A Date Which Will Live In Infamy

cyrusdvirus

Ok, first off, apologies if wrong forumising, but i think that this is where it belongs.

The question I'm wondering is which is the bigger date in Infamy,

December 7th 1941
Or
September 11th 2001

Both dates have had enormous implications on the world as a whole and also on the american psyche, but which one do you think will be at the forefront of history in 300 years time.

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

Ok, first off, apologies if wrong forumising, but i think that this is where it belongs.

The question I'm wondering is which is the bigger date in Infamy,

December 7th 1941
Or
September 11th 2001

Both dates have had enormous implications on the world as a whole and also on the american psyche, but which one do you think will be at the forefront of history in 300 years time.

If it wasnt for hiroshima and nagasaki as an indirect consequence of pearl harbour this would be a lot more clearcut.

Even so considering 7th dec was a military v military attack and 11th septemger was a terrorist v civilian men women and children one that would swing it for me.

The media factor too the fact that 9/11 was just into the post milennium 21st centruy and almost the entire civilised world watched it in shock and disbelief more or less live on tv.

I think consequences for the years to come also make me choose sept 11th as the one because it drew a line between islamist fundamentalists on the one side and the west on the other - and that wasnt as clearly or rigidly defined before the event imo. Considering iraq and afghanistan are the most recent indirect consequences I would choose 9/11 as the worst overall event.

I think the historical distance of hiroshima and nagasaki - compared to the closeness of 9/11 to our own lifetimes also swings it for me.

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

If it wasnt for hiroshima and nagasaki as an indirect consequence of pearl harbour this would be a lot more clearcut.

Even so considering 7th dec was a military v military attack and 11th septemger was a terrorist v civilian men women and children one that would swing it for me.

The media factor too the fact that 9/11 was just into the post milennium 21st centruy and almost the entire civilised world watched it in shock and disbelief more or less live on tv.

I think consequences for the years to come also make me choose sept 11th as the one because it drew a line between islamist fundamentalists on the one side and the west on the other - and that wasnt as clearly or rigidly defined before the event imo. Considering iraq and afghanistan are the most recent indirect consequences I would choose 9/11 as the worst overall event.

I think the historical distance of hiroshima and nagasaki - compared to the closeness of 9/11 to our own lifetimes also swings it for me.

Fair enough, because i would have considered the September 11th attacks a more infamous event initially. But when you consider it, those attacks can almost be traced back to Pearl Harbour.

Now I'm not trying to say that America would not have eventually have ended up fighting in the second world war, but the way in which they were brought into it has had affects which we feel today.
The American Armed Forces today are a direct descendant of the forces which liberated Europe and also brought the Japenese empire to it's knees, and the strength of that force today, while greatly reduced from it's peak WW2 strength, can still bring almost any country to heel, if that was required. Admitedly it woudn't be as easy as I'm making out, but the capability is still there.

But it was after WW2 that America became the worlds policeman, and as such a target. If the British Empire had come out of WW2 in the position of strength that America did, and if America had come out in the (comparitively weakened) state that the UK came out of it in, then the UK would be the target for theses type of attacks.

jmayo

gatecrash wrote: »

Fair enough, because i would have considered the September 11th attacks a more infamous event initially. But when you consider it, those attacks can almost be traced back to Pearl Harbour.

Now I'm not trying to say that America would not have eventually have ended up fighting in the second world war, but the way in which they were brought into it has had affects which we feel today.
The American Armed Forces today are a direct descendant of the forces which liberated Europe and also brought the Japenese empire to it's knees, and the strength of that force today, while greatly reduced from it's peak WW2 strength, can still bring almost any country to heel, if that was required. Admitedly it woudn't be as easy as I'm making out, but the capability is still there.

But it was after WW2 that America became the worlds policeman, and as such a target. If the British Empire had come out of WW2 in the position of strength that America did, and if America had come out in the (comparitively weakened) state that the UK came out of it in, then the UK would be the target for theses type of attacks.

You wouldn't happen to be an American by any chance?

American forces liberate Europe?
What about British, Australian, NZ, Indian, Canadian and the Soviets?
Although in the case of the Soviets they liberated today and put their own puppets in power the next day.

Yeah Vietnam was a nice police action alright and I am not even mentioning any of the coups organised in Africa, Asia and South America :rolleyes:
Chileans, Nicarguans, El Salvadorans, etc, etc really welcomed their police actions just like Rodney King welcomed those of LAPD :rolleyes:
America is a target because it's brand of so called democracy (i.e. ruling elites and dictatorships) is not welcome everywhere and not because it has been some goodwill policeman patroling the world and ridding it of evil.

Yes the Amrican military can in battle bring almost any nation to it's knees but as has been seen since Vietnam they cannot pacify a country. They are not very good at the "hearts and minds" side of things and they get bogged down as they not are in Afghanistan adn Iraq.

BTW the 2001 attacks are probably more noteworthy since they were against civilians and happened on continental USA and not some little island outpost thousands of miles away.
The funny thing is both of the attacks were welcomed I believe, albeit secretly, by certain groups within the administration.
Afterall Roosevelt was supposedly itching to get into the war and this gave him the excuse to do so.
The 911 attacks allowed the right wing element within Bushes entourage to bring their neocolonism vision of the US being the world policeman to pass.
How hard would it have been to invade Iraq without 911 having occurred is an interesting discussion.

One of the most disappointing things of the whole last 6 years is how the US administration has flittered away all the good will they had around the world after the 911 attacks.

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

Fair enough, because i would have considered the September 11th attacks a more infamous event initially. But when you consider it, those attacks can almost be traced back to Pearl Harbour.

