70 years ago. Of course I also cannot see Japan “rearming” itself for another large war. Japan still has no significant resources and if war broke out and all material shipments stopped, Japan would be screwed in a matter of months.
War had not been declared before Pearl Harbour. WWII was a going concern before the Normandy Invasion.
I believe the Japanese did intend to declare war shortly before the attack, but there was a foul up with their diplomatic people.
When Pearl Harbor happened, there was no “field of battle” - in fact, the Japanese Ambassador in Washington DC was involved in a sham of negotiating with the US to supposedly preserve US/Japanese relations when the attack took place. From what I understand, he was supposed to deliver an ultimatum before the attack, but was delayed by some technical problem which meant that the attack came with no warning while the two countries were, although under some tension, at peace with each other. Someone who’s better versed on the Pacific war will need to fill in the gaps and clarify some of my simplifications.
D-Day was not a sneak attack - the Germans didn’t know where and when the invasion was coming, but they knew it had to happen, had to happen soon, and they assumed it would be at the shortest channel crossing (Calais), rather than at Normandy. Plus, we were very much at war with Germany at the time. A sneak attack would be completely unexpected and would catch one’s enemy unprepared. The Germans had fortified the French coastline to the point that even in Normandy where they were pretty sure the invasion wouldn’t be likely, the coastal defenses almost managed to defeat the invasion.
In some respects, they’ve already re-armed. Japan’s annual military budget is third behind the US and China’s, and their equipment is among the most modern in the world. Leadership, however, is iffy-to-nonexistant, IMO.
some figures:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040611.html
Thanks for the clarification Kilt-wearin’ man and carnivorousplant.
Because of this thread I just ordered 2 books from Amazon; Rape of Nanking and a book detailing the whole “comfort women” issue (I also got Band of Brothers but of course, I wanted that DVD way before this thread 
).
I don’t know if anyone can answer, but if war was declared, what would be the “typical” response in US naval deployment? Would the US have steamed all their ships upon hearing the news? Would there have been a bigger patrol (or any partol at all) around the base at the time? Also, wasn’t there some hints to an attack that didn’t, for some reason, alert US Forces to a pending attack? IIRC didn’t a destroyer sink a sub just hours before the attack?
And the not declaring war part isn’t something Japan is alone in doing. Wasn’t the whole debacle in Vietnam “not a war” because one wasn’t declared? I remember people saying America didn’t lose the “war” because there wasn’t a war to begin with!
But even with the most advanced ships and planes, what could Japan do in the 2-6 months of supplies it could hoard? Take China? Take Korea?
I do not believe Japan is harmless but at the same time, it’s very well contained and stuck between a rock and a hard place. It cannot expand via force. It could buy a small 3rd world country but I don’t know what it could do once it did.
Oh yeah, could someone recommend some books to consider regarding the war with Japan (and not so much about Europe)? Amazon’s search engine isn’t all that good (it found mostly Nazi stuff) and a lot of the books didn’t have any reviews. Thanks again!
That’s really surprising. Do you know if the US has any plans to pull out and give Japan full autonomy within the next few decades?
Once again, there’s a HUGE difference between a somewhat unprovoked (and certainly unexpected) sneak attack and a long, drawn out but easily noticed military action that basically boils down to the US and some of our allies getting involved in what was effectively a civil war between communist North Vietnam and non-communist (they weren’t exactly a democracy, but not exactly a dictatorship…what the heck were they?) South Vietnam. Just because a formal declaration of war wasn’t handed down by Congress…well, semantics aren’t the same as actions. The US didn’t launch a sneak attack on North Vietnam while pretending to negotiate with them, we gradually waded into a messy conflict that had already been going on for years (just ask the French…) - first by providing military advisors and trainers for the South Vietnamese, then by gradually allowing ourselves to be drawn into actual combat. There’s no valid comparison between our involvement in Vietnam and Japan’s responsibility for the Pacific theatre of World War II.
As for what the Navy would have been doing if they had known the Japanese considered themselves to be at war with us on 7 December, 1941, well, they certainly wouldn’t have had most of the fleet tied up at anchor in Pearl Harbor, with no state of readiness of any kind, no defenses ready, and nobody paying attention to warning signs (like radar returns of the Japanese air wing coming in that were dismissed as false signals, or mis-read signals of American B-17s coming from the opposite direction) because they didn’t think they could be warning signs. The nearby Army Air Corps airfield (Hickam Field, IIRC) would have had patrols in the air and aircraft on alert ready to respond to a hostile incursion. Basically, the attack may have still succeeded, but the effects would not have been as devastating - not as many ships would have been there, not as many Americans would have lost their lives, and Japanese losses would have been much, much heavier.
Of course, outrage over the attack was a major factor both in military recruitment and in war production, so if the Pearl Harbor attack had happened differently it may well have had a detrimental effect on other factors in the war including weapons procurement for the US and our allies (we supplied a lot of weapons to our allies, and vice-versa), manpower available, and intangibles such as motivation.
If you want to find good “overview” books about the Pacific war, you might look for good biographies on Admiral Chester Nimitz, Admiral “Bull” Hallsey, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, and General Douglas MacArthur (though MacArthur bios might be more about the man and less about the actions - he was a bit of an egotist, and his psychology makes for fascinating reading…). The “Victory at Sea” film series is available on DVD (I think NetFlix has them) and these films give a very good historical record of the Pacific war, although it is told 100% from the American POV as they were created immediately post-war in the US. They do, however, consist entirely of original newsreel footage from the US, our allies, and Japan, so as a historical “this is what it was like” document they’re hard to beat. They also have that nifty old newsreel music and narration.
OK, I’ve come up with a better “not a declared war” clarification.
Pearl Harbor - Japan pretended to negotiate to keep normalized relations with the US despite growing tensions, meanwhile their fleet prepares for a surprise attack. On the morning of 7 December, their ambassador was supposed to deliver an ultimatum just before the time the attack was scheduled to begin, in order to intimidate the US and give Japan the upper hand in the Pacific, thus allowing them to do as they please where they please. Due to various delays, the ambassador arrives after the attack has already happened, thus there is absolutely no warning, and the Japanese attack while the two nations are still diplomatically at peace. War is not declared beforehand as a tactic, otherwiset the sneak attack might be thwarted - sneaky, underhanded and not nice at all.
VietNam - The French abandoned this former colony in the late '50s, giving the communist North Vietnamese a huge taste of success and leaving a weak South Veitnamese government scrambling to keep their half of the country together. The United States, under President Kennedy, continues its doctrine of opposing communism wherever it rears its ugly head and proceeds to offer assistanc, equipment and training to the South in order to help them fend of the North. The North, with massive Chinese and Soviet assistance, proves a more formidable foe than the South can handle on its own, so the US and some allies (but mostly the US) gradually find themselves drawn directly into the conflict. War is not decalred because by the time we’re effectively at war (the Johnson administration), our troops have been fighting for some time and, besides, the war itself is over a decade old already. War is not declared because it would be rather silly - everyone knows we’re fighting, and who we’re fighting.
Does that help, or have I just restated myself? 
It depends upon what you mean by “force Japan’s hand.” For most of the 1930’s, Japan waged war against China and other Asian coutries/colonies in the hopes of creating their own Empire. FDR decided to curtail, and eventually stop, the shipment of oil and other materiel (i.e., war supplies) in order to curtail Japanese activities.
This “force[d] Japan’s hand” only in the sense of delivering them an ultimatum to either stop their aggressive war or to expand it to include us. Because we forced them to make that decision doesn’t absolve them of the responsibility of choosing to continue aggressive war.
To put it metaphorically- John Dillinger runs out of a bank holding his .38 and a bag of cash; Officer Copper shouts at him, “Stop, or I’ll shoot!” If Dillinger shoots Copper, is it Copper’s own fault that he was killed? After all, he forced Dillinger to choose between stopping his bank robbery or shooting the cop.
And, unfortunately, there lies the rub- Japan is working very hard to hide what it once was from itself. Those who do not learn from history, etc., etc.
That was excellent, thanks!
Having been raised in Canada we never learned the particulars of the Vietnam war. I’ve only read a few posts dealing with “American’s defeat” only to get replies about there not being a war (kinda confused me for a while).
But how sucessful are the Japanese at this point? I do worry that Japan’s children (however few that might be) might not know of all the atrocities commited by other Japanese but is there an actual movement among “young people” to mobilize their military? To attack another country? Can history infact be repeated in this instance?
One of the interesting things I’ve noticed (only now, after thinking back about my highschool history courses) is that Canada’s atrocities are also not mentioned (against the Native Indians). When we studied both WWs, we didn’t get into the nitty gritty or talk about anything except an overall view of the holocaust. We didn’t learn about Russia’s 21 million killed in WW2. Or Japan’s involvement in China. I don’t think Japan’s alone in ignoring their history.
Well, some do. My grandmother who died a few years ago, was a very prim and proper old lady, never smoked, drank, cursed, nothing. Very religious and all of that. The single thing that could set her off was the subject of Japan. She never referred to them as Japanese, only “Japs.” This was a hyphenated word with the prefix of “damn.” It startled the hell out of me the first time I heard her do it. :eek:
I am also acquainted with an elderly Korean lady who married a USAF intel guy. She was from some small village in Korea and was quite a young girl during WWII. She vividly remembers being rounded up and forced to watch her uncle be skinned alive as an object lesson to the rest of the village. She is still just a bit peeved about the whole episode and is unlikely to forgive it in this world or the next.
My father was at Guadalcanal with the First Marine Div and is also not a big Japan booster. I used to see some of the photos he came back with, old B&W pictures with scalloped edges and smaller than we make now. The first time I looked at a picture of a beach I saw nothing unusual until I realized the entire beach was covered in rotting bodies the color of the mud beneath them. He almost never talks about it.
I don’t know how others see them but I always have a sneaking suspicion the Japanese still see themselves as superior to other humans in general and Koreans in particular.
Regards
Testy
I remember from Dr. Bergamini’s book, that the japanese government started destroying many of their war documents in the early 1950’s…so much was destroyed that it is hard to do research today on such horrors as the chemical warfare experiments in Manchuria. As well, there is almost nothing left about Japan’s abortive war with the Soviet Union (in 1938-39). In the battales that took place between the IJA and the Red Army, the Japanese took horrendous losses…in the Battle of Khalkin Gol, almost an entire Japanese division was wiped out!
Have the Japanese come clean about their genocide in China?
I would also recommend the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! as an introduction to the topic. It was a joint production of both Japanese and American efforts - half the film is in English, half in Japanese. It follows the history much more faithfully than more recent productions involving Pearl Harbor.
There were fumbles and bumbles on both sides, but there’s a bit were Yamamoto is talking about how the diplomatic snafu resulting in the ultimatum being delivered after the attack instead of before it would greatly inflame the Americas, and be seen by them as salt in the wound, a delibrate insult, etc. I don’t know if the words spoken by the Yamamoto character in Tora! Tora! Tora! were verbatim or not (the bit about “we have only woke a sleeping giant” is - it’s a well-known quote) but it’s likely to have captured the gist of what he said. Yamamoto attended college in the US for a number of years, he did have some understanding of the US, much more so than most of the Japanese high command.
We didn’t stop ALL shipments… just ones we had control over. Remember, Japan by that time had control of all of Korean and a slice of mainland China and all their resources.
My understanding (which may be limited - I am not a professional historian) is that Japan thought, at least in part, that by attacking Pearl Harbor then delivering terms we could be intimidated into not interfering with them in the Pacific. Certainly the military Japanese regarded us as weak and soft and were quite surprised by the reaction they got. They were expecting us to make a decision based on profit vs. loss and an abhorence of dying… not on the raw angry emotion that we did, actually, enter into war with as a result of the attack.
I’m reading an interesting book called Flyboys that deals with the air war in the Pacific, but also covers some of the background. It, too, covers much of the same ground that has been mentioned here.
Cultural issues, I suspect.
In some ways, if the Japanese hadn’t attacked Pearl they would have had much more free reign in the Pacific, and if they had attacked the Phillipines we might, given the distractions in Europe, have cut our losses there and simply pulled back to Hawaii. Particularly if there was an actual treaty invovled (though who can really say what might have happened if history had taken another course). Whether Japan realized it or not, when they they attacked Pearl they kicked a hornet’s nest.
Anyhow - in addition to being engaged in on-going diplomatic negotiations with the US for peace, delivering the ultimatum after the attack was, indeed, salt in the wound. It was sneak attack PLUS. The Japanese tendency to strafe sailors in the water, wounded or trying to fly the scene of battle, was also an affront to American notions of how to conduct oneself. As a general rule, Americans usually stop shooting once you surrender - they expect others to do the same. When the other don’t, it makes us really, really cranky and mean.
No one expects total honesty in diplomacy, of course, but the manner in which it played out in December of 1941, whether it was the true Japanese intention or not, made it seem the diplomatic end of things was all part of the ploy, a delibrate strategy to have us lower our guard and manuver us into a position where we would be easier to attack. It had a lot to do with why unconditional surrender of Japan was the eventual demand - the feeling was we could NOT trust them. We had acted in good faith in 1941 and the result was a shattered fleet in Pearl Harbor. We could not afford to make that mistake again. So the only end the US would accept was the complete and utter subjugation of Japan to the US.
Given the Japanese notions of honor and “face”, this made for quite a nasty, bloody, horrible war.
There are a bunch of cultural traits in both cultures that wound up exacerbating the build up to the attack at Pearl, and the resulting war. Both sides horrified the other on a regular basis.
We all tend to hide the mistakes we are ashamed of… why should the Japanese be different? Except they seem to be more determined to bury their role in WWII than some of the other combatants.
Oh, I can - Japan has flipped between war and peace many times in its history. Seems to be one extreme or the other - they’re either all fighting or none of them are (yes, a bit of a simplification). Right now, they’re in peace mode. If, however, they were attacked in a heinous manner their society could probably flip back into total war mode - we are, after all, looking at a culture than in many ways puts the group before the individual, and is great at organizing effective action in groups.
Remember, the last time the island nation took on the US they didn’t have much natural resources, either, and the US had all sorts of resources. Japan still fought long bloody years. They don’t give up easily, that’s for sure, and they can make the likes of Don Quixote look like a quitter.
Lets see… December 1941 to August 1945 is…45 months. Yep. Japan was “screwed” in about 45 months last time. Uh-huh.
If there was one thing both sides learned in WWII it’s do NOT underestimate the other guy. Japan may not have as much in the way of resources as other countries but efficiency and self-sacrifice are two things they do excel at when they are motivated to do so.
Just as John Paul Jone’s real quote was not “I have not yet begun to fight”, but “Now I’ve got the son of a whore!”, Yamamoto’s actually said “F–k!” 
A US Navy pilot floating in a life raft was a witness to the battle of Midway, and his observations were used in the movie. The PBY that rescued him machine gunned a Japanese pilot in another raft.