Was Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks worse?

[Gweilo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.




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

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]

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]

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]

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

Mass killing is all tragic.

 

[jobo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

THREAD LOCKED PENDING STAFF REVIEW

William H.
@kempodisciple
MartialTalk Moderator