Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundiver on October 23, 2003, 12:13:50 PM
-
I was just watching a History channel program about security systems. It seems that when we bombed Hiroshma a bank vault that was 900 feet from ground zero survived while everything else around it was vaporized.
That just strikes me as odd...I mean yeah vaults are designed tough but surviving ground zero?
-
That money is just about safe enough to use now i bet :)
-
Don't forget they didnt use to build concrete buildings back then in japan.
In any case, some cheap concrete and bricks are far weaker than a reinforced vault.
It's also quite small so it doesnt get in the way too much to be blown away.
-
most vaults are below ground anyway. it probably vaporise the bank off the top of it.
-
did you know doolittle's raid over Tokyo cause more death than both a-bombs together?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
did you know doolittle's raid over Tokyo cause more death than both a-bombs together?
Eh? Oh I need to hear this!
I always thought the Atomic bomb had killed between 80 and 100 thousand people.... and Doolittle's raid was more a PR and had not caused any significant damage.
http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/hirosima.htm
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/HiroshimaNagasaki.html
The History Dudes must be smoking crack...that watermelon will freak you up!
Pass the bong, man, I need another hit! :aok
-
Sundiver: that was 900 feet from ground zero survived while everything else around it was vaporized.
That just strikes me as odd...I mean yeah vaults are designed tough but surviving ground zero?
For you information, ground zero is the point on the ground above which the bomb detonated - at the altitude of about 2000 feet.
Eagler: did you know doolittle's raid over Tokyo cause more death than both a-bombs together?
Japanese executing tens (hundreds) of thousands chinese for the assistance offered to the US crews. Right?
miko
-
Eagler-
Are you sure you don't mean the fire bombing of Tokyo?
That's gotta be a mistake. Doolitte raid did not result in any large scale casualties.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Japanese executing tens (hundreds) of thousands chinese for the assistance offered to the US crews. Right?
miko
You sure those were not the ones used for biological experiments? They were going to eliminate chinese, raid or no raid. To the japanese, the chinese were inferior, and deserved death. Although, it can be said that the raid threw fuel on the fire.
They have a museum in Japan that a buddy of mine in the marines went to. He said there was a piece of granite from a bridge. He said the heat from the blast bubbled the quartz in the granite. Now that's hot. He also said they didn't allow pictures to be taken.
-
Sixpence: You sure those were not the ones used for biological experiments?
Pretty sure. I have Doolittle's book and also read a few other accounts of the consequenses of that sensless gesture (Doolittle raid) that completely showed the contempt in which US government held its own people, let alone chinese.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sixpence: You sure those were not the ones used for biological experiments?
Pretty sure. I have Doolittle's book and also read a few other accounts of the consequenses of that sensless gesture (Doolittle raid) that completely showed the contempt in which US government held its own people, let alone chinese.
miko
The japanese would dump chemical weapons on towns. Then go in and dissect them while they lay dead.( and then leave them there to rot) I don't think it had anything to do with the doolittle raid.
-
Sixpence: The japanese would dump chemical weapons on towns. Then go in and dissect them while they lay dead.( and then leave them there to rot) I don't think it had anything to do with the doolittle raid.
We are talking about different atrocities.
miko
-
miko is correct .. again
the japs slaughtered/tortured over 200,000 chinese after we peeved them off with the raid. It played with their heads for the entire war but the Chinese paid for it
Half way through Flyboys (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316105848/002-7660339-9726443?v=glance) goes into incredible detail of US/Japan military history leading up to the story of the Chichi Jima bombings
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sixpence: The japanese would dump chemical weapons on towns. Then go in and dissect them while they lay dead.( and then leave them there to rot) I don't think it had anything to do with the doolittle raid.
