# Was Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks worse?



## Chrisinmd (Dec 1, 2019)

My initial thought is the attack on Pearl Harbor started the most costly and extensive war in the history of the entire world. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military installation so it hurt the USA far more militarily, while 9/11 was directed towards civilian targets (except the Pentagon).

As horrible as the effects were, Pearl harbour was a legitimate military target in wartime.
The twin towers in peacetime were far less of a legitimate target to be attacked. They were innocent civilians and were not a legitimate military target as a military installation would have been.

Being attacked goes with the territory if you are in the military and at least you have a chance in theory to defend yourself and your comrads but attacking innocent civilians can never be acceptable.


----------



## Gweilo (Dec 1, 2019)

Chrisinmd said:


> As horrible as the effects were, Pearl harbour was a legitimate military target in wartime



Whilst I agree with you entirely,  we still do not know if legitimate target is the correct terminology, we will never know the truth about the sequence of events that took place on the run up to PH, was it a pre-emptive strike by the Japanese, did Churchill have intelligence about the strike, and not pass the information on to Roosevelt to bring the Americans into WW2, or as some conspiracy theorists claim false intelligence was given to the Japanese,  by the British, about the US joining the war, and was amassing their forces at PH, in order to attack the Japanese forces, a stratergy claimed (by the conspiracists) successfully used by the British in WW1 with the sinking of the Lusitannia.
We will never know.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 1, 2019)

I strongly feel you are on the wrong forum for this question.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2019)

Chrisinmd said:


> My initial thought is the attack on Pearl Harbor started the most costly and extensive war in the history of the entire world. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military installation so it hurt the USA far more militarily, while 9/11 was directed towards civilian targets (except the Pentagon).
> 
> As horrible as the effects were, Pearl harbour was a legitimate military target in wartime.
> The twin towers in peacetime were far less of a legitimate target to be attacked. They were innocent civilians and were not a legitimate military target as a military installation would have been.
> ...


It think both were equally bad.  Sometimes it's not just the attack that you have to factor in, but what comes after.  In terms of mental disruption 9-11 was bad. The fear of an invisible attacker. It's one thing to be attack from a country and something different to be attacked from within.  But this isn't to say that Pearl Harbor wasn't bad.  Pearl harbor was act that finally got the U.S. involved into the war that everyone else was fighting.  D-day the atomic bomb, carpet bombing, lost of lives lost and we are still filling the effects of World War 2.

9-11 began the war of misinformation and while misinformation isn't a physical attack, it can easily give birth to a physical attack. How bad is misinformation?  When someone believes a lie about your country and uses that lie to justify flying planes into civilian buildings.  When someone believes a lie about what type of weapons you have and storms into your country with the military.  Now misinformation is at it's worst because people are now to lazy to seek the truth and believe whatever they read from internet or from hearsay.  Media organizations no longer care about seeking the truth, they just want ad money.  

So back to your question.  In terms of which one was worst.  You would have to not only look at the attack, but also what harms came as a result of the attack.  Did one act lead  down a path where other harmful acts were created.  I don't think we can measure events like as being "which was worst,"  by solely by counting the lives lost, or civilian vs military locations.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2019)

Chrisinmd said:


> My initial thought is the attack on Pearl Harbor started the most costly and extensive war in the history of the entire world. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military installation so it hurt the USA far more militarily, while 9/11 was directed towards civilian targets (except the Pentagon).
> 
> As horrible as the effects were, Pearl harbour was a legitimate military target in wartime.
> The twin towers in peacetime were far less of a legitimate target to be attacked. They were innocent civilians and were not a legitimate military target as a military installation would have been.
> ...


well the pearl harbour attack was in " peace time" it should be noted that during the war all sides were deliberately targeting civilians,  that is they wernt collateral damage for a military objective but the prime target to spread fear and terror in the populatio which is why  the death toll ran in to 10s of millions


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 1, 2019)

Militarily for WW2, pearl harbour.   civilian wise, i think 9/11 trumps other terrorist attacks in the U.S.  In terms of casulties


Also what is the stance for non current politics but rather history politics?     As the entire point of pearl harbour was to try and knock the U.S's pacific fleet out of the war.  And that was after the Japanese tried peaceful negotiations to get the resources they needed.    (well the entire war with the European powers was)

Given if pearl harbour would have worked, the U.S would have lost its pacific possessions.  and that may or may not have had a adverse effect on the war in China and the other European possessions in the region occupied by the Japanese and the commonwealth nations.   

But i would second any notion of not comparing a military target in wartime, with a more morale target without a official declaration.   But its worth noting, plenty of groups cant engage in open warfare and need to use more irregular tactics to win their wars, and civilians generally die in any fighting.   And thats just the reality to it. 


And none of that was meant to be political, at least modern politics.   I kept the politics to why the japanese foguht in WW2, to the best of my knowledge on the subject.(which is history)


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 1, 2019)

jobo said:


> ell the pearl harbour attack was in " peace time"



The funny thing about that is, the declaration of war was meant to have been sent a hour or so before the attack, but the ambassador got delayed or something along those lines delayed the relaying of the message until after.      But Pearl harbour was a pretty big strategic target as it did house the U.S's pacific fleet, which needed to be cripple for the Japanese to stand any chance of winning, and the only way to do that is with a decisive surprise attack.  

And i don't think they bombed any civilian targets intentionally in the attack.

Also there were a few types of strategic bombing i think should be noted, and it was semi un intentional in some instances to kill civilians.   There were morale bombings, yes.  That was to target the civilian population to demoralize them for further war, with a 50/50 logic of with everyone killed thats one less person to aid the war effort.    Then there were attacks on infrastructure to directly damage the war effort, which at night and at the altitudes bombers were forced to fly at, meant attacks on factories in the middle of towns would pretty much be attacks on the towns.   and then some towns were of strategic importance and needed to be leveled etc.     From a video i watched, im pretty sure the optics for the bombardiers could place bombs accurately on factories and infrastructure targets with minimal collateral damage, if the bomber wasn't opposed in doing it and had a clear un interrupted run and view on the target.     But as i previously stated, they were forced to fly at night, had AAA firing at them and had enemy fighters looking for them.

Its not pleasant, but WW2 was total war and that is the hallmark of total war.   Its not called total war for nothing after all.  



And yes i do nerd over WW2 topics a lot.


----------



## granfire (Dec 1, 2019)

Pearl Harbor was a Military target, 9/11 a terrorist act* 
Technically, both occured in peace time.

I think 9/11 was worse. 
It caused people to abandon humane principles in the name of revenge. 
And everything that followed was revenge. 
Invading an uninvolved country, torture, and destabilization of a region (for which we will pay dearly, for many years to come)

PearlHarbor only put the US officially in the war.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 1, 2019)

Friendly policy reminder:

Politics is a bit of a touchy subject here.  History and comparisons can be interesting to discuss, and as I type this, there's no obvious violation here.  Keep things polite and respectful, avoid namecalling and insults, and keep to facts and all will be good.

I am moving the thread to The Study; it's a better fit there.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2019)

granfire said:


> I think 9/11 was worse.
> It caused people to abandon humane principles in the name of revenge.


 Pearl Harbor did the same thing.  This is what happened to Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Lots of humane principles gone here.





This is how the U.S. justified it.





People who know this history, lived through it, or know someone who lived through get really touchy about when people are put in "Camps"  legal or not and rightly so. No matter what good intent one says to justify it, it never turns out good.

China's version





Everyone should be concern when the ideal of gathering people of a group into guarded facilities is pushed and justified as something reasonable.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2019)

Rat said:


> Also there were a few types of strategic bombing i think should be noted, and it was semi un intentional in some instances to kill civilians.


Civilian death back then was acceptable as so any bomb dropped from any country was done with the knowledge and understanding that civilians would be be killed. The rules of war and engagement were not the same as they are now during that time.  A lot of the rules and laws that we have now were because of what happened in World War 2.

There's not much guidance on these things.  You just drop them out of a plane and hope it lands on its target.  It was pretty bad. Morale bombings, infrastructure bombings, or whatever they wanted to refer to it. Civilian death was acceptable.  Perfect example.  No one drops an Atom bomb thinking that it's only going to wipe out infrastructure and military units.  Back then bombing was done with a shot gun approach.  Drop a bunch of bombs and close enough to the target and hopefully you'll hit it.   
















Until recent times, the history of war was to "kill more of them, than they kill of you."  That was the accepted reality.  Ironically better weapons that can target your enemies military shows to be of more value than that ancient logic of the past.  Destroy the military and your enemy will have nothing left to fight with is more of a modern reality and logic than it was back then.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2019)

jks9199 said:


> Friendly policy reminder:
> 
> Politics is a bit of a touchy subject here.  History and comparisons can be interesting to discuss, and as I type this, there's no obvious violation here.  Keep things polite and respectful, avoid namecalling and insults, and keep to facts and all will be good.
> 
> I am moving the thread to The Study; it's a better fit there.


Thanks


----------



## Buka (Dec 1, 2019)

9/11 was worse. What was worse was our response. It’s a good thing Mexico didn’t hijack those planes....Bush would have invaded Canada.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Pearl Harbor did the same thing.  This is what happened to Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Lots of humane principles gone here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I fully agree, but paint a picture and put yourself in charge. You are responsible for about 132 million people. An new enemy has just dealt your country a terrible blow and people with strong ties to your enemy live in your country. You know full well not all these people are aligned with your enemy but you do not know which ones these are. What do you do?


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Civilian death back then was acceptable as so any bomb dropped from any country was done with the knowledge and understanding that civilians would be be killed. The rules of war and engagement were not the same as they are now during that time.  A lot of the rules and laws that we have now were because of what happened in World War 2.
> 
> There's not much guidance on these things.  You just drop them out of a plane and hope it lands on its target.  It was pretty bad. Morale bombings, infrastructure bombings, or whatever they wanted to refer to it. Civilian death was acceptable.  Perfect example.  No one drops an Atom bomb thinking that it's only going to wipe out infrastructure and military units.  Back then bombing was done with a shot gun approach.  Drop a bunch of bombs and close enough to the target and hopefully you'll hit it.
> 
> ...


 that's not the history of war, the history of war was profesional armies fighting each other and whilst there have been a considerably number of atrocities with the rape and murder of civilians, that wasn't the point of the exercise.

The british for instance in the napoleonic wars were putting to death their own soldiers who were murdering civilians

Jump forward to the second world war and civilians as a specific target of war was morally acceptable, by their 10s of millions..

you really have to go back to the crusades to find a similar level of barbarity


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Civilian death back then was acceptable as so any bomb dropped from any country was done with the knowledge and understanding that civilians would be be killed. The rules of war and engagement were not the same as they are now during that time.  A lot of the rules and laws that we have now were because of what happened in World War 2.
> 
> There's not much guidance on these things.  You just drop them out of a plane and hope it lands on its target.  It was pretty bad. Morale bombings, infrastructure bombings, or whatever they wanted to refer to it. Civilian death was acceptable.  Perfect example.  No one drops an Atom bomb thinking that it's only going to wipe out infrastructure and military units.  Back then bombing was done with a shot gun approach.  Drop a bunch of bombs and close enough to the target and hopefully you'll hit it.
> 
> ...




I don't think it was that acceptable, it was just a reality of warfare.    If i recall, someone bombed a civilian target in the battle of Britain, so then the other side bombed a civilian target in return etc.   The originally tried to keep it factories and the like.     and then it just escalated into some morale bombings mixed with attacking infrastructure.   So after that, it was deemed acceptable as someone started the chain of attacking targets and it was just rules out of the window  after that happened.     Like wise if someone used gas, the rules on it would have been tossed out the window or any gentleman's agreements you have.    And a lot of the time, there wasn't random attacks done on civilian populations it was strategic towns attacked.   Towns with factories in them, or were vital in a train/road system or telecommunications system.     But you did get the right assessment of, given bombers were opposed, they couldn't accurately drop bombs, so a target in a city that could have been bombed with minimal collateral if unopposed and unobstructed, couldn't.   


Also the intent of the atomic bomb was to force japan out of the war without a invasion.   and as it routinely quoted to me in a joking manner it wasn't the 2 they dropped that made them surrender it was the threat of more.      (and also Manchuria being invaded by the Soviets and them loosing in Burma)    As far as i know the intent of japan was going to be to level it systematically until either everyone was dead or they surrendered.     And they ironically have themselves to blame for that, by showing they were going to fight to the last person over the home islands when they lost Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  


and did you know there was a gentlemans agreement to not bomb venice? actually i think it was its harbour.  And if im right, no one did bomb it, but rather skillfully hit the ships and the like with very minimal to no damage to the port.


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I fully agree, but paint a picture and put yourself in charge. You are responsible for about 132 million people. An new enemy has just dealt your country a terrible blow and people with strong ties to your enemy live in your country. You know full well not all these people are aligned with your enemy but you do not know which ones these are. What do you do?


But what did they think these people were going to do to assist the enemy ?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> But what did they think these people were going to do to assist the enemy ?



