Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were).

Just pointing out...

Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

And if Japan had possessed the means the Hawaiian Islands and the West Coast would have been treated exactly as Poland was.

I'm just saying that I don't see what is somehow so uniquely special about PH. A lot of other countries got screwed worse in WW2, and yet it seems to be thought that somehow our circumstance was so much more special and that Europeans therefore can't possibly know what trauma we went through? That's all I'm questioning at this point. I would think many Europeans have plenty of understanding of what it means to be dragged into a war without asking for it and a very intimate understanding of just how nasty and brutish war can be. So, based on that, if they want to comment on whether or not the A-Bomb was necessary, they seem to have as much right to an opinion as anyone else as far as I can see.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

AW1Steve I am probably the only moderator following this thread. So if your respect has declined, put that completely on me.

I did almost lock this thread a few days ago, but the participants got more polite and it is about a period subject, though mostly tangential to the game. I've debated locking it every day though.

People can PM me privately if they want it locked. So far the only complaints I have seen have been public ones here.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Bill my biggest gripe/concern had been consistency. We've had a lot of threads locked that weren't even close to where this one went. When I look at the grounds , other than personal attacks , the biggest cause was current politics. Please go back to post #1 and tell me that there wasn't a question comparing the bomb dropping to a current political event (which was linked).

I'm not a wet blanket. In the past I've argued to keep threads like this alive. But can we get some definite guidance here? Where exactly are the lines? In the past it's been "don't even think of going close". Now?

I recognize that you are a new sheriff (OK, one that's been on the job a while). But can we have a definite policy? I've searched the forums for several days and can't find it in writing , other than comments from your predecessors. Where are they?

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Up on the hill; They’ve got time to burn;
There’s no return;
Double helix in the sky tonight;
Throw out the hardware, let’s do it right;
Aja;
When all my dime dancing is through:
I run to you..”mu”

Up on the hill; They think I’m ok;
Or so they say;
Chinese music always sets me free;
Angular banjoes; Sound good to me;
Aja;
When all my dime dancing is through:
I run to you..”mu”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire

:-)
Good discussion, great moderation imho so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire

:-)
Good discussion, great moderation imho so far.

Actually, just to be (anally) precise, Voltaire never said that, at least according to most Voltaire scholars I believe. But it's a nice quote. Kudos.

quote:

Voltaire never actually said “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Yet the persistence of the myth that associates this dictum with his name attests to the way that this invented statement captures well the spirit of his philosophy of liberty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

We should remember that Voltaire advanced the Cartesian postulate "I think therefor I am" to its necessary conclusion "I eat therefor I'm fat".

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Oh, what a revoltin' development that is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Oh, what a revoltin' development that is.

Nothing revoltin' about resembling the remark that "I think therefore I am" is there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Clearly Winkle is rather childishly ignoring my posts (how grown up - but hardly unexpected) so for the purposes of trying to have a sensible debate, could someone please tell me why any of the last few posts are in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion at hand??

Namely, how "Europeans" (as if we are one homogeneous group??) settled previous wars and how the US settled previous wars (plenty of which were by treaty) and what this has to do with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, a decision as I said earlier, that was rightfully Truman's to make.

Many thanks.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

Sorry if I seem inconsistent sometimes (a few threads have been locked by people other than me, but most of the time I'm the only one scanning every thread).

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Clearly Winkle is rather childishly ignoring my posts (how grown up - but hardly unexpected) so for the purposes of trying to have a sensible debate, could someone please tell me why any of the last few posts are in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion at hand??

Namely, how "Europeans" (as if we are one homogeneous group??) settled previous wars and how the US settled previous wars (plenty of which were by treaty) and what this has to do with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, a decision as I said earlier, that was rightfully Truman's to make.

Many thanks.

warspite1

Bump. Can anybody assist please?

Many thanks in advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Clearly Winkle is rather childishly ignoring my posts (how grown up - but hardly unexpected) so for the purposes of trying to have a sensible debate, could someone please tell me why any of the last few posts are in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion at hand??

Namely, how "Europeans" (as if we are one homogeneous group??) settled previous wars and how the US settled previous wars (plenty of which were by treaty) and what this has to do with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, a decision as I said earlier, that was rightfully Truman's to make.

Many thanks.

warspite1

Bump. Can anybody assist please?

Many thanks in advance.

Did you resort to name calling and then appeal for a sensible debate?

