O grupo no qual você está postando é um grupo da Usenet. As mensagens postadas neste grupo farão com que o seu e-mail fique visível para qualquer pessoa na internet.
> > :>news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > :>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of the > > :>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am wondering if > > :>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > > :>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > > :>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and blamed the > > :>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. I > > :>> dunno. > > :>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew and > > :>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a complete > > :>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > > :>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there will be > > :>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some kind > > :>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into effect > > :>> and there was war. > > :>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > > :>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked Secretary > > :>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, perhaps in > > :>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be too > > :>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over again > > :>> to no result. > > :>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > > :>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > > :>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > > :>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of SE > > :>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply certain > > :>> without going to war with the USA? > > :>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese ever > > :>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil simply > > :>> make them more boldly offensive? > > :> > > :> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. > > :> > > : > > :Not with Japan he didnt. No sensible leader wants to fight two > > :wars at the same time and he knew war with Germany was coming. > > :
> > Then why did he do everything short of actually having official US > > forces open fire on Japanese troops?
> You mean like the Japanese fired on Americans? Obviously you're > unfamiliar with the incidents in the international settlement in > Shanghai, including the Panay incident.
> > :>news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > :>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of the > > :>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am wondering if > > :>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > > :>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > > :>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and blamed the > > :>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. I > > :>> dunno. > > :>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew and > > :>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a complete > > :>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > > :>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there will be > > :>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some kind > > :>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into effect > > :>> and there was war. > > :>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > > :>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked Secretary > > :>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, perhaps in > > :>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be too > > :>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over again > > :>> to no result. > > :>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > > :>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > > :>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > > :>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of SE > > :>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply certain > > :>> without going to war with the USA? > > :>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese ever > > :>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil simply > > :>> make them more boldly offensive? > > :> > > :> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. > > :> > > : > > :Not with Japan he didnt. No sensible leader wants to fight two > > :wars at the same time and he knew war with Germany was coming. > > :
> > Then why did he do everything short of actually having official US > > forces open fire on Japanese troops?
> You mean like the Japanese fired on Americans? Obviously you're > unfamiliar with the incidents in the international settlement in > Shanghai, including the Panay incident.
FDR quashed the newsreel footage of the Panay as we didn't have the resources to go to war and no doubt war fever would have been stirred up over that one.
Recall they were running around with broomsticks on the 1940 maneuvers in Louisiana when Patton started thinking like a tanker. Cardboard boxes that said 'tank'. And he paid out of his own pocket for supplies when they went out on maneuvers at California. Kitted up a few thousand out of family funds. I think he got reimbursed eventually.
For a good read, I always liked Bergamini's Japan's Imperial Conspiracy. Guy got ran out of Japan by the ultra rightists. I'm still waiting for the Imperial Household Ministry to open up their WWII files on the emperor. It had one of the few decent writeups on the militarists pre war when they were running around killing off the moderates in government. well, pre- Pearl Harbor, not the mess in China. And way too many war criminals avoided the noose from those crimes.
> >> >> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of the > >> >> > late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am wondering > >> >> > if > >> >> > in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > >> >> > USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > >> >> > embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and blamed > >> >> > the > >> >> > poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. I > >> >> > dunno. > >> >> > In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew and > >> >> > Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a > >> >> > complete > >> >> > embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > >> >> > agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there will > >> >> > be > >> >> > war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some > >> >> > kind > >> >> > to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into effect > >> >> > and there was war. > >> >> > What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > >> >> > exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked Secretary > >> >> > Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, perhaps > >> >> > in > >> >> > Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be too > >> >> > much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over > >> >> > again > >> >> > to no result. > >> >> > What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > >> >> > withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > >> >> > partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > >> >> > because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of SE > >> >> > Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply > >> >> > certain > >> >> > without going to war with the USA? > >> >> > If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese > >> >> > ever > >> >> > moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil simply > >> >> > make them more boldly offensive?
> >> >> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it.
> >> > That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while.
> >> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. > >> even a two front war.
> > You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ?
> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression era. > it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and > engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. > War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending > project and the republicans couldn't thwart it.
None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in Europe or Asia.
> :In article <3nkcf5th47lrmc5bugv3gohlai4t744...@4ax.com>, > :fjmcc...@gmail.com says... > :> > :> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: > :> > :> :In article <hmvbf513gsrpqa2qn980t1melqpep6a...@4ax.com>, > :> :fjmcc...@gmail.com says... > :> :> > :> :> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: > :> :> > :> :> :In article <dv1bf5t1on4sbilvl2f132spehv0lfd...@4ax.com>, > :> :> :fjmcc...@gmail.com says... > :> :> :> > :> :> :> "Keith Willshaw" <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote: > :> :> :> > :> :> :> : > :> :> :> :"Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > :> :> :> :news:hd2lb4$cg4$1@news.eternal-september.org... > :> :> :> :> > :> :> :> :> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > :> :> :> :> news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > :> :> :> :>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of the > :> :> :> :>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am wondering if > :> :> :> :>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > :> :> :> :>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > :> :> :> :>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and blamed the > :> :> :> :>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. I > :> :> :> :>> dunno. > :> :> :> :>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew and > :> :> :> :>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a complete > :> :> :> :>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > :> :> :> :>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there will be > :> :> :> :>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some kind > :> :> :> :>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into effect > :> :> :> :>> and there was war. > :> :> :> :>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > :> :> :> :>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked Secretary > :> :> :> :>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, perhaps in > :> :> :> :>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be too > :> :> :> :>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over again > :> :> :> :>> to no result. > :> :> :> :>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > :> :> :> :>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > :> :> :> :>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > :> :> :> :>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of SE > :> :> :> :>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply certain > :> :> :> :>> without going to war with the USA? > :> :> :> :>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese ever > :> :> :> :>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil simply > :> :> :> :>> make them more boldly offensive? > :> :> :> :> > :> :> :> :> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. > :> :> :> :> > :> :> :> : > :> :> :> :Not with Japan he didnt. No sensible leader wants to fight two > :> :> :> :wars at the same time and he knew war with Germany was coming. > :> :> :> : > :> :> :> > :> :> :> Then why did he do everything short of actually having official US > :> :> :> forces open fire on Japanese troops? > :> :> : > :> :> :Such as ? > :> :> : > :> :> > :> :> Take a history course. It'll be covered. I don't have time to teach > :> :> you one (and you can't afford my hourly rate). > :> : > :> :So you don't have any actual points just a silly claim.. > :> : > :> > :> How about: > :> > :> 1) Giving China weapons essentially gratis (or as close as Congress > :> would let him get away with) while embargoing Japan? > :> > :> 2) Giving special dispensations to ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PILOTS so that > :> they could temporarily leave service and go join the Chinese? > : > :How does either of those get the US into the war directly ? > :
> Gee, I don't know. Americans fighting Japanese on the side of China > and violating our own neutrality by providing military support to > China certainly doesn't amount to taking sides, does it?
Taking sides, yes.. Getting the country directly into the war ? No. Such actions are far from uncommon, look at the actions of Russia in both Korea and in Vietnam.
> : > :> > :> Just a couple of things you'd already know if you hadn't slept through > :> history in school. > :> > :> Now go take a course and educate yourself, you stupid twat. > : > :Stop making lcaims that FDR wanted the US in either the Pacific or > :European wars and people might start to take you seriously. > :
> Start coming out with something other than stupid meaningless remarks > like the preceding and people might start to take YOU seriously.
> Freezing all Japanese assets in the United States was certainly a > friendly act, as well.
He took those such actions before trying to gain some moderation of Japan's actions in China. He didn't just wake up one morning and decided to impose them
> > > :>news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > :>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of the > > > :>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am wondering if > > > :>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > > > :>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > > > :>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and blamed the > > > :>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. I > > > :>> dunno. > > > :>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew and > > > :>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a complete > > > :>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > > > :>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there will be > > > :>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some kind > > > :>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into effect > > > :>> and there was war. > > > :>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > > > :>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked Secretary > > > :>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, perhaps in > > > :>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be too > > > :>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over again > > > :>> to no result. > > > :>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > > > :>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > > > :>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > > > :>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of SE > > > :>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply certain > > > :>> without going to war with the USA? > > > :>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese ever > > > :>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil simply > > > :>> make them more boldly offensive? > > > :> > > > :> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. > > > :> > > > : > > > :Not with Japan he didnt. No sensible leader wants to fight two > > > :wars at the same time and he knew war with Germany was coming. > > > :
> > > Then why did he do everything short of actually having official US > > > forces open fire on Japanese troops?
> > You mean like the Japanese fired on Americans? Obviously you're > > unfamiliar with the incidents in the international settlement in > > Shanghai, including the Panay incident.
> FDR quashed the newsreel footage of the Panay as we didn't have the > resources to go to war and no doubt war fever would have been stirred > up over that one.
> Recall they were running around with broomsticks on the 1940 maneuvers > in Louisiana when Patton started thinking like a tanker. Cardboard > boxes that said 'tank'. And he paid out of his own pocket for supplies > when they went out on maneuvers at California. Kitted up a few > thousand out of family funds. I think he got reimbursed eventually.
It was 1941 maneuvers where Patton paid for fuel out of his own pocket. When he made an end run around Shreveport and appeared in the rear of the opposing force.
First quote is from Paul, aka tankfixer, apologies for any misattributions.
> : > :Stop making lcaims that FDR wanted the US in either the Pacific or > :European wars and people might start to take you seriously.
What FDR had to do was keep *Britain* in the war. A German-controlled UK would have been at the very least extremely dangerous for the US, and potentially disastrous. Nasty internal politics involved, bien sur. Sorting out the Japanese was a simple matter of building the largest navy the world has ever seen: if I may lapse into my native Scots, nae bother tae the big yin.
> :
> Start coming out with something other than stupid meaningless remarks > like the preceding and people might start to take YOU seriously.
Oh, Fred, you're so lovely when you get angry
> Freezing all Japanese assets in the United States was certainly a > friendly act, as well.
Hmmm. The US was virtually the only country that even partially recognized what the Japanese were doing in China. Even Nazi German dipolomats were appalled. Later on, of course, they got used to much worse.
But if what you are saying is that the US was systematically poking the Japanese in the eye with sharp sticks, it's hard to disagree.
-- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian. Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
> :On Nov 7, 9:13 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: > : > :> 2) Giving special dispensations to ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PILOTS so that > :> they could temporarily leave service and go join the Chinese? > : > :When did that unit first see combat? (Hint: it was not until after > :Pearl Harbor) > :
> You say that as if it makes some difference in the intent. It > doesn't.
It makes a LOT of difference if you are arguing that it gave Japan a Casus Belli, of course we know from the Japanese themselves that it was NOT a factor.
>> >> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... >> >> > In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >> >> > oh...@hotmail.com says...
>> >> >> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am >> >> >> > wondering >> >> >> > if >> >> >> > in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the >> >> >> > USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very >> >> >> > embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and >> >> >> > blamed >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. >> >> >> > I >> >> >> > dunno. >> >> >> > In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a >> >> >> > complete >> >> >> > embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both >> >> >> > agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some >> >> >> > kind >> >> >> > to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into >> >> >> > effect >> >> >> > and there was war. >> >> >> > What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in >> >> >> > exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked >> >> >> > Secretary >> >> >> > Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, >> >> >> > perhaps >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be >> >> >> > too >> >> >> > much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over >> >> >> > again >> >> >> > to no result. >> >> >> > What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to >> >> >> > withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a >> >> >> > partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" >> >> >> > because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of >> >> >> > SE >> >> >> > Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply >> >> >> > certain >> >> >> > without going to war with the USA? >> >> >> > If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese >> >> >> > ever >> >> >> > moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil >> >> >> > simply >> >> >> > make them more boldly offensive?
>> >> >> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it.
>> >> > That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while.
>> >> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. >> >> even a two front war.
>> > You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ?
>> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression >> era. >> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and >> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. >> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending >> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it.
> None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in > Europe or Asia.
sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight. sending arms on "credit" giving 50 destroyers for bases in greenland. the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an American and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby all lit up for the Swordfish to use as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck. FDR wanted the war. what you want is a long history book in these threads. you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time. it will be ewnlightening for you. and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed.
> >> >> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... > >> >> > In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >> >> > oh...@hotmail.com says...
> >> >> >> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> > Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am > >> >> >> > wondering > >> >> >> > if > >> >> >> > in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > >> >> >> > USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > >> >> >> > embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and > >> >> >> > blamed > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. > >> >> >> > I > >> >> >> > dunno. > >> >> >> > In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew > >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> > Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a > >> >> >> > complete > >> >> >> > embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > >> >> >> > agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there > >> >> >> > will > >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> > war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some > >> >> >> > kind > >> >> >> > to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into > >> >> >> > effect > >> >> >> > and there was war. > >> >> >> > What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > >> >> >> > exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked > >> >> >> > Secretary > >> >> >> > Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, > >> >> >> > perhaps > >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> > Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be > >> >> >> > too > >> >> >> > much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over > >> >> >> > again > >> >> >> > to no result. > >> >> >> > What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > >> >> >> > withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > >> >> >> > partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > >> >> >> > because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of > >> >> >> > SE > >> >> >> > Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply > >> >> >> > certain > >> >> >> > without going to war with the USA? > >> >> >> > If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese > >> >> >> > ever > >> >> >> > moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil > >> >> >> > simply > >> >> >> > make them more boldly offensive?
> >> >> >> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it.
> >> >> > That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while.
> >> >> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. > >> >> even a two front war.
> >> > You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ?
> >> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression > >> era. > >> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and > >> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. > >> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending > >> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it.
> > None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in > > Europe or Asia.
> sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight. sending arms on "credit" giving > 50 destroyers for bases in greenland. > the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an > American and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby all lit up for the Swordfish to use > as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck. > FDR wanted the war. > what you want is a long history book in these threads. > you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time. > it will be ewnlightening for you. > and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed.
If you didn't twist the time line around on when events happened you would not be so confused..
> >> >> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >>news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... > >> >> > In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >> >> > oh...@hotmail.com says...
> >> >> >> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > >> >> >>news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> > Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am > >> >> >> > wondering > >> >> >> > if > >> >> >> > in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > >> >> >> > USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > >> >> >> > embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and > >> >> >> > blamed > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. > >> >> >> > I > >> >> >> > dunno. > >> >> >> > In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew > >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> > Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a > >> >> >> > complete > >> >> >> > embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > >> >> >> > agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there > >> >> >> > will > >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> > war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some > >> >> >> > kind > >> >> >> > to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into > >> >> >> > effect > >> >> >> > and there was war. > >> >> >> > What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > >> >> >> > exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked > >> >> >> > Secretary > >> >> >> > Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, > >> >> >> > perhaps > >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> > Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be > >> >> >> > too > >> >> >> > much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over > >> >> >> > again > >> >> >> > to no result. > >> >> >> > What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > >> >> >> > withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > >> >> >> > partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > >> >> >> > because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of > >> >> >> > SE > >> >> >> > Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply > >> >> >> > certain > >> >> >> > without going to war with the USA? > >> >> >> > If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese > >> >> >> > ever > >> >> >> > moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil > >> >> >> > simply > >> >> >> > make them more boldly offensive?
> >> >> >> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it.
> >> >> > That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while.
> >> >> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. > >> >> even a two front war.
> >> > You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ?
> >> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression > >> era. > >> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and > >> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. > >> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending > >> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it.
> > None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in > > Europe or Asia.
> sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight. sending arms on "credit" giving > 50 destroyers for bases in greenland. > the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an > American and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby all lit up for the Swordfish to use > as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck. > FDR wanted the war. > what you want is a long history book in these threads. > you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time. > it will be ewnlightening for you. > and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed.
Try Langer and Gleason, 2 volume, The Challenge to Isolation and the Undeclared War. First time actual government documents used to footnote a history, also first time poll numbers used to show how FDR was being supported. Kind of like those 73% want the government option polls.
In article <72ref594jr6p6smdbbq2kd7rgpug8c4...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
<fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
> :In article <2rocf5h6etcqn0johgnal8jdvlk8rcg...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall > :<fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: > : > :Oh, Fred, you're so lovely when you get angry > :
> Oh, I don't get angry over Usenet, Alan.
While I would never doubt your word, you are capable of giving the impression of what might be described as momentary and intemperate vexation. (I've entered that phrase into a prize competition.)
<snippaggio>
> Yep. There was a large isolationist group in the United States that > FDR had to try to work his way around. Sometimes it's difficult for > folks who live in parliamentary democracies to understand exactly how > our system works.
At least I know enough about American politics to know how little I know. But the job had to be done.
> FDR wanted us to have an active role in *both* wars. Congress and the > American people were against it.
If I recall correctly, polls (Gallup, probably, it was just getting started up) showed huge backing for supporting Britain. But rather less enthusiasm for seeing young American boys humping rifle and pack into machinegun fire. Seem sensible opinions to me.
> So all he could do was poke the Axis > as much as possible and hope they'd do things in response that would > let him cajole Congress into letting him poke them some more.
Can't disagree. And although I have already mentioned my wise ignorance of American politics, is it not the case that FDR was really pushing at the edges of the Presidential envelope?
Worth pointing out (you imply it, but all the rest of this thread is Japanese-oriented -- I swear that just came out as I typed) that FDR was poking the Germans pretty hard, too. US behaviour throughout all of 1941 (and arguably earlier) was a gross abuse of the laws of neutrality.
Thanks, guys. We won't forget it. Here's to the memory of the neutral American sailors who died in _Reuben James_ escorting British ships.
-- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian. Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
> In article <72ref594jr6p6smdbbq2kd7rgpug8c4...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
> <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
> > :In article <2rocf5h6etcqn0johgnal8jdvlk8rcg...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall > > :<fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > : > > :Oh, Fred, you're so lovely when you get angry > > :
> > Oh, I don't get angry over Usenet, Alan.
> While I would never doubt your word, you are capable of giving the > impression of what might be described as momentary and intemperate > vexation. (I've entered that phrase into a prize competition.)
> <snippaggio>
> > Yep. There was a large isolationist group in the United States that > > FDR had to try to work his way around. Sometimes it's difficult for > > folks who live in parliamentary democracies to understand exactly how > > our system works.
> At least I know enough about American politics to know how little I > know. But the job had to be done.
> > FDR wanted us to have an active role in *both* wars. Congress and the > > American people were against it.