Now I'm not trying to say that America would not have eventually have ended up fighting in the second world war, but the way in which they were brought into it has had affects which we feel today.
The American Armed Forces today are a direct descendant of the forces which liberated Europe and also brought the Japenese empire to it's knees, and the strength of that force today, while greatly reduced from it's peak WW2 strength, can still bring almost any country to heel, if that was required. Admitedly it woudn't be as easy as I'm making out, but the capability is still there.

But it was after WW2 that America became the worlds policeman, and as such a target. If the British Empire had come out of WW2 in the position of strength that America did, and if America had come out in the (comparitively weakened) state that the UK came out of it in, then the UK would be the target for theses type of attacks.

You could argue that the us army didnt 'liberate europe'. Kursk and stalingrad did - ie the russians chewed up more german soldiers and resources through attrition and superiority of numbers and that was what liberated europe. Without the russians splitting the german army down the middle the american and british armies would not have succeeded in europe. So to claim it as 'america liberated europe' is a bit dismissive of the russian contribution - in my view.

On the japaneese side it was atomic weapons on non military targets that brought the japaneese empire to its knees - they had lost the war but they werent going to surrender anytime soon.

Also to say america today 'can bring any country to heel' is debatable.

Obviously in a conventional war their technology, firepower & resources gives it a massive advantage. In the examples of afghanistan and iraq they are now low intensity non conventional conflicts and in this new scenario where they are against a force with an acute awareness of american general public sensibilities their superior military position becomes less relevant in my view. They would not be defeated but they would not get an all out victory either. Their public is not known for having the stomach for a long fight and the people they are up against know this for sure so its unclear if they can bring any country to heel in my view.

I dont think america was targetted because it was the 'worlds policeman' I think it was targetted because of its longstanding one sided support of israel against the palestinians and by extension the arabs in general. Also lets not forget england was targeted on july 7th and again since then.

spank_inferno

Sept 11 2001 would get my vote

Especialy wrt the prase "infamy"

Pearl harbour was a surprise tactical engagement.
One of many across the war.
Though its implications were vast, the actual operation was small compared to what happened in europe (esp russia).

Sept 11th was a heinous act of barbarity & certainly fits the "infamy" label
for me.

P_1

TBH I think it's too soon after Sept 11 to be talking about it like that. The consequences of that day are still being played out and we won't know their full effects for at least another decade IMO.

cyrusdvirus

sorry lads, was at work earlier and was kinda watching my internet usage, so didn't really have time to consider my answers.

I'm Irish, fwiw, and the America liberate Eurpoe comment was totally inaccurate, but I hope you get my point. Without our friends from across the pond while it more than likely would have happened, their involvement did speed it up.

[Tongue in cheek]Don't forget according to that factual film U 571 they got the first enigma machine. HMS Bulldog was commanded by a pirate and he raised the jolly roger and robbed the Americans of their prize!! [/tongue in cheek]

Jmayo, you mentioned that the yanks aren't exactly great at the hearts and minds thing, but I'm of the opinion that this comes from the level above the armed forces. There was no strategy set in place for what happened AFTER the collpase of the Iraqi forces. Possibly because the collapse wasn't expected to be as complete as it proved to be. That fault cannot be placed at the feet of the commanders in the field.

BUT i did ask the question to see what other people thought. And I still feel that there is a tangible link between the events of 66 years ago and the events of 6 years ago.

Victor

Pearl Harbour was where the Axis over stepped the line, bringing the USA into the war overtly. So far, it is the more important date.

September 11th, while notable hasn't created any real world change. Yeah, changes, but not at the same level.

gatecrash wrote: »

Possibly because the collapse wasn't expected to be as complete as it proved to be.

Bull. Whether it took weeks or a few months, Iraq was going down quick. Sod all spare and ammunition since 1990, no airforce or navy, air defences reduced to point defence.... the list goes on.

Firing the army after the war was one of the big mistakes.

jmayo

gatecrash wrote: »

I'm Irish, fwiw, and the America liberate Eurpoe comment was totally inaccurate, but I hope you get my point. Without our friends from across the pond while it more than likely would have happened, their involvement did speed it up.

Jmayo, you mentioned that the yanks aren't exactly great at the hearts and minds thing, but I'm of the opinion that this comes from the level above the armed forces. There was no strategy set in place for what happened AFTER the collpase of the Iraqi forces. Possibly because the collapse wasn't expected to be as complete as it proved to be. That fault cannot be placed at the feet of the commanders in the field.

BUT i did ask the question to see what other people thought. And I still feel that there is a tangible link between the events of 66 years ago and the events of 6 years ago.

The Americans provided the resources to keep Uk going during war and the initial bailout for the USSR.
Later the USSR moved production eastwards, got it's act together on the battlefield and would have hammered Germany in the end. They would have lost more men since they would have more airpower to deal with but Stalin would have won in the end.

One of the few units in Vietnam to work the Hearts and Minds ethos were the units (green berets I believe) working with the Montagnard tribesmen in the mountains of Vietnam.
The Brits were much more sucessful in Malaya with getting in with the locals.
Americans tend to look down on their adversaries. To them most Vietnamese were gooks.
They have a similar attitude with Iraqis, they kicked their ass off the battlefield and they are seen as camel humpers or rag heads.

True the leadership, political and military had no plans apart form securing the ministry of oil. One Iraqi expert from one of Oxbridge universities was shocked that the Brits didn't appear to notice that Sunnis and ****es were as different as Prostestants and Catholics ala Northern Ireland.

Your point about linking 2001 back to 1941 is that the USA has been this world policeman since 1945 and some baddies didin't like them.
First off the USA has caused more trouble for the world in the last 60 years than almost anyone else. They were on a par with USSR on that front.
Second you can link 2001 back to 1915 and the sinking of the Lusitania or back to 1776 and the American War of Independence.

Agent Smith

7th of december 1941, because it brought the states into the 2nd world war

foxshooter243

neither history will show both were inside jobs-america was warned by australia that a japanese fleet was on route to pearl and took no action same as they knew an attack was imminent on 9/11-gave them reason to enter into war --could go on but its pointless:cool:

SpAcEd OuT

foxshooter243 wrote: »

neither history will show both were inside jobs-america was warned by australia that a japanese fleet was on route to pearl and took no action same as they knew an attack was imminent on 9/11-gave them reason to enter into war --could go on but its pointless:cool:

It is pointless because its bull****.

Take your conspiracy theories to the conspiracy theory forum with all those other 'enlightened people'


In regards to the topic 9/11 will certainly live in more infamy. The fact that the world was able to watch live as the second attack happened, the fact that it was largely unthinkable before, the scale of it, the fact that it occurred at the start of the new century, the fact that one of the most powerful nations in the world was attacked on its own soil, etc.

cp251

It's remarkable that the old conspiracy theories take hold in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. If we hadn't seen the airliner hit the WTC live on TV. It would be said that it was a missile or something just like the Pentagon. The inside job idea is ridiculous anyway as it is obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that there was no need to let the Japanese bomb Pearl. It would have been enough to intercept them at sea. The war would have started just the same.

Same with 9/11. Absolute no need to do quite as much damage as they did. Certainly attacking the Pentagon would have been stupid if it was an inside job.

Conspiracy theorists lack common sense.

Jmayo, you've been badly influenced reading all the usual anti American propaganda that's trotted out by all the usual Trotskyite lefties who populate this country and the world. You can't ignore all the good America has done over the years any more than you can ignore the bad. But that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm not defending the worst aspects fo American foreign policy but bear in mind the motives of people who spout anti American propaganda. In their world you're right to have an opinion on such matters would be severely curtailed.

As a matter of interest, since Vietnam was mentioned. I was there recently and was surprised at the amount of pro American attitudes I came across. There is even talk of inviting the USN back to their former base at Cam Ramh Bay. They fear the Chinese and dislike the French. America's, mistake it seems was to fail to win the war.

As you correctly pointed out that America wasn't alone in liberating Europe. It is worth pointing out that they effectively bankrolled the entire effort. Not to mention the fact that the British, Canadians et al went to war in mostly American vehicles and tanks. Also American equipment supplied to the Soviet Union in enormous quantities. They certainly shortened the war and effectively prevented Stalin from completely dominating Europe post war.

To correct you, it should be pointed out that Afghanistan is not a sole American effort. There are even Irish soldiers out there, not to mention civilians. There are not exactly bogged down there either or in Iraq. Progress has been made and they even succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of former insurgents now to be seen working alongside American troops. They maybe a bit slow to learn, but learn they do.

SpAcEd OuT

cp251 wrote: »

It's remarkable that the old conspiracy theories take hold in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. If we hadn't seen the airliner hit the WTC live on TV. It would be said that it was a missile or something just like the Pentagon. The inside job idea is ridiculous anyway as it is obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that there was no need to let the Japanese bomb Pearl. It would have been enough to intercept them at sea. The war would have started just the same.

Same with 9/11. Absolute no need to do quite as much damage as they did. Certainly attacking the Pentagon would have been stupid if it was an inside job.

Conspiracy theorists lack common sense.

Jmayo, you've been badly influenced reading all the usual anti American propaganda that's trotted out by all the usual Trotskyite lefties who populate this country and the world. You can't ignore all the good America has done over the years any more than you can ignore the bad. But that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm not defending the worst aspects fo American foreign policy but bear in mind the motives of people who spout anti American propaganda. In their world you're right to have an opinion on such matters would be severely curtailed.

As a matter of interest, since Vietnam was mentioned. I was there recently and was surprised at the amount of pro American attitudes I came across. There is even talk of inviting the USN back to their former base at Cam Ramh Bay. They fear the Chinese and dislike the French. America's, mistake it seems was to fail to win the war.

As you correctly pointed out that America wasn't alone in liberating Europe. It is worth pointing out that they effectively bankrolled the entire effort. Not to mention the fact that the British, Canadians et al went to war in mostly American vehicles and tanks. Also American equipment supplied to the Soviet Union in enormous quantities. They certainly shortened the war and effectively prevented Stalin from completely dominating Europe post war.

To correct you, it should be pointed out that Afghanistan is not a sole American effort. There are even Irish soldiers out there, not to mention civilians. There are not exactly bogged down there either or in Iraq. Progress has been made and they even succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of former insurgents now to be seen working alongside American troops. They maybe a bit slow to learn, but learn they do.

Couldn't have put it better.

jmayo

cp251 wrote: »

It's remarkable that the old conspiracy theories take hold in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
If we hadn't seen the airliner hit the WTC live on TV. It would be said that it was a missile or something just like the Pentagon. The inside job idea is ridiculous anyway as it is obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that there was no need to let the Japanese bomb Pearl. It would have been enough to intercept them at sea. The war would have started just the same.

Same with 9/11. Absolute no need to do quite as much damage as they did. Certainly attacking the Pentagon would have been stupid if it was an inside job.

Conspiracy theorists lack common sense.

Did I say there was a conspiracy or that is was perputrated by an arm of the US itself ?
No I said that it suited the administration of the time and it allowed them to push their own agendas.
AFAIK the US had an idea that the Japanese would attack somewhere, they probably bet on Philipines.
The fact they were able to get so close to Pearl was the surprising thing.

Regarding 911 they were enough warnings.
AFAIK flight instructors flagged to local agencies that something was not quiet right with some of the trainees.
CP251 we both know that if you only looked for flight training involving only midair then alarm bells ring. Afterall most people would want to know how to land.

The warnings were ignored and I don't mean by the top.
The warnings were ignored by minnions down the command chain.
Beuacracy jobbled up some of the leads and organisations did not talk to each other. Why did administration try and link Al quida to Sadam?

cp251 wrote: »

Jmayo, you've been badly influenced reading all the usual anti American propaganda that's trotted out by all the usual Trotskyite lefties who populate this country and the world. You can't ignore all the good America has done over the years any more than you can ignore the bad. But that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm not defending the worst aspects fo American foreign policy but bear in mind the motives of people who spout anti American propaganda. In their world you're right to have an opinion on such matters would be severely curtailed.

No not a leftie in the slightest, actually some would say I would be quiet right wing in some views.
I just don't like the the US foreign policy version of democracy that had leader of Zaire executed, the democratically elected government of Chile replaced by a general who totrued his own people, the people of Latin and Central America ruled by despots and dictators.
Need I go on ?

Why do you have the opinion that I am some mindless eejit led by some of the eejits that spend their weekends picketing Shannon or the nearest airshow that has military jets?
It is you that appears to have the conspiracy theories.

cp251 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, since Vietnam was mentioned. I was there recently and was surprised at the amount of pro American attitudes I came across. There is even talk of inviting the USN back to their former base at Cam Ramh Bay. They fear the Chinese and dislike the French. America's, mistake it seems was to fail to win the war.

As you correctly pointed out that America wasn't alone in liberating Europe. It is worth pointing out that they effectively bankrolled the entire effort. Not to mention the fact that the British, Canadians et al went to war in mostly American vehicles and tanks. Also American equipment supplied to the Soviet Union in enormous quantities. They certainly shortened the war and effectively prevented Stalin from completely dominating Europe post war.

What I mentioned about Vietnam was the US inability to win the conflict.
Or are you like some US citizens that actually think they carried out a strategic withdrawal ?
Viets and Chinese do not like each other as pointed out by invasion during Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea.

In previous post I also stated that the US did supply UK and indeed the USSR in the initial stages of the Great Patriotic War.
Everything from the Sherman to the Thompson SMG were from US.
Hell the Mustang was orginally destined for UK and it only really became a truly great fighter when a Rolls Royce engine was stuffed into it.
Where else did the Free French Army get it's weapons.
And yes the fact that US was in war meant Europe was not overun by the Red Army.
I actually stated that Stalin would probably have won in the end but at a much higher cost in some lives and to the western countries of Europe.

And before you throw it at me, the Marshall aid helped rebuild Europe because even the victors were on their knees.

cp251 wrote: »

To correct you, it should be pointed out that Afghanistan is not a sole American effort. There are even Irish soldiers out there, not to mention civilians. There are not exactly bogged down there either or in Iraq. Progress has been made and they even succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of former insurgents now to be seen working alongside American troops. They maybe a bit slow to learn, but learn they do.

So would you call the Iraq adventure a success then :rolleyes:
I would hate to see what you call bogged down
As stated earlier the US military have the resources and equipment to beat anyone in battle, but they have problem dealing with insurgents and guerilla warfare.

Afghanistan has been better but they still haven't been able to get their hands on Osama and the taliban have been able to regroup.
Yep progress has been made, poppy production is probably back up to it's old levels.
Yes there are civilans in Iraq, they would be politely termed contractors.

Oh where I say they were alone in Afghanistan ?
From recollection, I noted they managed to wipe out a Canadian unit with friendly fire because supposedly national guard pilot was on speed.

Please stop attributing things to me that I never said.
Try and read my posts.

And speaking of jumping to conclusions ... have you resubscribed to Fox news for the coming year ?

And yes my spelling is atrocious

Snickers Man

How about 3rd July 1940? The slaughter of 1300 French sailors by their erstwhile allies the Royal Navy as their ships sat in port in Oran.

France had surrendered. They were out of the war. They were not invovled in fighting against the allies. There was no declaration of war between Britain and the Vichy government.

What was the difference between the attack on Oran and Pearl Harbor?

OS119

its quite interesting that both 'surprise' attacks were infact much heralded - its just that the US (to this day) is affected by a talismanic belief that its soil is immune from attacks from overseas which places a psychological bar on it really believing that something - regardless of what its int is suggesting - is going to happen.

my view is that pearl harbour is the more signifiicant, it destroyed the concept within the american body politic of the joys of (and protection afforded by) isolationism, wheres as 9/11, while still a shock, merely consolidated current policy - if perhaps ramping it up a bit.

cp251

Well, Snickers the difference was that it looked likely that those French ships may well have fallen into the hands of the Nazis. That could not be allowed to happen. The French refused to surrender to the British, contrary to their supposed reputation:rolleyes:

Considering the later actions of the Vichy French, perhaps it was a wise move.

JMayo. I wasn't actually referring to your commentary on possible conspiracies. It was the other guys comments.

The rest I think was just typical internet forum debate. Difference in interpretation.

No you are obviously not a raging communist. But I do believe that a lot of anti American nonsense is propaganda propagated by left wingers. No conspiracy theories just the way it is. People think because Communism self destructed that it is gone as a philosophy. It's not, just changed it's tack. Casual and uninformed anti Americanism is everywhere. It's trendy and irritates the hell out of me. I've no illusions about America but have no illusions as to our fate if a certain other superpower held sway for the last 60 years.

As for Vietnam, the US could have won it but lacked the political will to ruthlessly pursue the victory for fear of Russian or Chinese intervention. Many Vietnamese I spoke to, particularly the younger ones now realise that they may have won the war but lost everything else.

Iraq is not a success, it was mishandled badly. But things have changed and are changing. Wait and see.

I don't want to attribute things to you that you never said but this:

From recollection, I noted they managed to wipe out a Canadian unit with friendly fire because supposedly national guard pilot was on speed.

is an example of taking something out of context. They didn't wipe out the unit, four were killed. Amphetamines are issued to pilots on long missions to keep them alert, not just by the Americans. Tired pilots are just as dangerous. He used that an an excuse for his mistake. He was also specifically ordered not to fire but ignored that order. But it seems he was trigger happy and dropped a bomb anyway.

How do you relate a stupid error on the part of one Air Force pilot to the overall context of their actions in Afghanistan? Friendly fire incidents were and are commonplace and will remain so.

Finally I hate Fox news and I said nothing about your spelling but.................:;)

purple'n'gold

Snickers Man wrote: »

How about 3rd July 1940? The slaughter of 1300 French sailors by their erstwhile allies the Royal Navy as their ships sat in port in Oran.

France had surrendered. They were out of the war. They were not invovled in fighting against the allies. There was no declaration of war between Britain and the Vichy government.

What was the difference between the attack on Oran and Pearl Harbor?

“Determined not to let the French Fleet fall into Adolf Hitler's hands, the British, on the morning of July 3 handed the Commander of the French Squadron in Oran Bay ( 200 miles east of Gibraltar) an ultimatum giving him six hours to join the British, go to America to be interned or scuttle his ships. The French officers began to argue with one another. Many a sailor refused to fight. Most of them did not even prepare their vessels for action (it takes a considerable head of steam to work the turrets of a battleship).
When the ultimatum expired, with only about three hours of daylight left to fight, the British Commander, Vice Admiral Sir James Fownes Somerville, felt he could wait no longer. With three capital ships, an aircraft carrier, three cruisers and a strong screen of destroyers he went into action. When he opened fire most of the French men of war were unprepared. So far as these pictures show, they never fired a shot.”

The British handed the French an ultimatum, they could have saved themselves. The Japanese handed the USA no such ultimatum. The two situations were very different indeed.

Snickers Man

cp251 wrote: »

Well, Snickers the difference was that it looked likely that those French ships may well have fallen into the hands of the Nazis. That could not be allowed to happen. The French refused to surrender to the British, contrary to their supposed reputation:rolleyes:

Considering the later actions of the Vichy French, perhaps it was a wise move.

Of course it was a wise move. So was Pearl Harbor from the Japanese point of view. The question is was it any more moral?

The situation was that the legitimate French government had surrendered and concluded a treaty with Germany. France (or the Vichy government if you prefer) was NOT an ally of Germany. Its troops did not partake in any offensive actions against the British. In some places, they fought against British and American invasions of their territory (Syria, Madagascar etc) but they did not join in the North African campaign of the Italians as the Germans did. The whole point of Hitler's attack on France was to take them and the British OUT of the war while he concentrated on acquiring Lebensraum in the east. A feat the Whermacht had achieved with remarkable success.

In short there was a crisis of loyalties among French military personnel. Did they join with their erstwhile allies the British or remain loyal to their own government? A government which had promised to take them out of the war and was NOT required to join in any actions against the British.

The British gave them six hours to work that one out at Oran, with negotiations on their side handled by a junior officer. Before those negotiations ended, the British attacked, without a declaration of war.

It was an act of expedience, as Pearl Harbor was.

It caused the deaths of 1300 French navy personnel (and presumably Algerian civilians). It was a despicable way to treat a former ally.

Snickers Man

purplengold wrote: »

The British handed the French an ultimatum, they could have saved themselves. The Japanese handed the USA no such ultimatum. The two situations were very different indeed.

The French had already surrendered and were out of the war. The ultimatum of six hours (and the attack actually started before it ran out) was a fig leaf, just as much as Japan's declaration of war on America while its forces were preparing to attack Pearl Harbor.

Very little difference.

jmayo

cp251 wrote: »

JMayo. I wasn't actually referring to your commentary on possible conspiracies. It was the other guys comments.

The rest I think was just typical internet forum debate. Difference in interpretation.

No you are obviously not a raging communist. But I do believe that a lot of anti American nonsense is propaganda propagated by left wingers. No conspiracy theories just the way it is. People think because Communism self destructed that it is gone as a philosophy. It's not, just changed it's tack. Casual and uninformed anti Americanism is everywhere. It's trendy and irritates the hell out of me. I've no illusions about America but have no illusions as to our fate if a certain other superpower held sway for the last 60 years.

As for Vietnam, the US could have won it but lacked the political will to ruthlessly pursue the victory for fear of Russian or Chinese intervention. Many Vietnamese I spoke to, particularly the younger ones now realise that they may have won the war but lost everything else.

Iraq is not a success, it was mishandled badly. But things have changed and are changing. Wait and see.

I don't want to attribute things to you that you never said but this:

is an example of taking something out of context. They didn't wipe out the unit, four were killed. Amphetamines are issued to pilots on long missions to keep them alert, not just by the Americans. Tired pilots are just as dangerous. He used that an an excuse for his mistake. He was also specifically ordered not to fire but ignored that order. But it seems he was trigger happy and dropped a bomb anyway.