We are talking about different atrocities.
miko
Right, but what i'm saying is the doolittle raid would have little difference in the number of chinese killed. If the Americans were not allies with china, the Japanese would still have not spared them. The Japanese had a habit of not taking prisoners. If they were not killed in retribution of the raid, they would have been killed anyway. If they didn't have to spend resources on fighting the U.S., they probably would have eliminated alot more chinese.
-
I think he means the Tokyo fire raids, I read that these raids (added together) killed more then the two A-bombs did.
I don't know if long term deaths were counted or not.
-
Sixpence: Right, but what i'm saying is the doolittle raid would have little difference in the number of chinese killed.
:) Little? Don't you think that saying "quarter of million chinese more or less, who is counting" is a bit callous?
All chinese who had lived in that time would have died sooner or later. That does not mean they had to die because of the stupid US publicity stunt.
If they didn't have to spend resources on fighting the U.S., they probably would have eliminated alot more chinese.
I am not speaking against the war. Just that the stunt was an attempt to impress the american public. You see - the president did not believe the americans had the guts to oppose the "mighty enemy" after the "crushing blow" of Pearl Harbor and (correctly?) believed the people to be too stupid not to see that the raid had no military significance whatsover fro the amount of resources expended - even without the loss of chinese lifes.
miko
-
I am not speaking against the war. Just that the stunt was an attempt to impress the american public.
more like a moral booster, a turning point. much like in a ball game how one side can be getting beat soundly, then one guy hits a home run and the whole momentum changes, and they can come back and win.
making people (yours and theirs) believe you can win is the first step in making it happen.
-
capt. apathy: making people (yours and theirs) believe you can win is the first step in making it happen.
Right, treating your people like mindless primitives and trying to impress them with flashy tricks rather than trying to talk to them as intelligent beings.
Why not just say "People, we are a huge productive country and Japain is small and devoid of resources, we can turn out eight new aircraft carriers for each one they build, besides we are a democracy and they are not, it will take some hard work but we will sure win".
It was not a home run, whatever the newspapers said.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sixpence: Right, but what i'm saying is the doolittle raid would have little difference in the number of chinese killed.
:) Little? Don't you think that saying "quarter of million chinese more or less, who is counting" is a bit callous?
You are right, I just think they would not have been spared anyway. If they didn't have to fight the U.S., they might have done to the chinese what hitler did to the jews.
I am not speaking against the war. Just that the stunt was an attempt to impress the american public. You see - the president did not believe the americans had the guts to oppose the "mighty enemy" after the "crushing blow" of Pearl Harbor and (correctly?) believed the people to be too stupid not to see that the raid had no military significance whatsover fro the amount of resources expended - even without the loss of chinese lifes.
Well, I wouldn't term it as a stunt to impress the american public. It goes a little deeper than that. You would have to live through it to explain it. I can only go by what i've been told by people who did. It lifted a desparate nation when it needed it the most. Did it prevoke the japanese to seek retribution against the chinese? Yes. Would they have killed those same chinese as they conquered china? yes. The japanese were pretty ruthless, I believe if they had the resources, alot more chinese would have been eliminated, or enslaved.
I see your point Miko. But if I had to make the decision again, I wouldn't think twice. And it did have some military significance, some say this event was involved in the decision to take midway. If that is the case, then it played a major role in the war.
-
Right, treating your people like mindless primitives and trying to impress them with flashy tricks rather than trying to talk to them as intelligent beings.
Why not just say "People, we are a huge productive country and Japain is small and devoid of resources, we can turn out eight new aircraft carriers for each one they build, besides we are a democracy and they are not, it will take some hard work but we will sure win".
It was not a home run, whatever the newspapers said.
I agree you make a very reasonable argument. the problem is very few people (%) use reason, they go on emotion, gut feeling, and they need symbols and hero's.
it's not logical, but more often than not it's the way it is.
-
900ft huh...those japs sure new how to build a safe...
-
Miko, Miko, Miko, you know better than that stupid statement above, and if you don't, then you are not the intellect I thought you were.
-
I sure won't be confusing Miko as someone of great intellect.
-
You would be wrong, in general, then, Dago.
-
If memory serves, the Japanese dropped more bombs on Chungking than the U.S. did on the Japanese home islands during the whole of the war. By war's end, they had killed more than 10 million Chinese.
Chiang's forces also were also aware of the Doolittle raid and cooperated with the Americans whole-heartedly, even knowing what the Japanese might do in retaliation.
Psychologically, both the Chinese and the U.S. needed a stroke against the Japanese, even if it was a symbolic one. Doolittle's raid bolstered our flagging morale and dealt such a shock to the previously undefeated Japanese military that they precipitated the debacle at Midway.
It appears that the "spirit of revision" is beginning to change many American's views of these events. If you doubt the value of Doolittle's raid, talk to a few of the people who lived through and still remember those times. THEY can set the matter straight.
Shuckins
-
Shuckins,
How DARE you inject historical accuracy in the rants from miko!!! Don't you know it's so much clearer 50+ years after the fact and allows you to make judgements of those who lived through that period and did not have the advantage of Monday morning quarterbacking the situation. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by miko2d
:) Little? Don't you think that saying "quarter of million chinese more or less, who is counting" is a bit callous?
All chinese who had lived in that time would have died sooner or later. That does not mean they had to die because of the stupid US publicity stunt.
Miko, please tell me that you're not blaming the US for the murder of Chinese by the Japanese.
-
I saw that vault. it's displayed in the Hiroshima (bomb) museum, in Hiroshima. it looks like it's been eaten away.. radiation or rust I don't know... but it didn't look fit.
-
Sixpence: It lifted a desparate nation when it needed it the most.
Come on losing three thousand soldiers and a few obsolete battleships made the great american nation desperate? You can't really be of such low opinion of americans.
Have you seen a single published statement from 1941 where a single american said "we are doomed, our case is desperate..."?
And it did have some military significance, some say this event was involved in the decision to take midway. If that is the case, then it played a major role in the war.
I cannot imagine how it can possibly be but I have no basis to contest that assertion. If the Doolittle raid had a legitimate strategic purpose, I wish it was better publicised. I've read Doolittle's book and saw no mention of it.
capt. apathy: I agree you make a very reasonable argument. the problem is very few people (%) use reason, they go on emotion, gut feeling, and they need symbols and hero's.
it's not logical, but more often than not it's the way it is.
I recognise the benefit's of propaganda to encourage people's spirits. I was just critical about cost/benefit of this particular case even without the chinese.
Government could surely have found and overhyped the significance of some other heroics. I am sure that if Doolittle raid never happened, some other heroical and inspiring deed would have been found to fill the pages.
Gadfly: Miko, you know better than that stupid statement above, and if you don't, then you are not the intellect I thought you were.
I am not sure which statement you refer to. I am trying to make a case that the Doolittle raid was too expensive for the results it yielded - based on my subjective estimates. So I might be wrong and in any case there is no way to establish the truth.
I do not agree that the question is so obvious as to call arguing about it "stupid".
AKIron: Miko, please tell me that you're not blaming the US for the murder of Chinese by the Japanese.
No. That was a truly an unintended consequence.
Wasting planes and pilots and risking ships on a symbolic gesture was a bad decision in my opinion.
miko
-
It's impossible to measure the precise value of Doolittle's raid. However, and I'm sure everyone here knows this, positive morale is an essential ingredient in winning wars. I don't see how anyone could have seen this successful raid at the time as anything but a big morale booster.
-
Why not just say "People, we are a huge productive country and Japain is small and devoid of resources, we can turn out eight new aircraft carriers for each one they build, besides we are a democracy and they are not, it will take some hard work but we will sure win".
That one, Miko. And it IS stupid to think that FDR(or anyone) could make that type of statment and expect not to be laughed out of office. You give "the public" credit for way too much intelligence.