Anything, as it became quickly racial.       Plus they could have been infiltrators as well.        some people arent citizens of the country they reside in and still hold loyalty to their home one.  Or support it more than their current host one.    


One person can do quite a lot of damage, and can assist any infiltrators in setting up a cell, and once that happens its harder to deal with.   and the damage output is much greater.      Just look at what the SoE and OSS did.   and what the partisans in occupied Europe did, both sides.


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

Rat said:


> Anything, as it became quickly racial.       Plus they could have been infiltrators as well.        some people arent citizens of the country they reside in and still hold loyalty to their home one.  Or support it more than their current host one.
> 
> 
> One person can do quite a lot of damage, and can assist any infiltrators in setting up a cell, and once that happens its harder to deal with.   and the damage output is much greater.      Just look at what the SoE and OSS did.   and what the partisans in occupied Europe did, both sides.


what do you mean anything ? what exactly


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> what do you mean anything ? what exactly



Literally anything, assassinations, sabotage, espionage.  Helping official Japanese infiltrators establish themselves.  releasing PoW's or aiding them, if they made it to the mainland.    (not that would probably happen as they have no home to go back to)   Raids on supply depot's and starting a underground army.


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

Rat said:


> Literally anything, assassinations, sabotage, espionage.  Helping official Japanese infiltrators establish themselves.  releasing PoW's or aiding them, if they made it to the mainland.    (not that would probably happen as they have no home to go back to)   Raids on supply depot's and starting a underground army.


OK, so the largest part of white america has german ancestry, at the time 6 million had  german parents, many more had had german ancestry Why weren't these people locked up  as they were also at war with germany

A quick google says that 11,000, german americans out of 6 million were locked up but 125,000 out of 127,000 japanese american were

The difference was they consider the German Americans on a case by case basis and just locked up the Japanese Americans en mass

that strongly suggests a rational outside of they may have sympathies for an enemy nation


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

Chrisinmd said:


> My initial thought is the attack on Pearl Harbor started the most costly and extensive war in the history of the entire world. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military installation so it hurt the USA far more militarily, while 9/11 was directed towards civilian targets (except the Pentagon).
> 
> As horrible as the effects were, Pearl harbour was a legitimate military target in wartime.
> The twin towers in peacetime were far less of a legitimate target to be attacked. They were innocent civilians and were not a legitimate military target as a military installation would have been.
> ...


hmm, the attack on pearl harbour DID NOT start the second world war, This is just AMERICAN history again, There was a  war going on before that, its just that america had not noticed it


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> hmm, the attack on pearl harbour DID NOT start the second world war, This is just AMERICAN history again, There was a  war going on before that, its just that america had not noticed it



Yes Pearl harbor did not start WW2.  But it did start WW2 for America and forced us to get in.  Could not stay out of it anymore and say its just the rest of the world problem


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

Chrisinmd said:


> Yes Pearl harbor did not start WW2.  But it did start WW2 for America and forced us to get in.  Could not stay out of it anymore and say its just the rest of the world problem


 but you don't understand even the american historic perspective..

There was enormous reluctance, in fact down right hostility in congress and in the public, to get involved in other European war.

There was however an enthusiasm to punish japan for its agresion. It seems fairly likely it would have resolved itself by the british and the americans fighting the japanese in the far east and the pacific and britain and russia fighting the germans in europe ( and north africa)

It also seems likely that the end result, that is the defeat of both the japanese and the germans would have been the same. Though possibly a bit later

However to the complete amazement of every one involved, including the german military, the germans declared war on america and so like it or not america was now at war with germany


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 2, 2019)

So by your own admittance, the U.S. getting involved was because of an attack initiated by Two major powers who declared war ON the U.S., one declaration being made AFTER bombing our country. Let's not forget how many millions of dollars of aid and countless lives were sacrificed for your country. You really need to get your facts straight because frankly sir/ma'am you sound absolutely foolish. How you think WWII was ended without U.S. intervention is laughable.


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> So by your own admittance, the U.S. getting involved was because of an attack initiated by Two major powers who declared war ON the U.S., one declaration being made AFTER bombing our country. Let's not forget how many millions of dollars of aid and countless lives were sacrificed for your country. You really need to get your facts straight because frankly sir/ma'am you sound absolutely foolish. How you think WWII was ended without U.S. intervention is laughable.


my facts are indeed straight its your that are cock eyed

it would have ended much as it did, with the Russians invading Germany and the British and empire ( thanks Canada) invading invading France.

The war was as good as over when the Russian won the battle of Stalingrad, all the elite German troops were dead and there was nothing of note between the Russians and the German border. The Germans were try to defend their country against the Russians with school children and pensioners

Germany had no oil, which is why it invaded Russia in the first place, Russia has lots of oil, its also why they invaded north Africa, north Africa has oil and the British took that off them, so no oil

 with no oil they had no tanks, with no tanks they  had lost, the battle of the bulge, the German rear guard against the British and Americans, invasion stopped because they ran out of oil, after that it was just a turkey shoot all the way to Berlin


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I fully agree, but paint a picture and put yourself in charge. You are responsible for about 132 million people. An new enemy has just dealt your country a terrible blow and people with strong ties to your enemy live in your country. You know full well not all these people are aligned with your enemy but you do not know which ones these are. What do you do?


It wouldn't be that.  For me I'm from Slave and Native American blood lines so I grew knowing all the horrible things that happened to those groups.  People claiming good will and are willing to oppress one group as justification often do the most horrific things.  This is a theme that repeats itself over and over.    



dvcochran said:


> You know full well not all these people are aligned with your enemy but you do not know which ones these are


 See this is where the lies begin to breed and that "Justification" of doing harm from one group just because "they don't look like you or talk like you."  Not you personally, because I don't know what you look like.  But you in general, where it can be any group that thinks this way.  There were thousands of Nazi Sympathizers and pro-Nazi supporters (American Nazis) in there U.S. at that time.  Where was their camp?  Who were these American's saluting? The U.S. president?  The thing about this is then knew who these people were.





I would say be careful about how, willing you may be to throw out your humanity, but it's probably more accurate say that we should strive to rise above our humanity.  So based on my ancestors and based on how I seen other groups treated with always the same outcome through out history, I wouldn't have put people in camps based on what they looked like.  Now as for those American Nazis.  I would have done my best to squash that.  I'm not a fan of anarchy. Stuff like that is dangerous and ranks right up there with "yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there's now fire)."


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's not the history of war, the history of war was profesional armies fighting each other and whilst there have been a considerably number of atrocities with the rape and murder of civilians, that wasn't the point of the exercise.