The discussion has included the idea of "what is the right way to end a war". So talking about the ways wars have been ended in the past is relevant for establishing context. You can disagree when Bullwinkle implies that Europeans and Americans can be divided into different groups based on their outlook. But just saying they are different carries no more weight than BW saying there are similarities.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Clearly Winkle is rather childishly ignoring my posts (how grown up - but hardly unexpected) so for the purposes of trying to have a sensible debate, could someone please tell me why any of the last few posts are in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion at hand??

Namely, how "Europeans" (as if we are one homogeneous group??) settled previous wars and how the US settled previous wars (plenty of which were by treaty) and what this has to do with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, a decision as I said earlier, that was rightfully Truman's to make.

Many thanks.

warspite1

Bump. Can anybody assist please?

Many thanks in advance.

Did you resort to name calling and then appeal for a sensible debate?

The discussion has included the idea of "what is the right way to end a war". So talking about the ways wars have been ended in the past is relevant for establishing context. You can disagree when Bullwinkle implies that Europeans and Americans can be divided into different groups based on their outlook. But just saying they are different carries no more weight than BW saying there are similarities.

warspite1

No I did not. My posts were rudely and continually ignored - THEN I resorted to name calling and continued to ask for a sensible debate - such as was being had before that person decided to ignore my posts.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy

Since you guys mentioned the no declaration of war thing a few times, in 1939 Poland was attacked without a declaration of war by both Germany on 1st September and by USSR on 17th. So no declaration of war before hostilities began is not that strange really during that time.

quote:

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy

Since you guys mentioned the no declaration of war thing a few times, in 1939 Poland was attacked without a declaration of war by both Germany on 1st September and by USSR on 17th. So no declaration of war before hostilities began is not that strange really during that time.

No, it was very "strange." The week prior to Sept. 1 Germany went through the façade of the Polish Corridor Ultimatum which also included HM's government reviewing it and finding it "reasonable" but lacking in certain diplomatic niceties. The false-flag operation of the last day of August (the radio station incident) also shows Germany's concern with not just marching in, which they did the next day after the pretext of the radio station incident. Of course the non-aggression pact with the USSR was a secret, but nations made and still make secret agreements all the time.

And Poland had only to look across the border to see the Wehrmacht massing.

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

This makes me wonder if the German invasion of USSR 1941 was a picnic. The largest invasion ever.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

U.S. civil and military intelligence had, amongst them, good information suggesting additional Japanese aggression throughout the summer and fall before the attack. At the time, no reports specifically indicated an attack against Pearl Harbor. Public press reports during summer and fall, including Hawaiian newspapers, contained extensive reports on the growing tension in the Pacific. Late in November, all Pacific commands, including both the Navy and Army in Hawaii, were separately and explicitly warned[47] war with Japan was expected in the very near future, and it was preferred that Japan make the first hostile act as they were apparently preparing to do.[48] It was felt that war would most probably start with attacks in the Far East: the Philippines,[49] Indochina, Thailand, or the Russian Far East. The warnings were not specific to any area, noting only that war with Japan was expected in the near future and all commands should act accordingly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

U.S. civil and military intelligence had, amongst them, good information suggesting additional Japanese aggression throughout the summer and fall before the attack. At the time, no reports specifically indicated an attack against Pearl Harbor. Public press reports during summer and fall, including Hawaiian newspapers, contained extensive reports on the growing tension in the Pacific. Late in November, all Pacific commands, including both the Navy and Army in Hawaii, were separately and explicitly warned[47] war with Japan was expected in the very near future, and it was preferred that Japan make the first hostile act as they were apparently preparing to do.[48] It was felt that war would most probably start with attacks in the Far East: the Philippines,[49] Indochina, Thailand, or the Russian Far East. The warnings were not specific to any area, noting only that war with Japan was expected in the near future and all commands should act accordingly.

From the wikipedia page.

In terms of damage done PH was hugely significant. And the Soviet Air Force was pretty much completely destroyed in the opening hours of Barbarossa.

And I don't think anyone bemoans the anger Americans feel about PH, or their desire for revenge or their insistence on unconditional surrender. In light of what happened all these things seem reasonable.

What does seem very unreasonable is that Europeans, generally, cannot understand the impact PH had. The same Europeans who have actually had their very own cities attacked/destroyed.

EDIT: And we are seriously in lock territory now.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

Who are these Europeans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

This makes me wonder if the German invasion of USSR 1941 was a picnic. The largest invasion ever.