The Pacific War

[Jekyll]

 

The significance of the Battle of the Coral Sea was that the Americans had foiled the occupation of Port Moresby and the knockout of Australian air power. These were necessary before carrier strikes by the Japanese against Australia.

Actually, the significance of the Battle of the Coral Sea was that both the Shokaku and Zuikaku were not available for the assault on Midway scheduled for only a month hence.

Had the IJN had six fleet carriers available, the 3 US Carriers may well have been detected prior to launching their devastating attack on the morning of 4th June.  Had the US Navy lost those 3 carriers, Midway would undoubtedly have fallen.

P.S. IIRC only the Shokaku was damaged in the fighting.  The Zuikaku had lost most of her air wing in the engagement, and required a lengthy period in which to train new carrier air crews.

------------------
=357th Pony Express=
Aces High Training Corps

[Toad]

 
 http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm

Yes, both important aspects. The Navy sees it both ways as well.

At the time of Coral Sea, the job was to stop the present threat.

"The Coral Sea action resulted from a Japanese amphibious operation intended to capture Port Moresby, located on New Guinea's southeastern coast. A Japanese air base there would threaten northeastern Australia and support plans for further expansion into the South Pacific, possibly helping to drive Australia out of the war and certainly enhancing the strategic defenses of Japan's newly-enlarged oceanic empire."

The "success" of the Coral Sea action had a major bearing on the victory at Midway, but the upcoming Midway operation was not the reason the Coral Sea action was fought.

"Preliminary operations on 3-6 May and two days of active carrier combat on 7-8 May cost the United States one aircraft carrier, a destroyer and one of its very valuable fleet oilers, plus damage to the second carrier. However, the Japanese were forced to cancel their Port Moresby seaborne invasion. In the fighting, they lost a light carrier, a destroyer and some smaller ships. Shokaku received serious bomb damage and Zuikaku's air group was badly depleted. Most importantly, those two carriers were eliminated from the upcoming Midway operation, contributing by their absence to that terrible Japanese defeat."



[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-17-2001).]

[blur]

 

Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
Issues? I'm still waiting to hear what exactly our "Interests" ™ are in the Balkans?
<snip>
As soon as you can detail some of our "Interests" ™ in the Balkans, I might accept your little hypothesis.
<snip>

U.S. foreign policy exhibits  "selective amnesia" when it comes to humanitarian issues. The basic question is; why is the U.S. making an issue about human rights violations occurring in Yugoslavia? Aren't there many other regions around the globe where atrocities are committed? How about Algeria, Chechnya, Rwanda, Israel, Turkey, India, and Spain? I can come up with more if you like.

A closer look reveals that the above mentioned regions are either allies or are economically insignificant.

Aha, politics and economics!

Let's view the Kosovo War from this perspective. Isn't this region one of the last non-NATO strongholds leftover after the cold war?

An economic benefit is that the U.S. can control eventual Caspian oil pipeline routes between the Black Sea and the Adriatic and by opening up this region we gain access to new markets, especially in regards to the exploitation of minerals and other natural resources. Also the military/industrial complex wins because more arms sales are required.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union NATO was left without a sparring partner. Any institution fearing dissolution will attempt to create an enemy.  In this case Kosovo is the solution to NATO's problem. Or we could further factor this down to "NATO is the problem".

So did NATO intervene as a police force for humanitarian reasons? I hardly think so. That's just a cover up for the U.S strategy of furthering our economic interests.

Any countering arguments are welcome.

[jedi]

Or, maybe we just didn't want to have to fight a war to retake parts of Italy, Albania, and the various other countries surrounding Bosnia/Yugoslavia 5 years from now.

Face it, had Milosevic been "successful" in his campaign dating back to the mid-90s, that part of Europe would be even more screwed-up and dangerous than it is now, and several of our NATO allies would be DIRECTLY threatened.  At which point we'd have to fight an opponent strengthened by success, with "buffer countries" between us and his own territory, and strongly allied with Russia.

So, while it's true that we generally only intervene where we have a reasonable capability to operate AND "national interest" at stake, it's also true that our national interest does often coincide with "humanitarian" considerations and "doing the right thing."

