Is the "Special Relationship" over

[blake]

it really is about time the notion that the USA suddenly found itself, totally unexpectedly, at war with Japan and Germany in the days after Pearl Harbor was put to bed. That might be what some farmer in Minnesota felt. But it isn't how the flow of events was.

 

in reality, the USA had been in a de facto state of war with both Japan and Germany for some time beforehand. The big myth sold to the American public about Pearl Harbor is that it was a totally unprovoked attack when of course the US had been provoking both Japan and Germany for some time, Roosevelt himself said prior to Pearl Harbor that he was hoping there to be some incident in the Pacific to bring the US into a European war. The thinking was that Japan would be much more likely to launch a major attack against the US than Germany would. The US had been supplying Japan's enemy China militarily for some time, and also over years the increasingly stringent economic warfare measures followed by the US pushed the Japanese into a predicament that U.S. authorities well understood would probably provoke them to attack U.S. territories and forces in the Pacific region, which is what happened and which Roosevelt himself foresaw. Hitler's declaration of war against the USA is seen as a blunder on his part, certainly there can have been few politicians in history who welcomed being declared war against more than Roosevelt did when Germany officially declared war on December 11, 1941. Hitler was just officialising the state of war with the USA he considered Germany was already in, with the USA. The American public did not realise it. But the USA was already at war with both Japan and Germany months before Pearl Harbor.

[Harleyman]

it really is about time the notion that the USA suddenly found itself, totally unexpectedly, at war with Japan and Germany in the days after Pearl Harbor was put to bed. That might be what some farmer in Minnesota felt. But it isn't how the flow of events was.

 

in reality, the USA had been in a de facto state of war with both Japan and Germany for some time beforehand. The big myth sold to the American public about Pearl Harbor is that it was a totally unprovoked attack when of course the US had been provoking both Japan and Germany for some time, Roosevelt himself said prior to Pearl Harbor that he was hoping there to be some incident in the Pacific to bring the US into a European war. The thinking was that Japan would be much more likely to launch a major attack against the US than Germany would. The US had been supplying Japan's enemy China militarily for some time, and also over years the increasingly stringent economic warfare measures followed by the US pushed the Japanese into a predicament that U.S. authorities well understood would probably provoke them to attack U.S. territories and forces in the Pacific region, which is what happened and which Roosevelt himself foresaw. Hitler's declaration of war against the USA is seen as a blunder on his part, certainly there can have been few politicians in history who welcomed being declared war against more than Roosevelt did when Germany officially declared war on December 11, 1941. Hitler was just officialising the state of war with the USA he considered Germany was already in, with the USA. The American public did not realise it. But the USA was already at war with both Japan and Germany months before Pearl Harbor.

 

You failed to mention one of the factors that led to increasing tensions between Japan and the US prior to Japan's attack in December 1941. That factor was the Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuria and China years before and the Japanese atrocities that were being carried out against those people.

 

Hitler gave strict instructions to his U-Boat Commanders that under no circumstances were they to attack American ships in convoys crossing the Atlantic to Britain. This was while America was still neutral. An incident occured between a U-Boat and a US navy detsroyer the USS Greer. The U-Boat capatain mistakenly thought that the Greer had depth charged his sub apparently. It resulted in a minor shoot out on each side

 

It's an exaggeration to claim that prior to Pearl harbour there was a state of war between the US-Japan or US-Germany. Japan and the US were actually engaged in talks when Pearl harbour was attacked

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2014 at 15:50 ----------

 

Hope you're joking about UKIP. A party of no marks appealing to the lowest common denominator.

 

Basically the BNP dressed up to appeal to the Daily Mail readership.

 

Composed of a group of people so thick that they aren't capable of weeding out the complete racists amongst them who keep exposing themselves for what they are.

 

No economic policies, no idea as to what the hell to do if they actually gained power.

 

None of that matters to them, as they don't actually want power.

 

Were they to gain it by default you would witness the biggest example of mass diarrhea ever seen.

 

They don't want power, they just want to get their snouts in the trough with the rest of them.

 

I was joking but when people, including yourself claim that the the UK is some kind of lackey of the US and other members on here want nothing to do with the EU then the "little Englander" mentality comes to mind.

 

If you remember back about a year ago when there was talk about some kind of western intervention in the civil war in Syria the British government voted quite clearly against any involvement of Britain in that war.