> If I recall correctly, polls (Gallup, probably, it was just getting > started up) showed huge backing for supporting Britain. But rather less > enthusiasm for seeing young American boys humping rifle and pack into > machinegun fire. Seem sensible opinions to me.
> > So all he could do was poke the Axis > > as much as possible and hope they'd do things in response that would > > let him cajole Congress into letting him poke them some more.
> Can't disagree. And although I have already mentioned my wise ignorance > of American politics, is it not the case that FDR was really pushing at > the edges of the Presidential envelope?
> Worth pointing out (you imply it, but all the rest of this thread is > Japanese-oriented -- I swear that just came out as I typed) that FDR > was poking the Germans pretty hard, too. US behaviour throughout all of > 1941 (and arguably earlier) was a gross abuse of the laws of > neutrality.
> Thanks, guys. We won't forget it. Here's to the memory of the neutral > American sailors who died in _Reuben James_ escorting British ships.
> -- > "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
> If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian. > Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
On the 70%, Public Opinion Quarterly, June 1941, 320 ff. Poll right after November 1940 election. It was at this time that Roosevelt announced all measures short of war to support and aid Great Britain. The Lend-Lease Bill (HR 1776 !) started drafting on January 2, 1941, introduced in both Houses, and finally signed on March 11, 1941.
> On Nov 6, 9:13 pm, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of the > > late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am wondering if > > in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > > USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > > embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and blamed the > > poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. I > > dunno. > > In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew and > > Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a complete > > embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > > agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there will be > > war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some kind > > to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into effect > > and there was war. > > What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > > exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked Secretary > > Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, perhaps in > > Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be too > > much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over again > > to no result. > > What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > > withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > > partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > > because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of SE > > Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply certain > > without going to war with the USA? > > If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese ever > > moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil simply > > make them more boldly offensive?
> Remember that Konoye would have had to go to FDR. Not very likely, > given Japanese ideas about subservience and the ability of the 1941 > transportation system to deliver either one to a "neutral" site.
Interesting bit from Langer and Gleason, February 10th or so 1941. Wonder what would have happened if this fleet swan had taken place?
Adm Kimmel "First, I had another hour and a half in the White House today and the President said that he might order a detachment of three or four cruisers, a carrier and a squadron of destroyers to make a cruise to the Philippines; perhaps going down through the Phoenix and Gilbert or the Fiji Islands, then reaching over into Mindanao for a short visit and on to Manila and back.
I have fought this over many times and won, but this time the decision may go against me. Heretofore the talk was largely about sending a cruise of this sort to Australia and Singapore and perhaps the N. E. I. Sending it to the Philippines would be far less objectionable from a i>olitical standpoint but still objectionable. What I want you to do is to be thinking about it and be prepared to make a quick decision if it is ordered."
Ray O'Hara wrote: > "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.2560d8f5d99fb93291c@news.bytemine.net... >> In article <hd6955$ed...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:MPG.255fdec4f5980e078ff@news.bytemine.net... >>>> In article <hd58pt$pv...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... >>>>>> In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>>>>>> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am >>>>>>>> wondering >>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the >>>>>>>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very >>>>>>>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and >>>>>>>> blamed >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> dunno. >>>>>>>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a >>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both >>>>>>>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some >>>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into >>>>>>>> effect >>>>>>>> and there was war. >>>>>>>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in >>>>>>>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked >>>>>>>> Secretary >>>>>>>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, >>>>>>>> perhaps >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be >>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over >>>>>>>> again >>>>>>>> to no result. >>>>>>>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to >>>>>>>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a >>>>>>>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" >>>>>>>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of >>>>>>>> SE >>>>>>>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply >>>>>>>> certain >>>>>>>> without going to war with the USA? >>>>>>>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese >>>>>>>> ever >>>>>>>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil >>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>> make them more boldly offensive? >>>>>>> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. >>>>>> That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while.
>>>>> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. >>>>> even a two front war. >>>> You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ? >>> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression >>> era. >>> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and >>> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. >>> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending >>> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it. >> None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in >> Europe or Asia.
> sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight.
We do that today, and have for quite a while...
> sending arms on "credit"
Repaid, BTW.
> giving > 50 destroyers for bases in greenland.
That is called "trading." We got a valuable asset, Britain got some rusty old ships that were not suitable for the task at hand...
> the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an > American
True enough, much like Saddam got intel from US satellites during the war with Iran (does that war have a catchy moniker?).
> and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby
First I've ever heard of a coastal boat being in mid-Atlantic, leading British bombers against a British CA...
> all lit up for the Swordfish to use > as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck.
Cite?
> FDR wanted the war.
Wanting a war, and expecting a war are two different things. Bush wanted the war in Iraq, and he prosecuted it. FDR (and every informed sentient being on the planet) expected war and did what was necessary to prepare for it (unlike Bush). Way different.
Note, also, that the AVG first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days after Pearl Harbor (local time).
> what you want is a long history book in these threads.
I have plenty, thank you very much. Few of them, to be sure, from rightwingnut revisionists...
> you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time.
BTDTGTTS.
> it will be ewnlightening for you. > and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed.
Um, it is Rush (and ilk) who promote the revisionist "FDR planned it all..."
> Ray O'Hara wrote: > > "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:MPG.2560d8f5d99fb93291c@news.bytemine.net... > >> In article <hd6955$ed...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>news:MPG.255fdec4f5980e078ff@news.bytemine.net... > >>>> In article <hd58pt$pv...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... > >>>>>> In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>>>>>> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am > >>>>>>>> wondering > >>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > >>>>>>>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > >>>>>>>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and > >>>>>>>> blamed > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> dunno. > >>>>>>>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a > >>>>>>>> complete > >>>>>>>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > >>>>>>>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there > >>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some > >>>>>>>> kind > >>>>>>>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into > >>>>>>>> effect > >>>>>>>> and there was war. > >>>>>>>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > >>>>>>>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked > >>>>>>>> Secretary > >>>>>>>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, > >>>>>>>> perhaps > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be > >>>>>>>> too > >>>>>>>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over > >>>>>>>> again > >>>>>>>> to no result. > >>>>>>>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > >>>>>>>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > >>>>>>>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > >>>>>>>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of > >>>>>>>> SE > >>>>>>>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply > >>>>>>>> certain > >>>>>>>> without going to war with the USA? > >>>>>>>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese > >>>>>>>> ever > >>>>>>>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil > >>>>>>>> simply > >>>>>>>> make them more boldly offensive? > >>>>>>> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. > >>>>>> That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while.
> >>>>> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. > >>>>> even a two front war. > >>>> You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ? > >>> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression > >>> era. > >>> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and > >>> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. > >>> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending > >>> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it. > >> None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in > >> Europe or Asia.
> > sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight.
> We do that today, and have for quite a while...
> > sending arms on "credit"
> Repaid, BTW.
> > giving > > 50 destroyers for bases in greenland.
> That is called "trading." We got a valuable asset, Britain got some > rusty old ships that were not suitable for the task at hand...
> > the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an > > American
> True enough, much like Saddam got intel from US satellites during the > war with Iran (does that war have a catchy moniker?).
> > and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby
> First I've ever heard of a coastal boat being in mid-Atlantic, leading > British bombers against a British CA...
> > all lit up for the Swordfish to use > > as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck.
> Cite?
> > FDR wanted the war.
> Wanting a war, and expecting a war are two different things. Bush > wanted the war in Iraq, and he prosecuted it. FDR (and every informed > sentient being on the planet) expected war and did what was necessary to > prepare for it (unlike Bush). Way different.
> Note, also, that the AVG first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days > after Pearl Harbor (local time).
> > what you want is a long history book in these threads.
> I have plenty, thank you very much. Few of them, to be sure, from > rightwingnut revisionists...
> > you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time.
> BTDTGTTS.
> > it will be ewnlightening for you. > > and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed.
> Um, it is Rush (and ilk) who promote the revisionist "FDR planned it all..."
In article <311d33bd-6074-4977-9d91-dc60d57af...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snippaggio>
> You prefer 1815?
Hmmm. By then, the foolish unpleasantness between the infant United States and her former colonial ruler was over. Yet the battle of Waterloo (a famously close-run business which Blucher, and I am told by my new deutsche freundin, sweetest of mad ladies, that the name is pronounced with a soft "ch", which I did not know, made into a devastating victory over General Buonaparte, the only title by which His Majesty's Government would ever dignify the Corsican upstart)
But I see I digress. How unusual.
After 1815, the RN kept some sort of world peace for almost a century. Imperfect, to be sure, but don't knock it until you charming American chaps have done the same. I have (had?) a great-grandfather who earned head money by liberating slaves. Something like 4s and 6d, call it two dollars. Per, ah, head. Tales told of RN frigates catching up with Portuguese slavers who'd dumped the poor buggers over the side: sunk. Ship, that is. Poor enslaved black buggers already sharkfood. Still, more to come for hungry shark.
"Brasil's that way, chaps. Swim for it." Says shark to shark: "Munchity crunchity." Not racist, them sharks, although perhaps a little inarticulate.
Bad fierce men, in the 19th-century RN. Nay, for all their many faults, good fierce men.
-- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian. Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
> In article > <311d33bd-6074-4977-9d91-dc60d57af...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <snippaggio>
> > You prefer 1815?
> Hmmm. By then, the foolish unpleasantness between the infant United > States and her former colonial ruler was over. Yet the battle of > Waterloo (a famously close-run business which Blucher, and I am told by > my new deutsche freundin, sweetest of mad ladies, that the name is > pronounced with a soft "ch", which I did not know, made into a > devastating victory over General Buonaparte, the only title by which > His Majesty's Government would ever dignify the Corsican upstart)
> But I see I digress. How unusual.
> After 1815, the RN kept some sort of world peace for almost a century. > Imperfect, to be sure, but don't knock it until you charming American > chaps have done the same. I have (had?) a great-grandfather who earned > head money by liberating slaves. Something like 4s and 6d, call it two > dollars. Per, ah, head. Tales told of RN frigates catching up with > Portuguese slavers who'd dumped the poor buggers over the side: sunk. > Ship, that is. Poor enslaved black buggers already sharkfood. Still, > more to come for hungry shark.
> "Brasil's that way, chaps. Swim for it." Says shark to shark: "Munchity > crunchity." > Not racist, them sharks, although perhaps a little inarticulate.
> Bad fierce men, in the 19th-century RN. Nay, for all their many faults, > good fierce men.
> -- > "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
> If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian. > Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Thinking more of that Post-War exhibition in frontier use of the German rifle, Chalmette, often mistakenly called the Battle of New Orleans.
Jack Linthicum wrote: > On Nov 9, 1:25 pm, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Ray O'Hara wrote: >>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:MPG.2560d8f5d99fb93291c@news.bytemine.net... >>>> In article <hd6955$ed...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:MPG.255fdec4f5980e078ff@news.bytemine.net... >>>>>> In article <hd58pt$pv...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... >>>>>>>> In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >>>>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>>>>>>>> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am >>>>>>>>>> wondering >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the >>>>>>>>>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very >>>>>>>>>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and >>>>>>>>>> blamed >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> dunno. >>>>>>>>>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a >>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both >>>>>>>>>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there >>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some >>>>>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>>>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into >>>>>>>>>> effect >>>>>>>>>> and there was war. >>>>>>>>>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in >>>>>>>>>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked >>>>>>>>>> Secretary >>>>>>>>>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, >>>>>>>>>> perhaps >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be >>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over >>>>>>>>>> again >>>>>>>>>> to no result. >>>>>>>>>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to >>>>>>>>>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a >>>>>>>>>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" >>>>>>>>>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of >>>>>>>>>> SE >>>>>>>>>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply >>>>>>>>>> certain >>>>>>>>>> without going to war with the USA? >>>>>>>>>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese >>>>>>>>>> ever >>>>>>>>>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil >>>>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>>>> make them more boldly offensive? >>>>>>>>> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. >>>>>>>> That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while. >>>>>>> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. >>>>>>> even a two front war. >>>>>> You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ? >>>>> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression >>>>> era. >>>>> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and >>>>> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. >>>>> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending >>>>> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it. >>>> None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in >>>> Europe or Asia. >>> sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight. >> We do that today, and have for quite a while...
>>> sending arms on "credit" >> Repaid, BTW.
>>> giving >>> 50 destroyers for bases in greenland. >> That is called "trading." We got a valuable asset, Britain got some >> rusty old ships that were not suitable for the task at hand...