-
No. That was a truly an unintended consequence.
Wasting planes and pilots and risking ships on a symbolic gesture was a bad decision in my opinion.
miko
Hindsight is 20-20 miko, but try to see it from the point of view of the time. We (USA) had been roundly beaten all the way across the Pacific from Hawaii to the Phillipines. There were NO victories or even the chance at one in the near future. The Doolittle raid was a morale boost for the entire Country. My parents still remember the news reports and FDR's famous line that the planes flew to Japan from "Shangri La".
-
the raid was a stunt but it impacted Japans military strategy for the entire war. It also placed doubt in her ppl and their trust in their Emperors claim of invulnerability
even the US did not know how big an effect the raid had on the course of the war until years later
glance at the book in the link above if you get the chance
-
Lets not forget all the resources the Japanese tied up at home to defend against further raids on the homeland so early in the war. Yeah there was absolutely NO tactical or strategic value in that raid. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
midnight Target: We (USA) had been roundly beaten all the way across the Pacific from Hawaii to the Phillipines. There were NO victories or even the chance at one in the near future. The Doolittle raid was a morale boost for the entire Country. My parents still remember the news reports and FDR's famous line that the planes flew to Japan from "Shangri La".
OK, you have a point here and first hand testimony. Were your parents or anyone they knew ready to sign a peace with Japan and satisfy their conditions - lifting of embargo, etc? I doubt it but the morale effect might have been sigificant.
Could it be that is shut up the critcis who were blaming the lack of success in the war with Japan, whi attacked US, on the fact that FDR directed most of the resources on war with Germany - which did not attack US and did not pose the least threat to it (despite formal declaration of war).
I will not concede this argument outright but I will admit that you may well be right. Who knows.
Of cource "Shangri La" was a fiction, so FDR may as well have invented the whole raid and bombing.
Maverick: Lets not forget all the resources the Japanese tied up at home to defend against further raids on the homeland so early in the war.
You have confirmation on that? The Doolittle's planes were met with AA fire and saw plenty of fighters around, so the japanese were already expending some resources.
If anything, the raid and the lack of follow-up raids could have made evident to them the futility of such raids and let them free some resources for more important purposes...
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I cannot imagine how it can possibly be but I have no basis to contest that assertion. If the Doolittle raid had a legitimate strategic purpose, I wish it was better publicised. I've read Doolittle's book and saw no mention of it.
miko
Watch the history channel, that is where I got it. The Japanese wanted to respond to the doolittle raid. Taking midway would allow their bombers to hit American targets. There was an argument at high levels of the japanese military, some thought it a high risk. But midway was finally chosen, the rest is history. The bombing of Tokyo was an embarrassment to the Japanese, responding was a top priority and they made a hasty decision to attack midway.
"Come on losing three thousand soldiers and a few obsolete battleships made the great american nation desperate? You can't really be of such low opinion of americans.
Have you seen a single published statement from 1941 where a single american said "we are doomed, our case is desperate..."? "
I remember how I felt after 9/11 , that sinking feeling and pit in my stomache. I wouldn't say I was desparate, but I felt pretty low. I could only imagine the feeling if it was an empire conquering the pacific heading for my backyard.
-
Those battleships were obsolete?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Those battleships were obsolete?
There were outdated. And the CV's were no where near pearl. Which leads to the black helicopter theory that the Japanes were baited into attacking and starting a war they could not win. Let the hijacking begin.
-
Sixpence: I remember how I felt after 9/11 , that sinking feeling and pit in my stomache. I wouldn't say I was desparate, but I felt pretty low. I could only imagine the feeling if it was an empire conquering the pacific heading for my backyard.
I guess it's hard to imagine being as ignorant of those things as people were at that time - not a scorn, mind you, so that may interfere with my picture of how they should have reacted.
The Japanese empire intitated the conquest out of desperation, rather than face a total economic ruin.
You see - invading and annexing underdeveloped countries and colinising them was considered acceptable in those times. All countries did it, inclooding the US (Philippines).
It was also considered admissible that if an empire got too week to hold it's overseas posessions, another one could attack it under some pretect and take them away (again US-Spanish war 1898).
Japain was pretty muct the only country that did not colonise but conducted isolationist policy - having successfully eliminated modern araments and firearms - untill forced to open it's ports by US warships (Perry 1854?).
So Japan found that all the countries right next to it were already colonised by Brits, French, etc. from half a world away. They did take a piece from Russia in 1904. Anyway, that was not a problem because Japan - poor in natural resources - rapidly developed industry and traded for what resources it needed.
Unfortunately, after the WWI the Brits did not lower taxes and free the trade back to the pre-war conditions. British empire abandoned it's free-trade policy and reverted towards mercantilism.
One of the results was promotion of exports and inhibition of imports with high tariffs. What's more - brits forbade free trade with their colonies, only allowing it among the colonies and with the mainland.
Other countries followed the suit - Smoot-Hawley act, etc.
As a result Japan was prevented from selling it's goods to the neighbouring countries like India, Malaysia, etc.
It was encouraged to buy stuff that it needed but without exports it had no money to pay for those imports! It's industry was facing death and ruin from lack of oil, ore, rubber and other stuff that was produced right next to them by the local oriental people who seemed willing to trade with Japan rather than buy expensive stuff delivered all the way from Britain.
As I said, grabbing colonies was considered acceptable bacause all civilised countries did it, so Japan decided to take them away from Brits and French. In return, US embargoed the sales of resources to Japan - especially the oil, well knowing that the war or disasterous ruination were the only options left to it.
I mean, sure - they were evil invaders and colonisers, but by the standards of the time no worse than europeans/americans - untill they started racking up the body count. At least they were as willing to die as to kill.
I can see how americans could have misapprehension of Japan as some kind of a powerhouse, rather than a dying country. Of course if they were given 10-15 years to get their colonies running in the co-prosperity sphere, we might have had a different kind of Japan. At the same time if brits and US kept the free trade and better yet, gave freedom to colonies, there would never have been any problem with Japan. After all Japanese are great imitators of the western ways.
miko
-
muckmaw: Those battleships were obsolete?
Not "those battleships" - the concept of an ultra-expensive artullery-armed battleship was obsolete with the appearance of naval aviation.
IIRC, HMS Hood was the only battleship blown in a ship-to-ship duel with Bismark - without even scoring a hit. (Of course it died through ineptitude of it's command, that chose to fight at the long range - where any shell would land on top of the lightly-armored deck and pierce it all the way to the bottom, rather than close in under smoke screen to within the distance where heavy side armor would come into play and the british gunnery were not as much of a handicap.)
The rest were sunk by the land-based or naval aviation.
The battleships were as obsolete for real combat (still great for bombardment of the third-world peasants) as the aircraft carriers got obsolete in the age of cheap capable AS missiles (still great for bombardment of the third-world peasants).
:) Hmm.. Would anyone bite?
miko
-
Coulda-Woulda-Shoulda-They lost.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
muckmaw: Those battleships were obsolete?
Not "those battleships" - the concept of an ultra-expensive artullery-armed battleship was obsolete with the appearance of naval aviation.
IIRC, HMS Hood was the only battleship blown in a ship-to-ship duel with Bismark - without even scoring a hit. (Of course it died through ineptitude of it's command, that chose to fight at the long range - where any shell would land on top of the lightly-armored deck and pierce it all the way to the bottom, rather than close in under smoke screen to within the distance where heavy side armor would come into play and the british gunnery were not as much of a handicap.)
The rest were sunk by the land-based or naval aviation.
The battleships were as obsolete for real combat (still great for bombardment of the third-world peasants) as the aircraft carriers got obsolete in the age of cheap capable AS missiles (still great for bombardment of the third-world peasants).