Kinda funny tho, when we DO intervene, and put some kind of a stop (or at least a slow down) to the wholesale slaughter someplace, everyone screams "hypocrite!" and no one even comments on all those OTHER countries who just sat back and watched for YEARS, and who didn't lift a finger to help, but who are perfectly willing to let the US clean up their messes for them.

Maybe Toad is right.  Maybe we should just "stay home" from now on.  Let a few other countries figure out just how much "blood and treasure" it takes to protect their way of life and keep them "secure."

[Toad]

Well, we're way off the Pacific War thread here, but who cares? I don't think Spat is going to address that vast amount of fighting the Commonwealth did against the Japanese PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.  

 

Originally posted by blur:
An economic benefit is that the U.S. can control eventual Caspian oil pipeline routes between the Black Sea and the Adriatic and by opening up this region we gain access to new markets, especially in regards to the exploitation of minerals and other natural resources. Also the military/industrial complex wins because more arms sales are required.

So did NATO intervene as a police force for humanitarian reasons? I hardly think so. That's just a cover up for the U.S strategy of furthering our economic interests.

So, when you boil down your post in response to Raub's actual question, you are saying that the only reason US troops are in the former Yugoslavian region is to control future oil pipeline routes and to help American business interests exploit mineral deposits and other natural resources?

I just want to be sure I understand your position before we start debating a few facts.

Also, just curious. Were you and enlistee or a draftee?

[Jay_76]

Blur,

here's wishing you good luck in this thread, I sense a fair degree of dissention.

That being said, I can't say that "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" stirs me to any great measure, either.  While conservative in nature, its American liberal thinkers like Utah Philips that impress me most.

Watching this one with interest,

Jay.

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by blur:
U.S. foreign policy exhibits  "selective amnesia" when it comes to humanitarian issues. The basic question is; why is the U.S. making an issue about human rights violations occurring in Yugoslavia? Aren't there many other regions around the globe where atrocities are committed? How about Algeria, Chechnya, Rwanda, Israel, Turkey, India, and Spain?

A closer look reveals that the above mentioned regions are either allies or are economically insignificant.

An economic benefit is that the U.S. can control eventual Caspian oil pipeline routes between the Black Sea and the Adriatic and by opening up this region we gain access to new markets, especially in regards to the exploitation of minerals and other natural resources. Also the military/industrial complex wins because more arms sales are required.

So did NATO intervene as a police force for humanitarian reasons? I hardly think so. That's just a cover up for the U.S strategy of furthering our economic interests.

Any countering arguments are welcome.

Ok, let me respond by paragraphs. You mention Rwanda in the first paragraph. Evidentally you don't remember the vast amounts of food, and the water purification teams we sent there a few years ago. Talk about selective amnesia. Let me guess, Rwanda has a huge petroleum reserve? Chechnya? Surely you are joking, right? How prudent would it be for us to send troops to a former(?) Russian province.

As far as oil pipelines, etc. The US already has numerous oil companies in Baku, and other areas of Azerbijan(sp). That area is quickly becoming an American boom town. What the Balkans have to do with that is beyond me.  We might be able to corner the market on used Yugo parts.


------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

 

[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-17-2001).]

[Duckwing6]

Raub you're prooving your own point...

The US "policing" action on the balcan came YEARS after the war started there... and guess why ? because the US Interest(tm) was so low .. why do you think The gulf war was fought so quickly after the occupation in comparison..

now tell me why most other countries think that the US is "policeing" only when there's their Intterest(tm) involved ?

Phillip "Duckwing6" Artweger

Oh yea and i don't blame the US .. the UNO is to blame for beeing the slowest burocratic organization ever created by man.

[This message has been edited by Duckwing6 (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by Duckwing6:
Raub you're prooving your own point...

The US "policing" action on the balcan came YEARS after the war started there... and guess why ? because the US Interest(tm) was so low .. why do you think The gulf war was fought so quickly after the occupation in comparison..

now tell me why most other countries think that the US is "policeing" only when there's their Intterest(tm) involved ?

Phillip "Duckwing6" Artweger

Oh yea and i don't blame the US .. the UNO is to blame for beeing the slowest burocratic organization ever created by man.