How do you relate a stupid error on the part of one Air Force pilot to the overall context of their actions in Afghanistan? Friendly fire incidents were and are commonplace and will remain so.

Finally I hate Fox news and I said nothing about your spelling but.................:;)

Looking back was not sure if it was me you were lumbing into the conspiracy theorists camp.
BTW did I tell you that Capricorn One is based on fact that US never really landed on the moon - now that is a conspiracy

I did admire some things about Soviets, like the fact that they built some damm fine military equipment (Migs, T34, AK47 etc - no not the Lada) but there was too much wrong with the whole communist state system. Gullags wuld be one thing that springs to mind.
You need capitalism to get people to shift their asses, there needs to be a reward at the end of the day and thus in the end the communist system collapsed.
US did counterbalance the USSR and did fine job of it.
I do have a problem with their foreign policy and the way they have a habit of installing puppets, not just to guarantee the country does not go to the other side, but to make sure their businesses screw the living hell out of the natives and get cheap resources ala Central and South America.

Vietnam was messy for the Americans, they did not invade North Vietnam probably for your above reasons but also because they knew how expensive in terms of the own mens' lives it would be to keep control of the country.
They have learnt something from the French after all.
They could not prevent the guerillas and indeed the NVA from operating within the South even though they secretly operated within Laos and Cambodia where they left a bloody mess behind them.
Their inaction on Cambodia and their support for Pol Pot, after Vietnam kicked his ass shows yet another despictable side to their foreign policy.
Brits equally as guilty here as they tried to suck up to China.

The reason I mentioned Canadians (fine people) was to highlight I did know they were not on their own in Afghanistan.
Alright he only killed 4 but the Canadians still did not like it, much like the Brits in the APC in Gulf War did not appreciate being attacked by their ally.
Was Friendly Fire not a term coined by the Americans.

Did they not find that Amphetamines can cause paranoid in some people ?
Not good when that same person has wings stacked with large amounts of HE ordanance.

You have to admit that the US administration have wasted all the good will they had after 911 and it is down to Bush and Co.

Glad we agree on Fox News.

Back to current thred topic ... I agree Brits were right to send the French fleet to the bottom.
They could not take a chance.
Afterall look what happened during Operation torch in North Africa.
The Vichy commanders were not sure what way to jump.

Morals go out the window when you are struggling to survive.

purple'n'gold

"The French had already surrendered and were out of the war. The ultimatum of six hours (and the attack actually started before it ran out) was a fig leaf, just as much as Japan's declaration of war on America while its forces were preparing to attack Pearl Harbor.

Very little difference."

You seem to be letting your anti British outlook dominate your thinking about this situation. The British at this stage of WW2 were fighting the Nazis on their own; they had one trump card over the Nazis, their navy. They were not under any circumstances going to allow the Nazis to gain a naval presence in the Mediterranean,(disregard the Italian navy, they had the ships, but not the sailors to use them, i.e. They were no good) as would have happened if this large French fleet fell into their hands, and fall into it would. The British under the circumstances of the time done the only thing they could, one way or another make sure the Nazis didn’t get their hands on the French fleet.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

The French had already surrendered and were out of the war. The ultimatum of six hours (and the attack actually started before it ran out) was a fig leaf, just as much as Japan's declaration of war on America while its forces were preparing to attack Pearl Harbor.

Very little difference.

there is a huge difference. If the German navy had got hold of the french fleet it would have meant the Royal Navy was under serious threat and could no longer control the seas around Britain. This would have cut off supply routes from North America and strangled Britain.

The French were given an ultimatum, it doesn't take much to decide to bugger off to the states while they decide whose side they were on. Initially half the country was happy to have a Nazi influenced puppet government, so who knows what would have happened to those ships if not sunk.

If the British had gone in, unannounced and attacked the french fleet in a French port then you could compare the two, but you are comparing apples and er snickers bars with this one.

Besides, I thought Britain's involvement in WWII was insignificant;)

anyway, Pearl Harbour started something much bigger than 9/11 did, but 9/11 made the Americans feel unsafe in their own country for the first time, so i think that date will be the most imfamous in the US but probably not for us Europeans.

seamus

Definitely 1941. As said earlier on, the WTC attacks are too close to us and only still a big deal because the after effects are still going on.

In 40 years time, the WTC attacks will be no more significant than Tianemen Square or Canary Wharf are now.

purple'n'gold

But in years to come pearl harbour will be seen as just another event that took place during WW2. The Americans would have come into the war in any case; pearl harbour just rushed things along. Pearl harbour aside, the Americans would have declared war on Japan when they attacked the Philippines.

Snickers Man

purplengold wrote:

You seem to be letting your anti British outlook dominate your thinking about this situation.

Anti British? Moi?

How dare you sir. You're a cad and a bounder.

No really. I'm not.

purplengold wrote:

The British at this stage of WW2 were fighting the Nazis on their own; they had one trump card over the Nazis, their navy. They were not under any circumstances going to allow the Nazis to gain a naval presence in the Mediterranean,(disregard the Italian navy, they had the ships, but not the sailors to use them, i.e. They were no good) as would have happened if this large French fleet fell into their hands, and fall into it would. The British under the circumstances of the time done the only thing they could, one way or another make sure the Nazis didn’t get their hands on the French fleet.

Substitute the words Japanese for British, Western Empires for Nazis, American fleet for French Fleet, Pacific for Mediterannean and maybe Dutch for Italians in the above passage and there you have the justification for Pearl Harbor in most eloquent terms.

It's not being specifically Anti British to point out logically that the Japanese (or the Jihadists) do not have a monopoly on infamy.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

there is a huge difference. If the German navy had got hold of the french fleet it would have meant the Royal Navy was under serious threat and could no longer control the seas around Britain. This would have cut off supply routes from North America and strangled Britain.

Er, isn't that EXACTLY why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? To stop the US pacific fleet from gaining control of the Pacific.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The French were given an ultimatum, it doesn't take much to decide to bugger off to the states while they decide whose side they were on. Initially half the country was happy to have a Nazi influenced puppet government, so who knows what would have happened to those ships if not sunk.

You are talking with the benefit of 65 years of hindsight. To the French in that port on that day they were basically being told "Six hours to give up your life, sail to the other side of the world, probably never see your families again and almost certainly be interned as an alien combatant for the remainder of the war, ie indefinitely."

They would have been thinking "hang on. We're out of this war. There's no question of our going to war with Britain unless they attack us first." While they were making up their minds, the British attacked.

Fratton Fred wrote:

If the British had gone in, unannounced and attacked the french fleet in a French port then you could compare the two, but you are comparing apples and er snickers bars with this one.

Algeria actually WAS part of France at the time. Hawaii (and Pearl Harbor) was NOT yet part of the US. It didn't become a state until the 1950s.

Sorry, is that my point or yours?

Fratton Fred wrote:

Besides, I thought Britain's involvement in WWII was insignificant;)

I never said "insignificant" I said "peripheral". Which it was from Barbarossa onward. That's where the real war was from then on.

Victor

jmayo wrote: »

In previous post I also stated that the US did supply UK and indeed the USSR in the initial stages of the Great Patriotic War. Everything from the Sherman to the Thompson SMG were from US. Hell the Mustang was orginally destined for UK and it only really became a truly great fighter when a Rolls Royce engine was stuffed into it. Where else did the Free French Army get it's weapons. And yes the fact that US was in war meant Europe was not overun by the Red Army. I actually stated that Stalin would probably have won in the end but at a much higher cost in some lives and to the western countries of Europe. And before you throw it at me, the Marshall aid helped rebuild Europe because even the victors were on their knees.

To say the American financed WWI is a bit of a misdiscription. The Free French fought with British equipment and American-made equipment paid for in 1938-1940 by the French government.

The American only gave the British loans when the British Treasury was empty.

purplengold wrote: »

The British handed the French an ultimatum, they could have saved themselves. The Japanese handed the USA no such ultimatum. The two situations were very different indeed.

While the Japanese hadn't handed the declaration of war to the Americans, the Americans had it already. The Americans were quicker at deciphering it than the Japanese embassy.

Snickers Man wrote: »

The French had already surrendered and were out of the war. The ultimatum of six hours (and the attack actually started before it ran out) was a fig leaf, just as much as Japan's declaration of war on America while its forces were preparing to attack Pearl Harbor.

A declaration of war doesn't mean giving the other guy time to get ready.

cp251

Er, isn't that EXACTLY why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? To stop the US pacific fleet from gaining control of the Pacific.

That statement implies that the Americans were about to invade the Pacific so had to be stopped by the Japanese. In fact it was the other way round. The Japanese intended invading British, Dutch, French and American possessions in the Pacific. So it was neccessary to damage the US Pacific fleet sufficiently to stop them defending their interests.

Some of the points being made here are just sophistry. Trying to equate British or American actions with those of the Nazis and the Japanese is just spurious. Let's clear it up once and for all. The axis started the war, both were militaristic, single party, nationalistic, fascistic, expansionist, dictatorships. Between them, they wanted to invade neighbouring countries and wipe out those they considered inferior. Britain and America were and are liberal democracies dragged into the war by the other two. Their actions were a direct result of the aggression of the axis. It's really that simple.

jmayo

Victor wrote: »

To say the American financed WWI is a bit of a misdiscription. The Free French fought with British equipment and American-made equipment paid for in 1938-1940 by the French government.

The American only gave the British loans when the British Treasury was empty.While the Japanese hadn't handed the declaration of war to the Americans, the Americans had it already. The Americans were quicker at deciphering it than the Japanese embassy.A declaration of war doesn't mean giving the other guy time to get ready.

Did I say they financed WWII ?
That honour probably goes to the Swiss
I said the US supplied or provided, does that mean they gave them away for nothing.

They supplied the equipment and resources that helped keep UK afloat.
After the fall of France they had left loads of their own substandard equipment on the shore at Dunkirk.

Another example I gave was the Thompson SMG.
Britain did not have a SMG before they came up with the Sten, so the US made Tommy was able to fill a gap. The US supplied Shermans and it became one of the most widepsread used tanks of the Western Allies.

The Canadians, Brits, ANZACs, Free French all used jeeps be the Willys or the Ford variety.
Added to the fact that US industry was immune from attack they produced some equipment that was superior to anything the Brits had.
The Jeep, the Sherman being two prime examples of this.

I agree with CP251, how can you compare what the Western Allies did in WWII to what the Axis forces perpetrated?
Maybe you can compare Stalin's actions in Eastern Europe, but not US or UK.

This is usually the drivel that people come up with to hide their intense dislike of UK and US.
Of course the old chestnut of bombing Dresden ranks up their with rounding up Jews, Romas etc and shooting them in mass graves in the woods or gassing them in a death camp. It ranks up their with raping an entire city in China or starving and torturing thousands of POWS/natives in the jungles of Burma.