:) Hmm.. Would anyone bite?
miko
Question: No one knew Battleships were obsolete at the time, least of all the american administration. Why would they be sacrificed?
Even the Japanese believed a battle of the seas would be decided by battleships.
According to my reading, there was no conspiracy to sacrifice men and material to bring the US into the war.
-
Oh, you are quite right. If Japan had done some things different, like consolidating their gains of non U.S. colonies, things might have been different. Attacking the U.S. was not a good move, IMO. That is why some believe that japan was baited into attacking.
Could Japan have attacked non U.S. colonies and consolidated their gains? Dunno, you would know the economics of that more than me. But it seems the attack on pearl played right into our hands.
-
You quoted my note before the reply as if I was claiming teh conspiracy. I have no opinion for or against the "bait" hypothesis. Japan was provoked - most certainly. The attack was expected? Could be. Conspiracy to use the pacific fleet as bait? I do not know and do not really care.
There is a good book about it but I have a few shelves of books I need to read first.
Not only didn't US military believe that battleships were obsolete, there was a lot of resistance to the development of the naval aviation and aviation in general. At least if Doolittle and Mitchel are to be trusted.
Nobody wanted to believe that a measly plane could sink a big ship with a bomb - even despite demonstrations in the1920s. Especially considering that in those times it took 5-8 years to build a battleship and we know how fast the aviation developed in 5-8 years.
miko
-
Sixpence: Oh, you are quite right. If Japan had done some things different, like consolidating their gains of non U.S. colonies, things might have been different. Attacking the U.S. was not a good move, IMO.
Imagine that now that we are in posession of Iraq, we lost all the import of oil, ores, lumber, etc. How long do you think would it be before we could "consolidate" our gains?
Could Japan have attacked non U.S. colonies and consolidated their gains? Dunno, you would know the economics of that more than me.
Nobody knows for sure whether they were facing imminent ruin, industrial reakdown and starvation, but they surely had good reasons to believe so.
Even if they could hold on, would US have let Japan consolidate their gains and grow strong? I do not believe so and neither should have they.
miko
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Those battleships were obsolete?
They raised most of them, patched them and sent them back into the war. So they had some value to them.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Even if they could hold on, would US have let Japan consolidate their gains and grow strong? I do not believe so and neither should have they.
miko
Right, but it was alot easier to get the American people to agree with war after pearl. Would they have been able to declar war w/o being prevoked?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Japanese executing tens (hundreds) of thousands chinese for the assistance offered to the US crews. Right?
miko
Anyone caught a History Channel "Last Secret of the Axis" last night?
It claimed 250,000 Chinese killed in retaliation for this raid.
-
Jack55: They raised most of them, patched them and sent them back into the war. So they had some value to them.
They though so. Does not necessarily mean they were correct. There were no ship-to ship battles. Maybe they would have made better use of resources cutting the hulls to scrap and building more ships that really mattered - carriers, escorts (cruisers, destroyers) and troop/cargo ships.
miko
-
Originally posted by mietla
Anyone caught a History Channel "Last Secret of the Axis" last night?
It claimed 250,000 Chinese killed in retaliation for this raid.
No one doubts retaliation, but would those same chinese have died at the hands of the japanese anyway. What was the total number of chinese killed by the japanese? Those bombers were not the only U.S. planes on chinese soil. There is always retaliation in war, this does not prevent an attack. It is expected that the enemy will retaliate.
What is in question is the military gains of the raid, which can be debated til the cows come home.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Right, but it was alot easier to get the American people to agree with war after pearl. Would they have been able to declar war w/o being prevoked?
FDR wanted to fight Hitler, but even PH didn't get him that war. FDR and Congress still waited for Germany to declare war on the US.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You quoted my note before the reply as if I was claiming teh conspiracy. I have no opinion for or against the "bait" hypothesis. Japan was provoked - most certainly. The attack was expected? Could be. Conspiracy to use the pacific fleet as bait? I do not know and do not really care.
