I thought the article was pretty even-handed. It did say our blockade of Japan was in response to Japan's invasion of China. Mostly I just think we were heavy handed in blockading Japan, even though it was the right thing to step in to stop the Japanese.

Said Euroweenies would never have been liberated had it not been for the big red, white, and blue machine joining in and tearing the Axis a new asshole.

Thanks, Japan.

I suppose subby is ready to fight in Iraq against Al Queda.

*sigh*

It's no secret that FDR, in direct contradiction to the promises he made in the 1940 election, actively wanted to get the US involved in the war in Europe. He deliberately skirted and at times violated the official US neutrality long before Pearl Harbor. And while it's probably less likely that he was actively pursuing war with Japan, it's certainly obvious that he expected it (though not as soon as it came) and did little to seriously avoid it. Of course, the conspiracy nonsense about how he knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time is bullshiat, but that doesn't mean the FDR-worshipers are necessarily right about everything, either.

/yeah, yeah, I know the login's a little ironic
//has nothing to do with my politics

aiiee: I thought the article was pretty even-handed. It did say our blockade of Japan was in response to Japan's invasion of China. Mostly I just think we were heavy handed in blockading Japan, even though it was the right thing to step in to stop the Japanese.

It was an embargo, not a blockade, and it occurred 10 years after Japan invaded China (Manchuria invaded in 1931). It was in response to Japan driving into Indo-China and towards the (oil-rich) Dutch East Indies (1941).

The overall idea that diplomacy was not adequately attempted may be arguable, but the tone of this article doesn't seem even-handed at all. Diplomacy is two-way. It's not like Japan made every effort to avoid conflict.

The decision to attack Pearl Harbor was reached after five months of deliberations that included numerous official conferences. It was a gradual process in which more sympathetic, albeit firm, US engagement might have helped sway Japan in a different direction. In fact, Japanese government opinion was so divided that it is surprising that it was able to unite in the end.

So, it took 5 long months for Japan to decide to attack, but somehow it was America not trying hard enough to stop them that ultimately led to the attack? Again, maybe greater effort could have averted it (no one can actually ever know this, of course), but it was Japan that ultimately made the decision.

Some good points are made, but the tone of the article is that it somehow America not deterring the attack with sweet-talk is as bad or worse than Japan ultimately deciding to attack.

wow...that was rambling...could have used a bit of editing, I suppose.

submitter: Limp-wristed Euroweenies

An interesting description of the syndication of an article written by a Japanese woman living in New York, but OK...

/beats submitter around the head with a copy of Pacifism Today
//irony fan

Do they ever wonder why they aren't all speaking German or Japanese today?

Lionel Mandrake: Some good points are made, but the tone of the article is that it somehow America not deterring the attack with sweet-talk is as bad or worse than Japan ultimately deciding to attack.

That's absurd. It's not a zero-sum game. Pointing out that the American gov't farked up in no way affects how guilty the Japanese gov't was. There's no need for the article to be "even handed", keeping score so as to keep exactly equal the negative things said about both sides, since TFA was explicitly about the American side of the run-up to the war.

Or rather, the article was about how the American actions affected the Japanese decision to go to war.

Churchill2004: yeah, yeah, I know the login's a little ironic

Not so much. Churchill thought FDR was weak and gullible...then again, he thought the British Empire could survive the fall of Singapore.

TheOther: Not so much. Churchill thought FDR was weak and gullible...then again, he thought the British Empire could survive the fall of Singapore.

That's true. FDR was actually a pretty weak player in WWII intra-Allied diplomacy, alternatively the pawn of either Churchill or Stalin. It was, Churchill, though who was in large part responsible for the disastrous British war guarantee to Poland.

Churchill2004: That's true. FDR was actually a pretty weak player in WWII intra-Allied diplomacy, alternatively the pawn of either Churchill or Stalin. It was, Churchill, though who was in large part responsible for the disastrous British war guarantee to Poland.

I'm not saying I agree with Churchill's assessment. I think it's likely that FDR sold-out Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta in exchange for at least nominal participation against the Japanese. I suspect that if we had followed Churchill's hard line in Europe against the Soviets, they would have, at minimum, started sending supplies to the Japanese. Dividing Europe, including Not-So-Great Britain, between the US and the USSR was a hardcore cynic's move.

FDR did come across as a bit naive during the conferences, particularly put up next to Churchill, who never disguised his disgust with Stalin, but calling him "weak" is a bit strong. Incredibly cynical and non-confrontational perhaps, but weak and gullible? Not really. If he was weak or gullible, he would have bent over to Stalin's persuasion/demands for a second in Europe in 1943 instead of US forces rolling across tunisia.

They also called Truman weak for not taking Chaing Kai-Shek's and Bob Taft's bait and invading China with American troops after the nationalists got thrown off by Mao in one of the worst-run military campaigns of the 20th century.

TheOther beat me to it.

I think y'all are giving FDR way too much credit for strategic thinking. Selling out Eastern Europe didn't get the Western Allies anything, and the delay in opening the "second front" was based on technical limitations outside of FDR's control. No, the problem was much simpler with that- FDR was way too buddy-buddy with Stalin. He bent over backwards to make "Uncle Joe" (as he affectionately referred to the man who killed more people than Hitler) happy. FDR completely failed to see the Cold War coming, even when it was staring him straight in the face, and failed to understand that Stalin needed our supplies a lot more than we needed Stalin to do well against Hitler. As long as the Soviets didn't completely collapse, which we had relatively little control over, Stalin would have served our purposes just as well fighting the Nazis in Western Russia as he did fighting the Nazis while conquering half of Europe.

I think the whole thing was all just a conspiracy to sell future WWII-related video games.

Follow the money!

Churchill2004: I think y'all are giving FDR way too much credit for strategic thinking.
I don't think looking out for your own interests at the expense of your allies is a difficult strategic concept to grasp.

Selling out Eastern Europe didn't get the Western Allies anything,
I guess it's possible to say it wasn't a sellout since the USSR was going to be in possession and nothing the US or Brits did was going to change that.

and the delay in opening the "second front" was based on technical limitations outside of FDR's control.
Mostly true, but not absolutely: landing craft allocation could have been changed.

No, the problem was much simpler with that- FDR was way too buddy-buddy with Stalin. He bent over backwards to make "Uncle Joe" (as he affectionately referred to the man who killed more people than Hitler) happy.
An assessment of diplomacy based on a (possibly sarcastic) nickname is feeble.

if not FDR completely failed to see the Cold War coming, even when it was staring him straight in the face,
or saw it coming and decided to make the best of it: no more German/French/Brit shenannigans.

and failed to understand that Stalin needed our supplies a lot more than we needed Stalin to do well against Hitler.
How much the USSR needed Lend-Lease has been debated for decades, so... debatable. I think the US probably overstated its contribution, and the USSR understated it.

As long as the Soviets didn't completely collapse, which we had relatively little control over, Stalin would have served our purposes just as well fighting the Nazis in Western Russia as he did fighting the Nazis while conquering half of Europe.

I disagree with your assessment of the likely outcomes under a Russia stymied east of Poland.

Don't Godwin my Tojo.

TheOther: I don't think looking out for your own interests at the expense of your allies is a difficult strategic concept to grasp.

Except he didn't do that, either.

TheOther: I guess it's possible to say it wasn't a sellout since the USSR was going to be in possession and nothing the US or Brits did was going to change that.

There were a number of things Churchill wanted to do that would have resulted in the Soviets having a smaller chunk of post-war Europe. Among other things, he wanted to invade the Balkans to "head them off", so to speak, and along with Montgomery pushed for a much faster, more targeted Allied advance into Germany rather than advancing more slowly along a broad front in 1944/45 (a strategic decisions specifically made by the Americans so as to not occupy any German territory that had already been set aside for the Russians).

TheOther: An assessment of diplomacy based on a (possibly sarcastic) nickname is feeble.

Not when that completely sincere nickname is shown by the historical record to have been indicative of FDR's overall attitude towards and personal relationship with Stalin.

TheOther: or saw it coming and decided to make the best of it: no more German/French/Brit shenannigans

What do you mean?

Churchill2004: There were a number of things Churchill wanted to do that would have resulted in the Soviets having a smaller chunk of post-war Europe. Among other things, he wanted to invade the Balkans to "head them off", so to speak,
A horrible plan which violated the Brits own strategy of keeping the German divisions in the Balkans useless. The only benefit would to have picked up some Eastern Med bases for the Brits to hold after the war.

and along with Montgomery pushed for a much faster, more targeted Allied advance into Germany rather than advancing more slowly along a broad front in 1944/45
Market-Garden Monty wasn't going to get a second debacle to add to his resume.

(a strategic decisions specifically made by the Americans so as to not occupy any German territory that had already been set aside for the Russians).
and throw the burden of taking Berlin on the Red Army...smart choice.

Not when that completely sincere nickname is shown by the historical record to have been indicative of FDR's overall attitude towards and personal relationship with Stalin.
I'll defer to your research on that and concede that FDR didn't think Stalin was as bad as another general European/World war in 20 years.

What do you mean?
See the note above. Splitting Europe into two blocs eliminated the no-longer effective balance of power antics. It also overrode the nationalist/racist hatreds until the Eastern Bloc failed and Serbia got loose again.

Redwing: Said Euroweenies would never have been liberated had it not been for the big red, white, and blue machine joining in and tearing the Axis a new asshole.

Thanks, Japan.

You mean the USSR?

Oh great, a "Those Europeans shouldn't criticize us, we saved their ass!" thread.

You should look a bit further back in history and realize that, without the French, the US never would have been a country. The British would have beaten us like dogs.

That being said, the Japanese were pretty desperate when they pulled their attack on Pearl Harbor. But it's also worth noting that the Japanese were committing atrocities in China and, although we might have avoided a war between the US and Japan, there would probably have been no way to stop them taking some territory on the main land and doing terrible things to the inhabitants. No way besides going to war, that is.

FarkinNortherner: submitter: Limp-wristed Euroweenies

An interesting description of the syndication of an article written by a Japanese woman living in New York, but OK...

Came here to scold subby for this.

/Bad subby.

RemyDuron:
Oh great, a "Those Europeans shouldn't criticize us, we saved their ass!" thread.

Actually, another "those Europeans shouldn't criticize us in really stupid ways for things that didn't happen like that" thread.

Yes, the US should have been more diplomatic toward a nation determined to conquer and control their neighbors. Maybe we should have even given them a country in exchange for a promise to behave. I mean, it worked well for europe...

Pearl Harbor was a huge strategic victory for the US. Not only did it stir morale, we lost the least important ships in our fleet - the battleships - while the aircraft carriers were out at sea. Aside from the Arizona exploding like a dynamite factory and killing over 1000 sailors, Pearl Harbor ended up changing the course of history for the better by prompting the US to mobilize. There's a movie called "The Final Countdown" where a modern-day carrier accidentally time-travels back to Dec 5th 1941 and has a chance to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor...but they choose not to. I wouldn't have stopped it either. There was political inertia underway that had to run its course. But I'd have at least called up the poor bastards in Hawaii and warned them to wake up and unlock their ammo though.

I thought Germany attacked Perl Harbor!

In retrospect there were definite warnings (eg Dušan "Duško" Popov, the guy who James Bond was based on)

I don't see why it's important. America had to draw a line in the sand, and that was the Japanese embargo. Everyone knew an attack was inevitable, and if it was not Pearl Harbor it would have been something else.

It had long ago chosen sides with the cash & carry deal. America sided with its primary allies/trading partners, and the arms exporting only locked in what was already there. So 4 years in, an attack comes.

I don't see how ambushing the Japanese attack, if it were expected, would not have served the same purpose as being surprised. Either way leaders knowingly send many soldiers to their grave in order to win the war so there's not point to criticizing it.

Same thing goes for dropping the nuclear bombs. It wasn't necessary, but they didn't want the Soviets to gain ground like they had in Eastern Europe. A choice was made with expansive ramifications and that's the world we live in -- if you care to day dream, unicorns and centaurs are much more exciting. It's not like there were not just as many consequences to not dropping the nuclear bombs

The point is war sucks, and whomever willingly begins one deserve to have their wishes granted

Yeah, I guess those French and British colonies that the Japanese were overrunning were sure glad we put an embargo on them.

The Japanese attacked us because they hated our freedoms.

This is how it really went down:
Link (new window)

The truth? You can blame us Canadians for Pearl Harbor. PM King was responsible for the dissolution of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance at the Washington Naval Conference.

FarKnight: Pearl Harbor was a huge strategic victory for the US. Not only did it stir morale, we lost the least important ships in our fleet - the battleships - while the aircraft carriers were out at sea. Aside from the Arizona exploding like a dynamite factory and killing over 1000 sailors, Pearl Harbor ended up changing the course of history for the better by prompting the US to mobilize. There's a movie called "The Final Countdown" where a modern-day carrier accidentally time-travels back to Dec 5th 1941 and has a chance to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor...but they choose not to. I wouldn't have stopped it either. There was political inertia underway that had to run its course. But I'd have at least called up the poor bastards in Hawaii and warned them to wake up and unlock their ammo though.

that movie is terrible. that said, I wouldn't even warn them. part of the outrage that got the United State's blood boiling was the fact that the attack was a complete surprise.

RemyDuron: You should look a bit further back in history and realize that, without the French, the US never would have been a country. The British would have beaten us like dogs.

French involvement was limited to letting us borrow money and a couple naval battles in the English channel. They didn't even send troops until 1780 and when they did get here they got destroyed by the British at the Battle of Savannah. France had an axe to grind anyway with England so they used us as an excuse to attack. England's population back then looked at the American Revolution in almost the same light as most Americans view the war in Iraq, pointless. We held our own and overcame, beaten us like dogs is way overstating the French involvement.

the euroweenies are right. we did bring pearl harbor on ourselves, which makes it our fault.
but that's not news. it's already been declassified.

Ipag: French involvement was limited to letting us borrow money and a couple naval battles in the English channel. They didn't even send troops until 1780 and when they did get here they got destroyed by the British at the Battle of Savannah. France had an axe to grind anyway with England so they used us as an excuse to attack. England's population back then looked at the American Revolution in almost the same light as most Americans view the war in Iraq, pointless. We held our own and overcame, beaten us like dogs is way overstating the French involvement.
would like a word with you.

Hey, subby, did you read the article?

Clearly if we had done some things differently we could have avoided Pearl Harbor. That doesn't make it our fault.

Same with 9/11. Clearly we could have done some things differently and events would have unfolded differently. This doesn't change the fact that America was the victim of an unprovoked attack.

The article isn't blaming the attacks on us, you idiot. It is pointing out that had we done some things differently things would have been different. An obvious point, and one we would be stupid to ignore.

In the infinite universe, everything happens. Cause and effect are not the same as responsibility.

Ipag:
French involvement was limited to letting us borrow money and a couple naval battles in the English channel.

French involvement was not limited but included to financing the bulk of the Revolution in loans directly from the French State. Without them, we would have had money to buy supplies or pay the men in uniform.

They also sent the Marquis de Layfette, who was at the beginning the only European-trained general we had on the field.

So aside from those small things, you're correct.

Preemptive strikes are only ok when the US does them.

We'd broken Purple (the Japanese diplomatic code) and the Japanese Embassy was told to pack up and leave the country a few days before the attack.

We knew something was coming, but we didn't know where.

What FDR also didn't know was that the idiot in charge of the Pacific fleet had parked ever ship in Pearl Harbor (they were supposed to be anchored outside of the harbor, but the admiral in change was afraid of Japanese sabotage).

A European lecturing America on how to avoid wars, WWII no less.

Huh

Dwight_Yeast: We'd broken Purple (the Japanese diplomatic code) and the Japanese Embassy was told to pack up and leave the country a few days before the attack.

We knew something was coming, but we didn't know where.

What FDR also didn't know was that the idiot in charge of the Pacific fleet had parked ever ship in Pearl Harbor (they were supposed to be anchored outside of the harbor, but the admiral in change was afraid of Japanese sabotage).

your post is nothing but a string of errors.

1. The US did not tell the Japanese to pack up and get out of the country prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, the government was still conducting negotiations with the Japanese the day of the attack.

2. We suspected something was coming and thought it would be either the Philippines or the Dutch East Indies.

3. There was never an order to "park" the US Pacific fleet outside of Pearl Harbor. That would be (a) stupid and (b) nearly impossible considering the ocean depths around the islands. You need shallow water to drop anchor and "park".

4. It was the Army Commander, General Short, who lined up his airplanes to prevent sabotage.

Other than that, you got everything right. 0 - 4

Lunchlady: A European lecturing America on how to avoid wars, WWII no less.

Huh

Remember when big shot European diplomats prevented the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam? Also all the Colonial Wars since 1900 and the Algerian conflict?

Dwight_Yeast: Ipag:
French involvement was limited to letting us borrow money and a couple naval battles in the English channel.

French involvement was not limited but included to financing the bulk of the Revolution in loans directly from the French State. Without them, we would have had money to buy supplies or pay the men in uniform.

They also sent the Marquis de Layfette, who was at the beginning the only European-trained general we had on the field.

So aside from those small things, you're correct.

no, he is not and neither are you. The French sent an Army to the US as well as the French fleet. If not for that fleet, we would not have won at Yorktown.

The French did not SEND Lafayette, that was his idea and the French would have stopped him if they could have.

European trained Generals?? Washington was a European trained general as were many other officers in the army. They had been trained by the British.

Your knowledge of history sucks.

delicflower13x3: the euroweenies are right. we did bring pearl harbor on ourselves, which makes it our fault.
but that's not news. it's already been declassified.



sadly, you are mistaken. There has been nothing declassified in the last 60 years that indicates that we brought on the attack on Pearl Harbor.

nicksteel: Dwight_Yeast: Ipag:
French involvement was limited to letting us borrow money and a couple naval battles in the English channel.

French involvement was not limited but included to financing the bulk of the Revolution in loans directly from the French State. Without them, we would have had money to buy supplies or pay the men in uniform.

They also sent the Marquis de Layfette, who was at the beginning the only European-trained general we had on the field.

So aside from those small things, you're correct.

no, he is not and neither are you. The French sent an Army to the US as well as the French fleet. If not for that fleet, we would not have won at Yorktown.

The French did not SEND Lafayette, that was his idea and the French would have stopped him if they could have.

European trained Generals?? Washington was a European trained general as were many other officers in the army. They had been trained by the British.

Your knowledge of history sucks.

Agreed. Much as we like to think the Minutemen won the war, it was when Washington finally cobbled together a REAL army that could stand up to the British. A multinational team helped, including as I recall, Kosiusco (sp)

There IS a reason after all that we remarked "Lafayette, we are here" when we arrived in Paris during WWI

Dwight_Yeast: Ipag:
French involvement was limited to letting us borrow money and a couple naval battles in the English channel.

French involvement was not limited but included to financing the bulk of the Revolution in loans directly from the French State. Without them, we would have had money to buy supplies or pay the men in uniform.

They also sent the Marquis de Layfette, who was at the beginning the only European-trained general we had on the field.

So aside from those small things, you're correct.

So, aside from paying for our soldiers, sending trained generals, sending troops, and distracting the greatest navy in the whole world, the French didn't do much. . .

I believe the quote from my high school history book was along the lines of: Saying that we and the French defeated the British is like saying "Daddy and I killed the bear" because daddy let you reach up and pull the trigger after he had tracked the bear and lined up the shot.

RemyDuron: Dwight_Yeast: Ipag:
French involvement was limited to letting us borrow money and a couple naval battles in the English channel.

French involvement was not limited but included to financing the bulk of the Revolution in loans directly from the French State. Without them, we would have had money to buy supplies or pay the men in uniform.

They also sent the Marquis de Layfette, who was at the beginning the only European-trained general we had on the field.

So aside from those small things, you're correct.

So, aside from paying for our soldiers, sending trained generals, sending troops, and distracting the greatest navy in the whole world, the French didn't do much. . .

I believe the quote from my high school history book was along the lines of: Saying that we and the French defeated the British is like saying "Daddy and I killed the bear" because daddy let you reach up and pull the trigger after he had tracked the bear and lined up the shot.

Your teacher has it pretty close. What most people do not realize is that what we call the American Revolution became a war all over the world for the British. When other colonies heard about the revolt here, some started up their own revolts. Some of those places were more valuable to the British than the US (hindsight IS a biatch) and they tired of fighting here and realized it was costing too much. They fought the French all over the world and they actually ended up winning all of the war except for the American part.

In the true American War, the majority of French help was financial. They sent an army here to help, but that army participated in few of the battles. The fighting in the south, and that fighting turned out to be the critical theatre, was done by Americans. The French army did participate at Yorktown and their heavy artillery was a key to the victory. The French fleet also made escape impossible for Cornwallis.

That article read more like a freshmen college term paper than something a budding historian or political pundit aspiring to be taken seriously would publish.

Doesn't appear there was much more research into the run-up to Pearl Harbor than a typical student might come up with between 7pm-midnight the evening before finals. Including time for a few beers, a joint and maybe even a bj.