Tora, Tora, Tora! Let us not forget what day it is.

[BaalChatzaf]

72 years ago exactly the Empire of Japan attacked the naval base and air stations on Hawaii.

2400 Americans were killed.

Unlike the outrage of 9/11 this was a military attack aimed at vessels and aircraft. It was not an attack on civilians.

Even so, it got us so ticked off that we finished the matter in August of 1945. When nuclear weapons were used for the first and only time in anger. I prefer a lean mean pissed off America to what we have now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*I have clear memories of how the P.H. attacked affected my family. We were bouncing of the walls for a time.

[Selene]

I was just potential DNA strands waiting for the war to end so that I could begin to entwine...

Yep we are 1 and 0 in nuclear wars.

[syrakusos]

*I have clear memories of how the P.H. attacked affected my family. We were bouncing of the walls for a time.

We always blamed Roosevelt. He had served for seven years as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the Wilson administration. He understood the power plays in the Pacific.

The US was already involved in a war in Europe.

For a generation, "the Yellow Peril" meant China, not Japan.

Moreover, Hawaii had been annexed by force, no less than if the USA had seized the kingdom of Denmark. The Philippines had been taken from Spain. Many perhaps most FIlipinos were ambivalent about their new overlords. When the occupation started America's soldiers were largely Catholics who nearly rebelled at having to execute priests for resisting American colonialism.

For Japan, the war in the Pacific was over at Midway. It was only a matter of time. The atomic bombs were not necessary. The USA never needed to invade Japan. The islands could have been bottled up with a naval blockade.

The real purpose of the bombs was to demonstrate our will to Joseph Stalin. He, of course, owed his position to the USA in the first place. Not only did the USA supply his armies, but even in the 1930s both the American capitalists and the American labor unions poured resources into Russia. You reap what you sow.

Nothing good comes from war. If not for World Wars One and Two, we could have been on the Moon by 1950. Without public works autobahns, automobiles would be less prevalent and differently engineered. Without public works autobahns, the internet as we know it today would have been based on radio, telephone, and teletype in the 1930s.

The tragedy of the unbroken window is that we cannot perceive what did not happen.

[Backlighting]

I've been to Pearl Harbor a few times & one of the things that impressed me was how easily the ships could be trapped in those waters,

unable to easily get into open water.

[Selene]

For Japan, the war in the Pacific was over at Midway. It was only a matter of time. The atomic bombs were not necessary. The USA never needed to invade Japan. The islands could have been bottled up with a naval blockade.

The real purpose of the bombs was to demonstrate our will to Joseph Stalin. He, of course, owed his position to the USA in the first place. Not only did the USA supply his armies, but even in the 1930s both the American capitalists and the American labor unions poured resources into Russia. You reap what you sow.

I agree with the Stalin statement as a tertiary reason.

However, your rearview mirror statement on our not needing to invade Japan is highly debateable.

Do you have any document/proof that the US power elites even considered a blockade of Japan?

I have studied this period between 1941 and 1945. I know of no document that would support that point of view.

However, always willing to reconsider that position.

I know you are aware that the US had 500,000 Purple Hearts made in preparation for the invasion of just the main island of Honshu.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

72 years ago exactly the Empire of Japan attacked the naval base and air stations on Hawaii.

2400 Americans were killed.

Unlike the outrage of 9/11 this was a military attack aimed at vessels and aircraft. It was not an attack on civilians.

Even so, it got us so ticked off that we finished the matter in August of 1945. When nuclear weapons were used for the first and only time in anger. I prefer a lean mean pissed off America to what we have now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*I have clear memories of how the P.H. attacked affected my family. We were bouncing of the walls for a time.

Why is atomic weaponry considered a sub-set of nuclear by some?

--Brant

not saying it isn't

[Brant Gaede]

*I have clear memories of how the P.H. attacked affected my family. We were bouncing of the walls for a time.

We always blamed Roosevelt. He had served for seven years as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the Wilson administration. He understood the power plays in the Pacific.

The US was already involved in a war in Europe.

For a generation, "the Yellow Peril" meant China, not Japan.

Moreover, Hawaii had been annexed by force, no less than if the USA had seized the kingdom of Denmark. The Philippines had been taken from Spain. Many perhaps most FIlipinos were ambivalent about their new overlords. When the occupation started America's soldiers were largely Catholics who nearly rebelled at having to execute priests for resisting American colonialism.

For Japan, the war in the Pacific was over at Midway. It was only a matter of time. The atomic bombs were not necessary. The USA never needed to invade Japan. The islands could have been bottled up with a naval blockade.

The real purpose of the bombs was to demonstrate our will to Joseph Stalin. He, of course, owed his position to the USA in the first place. Not only did the USA supply his armies, but even in the 1930s both the American capitalists and the American labor unions poured resources into Russia. You reap what you sow.

Nothing good comes from war. If not for World Wars One and Two, we could have been on the Moon by 1950. Without public works autobahns, automobiles would be less prevalent and differently engineered. Without public works autobahns, the internet as we know it today would have been based on radio, telephone, and teletype in the 1930s.

The tragedy of the unbroken window is that we cannot perceive what did not happen.

A blockade of Japan would have meant the starvation death of tens of millions of Japanese.

--Brant

the war was "over" when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, putting the tactical horse behind the strategic wagon

you don't send the entire might of a country and its people into total war and suddenly eviscerate the momentum with a blockade

the atomic bombs were used to end the war; impressing Stalin was jejune secondary to that

war is hell and it can't be refined (Sherman)

going to the moon was accelerated by German rocket science (the V-2)--the greatest thing humanity ever did and it was effectively a dead-end stunt

[Brant Gaede]

I've been to Pearl Harbor a few times & one of the things that impressed me was how easily the ships could be trapped in those waters,

unable to easily get into open water.

Open water means lost of most crew when the ships are sunk. All the battleships were salvaged except the Arizona and the Oklahoma. The Nevada ran aground, I think. It could have sunk bottling up the harbor. The Japanese needed to sink our not-in-port carriers and destroy the oil storage and maintenance facilities, not put obsolete battleships out of commission, but they had battleship admirals too. It actually wasn't even the tactical victory it could have been. Come the battle of Midway the Japanese made the same essential mistake using carrier planes against an island as a prelude to invasion instead of concentrating on destroying American carriers that may have been there. When the dive bombers hit them their pants were down.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

going to the moon was accelerated by German rocket science (the V-2)--the greatest thing humanity ever did and it was effectively a dead-end stunt

It was JFK's pissing contest with Khruschev. After the Bay of Bigs fiasco, Kenned felt he had to prove he had meat behind his fly to the Russians.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

I despise this man...

President Barack Obama’s Facebook page on Saturday posted a message honoring the dead from Pearl Harbor—accompanied by a picture of Obama descending the stairs next to the Pearl Harbor Memorial.

The picture barely fits the name of the Arizona Memorial so it can frame Obama in the foreground.

The post's statement reads:

"Today, with solemn pride and reverence, let us remember those who fought and died at Pearl Harbor, acknowledge everyone who carried their legacy forward, and reaffirm our commitment to upholding the ideals for which they served.

President Obama"

A...

[Backlighting]

I've been to Pearl Harbor a few times & one of the things that impressed me was how easily the ships could be trapped in those waters,

unable to easily get into open water.

Open water means lost of most crew when the ships are sunk. All the battleships were salvaged except the Arizona and the Oklahoma. The Nevada ran aground, I think. It could have sunk bottling up the harbor. The Japanese needed to sink our not-in-port carriers and destroy the oil storage and maintenance facilities, not put obsolete battleships out of commission, but they had battleship admirals too. It actually wasn't even the tactical victory it could have been. Come the battle of Midway the Japanese made the same essential mistake using carrier planes against an island as a prelude to invasion instead of concentrating on destroying American carriers that may have been there. When the dive bombers hit them their pants were down.

--Brant

Brant,

Yes it was the carriers the Japanese were after.

I'm not convinced our battleships were obsolete though. Perhaps you can be more specific.

They were, however, stationary & condensed targets in the bay. If they were alerted to the strike some hrs before and made it out, with distance between the individual ships, to open waters, they may have had the preparation & time to mount an effective response. Just sayin I like my odds better as a prepared, moving target rather than a stationery, unprepared one.

-Joe

[BaalChatzaf]

It was a blessing in disguise. It finally awakened the management of the U.S. Navy to the limitations of battleships. Too many Navy brass were brought up with Battleships on the Brain. Yamamoto's brilliant use of air power taught the U.S. a lesson that they took to heart. From that point on, naval operations were centered around the air craft carrier. The proof was what happened at Midway. In about fifteen minutes carrier launched dive bombers left 3 our of 4 of Japans top carriers flaming hulks.

Hiryu took a bit longer and it finally cost us the Yorktown.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I've been to Pearl Harbor a few times & one of the things that impressed me was how easily the ships could be trapped in those waters,

unable to easily get into open water.

Open water means lost of most crew when the ships are sunk. All the battleships were salvaged except the Arizona and the Oklahoma. The Nevada ran aground, I think. It could have sunk bottling up the harbor. The Japanese needed to sink our not-in-port carriers and destroy the oil storage and maintenance facilities, not put obsolete battleships out of commission, but they had battleship admirals too. It actually wasn't even the tactical victory it could have been. Come the battle of Midway the Japanese made the same essential mistake using carrier planes against an island as a prelude to invasion instead of concentrating on destroying American carriers that may have been there. When the dive bombers hit them their pants were down.

--Brant

Brant,

Yes it was the carriers the Japanese were after.

I'm not convinced our battleships were obsolete though. Perhaps you can be more specific.

They were, however, stationary & condensed targets in the bay. If they were alerted to the strike some hrs before and made it out, with distance between the individual ships, to open waters, they may have had the preparation & time to mount an effective response. Just sayin I like my odds better as a prepared, moving target rather than a stationery, unprepared one.

-Joe

Unless you were on the Arizona your odds would have been better in port. Just a fact. The biological impulse is to go out and fight--even die. The Prince of Wales and Repulse were prepared, moving targets sunk by Japanese planes. The battleships attacked at Pearl Harbor were decades old because of the naval treaty of 1922. When the modern battleship the USS Washington steamed into Pearl Harbor months after the attack, sailors, et al. cheered. Then came the four Iowa class, not finally retired for decades. Even today what gets one going is the idea of a battleship. Compare that to aircraft carrier. Those nine 16 inch guns give any warrior a hard on, metaphorically speaking.

--Brant

too bad it's only metaphorical, considering my age

[Selene]

I was not aware that the airport was named after a Medal of Honor winner.

Good morning, it's Friday, February 20, 2015. President Obama returned last night from his adopted hometown of Chicago, the city of big shoulders, Rahm Emanuel, bracing winds, Bill Murray, sub-zero winters, Da Bears, two major league baseball teams (yes, pitchers and catchers have reported to spring training), and the always-bustling Chicago O'Hare International Airport.

I often wonder when flying there how many of the millions of pilgrims, tourists, and businesspeople who use O'Hare each year know anything about the man it is named after. He's a fascinating figure, a fabled pilot and dashing war hero, who strode through life like a Lochinvar and who died too young.

It was on this date in 1942 that Edward "Butch" O'Hare became a U.S. Navy legend. It happened in battle in the skies over the Pacific Ocean: O'Hare became the first American flying "ace" of World War II.

"As World War II fades to sepia, so does the public memory of Edward ‘Butch' O'Hare. For the millions of travelers who pass through every year, O'Hare International Airport might be dedicated to one of the Irish politicians, captains of commerce and industry, or press lords whose names are attached to so many other Chicago landmarks such as the Dan Ryan Expressway and Wentworth Avenue."

Chicago Tribune writer John Blades wrote those words 18 years ago this week. They're even more true today. Most the veterans of that great war are gone now -- only their families remember them all. So we remember a few of them, stand-ins for an entire generation that fought freedom's fight.

Edward O'Hare was born on March 13, 1914, in St. Louis. The future aviator was usually called "Butch" as a boy to distinguish himself from his father, an attorney and businessman who went professionally by "E.J." O'Hare until he was killed by Chicago gangsters, probably on the orders of Al Capone, and the tabloids took to calling the slain lawyer "Easy Eddie" and alleging that he had mob ties.

Eddie was what Franklin Roosevelt called the son, but that was later, at his 1942 Medal of Honor ceremony.

He won it in the skies over the Solomon Islands while serving as a lieutenant aboard the USS Lexington. O'Hare had been trained as a carrier pilot while still at the Naval Academy. At Pensacola, he practiced carrier landings. He made his first one on July 1, 1940, and promptly pronounced it "just about the most exciting thing a pilot can do in peacetime."

Twenty months later, however, while piloting an F4F Wildcat, he was facing a formation of Japanese G4M1 bombers -- Bettys, as they were known.

With extraordinary flying and perfect marksmanship, O'Hare shot five of them out of the sky in less than four minutes, almost certainly saving his ship in the process. His feat was celebrated across the country, and besides meeting FDR, O'Hare was feted, paraded, and offered up as a motivational speaker.

He was too good a pilot to waste, however, and the following year he was back in action. He was killed on November 26, 1943 while flying a daring experimental nighttime combat mission without radar. For years rumors existed -- even his wife Rita heard them -- that his death was caused by friendly fire, but O'Hare's best biographers believe that he was killed by an enemy pilot in his old nemesis, a Japanese Betty.

His life and death brings to mind heroes of old, including one in a famous Sir Walter Scott poem:

"O young Lochinvar is come out of the west,
Through all the wide Border his steed was the best;
And save his good broadsword he weapons had none,
He rode all unarm'd, and he rode all alone.
So faithful in love, and so dauntless in war,
There never was knight like the young Lochinvar."

Amazing. I knew about the first Ace of WWII and never connected it to the airport.

Here is his Medal of Honor citation

The President of the United States in the name of The Congress takes pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to:

O'HARE, EDWARD HENRY

Rank and organization: Lieutenant, U.S. Navy. Born: 13 March 1914, St. Louis, Mo. Entered service at: St. Louis, Mo. Other Navy awards: Navy Cross, Distinguished Flying Cross with 1 gold star.

Citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in aerial combat, at grave risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty, as section leader and pilot of Fighting Squadron 3 on 20 February 1942. Having lost the assistance of his teammates, Lt. O'Hare interposed his plane between his ship and an advancing enemy formation of 9 attacking twin-engine heavy bombers. Without hesitation, alone and unaided, he repeatedly attacked this enemy formation, at close range in the face of intense combined machinegun and cannon fire. Despite this concentrated opposition, Lt. O'Hare, by his gallant and courageous action, his extremely skillful marksmanship in making the most of every shot of his limited amount of ammunition, shot down 5 enemy bombers and severely damaged a sixth before they reached the bomb release point. As a result of his gallant action--one of the most daring, if not the most daring, single action in the history of combat aviation--he undoubtedly saved his carrier from serious damage.

Imagine making Ace in four (4) minutes! Outstanding!

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

I've been to Pearl Harbor a few times & one of the things that impressed me was how easily the ships could be trapped in those waters,

unable to easily get into open water.

The Harbor is only 40 feet deep and it has a very narrow opening to the see. The British attack on the Italian navy at Tatanto which was in a harbor not unlike Pearl Harbor should have put out naval people into some state of alertness. Apparently our navy people slept, but Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto did not.

[Francisco Ferrer]

"The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism" by Steve Sniegoski

[Brant Gaede]

They were revising Pearl Harbor in the 1950s. But the myth is too nice, comforting and valuable. It also makes teaching "history" to kids a lot easier. The Japanese wanted to secure their trade and oil and didn't want US naval interference (which the US wasn't up to anyway). The Japanese, like everyone else, still had a lot of "battleship admirals." In spite of that they intended to sink US carriers too, only they weren't in port. Japan didn't have to go to war with the US to secure its oil. It made a stunning strategic error. The other error was having anything to do with a Hitler who specialized in strategic errors so much he became a communist allied asset recognized as such. It was principally the oil embargo that goaded Japan into war. Don't get me wrong; I wouldn't change a thing until after I was conceived in the summer of 1943. I always get a laugh about "victims" of slavery--or anything like it--who are only here as human beings because everything was just so until Daddy had his way with Mommy. Hey, pal--you wouldn't be you; no one would; the world would be filled with nearly 7 billion all different yous (unless Mommy's egg has all the genes for consciousness--then there'd still be a chance, however small). Oh, yes, the Japanese who ran Japan were real bastards, especially from the army. The navy even had to send Yamamoto to sea to protect him from possible army assassins.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Revisionism, i.e. questioning of U.S. policies and motives vis-à-vis Japan, was already underway in the 1940's. See in particular Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (1948).

[Selene]

Revisionism, i.e. questioning of U.S. policies and motives vis-à-vis Japan, was already underway in the 1940's. See in particular Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (1948).

Trust you to come up with a disgraced progressive historian who was a marxist class based interpreter.

His Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, which I read close to half a century ago, was laughable.

Among many works he published during these years at Columbia, the most controversial was An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913), an interpretation of how the economic interests of the members of the Constitutional Convention affected their votes. He emphasized the polarity between agrarians and business interests.[11] Academics and politicians denounced the book, but it was well respected by scholars until challenged and discredited in the 1950s.[12]

And of course supports your hatred of the Founders and this country. You sound just like our President.

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

Revisionism, i.e. questioning of U.S. policies and motives vis-à-vis Japan, was already underway in the 1940's. See in particular Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (1948).

Trust you to come up with a disgraced progressive historian who was a marxist class based interpreter.

His Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, which I read close to half a century ago, was laughable.

Among many works he published during these years at Columbia, the most controversial was An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913), an interpretation of how the economic interests of the members of the Constitutional Convention affected their votes. He emphasized the polarity between agrarians and business interests.[11] Academics and politicians denounced the book, but it was well respected by scholars until challenged and discredited in the 1950s.[12]

And of course supports your hatred of the Founders and this country. You sound just like our President.

A...

Calling Charles A. Beard a "Marxist" does not prove that he was one, nor does it disprove anything contained in his writings. As for being disgraced, if being insufficiently pro-war and pro-Roosevelt makes Beard disgraced, he was in excellent company.

Regarding his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Beard showed that the founders had economic motives just like everyone else. The respected conservative historian Forrest McDonald has also taken a economics-based, albeit more nuanced view in his work We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution.

I am not aware that returning the United States to a weak central government like that at the time of the Articles of Confederation puts me in the same company as Barack Obama. Perhaps you could cite a reference.

I also am eager to hear your specific criticisms of the work I cited that bears on the topic of this thread, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War.

[Selene]

m eager to hear your specific criticisms of the work I cited that bears on the topic of this thread, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War.

No you are not.

Beard "pruned the evidence," for example, on Page 373 of the book you try to rely on, Beard writes that:

Secretary Stimson testified before the Army Pearl Harbor Board that he was not surprised by the Japanese attack -- on Pearl Harbor.

The actual exchange was:

Russell asked Stimson, "Then you were not surprised at the air attack on the 7th of December?"

Stimson replies that, "Well, I was not surprised, in one sense, in any attack that would be made; but I was watching

with considerably more care, because I knew more about it, the attack that was framing up in the southwestern Pacific

..."

Context babes.

Beard is a disgrace.

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

I don't see the problem. Stimson's full answer is:

"Well, I was not surprised, in one sense, in any attack
that would be made; but I was watching, with considerably more care,
because I knew more about it, the attack that was framing up in the
southwestern Pacific. And I knew also that there was a concentration in
the mandated islands -- I know now, because I was shown by General
Arnold the letter about the telegram, and an order; so that that was an
additional threat, and that might fall on either Hawaii or Panama."

Thus, Stimson was alert to the possibility of an attack that might fall on either Hawaii or Panama. On the same page Beard goes on to provide reasons why Stimson and other members of the Roosevelt administration would not have been surprised by the Pearl Harbor attack:

"Secretary Hull told Secretary Stimson and Secretary Knox

as early as November 27 that relations with Japan were at an

end and that the matter was in the hands of the Army and the

Navy. Secretary Knox received intercepts of secret Japanese

messages which revealed to him the war designs of the

Japanese Government. He was a member of the War Cabinet

and present on November 25, l 941, when the problem of

maneuvering the Japanese into firing the first shot was discussed."

[Selene]

I don't see the problem. Stimson's full answer is:

Of course you don't.

I do.

Move on.

A....

Post Script: Great original interview in 1963 of Malcom X is on C-span.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I don't see the problem. Stimson's full answer is:

Of course you don't.

I do.

Move on.

Stimson's full answer revealed that he had no reason not to anticipate an attack on an American territory. Beard's thesis that FDR worked secretly to get the U.S. involved in the war stands intact.

[Brant Gaede]

"Remember Pearl Harbor!" has been so ingrained into the American psyche even I remember Pearl Harbor and I wasn't even born.

--Brant

my uncle was there