Was Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks worse?

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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 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]

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]

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.




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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

And keep handy thy Holy Hand-grenade of Antioch.

 

[jobo]

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.


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.

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]

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]

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.