Pearl Harbor Defense

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04...

Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
a bunch of white folks."


Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by
white folks was exactly what WAS expected. The problem
was that while they believed attacks would take place at
Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe
the IJN had the capability to attack at PH

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04...

Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
a bunch of white folks."


Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by
white folks was exactly what WAS expected. The problem
was that while they believed attacks would take place at
Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe
the IJN had the capability to attack at PH

Sure. And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such. But certainly
a read of the contemporary documentation wrt Pearl and Singapore as well,
reveals attitudes towards the Japanese that would seem very racist to us
nowadays. It is at least tempting to assume their low expectations of them
were connected to their racist beliefs of them. This 40 years after
Tsushima, mind.

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.
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.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

"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...

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.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"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? This has to count as one of the most ungracious agreements I have
ever encountered!

My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.

Sheesh!

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

From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.


And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near
being an "empire" at the time.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Guinnog65 wrote:

"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? This has to count as one of the most ungracious agreements I have
ever encountered!

My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.

These old Air Force guys aren't much for reading. Probably hard to do
with his Rush Limbaugh's Greates Hits tapes roaring in the background.

Cheers

--mike

Sheesh!

B2431 wrote:

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.

Well, genius, all those 88,000 soldiers had to do was an about face.
Even if those big nasty shore defences had been pointed inland, they
would not have been much use against a well-trained and well-led infantry.

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.

Sure. All they had to do was look out the window, count the masts, and
get on the phone to the embassy. James Bond was a piker comapred to
these guys.

When you get done snotting off, maybe you can tell us what about the
impact of the saboteurs on December 7. Salt in the sugar bowls?

Cheers

--mike

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired