Was Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks worse?

[jobo]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.