Five Swedish soldiers wounded in Afghanistan

[JayGrey]

Very well . . .
". . . in late November 1941, both the U.S. Navy and Army sent explicit war with Japan warnings to all Pacific commands. Although these plainly stated the high probability of imminent war with Japan, and instructed recipients to be accordingly on alert for war, they did not mention the likelihood of an attack on Pearl Harbor itself, instead focusing on the Far East. Washington forwarded none of the raw intelligence it had, and little of its intelligence estimates (after analysis), to Hawaiian commanders"
"Washington, with more complete intelligence than any field command, expected an attack anywhere on a list of possible locations (Pearl Harbor not among them), and since the Japanese were already committed to Thailand, it seems to have been expected another major operation by them was impossible."

"One major point often omitted from the debate (though Costello covers it thoroughly) is the Philippines where MacArthur, unlike Kimmel or Short, had complete access to decrypted PURPLE traffic (indeed, Stinnet quotes Whitlock to that effect), and was nonetheless caught unprepared and with all planes on the ground nevertheless, nine hours after the Pearl Harbor attack. Caidin and Blair also raise the issue."
Further up, the article states that PURPLE traffic contained little, if any, military chatter.

And, it looks liek the China sea constitutes Thailand, the Philippines, and Hong Kong.

http://geography.howstuffworks.com/oceans-and-seas/the-china-sea.htm

If, as the wikipedia article staes, McAuthur (As well sa washington) expected agressive moves against the Phillippine or, more likely, Thailand then why would they expect the Jap' fleet to head into Pearl Harbor?

I'm sorry, but I could find no supporting information in that Wikipedia article. Some neat conspiracy theories, but otherwise nothing.

But, there was a lin emeantioning the rather under-wraps battles in the Pacific between German and US ships. No real information was given. Also, Japan was mentioned: As you suggested, the US was apaprently trying to enter the war against Japan. How they were doing this, apparently they told the Japanese to "Get out of a China . . . "

Wikipedia phales.

Edit: The dutch warning that put the fleet going in the wrong direction? The US liner warning that was apparently a radio-deception tactic used by the Japanese from their homeland?
Also, the article states that Japan would have to be attacked for Germany to defend her. Not that Germany would support Japan, if Japan attacked the US.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Suaside. It has a reason why the myth the US would have sacrificed Pearl Harbor is called a "Conspiracy theory".

Even if there are a few signs its still nothing more then a theory.

Ask you self would they realy have sacrificed their most important naval base in the pacific and thus hamper for a very long time their base of operations? We are talking here about probaly more then a year of preperations. Now give the Japanese fleet and army more then a year of time to do their own actions without the fear of any american influence or actions and that with a German war still in full action that eventualy might as well have an inpact on the US at some point since in 41 and 42 no one expected a short victory over Germany and it did in deed needed more then 3 years to beat the German Reich and Japanese Empire.

One should not forget that in 41 the Japanese had more ships and particularly ones of better quality compared to the US and most important they had experience from combat. So it would have been extremly dangerous to as well sacrifice not only ships but one of your most important bases.

Pearl Harbor was no Gulf of Tonkin. To say it that way.

 

[SuAside]

I'm sorry, but I could find no supporting information in that Wikipedia article. Some neat conspiracy theories, but otherwise nothing.

if you could find 'facts' of this on wikipedia, it wouldn't be called a theory, now would it?

anyone expecting to find proof of a conspiracy theory on wikipedia is retarded.

but it was the best thing i could find on short notice to paint the situation a little. i'm not about to scour the internet because it is filled with dodgy sources on the subject, making it hard to find verifiable information. that said, i did quite a bit of reading in my youth on the subject as my interest was sparked by a history teacher / WW2 historian. i'd have asked him for all the names of books (written by credible authors) i'd tell you to read, but sadly he has been dead for quite some time now.

really, believe what you must, but at least insert a little doubt into your POV. i'd be naive to discard the possibility just because a bunch of looneys have backed the issue.

The dutch warning that put the fleet going in the wrong direction?

euhm, the dutch actually gave the correct location & heading? don't ask me why.

The US liner warning that was apparently a radio-deception tactic used by the Japanese from their homeland?

Japanese military historians have always written that no subterfuge was used before the attack on Pearl Harbor. no evidence points in that direction and american historians concur.

i'm fairly sure that spotting a battle group is something you'd be debriefed about after you return to your base anyway. fairly hard to fake on all levels, 3 times on 3 different days.

Also, the article states that Japan would have to be attacked for Germany to defend her. Not that Germany would support Japan, if Japan attacked the US.

what does that have to do with anything? i never even touched the subject.

Suaside. It has a reason why the myth the US would have sacrificed Pearl Harbor is called a "Conspiracy theory".

no doubt in part because the classified military documents about this have still not been released?

nearly everything has been released by now (at least what hasn't been destroyed). the Pearl Harbor related records however are still classified and most of them are still intact. one might wonder what there still is to hide? what could they possibly fear that keeps them from de-classifying it half a century after the fact?

as i said, many officers, politicians & journalists have raised the issue.

Ask you self would they realy have sacrificed their most important naval base in the pacific and thus hamper for a very long time their base of operations? We are talking here about probaly more then a year of preperations.

history proved that setback to be 6 months, actually. quite acceptable if it means you get full support from the people to carry out your objectives.

Now give the Japanese fleet and army more then a year of time to do their own actions without the fear of any american influence or actions and that with a German war still in full action that eventualy might as well have an inpact on the US at some point since in 41 and 42 no one expected a short victory over Germany and it did in deed needed more then 3 years to beat the German Reich and Japanese Empire.

One should not forget that in 41 the Japanese had more ships and particularly ones of better quality compared to the US and most important they had experience from combat. So it would have been extremly dangerous to as well sacrifice not only ships but one of your most important bases.

as said, the losses were well worth the gains. for every man killed, another thousand volunteered.

the loss of ships was of course not a triffle, but as war progressed proved trivial.

Pearl Harbor was no Gulf of Tonkin. To say it that way.

where did i possibly imply it was?

maybe you'll accuse me of saying that the CIA did 9/11 perhaps?

 

[Shoveler]

"I'm sick and tired of the US pretending they single-handedly stopped WW2 and did so only out of selflessness."

I wouldn't say the US single-handedly stopped WW2, I would say that the US single-handedly turned the tide into the allies favor. Without the US the allies would have lost (A slew of reasons here, lend lease ect).

The US deserves the credit it takes, yes the allies were fighting years before the US joined...they were also losing several years before the US joined.

 

[Dragula]

USSR had already crushed Germany more or less.

 

[Shoveler]

Wrong. They only stayed in the fight, due largely to the lend lease program til the US joined. The USSR didn't start overpowering Germany until 1943-44, a full 2 years AFTER the US joined. My statement still stands.

Were there no Western Front (US), and African Front (US). The USSR would not have stood a chance. Now if you want to talk about single-handedly, the US took down Japan single-handedly for all intents and purposes. However I'd still give the Aussies and Chinese their due.

 

[Sander]

Wrong. They only stayed in the fight, due largely to the lend lease program til the US joined. The USSR didn't start overpowering Germany until 1944, 3 years AFTER the US joined. My statement still stands. Try again.

Why don't you try again? The Soviets had already made a crucial stop at Stalingrad, and that was really the beginning of the Soviet war machine crushing the German army.

And the US had almost nothing to do with that. Their contributions at that time came in the form of supplies and aid (mostly to the UK, too), not military might, and while they might have helped, there's no reason to assume that the Eastern front would've developed much differently.

Were there no Western Front (US), and African Front (US). The USSR would not have stood a chance.

The Western Front was the UK, not the US, for as far as it was relevant for the USSR until 1944. The win at the African front can be in part attributed to the US, though it's hard to tell how many resources that front took away.

That's not to say the Americans weren't crucial in winning the war. But the idea that the Americans won that war singlehandedly, when the Soviet Union made an arguably more sizeable contribution, is simply insulting to all the other participants in that war. Yes, the Americans were crucial. But so were the Soviets, and the UK.

Hell, just looking at the numbers, many, many more Germans died on the Eastern front than anywhere else (quickly grabbing numbers off wikipedia, it looks like 2,7M German dead on the Eastern front through 1944, versus 886K dead on all other fronts combined).

 

[victor]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not unlikely the USSR would've run over all of Europe all the way to Bretagne if not for Operation Overlord.

I said not unlikely, I don't want to speculate too much. So maybe one large factor for the invasion of Normandy was to stop the Russians from going too far. It seems probable Western Allied command was well aware of the future Soviet threat, especially after it became pretty clear Germany would lose the war, somewhere in 1944.

Maybe that was also a motivational factor for the US.

 

[Shoveler]

I didn't say the US singlehandedly WON the war, I said they single-handedly turned the tide. The USSR had a 1 front war, hell, and they had difficulty with that. The US had a 3 front war, and did pretty well on all sides.

I don't deny that the Eastern Front was probably the fiercest, but the fighting was fierce in a lot of other place too. Not to mention had the US lost vs. Japan, which could have easily have happened due for a few fortunate events in Pacific the USSR would have had a 2 front war on their hands.

I don't think that the USSR could have fought a 2 front war and won. Their borders are too wide and supply lines would've been to thin. You discount the aid given to the USSR almost to non-existance, the USSR received a great deal of aid from the US. Including vehicles, tanks (such as they were at the time), food and what not. If you don't have supplies, you lose your war. Had they not had these supplies, they very well may have faltered at Stalingrad. We'll never know.

As to my original arguement, the US entering the war turned the tide. Still stands.

EDIT: Just as a side note, those figures include all deaths. And don't discern the incredibly bad weather both sides endured, hundreds of thousands could be attributed to weather and hunger alone. Again we'll never know the exact numbers due to action, weather or otherwise. My guess is very high though.

There are several instances of captured troops being stripped of gear and just left to die in the cold, knowing they wouldn't make a mile or two. Surrenders were sometimes in the 100's of thousands, just left to freeze. Makes you wonder why they didn't fight to the death. And other stories of troops freezing to death with all of their gear still on rifle in hand. Those couple of winters musta been hell.

 

[Shoveler]

"In two particular areas the help was indispensable. With major agricultural regions of the Soviet Union under enemy occupation, and the unsatisfactory system of distribution and transportation, to say nothing of mismanagement, the Soviet state had more than a nodding acquaintance with famine. Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease’s contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery. The trucks were also used for more sinister activities, including the deportation of the North Caucasus Muslims. Less satisfactory for combat were the Western tanks, inferior to the German machines and particularly disadvantaged in the open terrain of the Eastern Front."

From Historynet

 

[Sander]

Don't double post, use the edit button.

In any case: I wasn't saying the US did nothing or were irrelevant for the USSR. I don't think they were crucial and I do think the USSR eventually wins without any outside help, although it is more difficult.

As to my original arguement, the US entering the war turned the tide. Still stands.

That depends on what you mean by entering the war.
If you're talking about their physical presence in Western EUrope - it turned the tide in that their presence stopped Europe from now being Russian and it probably greatly accelerated the defeat of the Germans, perhaps a defeat of the Germans would've been impossible without the Germans.

But there isn't a single tide-turner against the Germans in that war, as it was a series of events that turned the tide. The US entering the war would be one of them, but Germany attacking the Soviet Union and then stalling before being hit by a deadly winter is equally important.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I don't think they were crucial and I do think the USSR eventually wins without any outside help, although it is more difficult.

Well, I'd say it's more a matter of Germany losing given the whack job that was calling the shots militarily, rather than the USSR winning.

I think beyond the material that the US contributed, one should also take into account intelligence. After the Brits cracked ULTRA, they fed decoded German intel to the USSR.
Prior to the Germans launching Operation Zitadel/Kursk the west delivered the blueprint for the attack and the entire order of battle for the largest armor battle ever to occur.
With full knowledge of the German plans, a numerical advantage and they still almost fucked it up.

 

[Shoveler]

If you can't feed your troops, and you can't move your troops.....winning a war is impossible. USSR army was useless without US aid.

 

[Crni Vuk]

history proved that setback to be 6 months, actually. quite acceptable if it means you get full support from the people to carry out your objectives.

Sgain I am not talking about the ships. I am talking about the base Pearl Harbor.

Again (like mentioned earlier) the Japanese General Yamamoto refused a third attack wave against the base which had the target to destroy the fuel and harbor with reparing docks and instalatations as those objects have been largely left untouched in the first 2 attacks.

With the totall destruction of Pearl Harbor military preperations by the Navy which was the only adequate answer to the Japanese threat would have took a lot more then just 6 Months. Probably more then a year. I mean most of the ships have been in action again already within weeks. But only cause most of the repair and mentainance could be done at Pearl Harbor directly. If Pearl Harbor would have been loost completly the next base which could have provide the same kind of logistic was on the US coast some more then 4000 miles away. Now how do you want to start any major offensive or operations within a reasonable time frame withiout any base of operations and when your ships have to get across half of the globe for maintenance?

Thats why I believe that a willingly sacrifice was completely out of question since the risk from a logistic point of view was just way to high. Again we are NOT talking about the ships. We talk about the Harbor and base itself which was not out of action and largely intact after the attack.

I belive a lot more in BNs view about simple incopetence and missinterpretetation as its very likely that the idea for a attack on Pearl Harbor was definetly known but seen by the US high command as unlikely eventualy that much that they simply ignored that scenario. If I would be a commander or officer working for the Military I neither would be very keen about releasing such kind of informations particularly when it left such a important mark in history. It doesnt mean that its completely impossible that they eventualy sacrificed pearl harbor but I just think the danger of loosing the base was to high. It would have been a lot more reasonable to sacrifice a smaller base and by what we know today it seems the US military expected attacks on different positions

Why are so many things today still unkown? I dont know it. But history is usualy written by the winners. never by the loosers. I think that counts for a situation like Pearl Harbor as well.

no doubt in part because the classified military documents about this have still not been released?

Well, what do I know? Maybe cause the Military just is a bunch of crazy hyper sensitive pig-heads that are in general always very touchy about any kind of informations open to the public? Particularly about informations that might not let the military look so strong in general or has to do with something like incopentence. This is not just a phenomenom in the US military. There are still today in Russia a lot of battle-reports from WW2 that are not open to the public and its even hard enough to get any access to those that are and the reason for that is mainly as quite a lot of them show the general incopetence of a lot of generals like the battle of Prohorovka (Kursk 1943) and since it was always better for them if no one knew any "acurate" numbers for casualties.

Pearl Harbor was no Gulf of Tonkin. To say it that way.

where did i possibly imply it was?

maybe you'll accuse me of saying that the CIA did 9/11 perhaps?

I didnt wanted to provoke you or anything. I am just saying in general since quite a lot of people think the US would have "forced" Japan in a war which was just a response to their agressive politics and military operations in asia.

USSR had already crushed Germany more or less.

with the vast help and support of the other allied nation to their economy and military which without even Stalin admited secretly to Zhukov they would not have won the war against Germany.

Particularly the timeline between 41 and 43 was very important for the Soviets to get material and equipment.

...

Stalin admited secretly to Zhukov once that without the economical help of the west they would have loost the war. If they would have really loost it. That cant be said today.

But there are a few factors that are seen today as crucial.

For example the delay in the attack for about 5 weeks due to the Italian campaign in Greece where the Germans had to drive the British forces out of Greece as without help the Italian front would have colapsed just like in Africa there was also the war on the Balkan region. Many military officers on the German side believed this have been the "5 important weeks infront of Moscow". Another issue was the harsh occupancy of the Germans in the conquered teritory. The German war was from the begining a war for plundering. The order was to fuel the German Warmachine almost comletely from the occupied teritory no matter if the civlian population has anything left to survive or not. This was noticed even by Goebels in his diary that left him worried as the Germans wanted to start a achetype of a colony in the Ukraine but they did not left them anything. Almost 70% of the comestible goods they manufactured went directly in to the Reich. He wrotte that how could one feel enthusiastic about the nationalsocialistic ideals when it doesnt leave him the minimum for life? This which many times enough lead to a lot of hate for the Germans caused much preasure as it suported many times partisan actions and thus hampering the supply routes of the German military. And one should not forget that even in the own population of Russia Stalin was not overly loved. But the Germans proved to be worse then Stalin. And they never made a secret out of their conquer in the east to be a totall destruction and anihiliation of the enemy as German propaganda cleary shows. In the east the war was always from the begining a "totall war". There are of course a lot more and one has always to see the whole picture not jus a few individual battles or campaigns.

Stalingrad was definetly one of the tourning points. But it wasnt the end of the war. Just like Kursk was not the battle which broke the Wehrmachts Panzerarmy its neck.

I agree though that the war was already loost in the moment they decided to attack the Sovietunion. But was there a chance to win the war? Well there was definetly a chance to get a situation in Russia similar to France and its Vichy regime. Particuliarly if they managed to attack Moscow succesfully as Stalin decided to stay inside the town. Its the whole situation and whole economical picture that lead to a sure defeat for the German warmachine. But this are things the allied could not know not in that time. By the end of 1939 for example the stocks for corn in Germany have been almost empty and with the end of 1939 the German Reich would be unable to pay. Hitler and his cabinet lead Germany directly in a economical cataclysm caused of the many useless but big projects (see capital Germania) and "Organisation Todt" and many more. Without the war the German Reich would have colapsed. This we know today. But in 1939/40 for its enemies this was not so evident.

The question is not if Germany would have loost. The question is how much it would have took to gain victory. In the end it might have not been the 60 or 70 million casualties (there are not even acurate numbers present ...) but maybe more then 140 millions. Particularly if Germany would have managed against Russia a military victory. Its a myth to believe the Russian army would had no issues to deal with the heavy casualites in the begining of the war. Many of the troops used for operations in 1942 and 43 have been drawn from the borders to Japan. Fresh troops, either with new training or from other borders. The Sovietunion or at least Stalin seen a war in 1941 with Japan to be a lot more likely then with Germany. Particiularly since Germany received a lot of goods from the Sovietunion in the 30s and 1940.

One should not forget what a military victory eventualy might have meant. It would have been for example possible that the Sovietunion offered Germany a truce which wsa not completely unlikely even already in the situation how it has been present without a capture of Moscow. Considering the overstrained German Military in the autumn of 1941 they might have even got Hitler to accept it. In the begining of the 40s when the Army rushed from one victory to another one it was much easier for the Military Generals and Command to convince and influence Hitler the Command loost almost any lead about major operations after Hitler took over command completely.

See for that even a quote from Henning von Tresckow

"The Allies must be stupid, if they don't see that the German military is stronger without Hitler than with him."

and he was not the only one which knew about the serious issues of a long war with the Sovietunion. Guderian was excluded for some time and not reactivated before 1943 and Mahnstein only was held in service for his very good knowledge and skills as commander he had more then on one occasion a heavy dispute with Hitler.

 

[SuAside]

history proved that setback to be 6 months, actually. quite acceptable if it means you get full support from the people to carry out your objectives.

Sgain I am not talking about the ships. I am talking about the base Pearl Harbor.

Again (like mentioned earlier) the Japanese General Yamamoto refused a third attack wave against the base which had the target to destroy the fuel and harbor with reparing docks and instalatations as those objects have been largely left untouched in the first 2 attacks.

With the totall destruction of Pearl Harbor military preperations by the Navy which was the only adequate answer to the Japanese threat would have took a lot more then just 6 Months. Probably more then a year.

Why are so many things today still unkown? I dont know it. But history is usualy written by the winners. never by the loosers. I think that counts for a situation like Pearl Harbor as well.

well, if you make a projection of the costs vs the gains, it still tips in favor of the americans.

say projected losses will cause a setback of 3 to 15 months. for a president that had been dying to go to war, that isn't too much of a cost.

it would actually suit the USA's agenda to prove they were unprepared and such at Pearl Harbor. they'd have a reason to say "never again", which supports the policy of early involvement (& could support pre-emptive strikes).

no doubt in part because the classified military documents about this have still not been released?

Well, what do I know? Maybe cause the Military just is a bunch of crazy hyper sensitive pig-heads that are in general always very touchy about any kind of informations open to the public? Particularly about informations that might not let the military look so strong in general or has to do with something like incopentence. This is not just a phenomenom in the US military. There are still today in Russia a lot of battle-reports from WW2 that are not open to the public and its even hard enough to get any access to those that are and the reason for that is mainly as quite a lot of them show the general incopetence of a lot of generals like the battle of Prohorovka (Kursk 1943) and since it was always better for them if no one knew any "acurate" numbers for casualties.

the Russian's story is vastly different, of course. if you execute half of your military's trained officers and replace them with incompetent fuckwads, you don't really want word to spread. besides, the entire russian campaign was a simple tactic of sacrificing enough soldiers to stall & then win.

 

[TheGM]

I can't tell if Sander is joking or actually believes that drivel.

 

[victor]

Would you care to specifiy what part was drivel, and provide a counter-argument?

I guess not.

 

[Sander]

I can't tell if Sander is joking or actually believes that drivel.

What drivel would I believe, then?

Also, don't post these useless one-liners please.

say projected losses will cause a setback of 3 to 15 months. for a president that had been dying to go to war, that isn't too much of a cost.

It is a huge cost if Japan uses that time to crush the Americans while they're weak. Which isn't unthinkable.
Wilfully allowing a major part of your military to be destroyed is an insane risk.

 

[TheGM]

I can't tell if Sander is joking or actually believes that drivel.

What drivel would I believe, then?

Also, don't post these useless one-liners please.

Just massive thesis size useless ones are allowed then?

Yes I find the mentality of "America saved your assess durning Word War 2" to be ignorant beyond a shadow of a doubt. But to say American involvement was not has important as precieved? HUH?

Now I don't need some reply with 15 paragraphs on why one worded syllable was wrong. because the truth is only one thing helped the allies win in Europe....and that was Hitler.

 

[victor]

No, Hitler being batshit insane was just part of it. Sander didn't say the Americans didn't help, you're just taking it to the absurd.

The truth isn't black and white like you would suggest. A big motivator for the US to give a rat's ass about liberating Europe was to prevent USSR domination after they'd crushed Germany, which they would probably have done, eventually.

The USSR and the West were far from friends. Remember the Russian Civil war just 20 or so years earlier?