  I never said that's what the point of war was.  I said that civilian deaths were always seen as acceptable and as such not much was done to avoid killing civilians if it was believed that the enemy was in their mist.  One can look through out history and see this.  You can also look in modern times and see this same line of thought in certain areas of the world. Crimes against others

Germany with the Jewish
Africans with other tribes
Vietnam War against other Vietnamese.
Japanese war crimes against civilians in the Philippines
British and American setters against Native Americans
Russian against Russian Muslims.
Russians against the Germans
US. atomic bomb on Japanese citizens
Carpet bombing in WWII in general

All through out history you see this pattern..  Like I stated.  I never said that killing civilians was the point of war.  I stated.  "*Civilian death back then was acceptable*"

War crimes definition: "Examples of war crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torturing, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, performing a perfidy, raping, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given,"

It's my understanding that the concept of War Crimes wasn't born until after WWII as a result of WWII.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> you really have to go back to the crusades to find a similar level of barbarity


 No you don't.  There's more than enough of that throughout history before and after. That period. Cambodian Killing Fields.

We can also look at some of the wars going on right now in Africa tribes against tribes.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2019)

Rat said:


> I don't think it was that acceptable, it was just a reality of warfare. If i recall, someone bombed a civilian target in the battle of Britain, so then the other side bombed a civilian target in return etc.


 This is the definition of acceptable.  "kill more of you than you kill of us"


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I never said that's what the point of war was.  I said that civilian deaths were always seen as acceptable and as such not much was done to avoid killing civilians if it was believed that the enemy was in their mist.  One can look through out history and see this.  You can also look in modern times and see this same line of thought in certain areas of the world. Crimes against others
> 
> Germany with the Jewish
> Africans with other tribes
> ...


 and im say that purposely targeting civilians is not the history of war, its largely a 20th century thing, Europe was in near constant war for a thousand years, with out people deciding that the random slaughter of civilians was a good idea


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> with out people deciding that the random slaughter of civilians was a good idea


and yet it happened with the intent to do it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> and im say that purposely targeting civilians is not the history of war, its largely a 20th century thing, Europe was in near constant war for a thousand years, with out people deciding that the random slaughter of civilians was a good idea


not everyone who fights in a war has good morale values


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> not everyone who fights in a war has good morale values


 im not sure what your trying to say, your just talking in riddles.

history of war as least in Europe did not involve the purposeful targeting of civilians, up until the 2nd world war to be accurate the Spanish civil war, which was the curtain raiser


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> history of war as least in Europe


I'm not talking about war specifically, I'm talking about war in general the History of War irregardless of the people or country fighting. For specific wars, of Europe, I would need to to research. But just keep in mind when I say History of war I'm not limiting it to one geographic area which is why I named the different locations.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2019)

Researched links.
Civilians - Military History - Oxford Bibliographies
"*The concept of the civilian in wartime as a legal category is fairly new, but the problem is far older. Noncombatants have been a target of organized violence throughout history, with records of mass killing and the systematic destruction of infrastructure dating to the earliest written descriptions of armed conflict. In medieval and early modern warfare, noncombatants were targets of military violence as well as crucial to the supply and operation of armies*"


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> There was enormous reluctance, in fact down right hostility in congress and in the public, to get involved in other European war.



You are correct after WW1 the US did not want to have anything to do with another European War.  The lesson Pearl harbor taught us was that the distance and the Oceans did not protect us from wars on the other side of the world.

A lesson we learned once again on 9/11.  Terrorism was no longer just the middle east problem primarily.  It came to our shores.

So we cant just isolate ourselves from world affairs like many would suggest and become "fortress America".  The worlds problems will come to our shores


----------



## Gweilo (Dec 3, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> not everyone who fights in a war has good morale values



I could not agree more, Jobo is factually correct in his posts about WW2, but I agree entirely with you on a global scale, most western countries, even others, are not interested in wars that do not directly effect them or their interests. If it was true, that civilians are not intentionally targeted, why are there WMD, nuclear and supposedly one time chemical. It's a fact, war strategies now days consist of financial and trade restrictions, then shock and awe, demoralising tatics, destroying supply chains, and not just military targets, I am not pointing the finger at anyone country in perticular, because they are all at it, and the attitude seems to be the lose of civilian life is acceptable,  if the process was for the so say greater good, and it's for this reason, we have the hatred against countries in the form of terrorist attacks on western shores, a you killed our civilians we are now going to kill yours, and they are also going to kill a few of their own, for their so say greater good, I know some people dislike anecdotes,  but you reap what you sew, regardless of the who and the whys.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 3, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> you killed our civilians we are now going to kill yours, and they are also going to kill a few of their own, for their so say greater good,


This reminds me of this: “Kill them all, let God sort them out’”

"_*Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.*_" was allegedly spoken by Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric prior to the massacre at Béziers, the first major military action of the Albigensian Crusade. A direct translation of the Latin phrase would be "*Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own.*"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 3, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I could not agree more, Jobo is factually correct in his posts about WW2, but I agree entirely with you on a global scale, most western countries, even others, are not interested in wars that do not directly effect them or their interests. If it was true, that civilians are not intentionally targeted, why are there WMD, nuclear and supposedly one time chemical. It's a fact, war strategies now days consist of financial and trade restrictions, then shock and awe, demoralising tatics, destroying supply chains, and not just military targets, I am not pointing the finger at anyone country in perticular, because they are all at it, and the attitude seems to be the lose of civilian life is acceptable,  if the process was for the so say greater good, and it's for this reason, we have the hatred against countries in the form of terrorist attacks on western shores, a you killed our civilians we are now going to kill yours, and they are also going to kill a few of their own, for their so say greater good, I know some people dislike anecdotes,  but you reap what you sew, regardless of the who and the whys.


Good point about the WMD, Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2019)

jobo said:


> im not sure what your trying to say, your just talking in riddles.
> 
> history of war as least in Europe did not involve the purposeful targeting of civilians, up until the 2nd world war to be accurate the Spanish civil war, which was the curtain raiser




Actually it did, wars have always targeted civilians. the Crusades killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Armies laid waste to farmland and crops, rape and pillage aren't modern. 'Scorched Earth' was an accepted part of warfare. Raiding parties were common from all cultures, tribes and groups etc. In wars towns were sacked, often in reprisal, most times just because they belonged to the 'enemy', history is littered with civilian deaths. The Greeks and Romans both targeted civilians, as did many armies afterwards.