 

Shortly after Blair left office and Brown became PM British forces were withdrawn from Iraq

 

Historically also under Harold Wilson's government the UK turned down a US request to provide Britsh forces for the increasing war in South Vietnam. Britain at that time was a member of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation

(SEATO)

 

These facts put paid to any claims that the UK is somehow historically a lackey of the US

[blake]

 

Hitler gave strict instructions to his U-Boat Commanders that under no circumstances were they to attack American ships in convoys crossing the Atlantic to Britain. This was while America was still neutral. An incident occured between a U-Boat and a US navy detsroyer the USS Greer.

 

USS Greer was not some kind of isolated incident at all, the US was heavily involved against both Germany and Japan in both the Europe/Atlantic and Asia/Pacific theaters to the point where Germany and Japan considered themselves at war with the United States already. Even though the US was supposedly and officially 'neutral', they weren't really. Only that farmer guy from Minnesota, who may have had German or Skandi ancestry, i.e. like the typical American who did not want the US to get involved in any war in Europe, did not know that in the summer of 1941. After Pearl Harbor, that Minnesota guy, previously hostile to the war, was suddenly and totally 100% onside.

[Harleyman]

USS Greer was not some kind of isolated incident at all, the US was heavily involved against both Germany and Japan in both the Europe/Atlantic and Asia/Pacific theaters to the point where Germany and Japan considered themselves at war with the United States already. Even though the US was supposedly and officially 'neutral', they weren't really. Only that farmer guy from Minnesota, who may have had German or Skandi ancestry, i.e. like the typical American who did not want the US to get involved in any war in Europe, did not know that in the summer of 1941. After Pearl Harbor, that Minnesota guy, previously hostile to the war, was suddenly and totally 100% onside.

 

I would be interested to know specifically to what extent the US was "heavily involved" against Germany in both theatres. When i say specifically i mean describe incidents and occurences to support that claim.

 

BTW my father-in-law was born and grew up in Minnesota and of Scandinavian ancestry. He was drafted into the US army and sent to England to train for D-Day. He landed at age 19 on Utah Beach on D-Day and was later wounded during the battle of the Hurtgen Forest. He was no uniformed dolt either. Ran a very succesful business for many years afterwards.

 

Most Americans saw another European war as being the same sensless slaughter that had taken place from 1914-18. A war started by a bunch of European royalty dolts over a decaying, rotten to the core Austro-Hungarian Empire.

 

Many American soldiers ended up after that war in the same condition as the Germans, British, French soldiers did, crippled, blinded, gassed and mentally distessed. Many of them returned to their home state of Minnesota for all to see

 

You cant blame people who lived thousands of miles away from Europe not wanting a repeat performance. This was the age before mass communications, air travel and the internet. Newspapers and the radio ruled the day. Most newspapers in rural areas were turned out in some small local prnter's office

 

Was Poland in 1939 worth it all in hind sight? In 1945 it became part of Stalin's new empire anyway.

[blake]

good call then from me about the guy from Minnesota. I would class the average American from coming from a state like that, not an east coast one but one outside, in 1941. The gravity of the US had moved well west by then.

 

read this http://mises.org/daily/6312/

 

kind of interesting, he may be over egging the pudding in that article, but he has a point. The US was already well involved in a two-front war by December 1941 and pretty openly antagonising both Germany and Japan. Pearl Harbor was a shock, but not so much of a surprise to those in the know who were almost expecting a Japanese attack on a US territory somewhere. And who did not include, our mythical friend in Minnesota who was against the war, but found himself in Europe two years later.

[Harleyman]

good call then from me about the guy from Minnesota. I would class the average American from coming from a state like that, not an east coast one but one outside, in 1941. The gravity of the US had moved well west by then.

 

read this http://mises.org/daily/6312/

 

kind of interesting, he may be over egging the pudding in that article, but he has a point. The US was already well involved in a two-front war by December 1941 and pretty openly antagonising both Germany and Japan. Pearl Harbor was a shock, but not so much of a surprise to those in the know who were almost expecting a Japanese attack on a US territory somewhere. And who did not include, our mythical friend in Minnesota who was against the war, but found himself in Europe two years later.

 

 

 

The Ludwig von Mises Institute sounds to me like some fringe Nazi/ nationalist organ. It echoes Hitler's belief that the Jews were behind Roosevelt's pro-war stance a stance which was no secret whatsoever in the US by the way.