[This message has been edited by Duckwing6 (edited 01-18-2001).]

Hitler was in the Balkans for the same reason we are there. He was headed for Baka when he stuffed his head up his butt and got distracted by his desire to show the Russians that it was futile to resist. And what was he after in N. Africa sand? Grab your National Geographic World Atlas and look real close at all those places and you will see the common thread.

[blur]

So,when you boil down your post in response to Raub's actual question, you are saying that the only reason US troops are in the former Yugoslavian region is to control future oil pipeline routes and to help American business interests exploit mineral deposits and other natural resources?


No, I'm not saying that economics was the only concern. I think it's more of a complex mix of political and economic considerations that sparked our intervention in this region. I should have changed that sentence from "economic interests" to "interests". My contention is that "human rights" was NOT the primary concern.

On further investigation it seem that U.S. policy in this area of the world is one of facilitating the breakup of the former Soviet Bloc countries into small regions. It's much easier for a super power to control small bickering countries than it is to control a larger unified power bloc. Divide and conquer.


Also, just curious. Were you and enlistee or a draftee?


Actually a gang of thugs kidnapped me one night. After they shaved my head I thought they were going to make me into a Hare Krishna but I ended up at Lackland AFB instead.

Seriously, I enlisted of my own volition. I think I know where you are going with this. If I was drafted I could rant and rave about my experience with righteous indignation. I can't. But I could plead ignorance, which is the standard defense of every teenager.

 In any case I ended up at Lackland in 100 degree heat marching around with a person called a TI; ranting and raving incoherently, his face stuck nose deep in my left ear we circled around like some bizarre Siamese twin. Occasionally he would mention something about doing a "dick dance" on my head. I assumed at the time that this was just his attempt at being friendly.  

After that I rose through the standard Air Force enlisted ranks of Rainbow, Ping, Jeep and Maggot. Finally being released after four years for good behavior.  

[MrBill]

The Balkans ... check out history ... The only times these peoples "ever" have been on the same page is when they had a common enemy to fight, the Mongols, the Greeks, the Romans, the Turks, the British, the former Soviet Union, snicker NAT giggle O (U.S.A. for those of you unfamiliar with modern times ).
  I firmly believe that the Balkan peoples think human rights only start to count when there is only one person left standing waving his personal flag and proclaiming that they have won!!  That is just my opinion ... I could be wrong ... actually kinda hope I am, but 3000 years seem to suggest I am closer to right than wrong, sigh.  

------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile

[LJK Raubvogel]

Duckwing, the Gulf War was fought so quickly because that was a case of a blatant invasion of a soverign nation by another. The Balkans are a little different. The lines are blurred. Those people have been fighting amongst themselves for thousands of years, and our intervention for a few years isn't going to fix that.

Blur, if our interests in the Balkans aren't economic, what are they? Could we possibly have been concerned that genocide was occuring? And what of Rwanda? Or East Timor?

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

 

[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-18-2001).]

[AKDejaVu]

 

The US "policing" action on the balcan came YEARS after the war started there... and guess why ? because the US Interest(tm) was so low .. why do you think The gulf war was fought so quickly after the occupation in comparison..

Not a fair comparison Duckwing.  Sovereign nation invasion crap asside... Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was not impacting the US economy.. it was impacting WORLD economy.  I seriously doubt Kosovo holds anywhere near that kind of potential.

I do tend to think that Mr Bill hit it the nail on the head.

AKDejaVu

[Toad]

Blur,

Do you support or not support US troops in the Balkans? I'm asking if you find sufficient legitimate economic or "national interest" reasons to be there. If not, do you find sufficient legitimate humanitarian reasons to be there? Or do you think the reasons we're there are all wrong? Your posts seem to cover both sides of the issue. Where do you stand?


With respect to serving in the armed forces, there's a reason people say they "serve" in the armed forces but "work" for the government or a big company.

When I signed in to my duty squadron, my DO told me "Son, you'll get out of the military what you put into it." He was right.

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Toad:

When I signed in to my duty squadron, my DO told me "Son, you'll get out of the military what you put into it." He was right.

That's not true Toad, I put 2 good knees into the military, and I got 2 bad knees out of it.  

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

 

[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-21-2001).]