Oh and for the record, Great Britain wasn't at war with Japan at the time of Pearl Harbour, Churchill declared war on Japan because of pearl harbour.http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/411208d.html


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2019)

jobo said:


> and im say that purposely targeting civilians is not the history of war, its largely a 20th century thing, Europe was in near constant war for a thousand years, with out people deciding that the random slaughter of civilians was a good idea




You need to read up on your European history.


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Actually it did, wars have always targeted civilians. the Crusades killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Armies laid waste to farmland and crops, rape and pillage aren't modern. 'Scorched Earth' was an accepted part of warfare. Raiding parties were common from all cultures, tribes and groups etc. In wars towns were sacked, often in reprisal, most times just because they belonged to the 'enemy', history is littered with civilian deaths. The Greeks and Romans both targeted civilians, as did many armies afterwards.
> 
> Oh and for the record, Great Britain wasn't at war with Japan at the time of Pearl Harbour, Churchill declared war on Japan because of pearl harbour.http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/411208d.html


you've not read your own link,  the british declared war on the japanese after the japanese attacked malaysia, which was indeed after pearl harbour,( just) but britain was indeed at war with japan, before the american declared war on japan. By 9 hours 

 pearl harbor was not the reason war was declared by the british


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2019)

Chrisinmd said:


> You are correct after WW1 the US did not want to have anything to do with another European War.  The lesson Pearl harbor taught us was that the distance and the Oceans did not protect us from wars on the other side of the world.
> 
> A lesson we learned once again on 9/11.  Terrorism was no longer just the middle east problem primarily.  It came to our shores.
> 
> So we cant just isolate ourselves from world affairs like many would suggest and become "fortress America".  The worlds problems will come to our shores


I always find the american world perspective some where between bumusing and very sad.

Im deeply upset by the attacks on 9, 11 they were evil personified to target civilians in that way.

The american reaction to terrorism on their shores is some what hypocritical, as they had been providing moral , political and and financial aid to terrorist on these islands and elsewhere in the world, who had also been targeting civilians, seemingly with no pangs of conscience at all


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 3, 2019)

Have to second that, the Japanese were planning to basically quickly seize many European possessions in the pacific.  Kind of had to as they needed the raw materials they had.

Not entirely sure if India was a target or they just had to take it out of the war due to taking Indochina, and it being a opponent in a war that would continue to oppose their action.  by that i meant one of immediate resource importance to take.    basically, not of very much semantics significance.   

Also the Japanese were at war with china before any European power.     


As far as i know proper scorched earth was first done by the Russians in the Napoleonic wars.  It wouldn't really work in many places.        The seizure of resources from farms, isn't scorched earth.  The torching of hostile towns isnt either as far as i know the term to be used.     It is the burning of your own farmland to starve out a invading army, which requires a lot of land.


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2019)

Rat said:


> Have to second that, the Japanese were planning to basically quickly seize many European possessions in the pacific.  Kind of had to as they needed the raw materials they had.
> 
> Not entirely sure if India was a target or they just had to take it out of the war due to taking Indochina, and it being a opponent in a war that would continue to oppose their action.  by that i meant one of immediate resource importance to take.    basically, not of very much semantics significance.
> 
> ...


 well in hind site the axis powers war effort is littered with some really bad decisions, of course they were only a unified force in name only, they each had there own completing agenda

attacking british colonies whilst britain was somewhat distracted with the war in europe, was opportunistic but a good plan, attacking the americans at pearl harbor is bordering on the foolish, its a a war they couldn't have any realistic hope of winning, even if they had taken the whole fleet out, america had other fleets and the capacity to quickly build new ones.

Similarly the germans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, by not actually having any plan at all or at least not one that lasted more than a few months, they were indeed just making it up as they went along, if it had been left to the generals it may have turned out somewhat differently, but if it had been left to the general there probably wouldn't have been a war at all, well not one with any actual fighting


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2019)

Rat said:


> Have to second that, the Japanese were planning to basically quickly seize many European possessions in the pacific.  Kind of had to as they needed the raw materials they had.
> 
> Not entirely sure if India was a target or they just had to take it out of the war due to taking Indochina, and it being a opponent in a war that would continue to oppose their action.  by that i meant one of immediate resource importance to take.    basically, not of very much semantics significance.
> 
> ...




Scorched earth was a policy of the Roman Empire and followed by many every since. it was used in the Hundred years War, it was used against the Ottomans in quite a few countries, Robert the Bruce used the tactics did the English against the Irish most of Munster was laid waste,  used in the 30 years war, it was used in 17th century India against the Mughals, in South America, in the Greek wars of independence, Sherman used the tactic in the American Civil War. Basically it's been done all through history those I've mentioned are just a few examples.




jobo said:


> you've not read your own link,  the british declared war on the japanese after the japanese attacked malaysia, which was indeed after pearl harbour,( just) but britain was indeed at war with japan, before the american declared war on japan. By 9 hours
> 
> pearl harbor was not the reason war was declared by the british



Actually Pearl Harbour was the reason Churchill told the US he declared war on Japan, by doing so in solidarity with the US he hoped to bring them into the war with Germany.   It is thought by many that Churchill knew of both the Japanese attack and the declaration of war which was to accompany it but didn't tell the Americans in order to make it seem  he was coming out in support of the US. for the 'home audience' the reason was the attacks on British territories. Churchill's machinations perhaps aren't well known but he was certainly devious but needs must when the devil drives.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 3, 2019)

jobo said:


> attacking british colonies whilst britain was somewhat distracted with the war in europe, was opportunistic but a good plan, attacking the americans at pearl harbor is bordering on the foolish, its a a war they couldn't have any realistic hope of winning, even if they had taken the whole fleet out, america had other fleets and the capacity to quickly build new ones.



The point was, to knock their fleet out long enough to establish a foothold in the pacific and to bring them to the peace table.   They didn't originally start off with very high industrial capacity for war until they got dragged into the war.     When they planned this they knew that, its why it was a surprise attack on the base of the fleet.   And then  a quick expansion in the region.

Also the germany first policy aided them a little as the bulk of resources went to fighting them. 

they also as far as i know, tried to negotiate for the resources they needed from the U.S.  They were having resource shortages and food shortages and needed to fuel a growing industrialization and wanted to expand their presence in the region. 


Also the allies were littered with very poor decisions.  and im pretty sure the U.K and France were the most unified members of the allies if any where.


Edit: worth noting, the Japanese did have one of the most powerful fleets at the time. And if the U.S's pacific fleet was destroyed or crippled they would have had free reign until they replaced them.  And then if they were to knock out the main U.S bases in the region it would be much harder to contest them and would require more resources establish a foothold again.


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Scorched earth was a policy of the Roman Empire and followed by many every since. it was used in the Hundred years War, it was used against the Ottomans in quite a few countries, Robert the Bruce used the tactics did the English against the Irish most of Munster was laid waste,  used in the 30 years war, it was used in 17th century India against the Mughals, in South America, in the Greek wars of independence, Sherman used the tactic in the American Civil War. Basically it's been done all through history those I've mentioned are just a few examples.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you've just made that up, the time line is a matter of fact, the japanese attack britain, britain declared war on the japanese before the americans did

we were at war with japan, before america was, which is what i said and you said was wrong

people may well have had ulterior motives, in fact im sure they did, but that doesn't change the time line that you disagreed with


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2019)

Rat said:


> The point was, to knock their fleet out long enough to establish a foothold in the pacific and to bring them to the peace table.   They didn't originally start off with very high industrial capacity for war until they got dragged into the war.     When they planned this they knew that, its why it was a surprise attack on the base of the fleet.   And then  a quick expansion in the region.
> 
> Also the germany first policy aided them a little as the bulk of resources went to fighting them.
> 
> ...


how could they '' get a foothold in the pacific, '' its water

yes britain made some rather questionable decisions as well, particularly early on

declaring war in the first place with out the military capacity to make good their threat was ill advised, as was trying to invade norway and of course operation market garden


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 3, 2019)

jobo said:


> how could they '' get a foothold in the pacific, '' its water



I see you subscribe to the Australia not existing world view.   

The invasion of Norway was fine, it was more indecisiveness  that lost that one.   Until the allies withdrew from it, the Germans were struggling to take a few of their targets.   

Also the Germans started the war  by invading a country protected by both the U.K and France.    and it wasn't to make good on a threat it was to honour a actual agreement they had with a nation.    The army was being rebuilt when the fiasco too place due to the 10 years peace military spending plan after the first world war.    But thats besides the point anyway.     Not really the scope of the thread.


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2019)

Rat said:


> I see you subscribe to the Australia not existing world view.
> 
> The invasion of Norway was fine, it was more indecisiveness  that lost that one.   Until the allies withdrew from it, the Germans were struggling to take a few of their targets.
> 
> Also the Germans started the war  by invading a country protected by both the U.K and France.    and it wasn't to make good on a threat it was to honour a actual agreement they had with a nation.    The army was being rebuilt when the fiasco too place due to the 10 years peace military spending plan after the first world war.    But thats besides the point anyway.     Not really the scope of the thread.



well no, britain started the war, by declaring war on germany, they may have had a moral imperative to do so, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a really stupid thing to do to send an army armed with horse and cart to face an army with with tanks and motorised capability.

germany's point of view is they were reclaiming lands unjustly taken off them following the first world war. They had already taken the rhinelands from france without any body saying anything much,

The treaty of Versailles was indeed overly harsh, its purpose was to stop germany from mounting another war, but in its self gave rise to the nationalism that made another war inevitable

it was said at the time by someone famous whose name i forget, that it guaranteed another war in twenty years

The germans error in the long run was not just ignoring them, they had no intention of attacking germany they were just sabre rattling


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2019)

Rat said:


> I see you subscribe to the Australia not existing world view.
> 
> The invasion of Norway was fine, it was more indecisiveness  that lost that one.   Until the allies withdrew from it, the Germans were struggling to take a few of their targets.
> 
> Also the Germans started the war  by invading a country protected by both the U.K and France.    and it wasn't to make good on a threat it was to honour a actual agreement they had with a nation.    The army was being rebuilt when the fiasco too place due to the 10 years peace military spending plan after the first world war.    But thats besides the point anyway.     Not really the scope of the thread.


australia is definitely NOT in the pacific any more than europe is in the atlantic

its very debatable if australia has a pacific coast, as its very debatable where the pacific stops and the indian and southern oceans start..
from a geographic point of view the pacific stops where the deep oceanic ridges  that mark its boundary are, that's some what to the east of australia, just about new zealand in fact. though clearly the australian tourist industry is using a different definition


----------



## Buka (Dec 3, 2019)

I think it's human nature that the way History is taught in different countries is from entirely different perspectives. Kind of like all of us here.

Heck, I'm not entirely sure that Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't a documentary. A damn good one, too.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 3, 2019)

jobo said:


> well no, britain started the war, by declaring war on germany, they may have had a moral imperative to do so, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a really stupid thing to do to send an army armed with horse and cart to face an army with with tanks and motorised capability.



Just quickly.     The germans did indeed start it by invading a nation which was under the protection of the U.K and France.   This is after openly defying the treaty of Versailles, and also annexing Austria, invading Czechoslovakia and other things. The whole invasion of Poland, was the one thing they were not allowed to get away with.     If anything it was a mistake invade Poland as it was pretty clear they were draining the patience of the U.K and France


Also the German army relied heavily on horses for logistics and towing artillery, they were equally as mechanized as the U.K and France were.   That is a myth or a overstatement commonly echoed.   

Oh and a amusing fact, the German tanks struggled to penetrate the Armour of the Matilda 2 and B1.    That being the 37mm, which was their standard Anti tank gun and tank gun for the Panzer 3.    contrary to the statement given, the U.K invented the tank, understood its potential and developed them in the interwar period and came to similar conclusions most other countries did which was, infantry tanks and cavalry tanks.    And did deploy them and use them to decent effect in the defence of France.   

The issue with the defence of France was more doctrine and lack of coordination.  There was a counter attack on the Germans to basically cut the tanks off from the supply lines because they overstretched and it failed larger due to lack of coordination and attacking in a staggered way not in a decisive manner.  



jobo said:


> australia is definitely NOT in the pacific any more than europe is in the atlantic


I was joking as there are plenty of islands in the Pacific, and that was a overly semantic statement.    So, you must subscribe to Australia not existing, if you think the pacific is just water an doesnt contain islands.  


Also just a generic fun thing, the 88mm was used in the invasion of France, on the tanks i mentioned as well as intent to use it on bunkers, and thats why the AP round exists for it.  the latter reason, they just used the AP one on tanks.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 3, 2019)

Buka said:


> I think it's human nature that the way History is taught in different countries is from entirely different perspectives. Kind of like all of us here.
> 
> Heck, I'm not entirely sure that Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't a documentary. A damn good one, too.



Just remember, always look on the bright side of life...


----------



## Buka (Dec 3, 2019)

Rat said:


> Just remember, always look on the bright side of life...



And keep handy thy Holy Hand-grenade of Antioch.


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2019)

Rat said:


> Just quickly.     The germans did indeed start it by invading a nation which was under the protection of the U.K and France.   This is after openly defying the treaty of Versailles, and also annexing Austria, invading Czechoslovakia and other things. The whole invasion of Poland, was the one thing they were not allowed to get away with.     If anything it was a mistake invade Poland as it was pretty clear they were draining the patience of the U.K and France
> 
> 
> Also the German army relied heavily on horses for logistics and towing artillery, they were equally as mechanized as the U.K and France were.   That is a myth or a overstatement commonly echoed.
> ...


theres so much wrong there i dont know where to start

so lets pick the simplest one your got wrong as indicative of '' if you cant even check that before posting your reseach is lacking''

britain DID NOT invent the tank, it was some french bloke called Lancelot de Mole.

google '' who invented the tank'' and that the answer you get. then check your other facts to save me having to point them out one by one

here's another one, the british had 300 tanks, the germans 2500, tell me again how we were just as mechanisted as the germans.

nb i know the french had a lot of tanks, but we are discussing the british feeble attempts to have a war with germany and the french are known to be useless


----------



## Buka (Dec 3, 2019)

I’ve always found it interesting in these politically correct times we find ourselves in, that mocking the French always gets a pass.

I don’t think they even mind.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 3, 2019)

Buka said:


> I’ve always found it interesting in these politically correct times we find ourselves in, that mocking the French always gets a pass.
> 
> I don’t think they even mind.


I would like to live 5000 years just to see how long that joke runs lol.


----------



## Gweilo (Dec 4, 2019)

Buka said:


> I’ve always found it interesting in these politically correct times we find ourselves in, that mocking the French always gets a pass.
> 
> I don’t think they even mind.


Yes, but would you have the same attitude if you lived next door to them for a millenium? 
I used to live in a seaside town called Ramsgate, it was about 30 miles from France, it was one of the cinque ports that the fishing and pleasure boats left from to collect the solders after D day, and every summer we would get waves of the French coming over in the summer, obnoxious people, and deserve the criticism in my view.


----------



## Buka (Dec 4, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Yes, but would you have the same attitude if you lived next door to them for a millenium?
> I used to live in a seaside town called Ramsgate, it was about 30 miles from France, it was one of the cinque ports that the fishing and pleasure boats left from to collect the solders after D day, and every summer we would get waves of the French coming over in the summer, obnoxious people, and deserve the criticism in my view.



Oh, I don’t disagree at all. I just find it amusing, especially in our PC times.

I’m from Massachusetts, which is a very liberal state. But Hawaii is so liberal it makes Massachusetts look like 1950 Texas. But despite that, oddly, there is very little political correctness over here. Very odd.

There’s also very few French.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2019)

Buka said:


> I’ve always found it interesting in these politically correct times we find ourselves in, that mocking the French always gets a pass.
> 
> I don’t think they even mind.


 the french are so conceited they dont actually notice.

They have a very different interpretation of the battle of France than the English do.

The English have turned a crushing defeat into a propaganda victory, Dunkirk being one of the proudest points in our history, much like Americans and the Alamo

and we got most of an army back including not a few Frenchmen.making an invasion of the UK extremely difficult

The french perspective is that we turned and ran, deserting them in there hour of need and therefore the whole capitulation of France is the fault of the British, something they have never forgiven us for, particularly as we also claim credit for liberating them.

But then they did surrender Paris rather than have the bountifulness of city messed up national pride being trumped by the national love of great architecture, but they harbour far more resentment towards the English than they do the Germans


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 4, 2019)

jobo said:


> here's another one, the british had 300 tanks, the germans 2500, tell me again how we were just as mechanisted as the germans.
> 
> nb i know the french had a lot of tanks, but we are discussing the british feeble attempts to have a war with germany and the french are known to be useless



By merit of England  Traditionally having a small army not lack of understanding or appreciation.  And a key in what i wrote was  "as mechanized"    The Germans still relied on the horse as much as England did.  The amount a nation is mechanized is not reliant just on the number of tanks. But the amount vehicles took over in logistics and the like.        also a big portion of the tanks used were Panzer 1's and 2's.   so pretty much worthless in a offensive role outside of scouting. (the Panzer 1 was used for training mainly and im so-so if the 2 was used for training at the time or existed as a scout vehicle)        

Also from the stats you have to acknowledge the source as probably not breaking it down by month, tanks produced in late 40, have no relivence in this as the invasion of France and tank combat was done by then until Africa.  


and the French were far from useless and i don't entertain insulting them out of place.  Especially in a proper argument about WW2.

As for numbers i got from a source it breaks down as follows for German tank production.

Panzer 1: 1,893
Panzer 2: (including 40) 1,337 (excluding): 2,476
Panzer 38(t): (including 40):598 (excluding):231
Panzer 3: (including 40):1,309 (excluding): 255
Panzer 4: (including 40):413 (excluding):255

This does not not over models produced or converted.  And also not all of these could eb brought to bear at once, one due to maintenance of them, and two needing to keep reserves etc.   And a disclaimer given under it, it includes all variants of the chassis, so will have the STUG 3 included in the Panzer 3 stat.    I only copied tank production up to 1940.

the source is copied from: Steven Zaloga. "Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II". Stackpole Books, May 15, 2015. Appendix 2: German AFV Production.


From a quick search i can only find overall tank production by England, from one year to another, not broken down into year by year.         Plus for overall viewing of the war, it shouldn't be restricted to just tanks, given the U.K is traditionally a maritime empire and relied on ships and the Germans couldnt compete there. And your originally statement requires overall viewing of the war not just tanks.   My one requires viewing of the vehicles produced.     And i have to go before i could finish this properly, i will probably add another reply later.  




JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to live 5000 years just to see how long that joke runs lol.



By that point the 5th, 6th and 7th French empires probably would have came and gone.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2019)

Rat said:


> By merit of England  Traditionally having a small army not lack of understanding or appreciation.  And a key in what i wrote was  "as mechanized"    The Germans still relied on the horse as much as England did.  The amount a nation is mechanized is not reliant just on the number of tanks. But the amount vehicles took over in logistics and the like.        also a big portion of the tanks used were Panzer 1's and 2's.   so pretty much worthless in a offensive role outside of scouting. (the Panzer 1 was used for training mainly and im so-so if the 2 was used for training at the time or existed as a scout vehicle)
> 
> Also from the stats you have to acknowledge the source as probably not breaking it down by month, tanks produced in late 40, have no relivence in this as the invasion of France and tank combat was done by then until Africa.
> 
> ...


 you've just gone off on a tangent, we are talking specifically about the battle of france

the British had 300 tanks at the battle of France compared to the Germans 2500,

your just dismissing the number of tanks in a tank battle as irreverent

whats the ratio for other mechanised items to back your claim the British and Germans were mechanised to the same degree, though i fail to see what the number of motorbikes etal make when the tank battle had already been lost .

The french were in the wrong place facing in the wrong direction and quickly surrendered, when the Germans cunningly drove their tanks across the flat land of the low countries ( there is a clue there) instead of straight at the Maginot line, The french had a modern mechanised army, we didn't, and equal numbers and still lost in a couple of weeks weeks, you may not call that useless but i do, but then we were also useless, but on a smaller scale


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 4, 2019)

I took my 11 year old to see "Midway", which is a good movie, by the way. He's a bit of a history buff, it turns out. 

In our discussions something that surprised him and I think sometimes adults haven't really even thought about is that not only was Pearl Harbor a military base, but also Hawaii was not a US State in 1941. The attacks on 9/11 were the first and only real attacks on the United States of America. I get that we consider anywhere we have a US Military base to be US soil, but that gets complicated. Hawaii was not "part of the US" at the time, the way that NY, Penn, DC, and Maryland were in 2001.

I feel differently about the two events on a number of points, but I don't want to get into "worse", because any time human beings are killed en masse it is a horrible event. No matter who, where, or by whom.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> I took my 11 year old to see "Midway", which is a good movie, by the way. He's a bit of a history buff, it turns out.
> 
> In our discussions something that surprised him and I think sometimes adults haven't really even thought about is that not only was Pearl Harbor a military base, but also Hawaii was not a US State in 1941. The attacks on 9/11 were the first and only real attacks on the United States of America. I get that we consider anywhere we have a US Military base to be US soil, but that gets complicated. Hawaii was not "part of the US" at the time, the way that NY, Penn, DC, and Maryland were in 2001.
> 
> I feel differently about the two events on a number of points, but I don't want to get into "worse", because any time human beings are killed en masse it is a horrible event. No matter who, where, or by whom.


perhaps as a history buff, you 11 year old may mention the seige of Detroit, Detroit was definitely in the USA at the time, as was New York when that with stood an attempt invasion


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 4, 2019)

Fair enough. I should have said "in the history of modern warfare", post-WWI, industrial war. 

Mass killing is all tragic.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> Fair enough. I should have said "in the history of modern warfare", post-WWI, industrial war.
> 
> Mass killing is all tragic.


well there was the bombardment of new orleans, not quite after WW1, ( as it was in WW1)but definitely in the industrial war period


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 4, 2019)

You know what? You clearly have a bunch of facts on your side and are prepared to dispute whatever I type without regard for context. That's what's important in the big scheme. I'm going to stop trying, like I frequently do on this forum when I get trolled.
*
The original question compared the 1941 attack on the US Naval Base in Pearl Harbor to the attacks on September 11, 2001 and my quick attempt at contributing in some way to the original question was not intended to expand the scope of the conversation beyond that. *

But, of course you are right. Sit back and enjoy your self-righteous indignation. You won the internet today.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> I took my 11 year old to see "Midway", which is a good movie, by the way. He's a bit of a history buff, it turns out.
> 
> In our discussions something that surprised him and I think sometimes adults haven't really even thought about is that not only was Pearl Harbor a military base, but also Hawaii was not a US State in 1941. The attacks on 9/11 were the first and only real attacks on the United States of America. I get that we consider anywhere we have a US Military base to be US soil, but that gets complicated. Hawaii was not "part of the US" at the time, the way that NY, Penn, DC, and Maryland were in 2001.
> 
> I feel differently about the two events on a number of points, but I don't want to get into "worse", because any time human beings are killed en masse it is a horrible event. No matter who, where, or by whom.


That prompted me to read up on the history of Hawaii, your point that Hawaii was not a state so not technically US soil, is a bit tenuous .

America had gifted its self ownership of all public land , buildings and ports ETAL. So rather than the US bases being US soil on a technicality, they were actually US soil as the US own them out right, Its status being much the same as Alaska, which they actually bothered to purchase, a territory rather than a state, but no less part of the UNITED STATES.

I was all so much taken a back to realise that the islands population was treated as enemy sympathisers during the war, placed under martial law, and had all rights to a fare trial by their peers removed, a fate not experienced by the Alaskans, so much for defending democracy


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> You know what? You clearly have a bunch of facts on your side and are prepared to dispute whatever I type without regard for context. That's what's important in the big scheme. I'm going to stop trying, like I frequently do on this forum when I get trolled.
> *
> The original question compared the 1941 attack on the US Naval Base in Pearl Harbor to the attacks on September 11, 2001 and my quick attempt at contributing in some way to the original question was not intended to expand the scope of the conversation beyond that. *
> 
> But, of course you are right. Sit back and enjoy your self-righteous indignation. You won the internet today.


Im sorry your offended, I general offer facts as a way of enlightening my fellow man, Its really not my fault you dont know your own  history


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 4, 2019)

You're right. The US (and England for that matter) have a history of putting military bases in strategic locations around the globe with or without formally being invited to do so and always consider them to be, for all intents and purposes "The US", for example I could mail a letter to our base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without paying for international postage. It is a posture and legal distinction and I'm not a lawyer (or historian). However, I think most normal, every day civilian people see a distinction between that little fenced off section of Cuba and Kansas. 

I don't want suggest which event was "worse" because I don't want to devalue the loss of life in either instance. My ONLY point was that I see the two events differently on a number of points. The one that doesn't normally come up in these conversations that I was trying to introduce is that Hawaii was not a US State when it was attacked, whereas NY, Penn, and Maryland were at the time of theirs'.

But keep mincing words, that's what makes this forum so awesome.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 4, 2019)

jobo said:


> Im sorry your offended, I general offer facts as a way of enlightening my fellow man, Its really not my fault you dont know your own contemporary history



By the way, it's "you're". It's really not my fault if you don't understand how to construct contractions in your own language.

Hey, this is fun, maybe I'll become an internet troll too!


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> By the way, it's "you're". It's really not my fault if you don't understand how to construct contractions in your own language.
> 
> Hey, this is fun, maybe I'll become an internet troll too!


ive always treated apostrophes ( and capitals and full stops ) as optional, much as you treat facts as optional, maybe we are no better than each other ? .

i still dont see why your getting cross,


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 4, 2019)

*THREAD LOCKED PENDING STAFF REVIEW
*
William H.
@kempodisciple 
MartialTalk Moderator


----------

