Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:

And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such

It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!

Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.

Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?

Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
French-held North Africa.

Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.

So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
go...

Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
successfully
from land. As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
you
didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

I did know there really were Japanese spies there. What is this 'again' by
the way?

The "again" refers to some of the nonsense you have posted in other threads.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired