Isoroku Yamamoto, the Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet

[Maverick]

Active military leaders have been legitimate military targets since before the American Revolution. Its political or civilian leaders that are considered off the list, unless they also don a uniform, then they become again a legitimate military target.

[Karnak]

Active military leaders have been legitimate military targets since before the American Revolution. Its political or civilian leaders that are considered off the list, unless they also don a uniform, then they become again a legitimate military target.

Meh.  I'd say we assassinated him and that there was nothing wrong with doing so.  Because we targeted him specifically "assassinate" works.  It was a perfectly legitimate thing to do and I've never seen anybody, even Japanese people, suggest otherwise.

I wouldn't consider the P-38 pilots to be assassins though.  Kinda a bit wonky due to the idiosyncrasies of English.

[GScholz]

"Assassinate" does not mean "illegitimate" or "illegal" as far as I'm concerned. Just describes a sneaky or treacherous way of killing someone.

[Scherf]

I wonder if they got Tochy to do the animations.

I tried not to mention George Lucas or Ben Affleck, but failed.

[Rino]

Then see if they did it right or screwed up; some screens from the final fight:

P-38s engage:
(Image removed from quote.)


Close up on one of the 38s:
(Image removed from quote.)


Escorting Zekes drop tanks and engage:
(Image removed from quote.)


ASSASSINATION! (Or kill or whatever )
(Image removed from quote.)

     Well it's the wrong model P-38, but I think only Guppy will have trouble with that     The 339th was flying
Gs but those are later model Js or Ls with the large air inlets instead of the G small inlets.

P-38G:


     I'm ok with it, at least they used the reasonably correct aircraft 

[Rino]

Pick a fight with a big dog and it is likely you will get bit....

     Or unless your name is Cobia, don't take a bomber to a dogfight 

[smoe]

Have to remember Yamamoto studied at Harvard University (1919–1921) and his two postings as a naval attaché in Washington, D.C. He then used this knowledge against the US in WWII.

[kamori]

Curious choice of word there for the killing of a military soldier by other military soldiers during a declared war.

Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons.[1][2]

An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives; it may be carried out for the prospect of financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from the desire to acquire fame or notoriety (that is, a psychological need to garner personal public recognition), from the wish to form some kind of "relationship" with a public figure, or from the desire (or at least the willingness) to be killed or commit suicide[citation needed] in the act


KILL   a : to deprive of life : cause the death of
b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering

Looks like They both apply.....Assassination seems to define more of the motive and Kill is the action with both having the exact same result.   I hate the knee jerk reactions of not understanding definitions. Assassination is just a clearer definition.

Kam

[Rino]

     To my mind killing an Admiral in a combat zone doesn't really qualify as an assassination.  The Japanese did engage the
339th, they just didn't do it very well.  Sending orders I guess could qualify as assassination, but frankly he was a enemy
member of a hostile military in a state of war with the US.

     Considering how the public still felt about Pearl Harbor, I imagine the decision to take him out didn't cost FDR much sleep.

[GScholz]

I wonder if they got Tochy to do the animations.

I tried not to mention George Lucas or Ben Affleck, but failed.

Yeah, they reminded me of Tochy's, but I don't think so.

[GScholz]

Have to remember Yamamoto studied at Harvard University (1919–1921) and his two postings as a naval attaché in Washington, D.C. He then used this knowledge against the US in WWII.

I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment. Yamamoto was one of the staunchest opponents to going to war with the great powers (the U.S. in particular), and to the tripartite pact. When his government did go to war he, of course, served his country to the best of his abilities. After Pearl Harbor he was a very somber man, almost defeatist, and he only fought for the slim hope of some sort of bargained peace.

[Karnak]

    To my mind killing an Admiral in a combat zone doesn't really qualify as an assassination.  The Japanese did engage the
339th, they just didn't do it very well.  Sending orders I guess could qualify as assassination, but frankly he was a enemy
member of a hostile military in a state of war with the US.

     Considering how the public still felt about Pearl Harbor, I imagine the decision to take him out didn't cost FDR much sleep.

Incidentally killing an admiral or general, or as a target of opportunity like Lord Nelson was, would not be an assassination.  Specifically intercepting and killing him as the sole purpose of the mission would be.

Put it this way, if that had just been a G4M with A6M escort there is no way we'd have bothered to try to intercept and shoot it down.  It simply wouldn't have been worth the risk and effort to pull off successfully without Yamamoto being on the plane.

In no way does this make it nefarious, dishonorable or any such thing.  It is just a clinical description as an attack planned and targeted at killing an individual.

[Masherbrum]

Pretty good film. A must-see for Pacific War buffs. Chronicles the life and death of Admiral Yamamoto starting pre-war with the politics in Tokyo. The battles of Pearl Harbor and Midway are central to the film, and of course Yamamoto's assassination by P-38s in '43.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG1ogKV70-E

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Admiral-Blu-ray/43681/

If he was "assassinated", then Norway "surrendered".

[Bodhi]

If he was "assassinated", then Norway "surrendered".

Not really.  Norway did surrender.  There is no argument about it, especially considering the Norwegian government admits that they surrendered and the remenants fled to England to form a Government in Exile.  The only people that say Norway did not surrender in WWII are those that are intellectually dishonest.

[RTHolmes]

thanks Scholz, looks good and amazingly Lovefilm have rental copies, so DVD on the way