Snickers Man

cp251 wrote: »

That statement implies that the Americans were about to invade the Pacific so had to be stopped by the Japanese. In fact it was the other way round. The Japanese intended invading British, Dutch, French and American possessions in the Pacific. So it was neccessary to damage the US Pacific fleet sufficiently to stop them defending their interests.

1) The Americans were already in the Pacific. In Midway, Hawaii (not then part of the US) and the Phillipines.

2) Which one of those four nations you mentioned (British, Dutch, French, American) is a Pacific (with a capital P) nation?

In fact the Japanese were welcomed by sections of the local populations in many of the places they entered, especially the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and Burma. In the latter case, the father of the current darling of the Western Media Aung San Suu Kyi was an enthusiastic supporter of Japan's invasion of Burma, seeing it as a chance to rid Burma of British domination. (He changed his mind later when he discovered that Japan's interests and his own didn't exactly coincide).

Naturally, as is usually the case in countries fought over by foreign powers, there was a catastrophic split in the populations with people being forced to choose which outsider to collaborate with. The ethnic Chinese in Malaya and Indonesia were rabidly oppposed to a Japanese invasion. Many of the divisions exacerbated by the events of that time continue to this day.

cp251 wrote: »

Some of the points being made here are just sophistry. Trying to equate British or American actions with those of the Nazis and the Japanese is just spurious. Let's clear it up once and for all. The axis started the war, both were militaristic, single party, nationalistic, fascistic, expansionist, dictatorships. Between them, they wanted to invade neighbouring countries and wipe out those they considered inferior. Britain and America were and are liberal democracies dragged into the war by the other two. Their actions were a direct result of the aggression of the axis. It's really that simple.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

This is probably a discussion best suited to the history rather than a military forum, but my main point is that many honourable, brave, decent and highly moral people fought on the side of the Axis in World War II because they believed it was in their own country's best interests to do so. And many of the actions of the Allies were vile, brutal, unlawful expansionist, imperialist, exploitative and downright racist too.


I mean come on: how did the likes of Britain and Italy come to be fighting each other in North Africa? What were they defending: liberal democracy or their empires?

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

I mean come on: how did the likes of Britain and Italy come to be fighting each other in North Africa? What were they defending: liberal democracy or their empires?

Good job the British (and Australian's) were there, otherwise the Italians along with the Vichy French (oops, sorry, the French were out of the war weren't they;)) would have taken control of the whole of North Africa.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

Good job the British (and Australian's) were there, otherwise the Italians along with the Vichy French .... would have taken control of the whole of North Africa.

Yeah. I mean, looking at the history of the Middle East since the war, especially in places like Iraq (former British possession), Egypt (former British possession) Israel/Palestine (former British administration) it's clear the victorious liberal democracies did a particularly fine job.

Maybe the Italians would have made it all worse but it's really quite hard to see how.

Fratton Fred wrote:

the Vichy French (oops, sorry, the French were out of the war weren't they)

Yes they were. Give me one example of the Vichy French attacking an Allied country or dependency.

They fought defensive actions against British/American invasions of their territory, with varying degrees of enthusiasm because they had VERY split loyalties but they did not, so far as I know, join in any Axis offensives against the Allies.

Oh wait a minute. They did let Axis reinforcements pass through Syria and Lebanon to support the Anti-Allied coup in Iraq. But then to object to that would have been a lot of tree-hugging happy-clappy peace-mongering appeasing Lesbian feminist nonsense, wouldn't it?

the_syco

Morlar wrote: »

I dont think america was targetted because it was the 'worlds policeman' I think it was targetted because of its longstanding one sided support of israel against the palestinians and by extension the arabs in general. Also lets not forget england was targeted on july 7th and again since then.

US nuked Japan, and helped it as it was a nice refueling point in an area where there wasn't many. If the UK was the "world policeman" had helped protect Isreal, trained Bin Laden, do you think he would have attacked the UK, or the US? Oh, and the US was attacked a number of times when Clinton was in charge. Clinton did f**k all about it.

Victor

the_syco wrote: »

US nuked Japan, and helped it as it was a nice refueling point in an area where there wasn't many. If the UK was the "world policeman" had helped protect Isreal, trained Bin Laden, do you think he would have attacked the UK, or the US? Oh, and the US was attacked a number of times when Clinton was in charge. Clinton did f**k all about it.

I think you will find that Bin Laden's crowd were trained, at least in part, by the British.

You will also find that in the transfer of power from Clinton to Bush, that the Bin Laden threat was downgraded.

Blazher

I be more worried about the date to come, Things are only going to get more extream,

I can see a nuke being used in our life time, and then WW3 starting,

What makes me laugh is WW2 lasted just under 5 year, The war in IRAQ is going on 5 year and wont be over any time soon, Yes i understand its not the same type of war but still, The USA is fighting a grp of people armed with Small Arms and bombs.

I knowits kinda off topic but it brings me back to, I fear the date to come!

Victor

Blazher wrote: »

What makes me laugh is WW2 lasted just under 5 year,

If we use the commonly used markers of the Invasion of Poland to the Surrender of Japan. Thats:

4 months of 1939 (September 3 - December 31)
All of 1940
All of 1941
All of 1942
All of 1943
All of 1944
8 months of 1945 (January 1 - September 2)

That would make it 6 years (almost to the day).

That one could consider the Japanese invasion of China, the Spanish Civil War, the Italian adventures prologues merely extends the war.

Fratton Fred

Victor wrote: »

I think you will find that Bin Laden's crowd were trained, at least in part, by the British.

Are you referring to the training of the Afghan resistance by the SAS?

Not that the SAS were ever in Afghanisan prior to 2001