quote:The thing that bothers me about the cartoon is not that it's simplistic (which it is) or that it serves to amuse and outrage people whose minds are made up (which it is) but that it's misleading.
This is the thing that bothers me about almost all political cartoons.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm amazed this is being taken so seriously. It's right about at the "ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" level of political rhetoric, isn't it?
One thing that I can't resist contradicting, though...Lyrhawn, do you really want to start associating entire political parties with what their radical fringe-idiot groups publish?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it would be comforting to think otherwise, Dubya&Cheney and Hastert&DeLay and Frist&Stevens aren't a fringe-idiot group.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've hesitated to post this because the comparisons to WWII are just not all that enlightening, but I had occasion just now to read through FDR's speech on 12/8/1941 in which he requested that Congress declare war on the Japanese.
Since we're apparently going to decide that such comparisons are fair game, however, perhaps we can do some constructive review of the past -- in hope of both repeating the successes, and also avoiding the failings.
I'd be interested in a compare and contrast of how the two Presidents handled the immediate aftermath of the respective crises they faced.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
hehe, *grin* I have the full audio recording of FDR's speech.
The Oil embargo on italy I wasn't aware of, all I knew was Stalin's comment on how "Don't wish to start a war? How can they fight a war without oil?"
Also, technically Pearl wasn't a "surprise attack", they had sent a DOW about 30 minutes before the attack, but because it was sunday it took until 30 minutes after the attack for it to reach the President.
IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have a source for that statement about the Declaration of War? What FDR's speech says he got was a reply essentially breaking off negotiations, not a declaration of war.
quote:Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
posted
Am I the only one who thinks the discussion over the causes of Japan's involvement in WWII and the attack on Pearl Harbor is more interesting than any fireworks Jay was trying to provoke?
*pies those who have yet to add anything regarding this topic, including self*
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true, FDR went straight to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. GWB attempted to avoid congress and anyone else who would have questioned an invasion of Iraq.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's lots of precedent for engaging in wars without a formal declaration by Congress, but that difference did sort of stand out to me as well.
Not sure that I'd make much of it, though. Unless someone were to make the case that this is part of a larger pattern...
posted
I viewed it quite differently, Dan_raven. I think it was very obvious to Congress what was going to happen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, that message was not a DoW, Bob pointed out. And in any case, if no notice was given until after the attack began, for what ever reasons, it was a surprise attack. Notwithstanding the decryption efforts of Americans: their messages didn't reach Pearl until too late too.
quote: Just before the attack, a long message was sent to the Embassy from the Foreign Office in Tokyo (encoded with the Purple cryptographic machine), with instructions to deliver it to Secretary of State Cordell Hull at 1 PM Washington time (that is, just thirty minutes before the attack was scheduled to begin). Because of decryption and typing delays, the Embassy personnel could not manage to do so. The long message breaking off negotiations ("Obviously it is the intention of the American Government to conspire with Great Britain and other countries to obstruct Japan's efforts toward the establishment of peace through the creation of a new order in East Asia... Thus, the earnest hope of the Japanese Government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost") was delivered well after the intended time.
Japanese records admitted into evidence during a Congressional hearing show the Japanese had not even written a declaration of war until after they heard of the successful attack on Pearl Harbor. The two-line declaration of war was finally delivered to Ambassador Grew about ten hours after the attack was over. He was allowed to transmit it to the United States where it was received late Monday afternoon.
The United States had decrypted both parts of the final message well before the Japanese Embassy had managed to finish. It was decryption of the second part which prompted General George Marshall to send his famous warning to Hawaii that morning. It was actually delivered, by a young Japanese-American cycle messenger, to General Walter Short at Pearl Harbor several hours after the attack had ended. The delay was due to the fact General Marshall was out riding when the Navy requested to use the Army's communications system, then to difficulties with the Army's communications so it was finally transmitted by commercial cable, and had somehow lost its "urgent" marking during its travels.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: That's true, FDR went straight to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. GWB attempted to avoid congress and anyone else who would have questioned an invasion of Iraq. Originally posted by Rakeesh: I viewed it quite differently, Dan_raven. I think it was very obvious to Congress what was going to happen.
Yes, but it seems to me you're both right: it was obvious to Congress what was going to happen, and Bush avoided going to Congress for an explicit DoW against Iraq. It's not either/or.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember quite well the pressure the White House was putting on congress not to even have a vote for war or authorization.
The Invasion of Iraq, with no Congressional approval was debatably legal. The Invasion of Iraq with Congressional disapproval would have been much less likely to be considered legal.
Since the White House was unsure of the vote at that time, they tried hard to avoid one. When that didn't work, they put on the pressure by highlighting questionable intelligence like WMD and AlQueda links.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
What I find ironic about this cartoon is that this kind of rhetoric did occur both before and after Pearl Harbor - but it came from the conservatives, who saw the war as a danger to american economic interests.
Today rhetoric rests on the same fulcrum point, except that industry sees the control of oil as being in "America's best interest." In fact, the logic behind an unprovoked attack is remarkably similar to the logic the Japanese used to justify the attack against Pearl Harbor.
So to put the cartoon in perspective: If the characters in the boat are Americans, they should be republicans, because that was who was making these kinds of arguments at the time. But more accurately, the characters in the boat should be Japanese, such as Yamomoto, who recognized that a war with America could not be limited to the issues the Japanese wanted to fight about.
Oddly enough, prior to WWII, it was the liberals like Dr. Seuss that argued in favor of entering the war.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. In sheer numbers it's hard to catch up with that.
Edit: and I've obviously only answered the portion of your question that's easy. The rest requires too much thought for now. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, that interpretaion is controversial, and many historians don't believe in the conclusion that Roosevelt used the US Pacific Fleet as bait for a Japanese attack.
I must say, though, that web page makes a very convincing case.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be controversial, but can you explain why EVERY single U.S. aircraft carrier stationed in the west was out doing maneuvering, games, and other training that day far to the north east?
I'm going to bed now. Elsewise I would love to go into this conversation with you. I love studying WW II. There were so many advances made, and so many coverups that are still almost covered up. If it weren't for the fact that most people don't care anymore.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yeah, well, that's probably true, since Japanese internment camps happened on FDR's watch.
I took a class on the internment a few quarters ago. Previous to that, I knew very little about the subject; mainly that it happened, and that FDR was president at the time. Being of Japanese descent, I immediately stopped liking him, nevermind anything else he did. This class forced me to change my mind. FDR had a lot of people working for him feeding him bogus or poorly researched reports and suppressing dissenting ones. He made a decision based on the best information he had. I still hold him ultimatly responsible. He's the president, comes with the territory. I'd like to say I'd have done differently, but I don't have the safety of a nation weighing on my conscience. But at least now I can have a grudging respect for him.
Restoring the citizens' property could've been handled better though...
Interesting aside: If you were a halfie like me back then, you only had to go to the camps if your father was Japanese. Kids with Japanese moms were A-okay (although mom herself had to go).
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: FDR had a lot of people working for him feeding him bogus or poorly researched reports and suppressing dissenting ones. He made a decision based on the best information he had. I still hold him ultimatly responsible. He's the president, comes with the territory. I'd like to say I'd have done differently, but I don't have the safety of a nation weighing on my conscience. But at least now I can have a grudging respect for him.
Interesting. I'd say that one definite lesson from the past that could've been learned is that Presidents who get surrounded by advisors who sing one tune can make some pretty horrible mistakes. FDR, to me, is responsible for the internment of American citizens during WWII, and no picture of the man is complete without recognition of this vastly monstrous act. The country screwed those people over and never even came close to making it up to them.
On the whole, I still think of him as a good President, but this (and other) decisions by him point to some extremely serious flaws that ought not to be forgotten.
Recognizing the imperfections in our system of government is, to me, an important step toward changing our behavior, and maybe fixing some of the problems that recur throughout our history.
The "proper" distribution of power among the 3 branches of government, for example, is something that we've struggled with since day 1 of our Republic.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:He made a decision based on the best information he had.
Even based on that information his decision was immoral. Even if he could justify separating Japanese-Americans from the population, it could have been done much more humanely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I know quite well of all the revisinist arguements prior to the war and I don't believe that any politician or General/Admiral would ever be foolish enough to risk the destruction of dozens of Captiol ships and escort vessels and sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans just because they wanted to bait the fish that badly. Besides, it could've backfired monstrously, what if Japan invaded with ground troops and took the island? Can you imagine fighting the pacific theatre from only San Francisco and Seattle?
I consider it a gross imcompetance on the side of the American High Command and a lack of clarity on the position of air power for the Naval branch of the armed forces. In fact, this very attack was warned of some decades ago by one Billy Mitchel, the father of Air Power for the united states the very man who proved that aircraft armed with bombs could sink battleships. He warned that Hawaii was vulnerable to a sea/air attack by the Japanese and was laughed at.
As for the DOW I was mistaken but I knew that it was pretty darn close to one.
IP: Logged |
quote:So to put the cartoon in perspective: If the characters in the boat are Americans, they should be republicans, because that was who was making these kinds of arguments at the time. But more accurately, the characters in the boat should be Japanese, such as Yamomoto, who recognized that a war with America could not be limited to the issues the Japanese wanted to fight about.
Ha! Public sentiment against involvement in the war was against across the board. Your labeling it republican is much more than anything a demonstration of your own biases, Glenn.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I consider it a gross imcompetance on the side of the American High Command and a lack of clarity on the position of air power for the Naval branch of the armed forces. In fact, this very attack was warned of some decades ago by one Billy Mitchel, the father of Air Power for the united states the very man who proved that aircraft armed with bombs could sink battleships. He warned that Hawaii was vulnerable to a sea/air attack by the Japanese and was laughed at.
Nearly everyone laughed at it. Hindsight is 20/20, Blayne. And more people than that put forward the threat. Patton was one as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice cartoon and a good chuckle, but unfortunately its short-lived.
As common sense begins to take hold, the cartoon will need to be revised almost continuously in order to hold more people.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may be controversial, but can you explain why EVERY single U.S. aircraft carrier stationed in the west was out doing maneuvering, games, and other training that day far to the north east?
That really isn't that big a deal. Fleet groups always contained multiple carriers back then. Plus, emphasizing "EVERY" makes it sound like there were more carriers than there really was. FOUR carriers isn't exactly a giant amount, but that was our entire carrier fleet in the Pacific at the time. Japan had eight operating carriers at the time.
Don't you think it was a bit heavy of a gamble to wager the entire ocean on 2 to 1 odds?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ha! Public sentiment against involvement in the war was against across the board. Your labeling it republican is much more than anything a demonstration of your own biases, Glenn.
Pretty funny then, that the conservatives accused FDR of intentionally allowing Pearl Harbor to happen in order to get us into the war.
Also:
quote:During World War Two, Geisel wrote editorial cartoons from the pages of the left-leaning New York newspaper PM that scathingly criticized Naziism, Fascism, American isolationism (Charles Lindbergh was a favorite target on this front), and racial discrimination in the hiring of defense workers...“PM was against people who pushed other people around,” Geisel told his biographers shortly before his death, “I liked that.”
Of course, you provide nothing to back up your statement, which is a demonstration of what, exactly?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dog, you may not have singled me out personally, but you were mocking my views. It doesn't matter which one of the three of us (because that is how many of us there were stating we were a bit offended) you thought were "posturing".
On the other hand, it IS a personal issue with me...my dad never even got to meet his own brother, and was in fact named after him, because of WWII, so perhaps I was a little too offended by your unamended comments.
Sorry about that. I guess my point was that regardless of Jay's intentions starting this conversation, some very honest and personal opinions were offered. The discussion moved on to actual views about things that matter to some of us. When something people believe in and care about is mocked people tend to not react well, you know.
I believe you can disagree with someone without demonizing them or their views, so I just get a little sick of the "humor" presented in this cartoon.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't like when people make World War Two references for casual political reasons. America is definitely facing a grave threat from terrorists and our efforts to stop them aren’t exactly being facilitated by the far left, but it strikes me as intensely ignorant to compare that to Pearl Harbor.
It’s not something to joke about. Tens of millions of people died, and the freedom of the people of the world has never been so threatened. It’s shameful when people compare Americans to Hitler, and not even Saddam himself was that evil, so I’d really appreciate if everyone would stop making that particular analogy.
The point the cartoon was trying to make, that the far left is undermining the war on terror and defaming our military, is unfortunately valid, however it’s irresponsible to say anyone would react that way to Pearl Harbor.
(Oh, and Germany declared war on us not the other way around so that’s not a valid point.)
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point the cartoon was trying to make, that the far left is undermining the war on terror...
If that's the point the cartoon was trying to make, shouldn't it have included some caricatures of actual members of the Far Left, as opposed to mainstream politicians?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean are about as far left as you can get before you fall off.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lets see . . . Howard Dean's known for laissez-faire economic policies while governor, Ted Kennedy's made more deals to support conservative measures than most trees have rings, and John Kerry was proposing more middle class tax cuts than Bush's plan included.