As I explained previously Japan's invasion and occupation of Manchuria and China in the 1930s and it's atrocities in that part of the world during that time had created tension between the two countries and Roosevelt's administration had placed an embargo on much needed material being exported to Japan. As Japan's economic growth was fueled mainly by imported raw materials the idea to invade such countries as Indo-China, Malyasia etc to obtain such commoditiies as tin and rubber. It must have appeared to Japan after Pearl harbour (or at least to the brainwashed masses who even believed that the Emperor was a God) that the relatively easy victories over the French, British and Dutch colonial rulers and their armies was manna from heaven. All the raw materials that Japan needed could now be expolited and shipped to Japan through forced slave labour.

 

The Japanese government probably glossed over the fact that while the US Navy was seriously compromised after the attack on Pearl Harbour the Japanese navy had not damaged or sunk one aircraft carrier. A crucial point in the future sea war in the Pacific and for which it was to pay dearly.

 

One Japanese commander, Admiral Yamamoto did however see what lay ahead. In his words "we have awoken a sleeping giant and his wrath will be terrible to see"

 

Your Minnesota farm boys were all heading helter skelter down to the nearest recruiting station after that. Back in Britain old Churchill must have been jumping for joy while expressing his sorrow and condolences to Roosevelt over the losses incurred at Pearl.

 

One of his secret fears was that Stalin's armies might just beat the Nazis after all and eventually not only roll across Germany but across the rest of Europe as far as the English channel, a possibility not too far fetched had the US and Britain had not landed their armies in Normandy on D-Day

[blake]

The Ludwig von Mises Institute sounds to me like some fringe Nazi/ nationalist organ. It echoes Hitler's belief that the Jews were behind Roosevelt's pro-war stance a stance which was no secret whatsoever in the US by the way.

 

perhaps you think that every other organisation in the world that has a German sounding name is a 'Nazi organ' too. Whereas the Ludwig von Mises institute is a classical liberal institution with no record of antisemitism at all. which should not be a surprise to anybody, seeing as Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was himself Jewish and who immigrated to the US to escape the Nazis. Right wing libertarian yes. Nazi, no. Certainly there is no way any scholars associated with the institution would ever come out with a pile of racist garbage like 'the Jews were behind Roosevelt's pro war stance'. How could you possibly think that the author of that article, Robert Higgs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Higgs is a Nazi? He hasn't even got a German-sounding name!

 

As I explained previously Japan's invasion and occupation of Manchuria and China in the 1930s and it's atrocities in that part of the world during that time had created tension between the two countries and Roosevelt's administration had placed an embargo on much needed material being exported to Japan.

 

thanks for explaining something that I was aware of when I attended primary school, namely that the Japanese invaded first Manchuria in 1931 and then China itself, in 1937. This threatened American interests greatly and Roosevelt responded beligerently and very effectively. By late 1941, Japan was left with little choice but to attack, as the Americans half-expected that they would.

 

the big myth about Pearl Harbor is that it was a big surprise. It was to the guy from Minnesota. But it was not to the US command. The scale of it shocked them, but not that it happened at all.

 

another myth about Pearl Harbor is that Hawaii was attacked first, when it was not. The first shots were actually fired in Malaya, 16 TIME ZONES away - although it was in the early hours of December 8th in Malaya it was still 6am on the 7th in Hawaii and US commanders in Washington, were only just getting wind of the turn of events in Malaya when the news came through that they had more pressing things to worry about in Hawaii. The Japanese knew as soon as the first wave of planes left the carriers that the USA would officially declare war no matter how successful the attack turned out to be. The order was given to open up on Malaya as soon as the first wave took off from the Japanese carriers in the Pacific. They did not wait, until after the success of the Pearl Harbor air raid became known.

 

the Pearl Harbor attack actually remains the most extended attack, relying on concealment and surprise, in warfare ever. They managed to attack firstly Malaya and Hawaii and then only a few hours after that, Thailand, Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) and the Philippines. The Dutch government in exile in London actually declared war on Japan a few hours BEFORE Pearl Harbor, although the Japanese did not receive it until afterwards. The guy in Minnesota may have been out of the loop. But everybody else knew the Japanese were on the verge of going on the offensive in Asia. The Japanese have never really been given the credit they deserve for the synchronised attacks on December 7th and 8th that included Pearl Harbor. Partly this is just racism. It served the US interest to propagandise it as a sub human endeavor. So to the vast majority of Americans, it is remembered as something underhand, as a 'sneak attack'. The cackhanded way the Japanese tried but failed to declare war on the USA beforehand did not help. That was just about the only thing they got wrong in those first few days.

