It was 62 years ago today...

Martin

Would have thought those in Europe would remember as it lead to the US
getting involved in the European conflict and helping to defeat
Germany, Italy, etc.

Big John

How short the memory. You probably would have been speaking German.


On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:05:08 GMT, Martin Hotze
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:

Let me guess... your history teachers in high school were just like mine,
and always ran into the end of the school year before they got to World War
II, right?

*hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
US, I assume.

but to answer your question: no, we also came up to the 60s in the last
century.

#m


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
. ..

what happened? (too lazy to put in on google)

#m

In article FB7Bb.469677$Tr4.1294247@attbi_s03,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Would
the American public have supported going to war against Japan -- and,
particularly, Germany -- *without* being attacked first? From what my
parents have told me, the answer to that question was "no".

My understanding is that as Hitler took over Germany, built up his
"Wehrmacht" and his concentration camps, went after the Juden, and
generally became increasingly more threatening throughout the 1930s,
public opinion in U.S. became increasing opposed to the U.S. being drawn
into the conflict in Europe.

"Keep our boys out of foreign wars" was one of the major slogans, and I
believe there were increasingly active demonstrations against our
becoming involved (I was around then, but a little young to remember
details, and we hadn't yet had the '60s to teach demonstrators all the
modern techniques for non-violent violent protests).

I thought back to the above situation frequently a year or so ago, every
time I read about how our government, and those of many other nations,
should not get involved in Iraq because of the public demonstrations in
those countries against becoming involved with Saddam.

"Jay Honeck" writes:

The date that shall live in infamy...

Well, WWII started a few years earlier for most of the world...

"Michael 182" writes:

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:


*hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
US, I assume.

Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US of a
provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date important in
world history is ludicrous.

He didn't say that, though.

It was the precipitating event that drew the US
into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe. Saying
Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying the
rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history.

Probably the Soviet Union had more to do with beating Germany than
the US. We were of course by far the biggest factor in beating Japan.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
whenever I see the space shuttle - that
the heat shield ceramic plates on the
space shuttle are made in Austria

And if you ever watched Candian TV, you would think that the full name of
the Space Shuttle is really, "The American Space Shuttle with it's
Candian-Built Robot Arm"!

Jay Honeck wrote:

Thus, Pearl Harbor truly marked the first day in a long march toward
Austria's freedom...

There was no question that the US participation was critical to the end
of the war, and December 7 was the start of major American
participation. But I look at it more as a turning point in the overall
struggle against the Nazis. The force of US industry combined with
fresh troops was certainly necessary to swing the course of the war,
which had been very one-sided in favor of Germany up to that point.

However, to say that it was the start or the first day diminishes the
role of those people who had been struggling, and dying in large numbers
in the battle against the Nazis for the previous two years. They had
been engaged in fighting on their home soil, and it was a struggle for
survival. The British had already rebuffed the Luftwaffe in the Battle
of Britain, and maintained superiority over the seas with the sinking of
the Bismarck.

The eastern front was opened up only six months prior to the attack on
Pearl Harbor with the invasion of Russia, and you could equally say that
the war would not have ended as it had without Russian participation.
Their subsequent losses were staggering in comparison to the other
allies, and they contributed huge amounts of armor and soldiers. Some
of the largest battles of the war took place on the eastern front,
involving thousands of tanks and millions of soldiers in single battle
lines. Had these resources not been tied up on the eastern front, it
would have been nowhere near as easy to march against Berlin from the
west.

While the Russians were immediately forced into fight when they were
invaded, the US took some time to mobilize, and it wasn't until almost
another year had elapsed before Allied forces moved against the
Afrikacorps in Morocco and Algeria with US participation. In the
meantime, the Russians endured the siege of Stalingrad, and the
accompanying losses.

There are many events that could be classified as the start of the
resistance against Hitler, and my contention is that the first step was
in the declaration of war against Germany by England and France, since
that signaled the end of the policy of appeasement.

#m

Don't know what history you are reading but you need to go back and
re-study.

Big John


On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:18:21 GMT, Martin Hotze
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:22:57 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
participation was simply a later link in that chain.

Technically true, but it is unlikely that France and England would be
democracies today, had Japan not jolted us into the war.

Thus, some links in the chain are more important than others...

You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
agression?
I doubt that the USA would have remained neutral as there have been some
attackes by german submarines in US ports and en-route on the Atlantic and
the US more and more supporting England.

#m

what about Reagan's war on drugs?




besides: this was the last time the USA declared war.

*This* conclusion is wrong, IMHO. The internet would have been invented
anyway.

Right. But you wouldn't be allowed to use it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

England and Russia, or England and America. Why France is considered a
"victor" nation, I don't know.

I haven't heard France referred to as a "victor nation" since I was a boy in
the '60s.

And even then it was only done to placate DeGaulle, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"