If you want to look at liberals, you have to look outside American national politics.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean mainstream? Wow….. That’s pretty funny. I’d have to say anyone who thinks that is for sure bouncing the scale to the left like a catapult!
Those three are the most extreme and radical of their party. And their party is very liberal. You might be able to point to some token conservative item here and there, but the tiger’s stripes… err…. I mean donkey’s tail, stays the same.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean are not mainstream. They are the most extreme and radical lefty liberal commie pinko fascist liberal liberals that exist.
quote: That really isn't that big a deal. Fleet groups always contained multiple carriers back then. Plus, emphasizing "EVERY" makes it sound like there were more carriers than there really was. FOUR carriers isn't exactly a giant amount, but that was our entire carrier fleet in the Pacific at the time. Japan had eight operating carriers at the time.
Don't you think it was a bit heavy of a gamble to wager the entire ocean on 2 to 1 odds?
1) Please don't take this harshly, but I think I know how the Navy works. They really haven't changed tactics in over 50 years. Just updated equipment.
2) Aircraft Carriers were the biggest and most important ships (still are) in a battle at sea. To be able to fight from afar and not put your ship/s at too much risk than need be.... I'd would've wagered on 2 to 1.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to decide what Jay would think if he met an actual Leftist, as opposed to a left-leaning moderate. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, you provide nothing to back up your statement, which is a demonstration of what, exactly?
Well perhaps it's a demonstration of the fact that you haven't presented much except individual examples either, and that I'll be talking more about this later. That's what, exactly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
So let's see. There's nothing to back up the statement that American sentiment in the 1930s and early 40s was against involvement in WWII across the board, huh?
quote:Even as the intentions of the Nazis toward the Jews became more obvious, there was little support for refugee relief. Four different polls taken in 1938 reported that between 71% and 85% of the U.S. public opposed raising the refugee quota. See Plater Robinson, Deathly Silence: Everyday People in the Holocaust, Southern Institute For Education and Research, Tulane University. In 1938, the President attempted to develop a multi-national approach to the refugee problem through the Evian Conference convened at his suggestion in France where 32 countries met for nine days.Most nations, however, including the U.S. and Britain, were unwilling to make commitments to significantly increase the numbers of refugees they were willing to accept and, apart from establishing a weak international refugee commission based in London, the conference ended with little of substance being accomplished.
We didn't want to help refugees from WWII. This was a precursor to the infamous turning away of a boat of Jewish refugees without American visas, returning them to Nazi hands.
quote:The Administration also tried unsuccessfully early in 1939 to get Congressional support to ease the restrictions imposed by the Neutrality Acts in order to provide increased aid to the British. After the Germans invaded Poland in September, Congress approved repeal of the embargo against trading with combatants, and in March 1941 the Lend-Lease Act provided the British with 50 American destroyers in exchange for U.S. leases on British bases in the Western Hemisphere. After the Germans broke their treaty with the Soviet Union in June and invaded Russia, the Russians also received military aid and other supplies. Spending on defense was also sharply increased, which further helped to create jobs for domestic economic recovery.
Gradually Congress permitted embargoes to be lessened. But it took time.
quote:While his margin in the November election dropped sharply from the landslide win in 1936, Roosevelt still easily defeated Republican Wendell Willkie, who argued for greater support of the anti-Nazi forces in Europe, by about five million popular votes and by 449 to 82 electoral votes.After his re-election, Roosevelt called for "lend-lease" aid to the anti-German allies. This aid, approved by Congress, greatly increased the flow of supplies to Britain. After Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, lend-lease went to the Russians as well.
Roosevelt was elected over a candidate who supported greater involvement against the Nazis in Europe, Glenn.
quote:One of the most remarkable episodes in American history was the spontaneous and widespread opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's obvious attempts to embroil the United States in the European war that broke out in 1939. That opposition was centered in the America First Committee. In modern accounts of the war period, the committee is either ignored or maligned as a pro-fascist, anti-Semitic organization. It was nothing of the kind.
Spontaneous and widespread, Glenn. And a bunch of college students, no less.
quote:Meetings with some Chicago businessmen led to plans for a large-scale organization. In July 1940, General Robert E. Wood, chairman of the board of Sears, Roebuck, agreed to become acting chairman. (Wood had earlier supported the New Deal, but then broke with Roosevelt. He was less anti-interventionist than others in the new committee.) In late August, the group adopted the name the America First Committee (AFC).