>>> the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an >>> American >> True enough, much like Saddam got intel from US satellites during the >> war with Iran (does that war have a catchy moniker?).
>>> and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby >> First I've ever heard of a coastal boat being in mid-Atlantic, leading >> British bombers against a British CA...
>>> all lit up for the Swordfish to use >>> as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck. >> Cite?
>>> FDR wanted the war. >> Wanting a war, and expecting a war are two different things. Bush >> wanted the war in Iraq, and he prosecuted it. FDR (and every informed >> sentient being on the planet) expected war and did what was necessary to >> prepare for it (unlike Bush). Way different.
>> Note, also, that the AVG first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days >> after Pearl Harbor (local time).
>>> what you want is a long history book in these threads. >> I have plenty, thank you very much. Few of them, to be sure, from >> rightwingnut revisionists...
>>> you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time. >> BTDTGTTS.
>>> it will be ewnlightening for you. >>> and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed. >> Um, it is Rush (and ilk) who promote the revisionist "FDR planned it all..."
Interesting story, but there are a few inconsistencies that make it less than totally believable, and no mention of "...all lit up..."
"The crew of Modoc had no knowledge that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had escaped Norway and where operating in the North Atlantic or the pursuit by the Royal Navy.
...
Modoc radioed Bismarck in an attempt to get her to break radio silence and thus give away her position."
> Jack Linthicum wrote: > > On Nov 9, 1:25 pm, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Ray O'Hara wrote: > >>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>news:MPG.2560d8f5d99fb93291c@news.bytemine.net... > >>>> In article <hd6955$ed...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>news:MPG.255fdec4f5980e078ff@news.bytemine.net... > >>>>>> In article <hd58pt$pv...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... > >>>>>>>> In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >>>>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>>>>>>>> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am > >>>>>>>>>> wondering > >>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > >>>>>>>>>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > >>>>>>>>>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and > >>>>>>>>>> blamed > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> dunno. > >>>>>>>>>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a > >>>>>>>>>> complete > >>>>>>>>>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > >>>>>>>>>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there > >>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some > >>>>>>>>>> kind > >>>>>>>>>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into > >>>>>>>>>> effect > >>>>>>>>>> and there was war. > >>>>>>>>>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > >>>>>>>>>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked > >>>>>>>>>> Secretary > >>>>>>>>>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, > >>>>>>>>>> perhaps > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be > >>>>>>>>>> too > >>>>>>>>>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over > >>>>>>>>>> again > >>>>>>>>>> to no result. > >>>>>>>>>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > >>>>>>>>>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > >>>>>>>>>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > >>>>>>>>>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of > >>>>>>>>>> SE > >>>>>>>>>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply > >>>>>>>>>> certain > >>>>>>>>>> without going to war with the USA? > >>>>>>>>>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese > >>>>>>>>>> ever > >>>>>>>>>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil > >>>>>>>>>> simply > >>>>>>>>>> make them more boldly offensive? > >>>>>>>>> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. > >>>>>>>> That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while. > >>>>>>> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. > >>>>>>> even a two front war. > >>>>>> You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ? > >>>>> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression > >>>>> era. > >>>>> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and > >>>>> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. > >>>>> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending > >>>>> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it. > >>>> None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in > >>>> Europe or Asia. > >>> sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight. > >> We do that today, and have for quite a while...
> >>> sending arms on "credit" > >> Repaid, BTW.
> >>> giving > >>> 50 destroyers for bases in greenland. > >> That is called "trading." We got a valuable asset, Britain got some > >> rusty old ships that were not suitable for the task at hand...
> >>> the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an > >>> American > >> True enough, much like Saddam got intel from US satellites during the > >> war with Iran (does that war have a catchy moniker?).
> >>> and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby > >> First I've ever heard of a coastal boat being in mid-Atlantic, leading > >> British bombers against a British CA...
> >>> all lit up for the Swordfish to use > >>> as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck. > >> Cite?
> >>> FDR wanted the war. > >> Wanting a war, and expecting a war are two different things. Bush > >> wanted the war in Iraq, and he prosecuted it. FDR (and every informed > >> sentient being on the planet) expected war and did what was necessary to > >> prepare for it (unlike Bush). Way different.
> >> Note, also, that the AVG first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days > >> after Pearl Harbor (local time).
> >>> what you want is a long history book in these threads. > >> I have plenty, thank you very much. Few of them, to be sure, from > >> rightwingnut revisionists...
> >>> you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time. > >> BTDTGTTS.
> >>> it will be ewnlightening for you. > >>> and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed. > >> Um, it is Rush (and ilk) who promote the revisionist "FDR planned it all..."
> Interesting story, but there are a few inconsistencies that make it less > than totally believable, and no mention of "...all lit up..."
> "The crew of Modoc had no knowledge that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had > escaped Norway and where operating in the North Atlantic or the > pursuit by the Royal Navy.
> ...
> Modoc radioed Bismarck in an attempt to get her to break radio silence > and thus give away her position."
> Dan
And? you are trying to make a connection here? Ship comes out of the fog and the Modoc signals AA, gets no amswer so goes radio. The part about giving away Bismarck's position would be normal for any ship, friendly, enemy or neutral.
Jack Linthicum wrote: > On Nov 9, 6:44 pm, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Jack Linthicum wrote: >>> On Nov 9, 1:25 pm, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Ray O'Hara wrote: >>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:MPG.2560d8f5d99fb93291c@news.bytemine.net... >>>>>> In article <hd6955$ed...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:MPG.255fdec4f5980e078ff@news.bytemine.net... >>>>>>>> In article <hd58pt$pv...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >>>>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>>>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... >>>>>>>>>> In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- >>>>>>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am >>>>>>>>>>>> wondering >>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the >>>>>>>>>>>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very >>>>>>>>>>>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and >>>>>>>>>>>> blamed >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> dunno. >>>>>>>>>>>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a >>>>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>>>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both >>>>>>>>>>>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there >>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some >>>>>>>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into >>>>>>>>>>>> effect >>>>>>>>>>>> and there was war. >>>>>>>>>>>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in >>>>>>>>>>>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked >>>>>>>>>>>> Secretary >>>>>>>>>>>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be >>>>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over >>>>>>>>>>>> again >>>>>>>>>>>> to no result. >>>>>>>>>>>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to >>>>>>>>>>>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a >>>>>>>>>>>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" >>>>>>>>>>>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of >>>>>>>>>>>> SE >>>>>>>>>>>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply >>>>>>>>>>>> certain >>>>>>>>>>>> without going to war with the USA? >>>>>>>>>>>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>> ever >>>>>>>>>>>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil >>>>>>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>>>>>> make them more boldly offensive? >>>>>>>>>>> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. >>>>>>>>>> That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while. >>>>>>>>> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. >>>>>>>>> even a two front war. >>>>>>>> You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ? >>>>>>> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression >>>>>>> era. >>>>>>> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and >>>>>>> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. >>>>>>> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending >>>>>>> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it. >>>>>> None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in >>>>>> Europe or Asia. >>>>> sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight. >>>> We do that today, and have for quite a while... >>>>> sending arms on "credit" >>>> Repaid, BTW. >>>>> giving >>>>> 50 destroyers for bases in greenland. >>>> That is called "trading." We got a valuable asset, Britain got some >>>> rusty old ships that were not suitable for the task at hand... >>>>> the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an >>>>> American >>>> True enough, much like Saddam got intel from US satellites during the >>>> war with Iran (does that war have a catchy moniker?). >>>>> and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby >>>> First I've ever heard of a coastal boat being in mid-Atlantic, leading >>>> British bombers against a British CA... >>>>> all lit up for the Swordfish to use >>>>> as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck. >>>> Cite? >>>>> FDR wanted the war. >>>> Wanting a war, and expecting a war are two different things. Bush >>>> wanted the war in Iraq, and he prosecuted it. FDR (and every informed >>>> sentient being on the planet) expected war and did what was necessary to >>>> prepare for it (unlike Bush). Way different. >>>> Note, also, that the AVG first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days >>>> after Pearl Harbor (local time). >>>>> what you want is a long history book in these threads. >>>> I have plenty, thank you very much. Few of them, to be sure, from >>>> rightwingnut revisionists... >>>>> you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time. >>>> BTDTGTTS. >>>>> it will be ewnlightening for you. >>>>> and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed. >>>> Um, it is Rush (and ilk) who promote the revisionist "FDR planned it all..." >>>> Not sure what you intended to say. >>>> Dan >>> Gotta know the territory >>> http://www.bismarck-class.dk/miscellaneous/modoc/modoc.html >> Interesting story, but there are a few inconsistencies that make it less >> than totally believable, and no mention of "...all lit up..."
>> "The crew of Modoc had no knowledge that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had >> escaped Norway and where operating in the North Atlantic or the >> pursuit by the Royal Navy.
>> ...
>> Modoc radioed Bismarck in an attempt to get her to break radio silence >> and thus give away her position."
>> Dan
> And? you are trying to make a connection here? Ship comes out of the > fog and the Modoc signals AA, gets no amswer so goes radio. The part > about giving away Bismarck's position would be normal for any ship, > friendly, enemy or neutral.
The part about "...in an attempt to get her to break radio silence and thus give away her position." of an unknown (possibly soon-to-be-allied) ship about which the officer apparently knows nothing is "normal" for a ship many miles away from home in a battle zone with submarine about who do not ask for ID???
I'm sorry, but several of the "facts" do not add up. She may well have been somewhere in the area, but the whole story proffered is not believable on its face as written...
> Jack Linthicum wrote: > > On Nov 9, 6:44 pm, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jack Linthicum wrote: > >>> On Nov 9, 1:25 pm, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Ray O'Hara wrote: > >>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>news:MPG.2560d8f5d99fb93291c@news.bytemine.net... > >>>>>> In article <hd6955$ed...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>news:MPG.255fdec4f5980e078ff@news.bytemine.net... > >>>>>>>> In article <hd58pt$pv...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >>>>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>>>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>news:MPG.255f9ab5fe6ed9aa8ee@news.bytemine.net... > >>>>>>>>>> In article <hd2lb4$cg...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond- > >>>>>>>>>> oh...@hotmail.com says... > >>>>>>>>>>> "Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>news:b53a34cd-d1f9-4b98-82b3-84fe32400edd@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>> Am still reading Gingritch's "Pearl Harbor" concerning events of > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> late 1930s and early 40s that led up to the attack and am > >>>>>>>>>>>> wondering > >>>>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>>>> in mid-1941 the war could have been avoided between Japan and the > >>>>>>>>>>>> USA. In this book, some senior Japanese officials were very > >>>>>>>>>>>> embarassed over the behavior of the Jap army in Nanking and > >>>>>>>>>>>> blamed > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> poor restraint of the Army claiming the Navy was better behaved. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>> dunno. > >>>>>>>>>>>> In the book, there is a conversation between US ambassador Grew > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> Japanese Foreign Minister Teijiro about Roosevelt declaring a > >>>>>>>>>>>> complete > >>>>>>>>>>>> embargo on Japan over Japan's occupation of Indochina. They both > >>>>>>>>>>>> agree that unless one side or the other backs down a bit there > >>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>> war. The Foreign Minister suggests some "give and take" of some > >>>>>>>>>>>> kind > >>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid war. Obviously, in real life, the embargo went into > >>>>>>>>>>>> effect > >>>>>>>>>>>> and there was war. > >>>>>>>>>>>> What if, Roosevelt had agreed to partially lift the embargo in > >>>>>>>>>>>> exchange for something? Prince Konoye had secretely asked > >>>>>>>>>>>> Secretary > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hull for a private meeting with Roosevelt to discuss such, > >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> Anchorage or Hawaii. However, the admin thought this would be > >>>>>>>>>>>> too > >>>>>>>>>>>> much like Munich with Chamberlain giving up stuff over and over > >>>>>>>>>>>> again > >>>>>>>>>>>> to no result. > >>>>>>>>>>>> What if such a meeting had taken place and Japan had agreed to > >>>>>>>>>>>> withdraw from Southern ports in Indochina in exchange for only a > >>>>>>>>>>>> partial oil embargo. Could war have been prevented? I think "No" > >>>>>>>>>>>> because Japan saw no other way out other than getting the oil of > >>>>>>>>>>>> SE > >>>>>>>>>>>> Asia. IS there some way they could have made their oil supply > >>>>>>>>>>>> certain > >>>>>>>>>>>> without going to war with the USA? > >>>>>>>>>>>> If there had been no war betwen USA and Japan, would the Japanese > >>>>>>>>>>>> ever > >>>>>>>>>>>> moderated their behavior or would getting access to the oil > >>>>>>>>>>>> simply > >>>>>>>>>>>> make them more boldly offensive? > >>>>>>>>>>> FDR wanted war and wasn't about to do anything that prevented it. > >>>>>>>>>> That's about the craziest thing I've seen you write in a while. > >>>>>>>>> FDR badly wanted into the war. he had no doubt we would win. > >>>>>>>>> even a two front war. > >>>>>>>> You have some sort of cite for that silly claim Ray ? > >>>>>>> as Fred mentioned, read some U.S. history of the inter-war depression > >>>>>>> era. > >>>>>>> it was the thrust of our foreign policy . from escorting convoys and > >>>>>>> engaging u-boats in combat with losses on both side to thr AVG. > >>>>>>> War was the way out of depression because war is a unrestrained spending > >>>>>>> project and the republicans couldn't thwart it. > >>>>>> None of those actions say he wanted into the war's already raging in > >>>>>> Europe or Asia. > >>>>> sendiung ships to escort convoys and fight. > >>>> We do that today, and have for quite a while... > >>>>> sending arms on "credit" > >>>> Repaid, BTW. > >>>>> giving > >>>>> 50 destroyers for bases in greenland. > >>>> That is called "trading." We got a valuable asset, Britain got some > >>>> rusty old ships that were not suitable for the task at hand... > >>>>> the Bismarck was spotted by a PBYBritish Catalins being piloted by an > >>>>> American > >>>> True enough, much like Saddam got intel from US satellites during the > >>>> war with Iran (does that war have a catchy moniker?). > >>>>> and a Coast Guard Cutter nearby > >>>> First I've ever heard of a coastal boat being in mid-Atlantic, leading > >>>> British bombers against a British CA... > >>>>> all lit up for the Swordfish to use > >>>>> as a rally point before attackingf the Bismarck. > >>>> Cite? > >>>>> FDR wanted the war. > >>>> Wanting a war, and expecting a war are two different things. Bush > >>>> wanted the war in Iraq, and he prosecuted it. FDR (and every informed > >>>> sentient being on the planet) expected war and did what was necessary to > >>>> prepare for it (unlike Bush). Way different. > >>>> Note, also, that the AVG first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days > >>>> after Pearl Harbor (local time). > >>>>> what you want is a long history book in these threads. > >>>> I have plenty, thank you very much. Few of them, to be sure, from > >>>> rightwingnut revisionists... > >>>>> you should go to the library get some books and read up on the pre-war time. > >>>> BTDTGTTS. > >>>>> it will be ewnlightening for you. > >>>>> and stop getting your opinions from Rush, you won't be so mis-informed. > >>>> Um, it is Rush (and ilk) who promote the revisionist "FDR planned it all..." > >>>> Not sure what you intended to say. > >>>> Dan > >>> Gotta know the territory > >>>http://www.bismarck-class.dk/miscellaneous/modoc/modoc.html > >> Interesting story, but there are a few inconsistencies that make it less > >> than totally believable, and no mention of "...all lit up..."
> >> "The crew of Modoc had no knowledge that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had > >> escaped Norway and where operating in the North Atlantic or the > >> pursuit by the Royal Navy.
> >> ...
> >> Modoc radioed Bismarck in an attempt to get her to break radio silence > >> and thus give away her position."
> >> Dan
> > And? you are trying to make a connection here? Ship comes out of the > > fog and the Modoc signals AA, gets no amswer so goes radio. The part > > about giving away Bismarck's position would be normal for any ship, > > friendly, enemy or neutral.
> The part about "...in an attempt to get her to break radio silence and > thus give away her position." of an unknown (possibly soon-to-be-allied) > ship about which the officer apparently knows nothing is "normal" for a > ship many miles away from home in a battle zone with submarine about who > do not ask for ID???
> I'm sorry, but several of the "facts" do not add up. She may well have > been somewhere in the area, but the whole story proffered is not > believable on its face as written...
> Dan
I think you two are in violent agreement here. Dan was originally responding to Ray, who alleged that the _Modoc_ was sent out "all lit up" to serve as a rally point for British Swordfish on the way to hit the _Bismarck_. Nobody disputes that _Modoc_ was out there and that she did provide a datum when she challenged _Bismarck_, but I've never heard anyone seriously contend that she was actively cooperating in the hunt.
> In article > <311d33bd-6074-4977-9d91-dc60d57af...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <snippaggio>
> > You prefer 1815?
> Hmmm. By then, the foolish unpleasantness between the infant United > States and her former colonial ruler was over. Yet the battle of > Waterloo (a famously close-run business which Blucher, and I am told by > my new deutsche freundin, sweetest of mad ladies, that the name is > pronounced with a soft "ch", which I did not know, made into a > devastating victory over General Buonaparte, the only title by which > His Majesty's Government would ever dignify the Corsican upstart)
> But I see I digress. How unusual.
> After 1815, the RN kept some sort of world peace for almost a century. > Imperfect, to be sure, but don't knock it until you charming American > chaps have done the same. I have (had?) a great-grandfather who earned > head money by liberating slaves. Something like 4s and 6d, call it two > dollars. Per, ah, head. Tales told of RN frigates catching up with > Portuguese slavers who'd dumped the poor buggers over the side: sunk. > Ship, that is. Poor enslaved black buggers already sharkfood. Still, > more to come for hungry shark.
> "Brasil's that way, chaps. Swim for it." Says shark to shark: "Munchity > crunchity." > Not racist, them sharks, although perhaps a little inarticulate.
> Bad fierce men, in the 19th-century RN. Nay, for all their many faults, > good fierce men.
> -- > "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
> If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian. > Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Thinking more of that Post-War exhibition in frontier use of the German rifle, Chalmette, often mistakenly called the Battle of New Orleans.
most Americans at "Chalmette" were armed with smoothbores.
when I was at Chalmette years back I was struck by one thing. the level of the water on the other side of the levee. it became clear to me then that N.O. was a doomed city.
Also N.PO. was/is the most overrated dump I ever visited.
Bourbon street was a hole. and I had to wonder when a barker in front of one of the numerous titty bars along used as a come on "The only club with all real women" . I was very careful who I talked to after that tidbit.
|
