Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Too bad for Hitler he got distracted by a little harrassment bombing. He was a week away from hobbling Fighter Command. Four years later it was the Tactical Air Forces that made the Luftwaffe bases in France and the Low Countries untenable, making Operation Overlord possible.
I didn't "ignore" anything at all, and didn't mention internal politics at all.
What I said was the embargo was a defacto blockade, forcing Japan to react. We expected one reaction. They countered with another entirely.
When you "cut off" a country from necessary resouces, you'd best expect some reaction from them. Apparently, we didn't really expoect an attack since NONE of the Pacific bases were ready for one.
Absolutely not Fascist.Both were rapidly fascist, imperialist, racist, anti-communist/socialist and anti-democratic.
Absolutely not Fascist.
The definition of Fascism in modern times has been watered down.
Imperial Japan in the 1930's would have not tolerated a Fascist doctrine/philosophy.
At all.
I don't disagree, but I find it rather unhelpful to look for parallels within western culture.There's an ongoing argument among historians whether inter-war Japan was a fascist state, para-fascist state, totalitarian regime or something else. Certainly Japanese decision makers in the inter-war period drew heavily from European fascism in their national ideology.
Personally, I lean towards the view that it was a fascist state that was integrated within the existing hierarchical and historical structures, rather than the European fascism which largely replaced the prior structures.
Showa Statism predates Italian Fascism by nearly half a century.There's an ongoing argument among historians whether inter-war Japan was a fascist state, para-fascist state, totalitarian regime or something else. Certainly Japanese decision makers in the inter-war period drew heavily from European fascism in their national ideology.
Personally, I lean towards the view that it was a fascist state that was integrated within the existing hierarchical and historical structures, rather than the European fascism which largely replaced the prior structures.
I was not thinking of you.If you're pointing that at me, I didn't claim they were victims at all.
I don't cast fault upon Japan for responding. I fault US military leaders and the president for not expecting SOME response of a military nature since we absolutely KNEW the military was in charge of Japan at the time. They were bound to do SOMETHING as a result of the embargo brought on by their own expansionist actions.
'Not prepared'. What does that mean?Pearl Harbor, Guam, and the Phillppines were not prepared. I'm not too sure what other bases WERE prepared.
'Not prepared'. What does that mean?
That is very well put and I would defend that statement all week long.We Americans, despite the war-warnings I've linked above, were still not combat-wise.
That is very well put and I would defend that statement all week long.
However;
US forces in Ph had a well-established war plan and specific and current orders to carry out that plan, which MacArthur disobeyed, what I am tempted to call an act of treason. That is not unpreparedness, that is insubordination by a single individual.
US forces in Hawaii were using newly installed radar equipment and beefed up air patrols intended to catch exactly the kind of attack that did occur. Radar did in fact pick up the attacking wave. The information failed to be passed on because of a dereliction of duty by a single individual, which does not equate to unpreparedness. Similarly a mini-sub sighting was not passed on bc of dereliction of duty by another individual.
OK I got this.
The problem was a lack of readiness, not preparedness, in the case of Hawaii.
The US military was gearing up for war. Mobilization had begun in 1940. Military commands across the Pacific had been alerted to expect hostile moves by Japan. Example: The USS Enterprise, ferrying VMF-211 To Wake Island in early December, did so under full wartime readiness. Admiral Kimmel and General Short in Hawaii had recieved alerts in late November. That they failed to prepare for an attack on the Hawaiian bases had more to do with pre-war beliefs that the Japanese would focus on SE Asia and the Philippines.If you're pointing that at me, I didn't claim they were victims at all. I said they we "embargoed" by the U.S.A. and HAD to respond. The fact that the military was dictating the response doesn't make them a victim. They created the conditions for embargo by trying to militarily expand in China. The U.S.A. responded by doing something to show their dissatisfaction with the expansionist actions Japan was taking.
The USA was the victim at Pearl Harbor by not anticipating such a response anywhere. Not one, single US base was on war alert or was looking for an attack as a result of the embargo. That was likely the result of the isolationist policies of the U.S.A. after WWII and before WWII, combined with the reluctance to spend money on the military as a natural response to the Great Depression. All that conspired with the simple lack of experience of our diplomats in dealing with other countries seemingly not constrained by money or democratic politics.
The result was a successful attack on a shallow-water Naval port that was unprecedented in history, so maybe they get a sort of "pass" for not expecting an attack? No way.
We SHOULD have been watching for and preparing for a military response of SOME sort since we knew the embargo of vital raw materials was going to choke Japan if allowed to continue.
I don't cast fault upon Japan for responding. I fault US military leaders and the president for not expecting SOME response of a military nature since we absolutely KNEW the military was in charge of Japan at the time. They were bound to do SOMETHING as a result of the embargo brought on by their own expansionist actions.
Take into account that the Japan of today is NOT the Japan of 1940. So, staing this stuff is not a knock on any current Japanese policies. It is an opinion of what was going on at that time without either villiying it or justifying it.
Mac was a very political person on the whole. Judging by his relationship with the Ph Prez, he had gone native as well.MacArthur also had to deal with the President of the Philippines, who was adamant that he had a peace deal with Japan and did not want Mac to antagonize them.
There were also the case of Halsey putting Task Force 8 under full wartime footing on their way back from supplying Wake Island.
The SBDs of Scouting 6 were fully armed and deployed to sweep ahead of the fleet. Their arrival at Pearl was just crappy luck.
It was a balancing act for Mac - he had to placate the Phillipine leaders while keeping Washington happy.Mac was a very political person on the whole. Judging by his relationship with the Ph Prez, he had gone native as well.
I'm sorry, I don't buy that. Mac's behavior was caused by his own problematic immersion in Ph politics. In fact, your statement describes the very essence of 'going native'.It was a balancing act for Mac - he had to placate the Phillipine leaders while keeping Washington happy.