Sure, he was a general and a chairman of Sears and Roebuck, but he was also at one time a supporter of Roosevelt's policies.
quote:One of the most important members was John T. Flynn, chairman of the New York chapter and a national committeeman. Flynn was a prominent muckraking journalist who exposed big business's connections to the New Deal. For example, he demonstrated that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (which began under Herbert Hoover) was little more than a bailout scheme for big banks and railroads. He was a columnist for the New Republic until it dropped him because of his anti-interventionist position. No one was more vigilant about keeping fascists out of the AFC than Flynn. At one huge public rally in New York City, he identified a local fascist in the crowd and told him he was not welcome.
One of the foremost members of the AFC was Sargent Shriver, a friend of the Kennedys and a Democrat, Glenn. Gerald P Nye was famous for busting RNC involvement in the Teapot Dome Scandal. Norman M Thomas was leader of the American Socialist Party, and he belonged to the AFC. So too was Gore Vidal.
Now I'm no fan of the America First Committee. I think they were flat-out wrong. But you're equally wrong, Glenn, when you try to label American Isolationism prior to WWII as the playground of Republicans. That's just unsupported by facts and history, Glenn, and your position is untenable.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Actually, it's the right who are fascists. The left are commies. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naturally. If I were being entirely serious, I'd have said something more like, "Actually, fascism is a right-wing political philosophy, and is mutually exclusive with extreme liberal philosophies." But see, that wouldn't have been funny. Maybe the way I worded it wasn't funny anyway, but at least it was an honest attempt. Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, fascism is a right-wing political philosophy, and is mutually exclusive with extreme liberal philosophies.
Ah. See, I don't necessarily agree with this. Both modern communism and modern fascism focused on individual control of the state -- and, not incidentally, state control of industry, press, and education. As they're both profoundly authoritarian, I consider them to be very similar philosophies in practice.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used the word fascist because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, et al, commonly tell us that it is liberal philosophies which lead to fascism. And I assume that's where Jay is getting his information; his opinions, to me, seem a little too misguided to have come from anywhere else.
Who else is out there saying Kerry represents the voice of the extreme far left?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see what you mean, now. But in a way, Limbaugh and Hannity are RIGHT -- insofar that authoritarianism DOES lead to fascism, and many modern "Leftist" policies are authoritarian. Where their generalizations fail, unfortunately, is in their reluctance to observe that both major American political parties tend towards authoritarianism nowadays.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) Please don't take this harshly, but I think I know how the Navy works. They really haven't changed tactics in over 50 years. Just updated equipment.
2) Aircraft Carriers were the biggest and most important ships (still are) in a battle at sea. To be able to fight from afar and not put your ship/s at too much risk than need be.... I'd would've wagered on 2 to 1.
1a. I don't take it harshly, nor do I take offense. I don't doubt your knowledge of naval tactics, as I have no idea what you do and don't know.
1b.However, being that carrier warfare was untested at the time, I'd say facing off against the largest carrier navy force in the world, which also happens to be the nation that recently beat the living snot out of Russia's advanced navy with their own hand me downs, would give many people pause.
1c.And some things HAVE changed in the last 50 years, not necessarily about fleet tactics, but certainly about fleet composition. Fleets back then had several carriers in each group, supported by baby flat tops and a whole mess of battleships, destroyers, carriers, dozens of subs, and other fleet tenders.
1d. Currently, fleets are smaller. Yes, because of equipment changes, which is precisely why numbers don't mean the same thing today that they meant back then. One carrier battlegroup today can project more force than any other naval battle group in the world, and we have what, 8 of them total? 12? Something like that. Carriers don't travel today in more than groups of two unless there's some sort of joint fleet operation going on, or a major combat operation in effect. We don't even have battleships anymore, and there are a fraction of the subs that used to be out there. My point is that you can't compare fleet composition from back then to today.
2a. You underestimate the lack of carrier tactics from back then. Carrier tactics as they are used today didn't exist back then, except on the Japanese side of the ocean. We'd never been in a major combat with them, and had a largely untested group of ships. Facing off 4 carriers against 8 enemy carriers, especially 8 highly trained and battle hardened carriers is extremely risky, overly so, after having a majority of the power from the pacific fleet shot out from under us.
2b. Midway was the only reason we got a foothold in winning the war in the Pacific, and that had less to do with being more trained or having better tactics, that was entirely to do with guile and Japanese overconfidence.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