There is a good book about it but I have a few shelves of books I need to read first.
Not only didn't US military believe that battleships were obsolete, there was a lot of resistance to the development of the naval aviation and aviation in general. At least if Doolittle and Mitchel are to be trusted.
Nobody wanted to believe that a measly plane could sink a big ship with a bomb - even despite demonstrations in the1920s. Especially considering that in those times it took 5-8 years to build a battleship and we know how fast the aviation developed in 5-8 years.
miko
I did a book report in the 5th or 6th grade on Billy Mitchell. If I remember correctly, he sank a ship proving that ships could be sunk with planes. He actually missed on the drops, but the ship still sank. The near misses had destroyed the hull. That is just from memory, it was a long time ago. I remember finding so much information on him I had to cut my report short because I did not have the time to put in all the info I had dug up. That was long before the internet, it was alot of work, but alot of fun.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I did a book report in the 5th or 6th grade on Billy Mitchell. If I remember correctly, he sank a ship proving that ships could be sunk with planes. He actually missed on the drops, but the ship still sank. The near misses had destroyed the hull. That is just from memory, it was a long time ago. I remember finding so much information on him I had to cut my report short because I did not have the time to put in all the info I had dug up. That was long before the internet, it was alot of work, but alot of fun.
this is also described in the book Flyboys along with his court martial
book tells that he told his pilots to miss on purpose knowing the concussion would crumble the hulls and sink the ships
also how intel found out about midway which gave us the edge to wipe out their navy at that battle - interesting book for sure - and i don't even like PTO scenerios :)
-
Couple of points here.
1. The Japanese and the Chinese were at war long before the Doolittle raid. The Japanese had already attacked the Chinese without provocation. The Japanese were already in the process of targeting and killing Chinese including civilians by the thousands before Pearl Harbor.
2. The Doolittle raid was a military operation undertaken in a time of war by a military force against a beligerant nation. Please note that this was AFTER a declaration of war and AFTER an attack by the Japanese PRIOR to a declaration of war by the Japanese. The fact that they couldn't translate it and deliver it in time is moot, that was their own fault. The targets selected were of military value. They COULD have attacked the Emperor had they wished as he wore the uniform of his countries military and the palace location was known.
The US was not responsible for the war crimes committed by the Japanese before or after the raid. The responsible nation was in fact the Japanese. Any attempt to blame the deaths of citizens of a beligerant nation at the hands of another beligerant nation as a result of another combatant nations attack during a time of war is plane idiocy.
The US was in fact unaware that the Japanese did not have plans for an attack against the mainland. The thought was that one was imminent and there was no Naval power in position to stop an attack after Pearl. An actual invasion was not really feasable as the Japanese didn't have the strength to make it plausable. They neglected to inform the US about that at the time. :rolleyes:
As to the redistributiuon of Japanese forces by the raid. It would be only common sense that having demonstrated the US could hit the Japanese homeland once they wold do so again. Leaving the homeland open to attack without a creditable defense would be rather idiotic. The Japanese did move air assets back to the homeland for this purpose as well as naval ships on coastal patrol. Don't believe it, look it up, it's simple history and has already been broadcast.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
this is also described in the book Flyboys along with his court martial
book tells that he told his pilots to miss on purpose knowing the concussion would crumble the hulls and sink the ships
also how intel found out about midway which gave us the edge to wipe out their navy at that battle - interesting book for sure - and i don't even like PTO scenerios :)
Its a very good book. I've learned allot of things I didn't know and a few I wish I hadn't.
-
I am afraid that, as time passes and living memory of those events is extinguished, the Germans and Japanese will finally succeed in portraying themselves as the "victims" of World War II. The Japanese, especially, have never come to grips with their part in starting the war and inflicting untold suffering on the Chinese and many other nations.
Shuckins