 

the 'sneak attack' angle was what worked best with the guy from Minnesota. To him it was not an unprecedented military achievement but a dastardly 'sneak attack'. As if there was any attack ever, by anybody, that did not rely on concealment and surprise. Perhaps the guy from Minnesota, two and a half years later, not wanting to take part in any 'sneak attack', but with a misguided sense of gallantry, should have informed the Germans that the allies were planning to invade Europe from Normandy, and not Calais.

[Harleyman]

The Ludwig von Mises Institute sounds to me like some fringe Nazi/ nationalist organ. It echoes Hitler's belief that the Jews were behind Roosevelt's pro-war stance a stance which was no secret whatsoever in the US by the way.

 

perhaps you think that every other organisation in the world that has a German sounding name is a 'Nazi organ' too. Whereas the Ludwig von Mises institute is a classical liberal institution with no record of antisemitism at all. which should not be a surprise to anybody, seeing as Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was himself Jewish and who immigrated to the US to escape the Nazis. Right wing libertarian yes. Nazi, no. Certainly there is no way any scholars associated with the institution would ever come out with a pile of racist garbage like 'the Jews were behind Roosevelt's pro war stance'. How could you possibly think that the author of that article, Robert Higgs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Higgs is a Nazi? He hasn't even got a German-sounding name!

 

As I explained previously Japan's invasion and occupation of Manchuria and China in the 1930s and it's atrocities in that part of the world during that time had created tension between the two countries and Roosevelt's administration had placed an embargo on much needed material being exported to Japan.

 

thanks for explaining something that I was aware of when I attended primary school, namely that the Japanese invaded first Manchuria in 1931 and then China itself, in 1937. This threatened American interests greatly and Roosevelt responded beligerently and very effectively. By late 1941, Japan was left with little choice but to attack, as the Americans half-expected that they would.

 

the big myth about Pearl Harbor is that it was a big surprise. It was to the guy from Minnesota. But it was not to the US command. The scale of it shocked them, but not that it happened at all.

 

another myth about Pearl Harbor is that Hawaii was attacked first, when it was not. The first shots were actually fired in Malaya, 16 TIME ZONES away - although it was in the early hours of December 8th in Malaya it was still 6am on the 7th in Hawaii and US commanders in Washington, were only just getting wind of the turn of events in Malaya when the news came through that they had more pressing things to worry about in Hawaii. The Japanese knew as soon as the first wave of planes left the carriers that the USA would officially declare war no matter how successful the attack turned out to be. The order was given to open up on Malaya as soon as the first wave took off from the Japanese carriers in the Pacific. They did not wait, until after the success of the Pearl Harbor air raid became known.

 

the Pearl Harbor attack actually remains the most extended attack, relying on concealment and surprise, in warfare ever. They managed to attack firstly Malaya and Hawaii and then only a few hours after that, Thailand, Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) and the Philippines. The Dutch government in exile in London actually declared war on Japan a few hours BEFORE Pearl Harbor, although the Japanese did not receive it until afterwards. The guy in Minnesota may have been out of the loop. But everybody else knew the Japanese were on the verge of going on the offensive in Asia. The Japanese have never really been given the credit they deserve for the synchronised attacks on December 7th and 8th that included Pearl Harbor. Partly this is just racism. It served the US interest to propagandise it as a sub human endeavor. So to the vast majority of Americans, it is remembered as something underhand, as a 'sneak attack'. The cackhanded way the Japanese tried but failed to declare war on the USA beforehand did not help. That was just about the only thing they got wrong in those first few days.

 

the 'sneak attack' angle was what worked best with the guy from Minnesota. To him it was not an unprecedented military achievement but a dastardly 'sneak attack'. As if there was any attack ever, by anybody, that did not rely on concealment and surprise. Perhaps the guy from Minnesota, two and a half years later, not wanting to take part in any 'sneak attack', but with a misguided sense of gallantry, should have informed the Germans that the allies were planning to invade Europe from Normandy, and not Calais.

 

Well it looks like evryone got caught napping didnt it? The British military high command in Malaya and Singapore said it was impossible for the Japanese Army to invade from Thailand. The Japanese would invade coming from the south China sea (they said) so they placed these great big guns pointing out to sea only to be rogered from the rear. European white man arrogance it seemed suffered from the mindset that little oriental men "who were all myopic and who all wore glasses" would and could never be capable of trekking through a few hundred miles of jungle.

BTW the concrete gun emplaceemts were still there in Singapore in the early 60s during the time I was doing my army service in that part of the world.

 

The fact that there was still a Japanese delegation in Washington participating in talks at the time of Pearl did much to convince the American population that the Japs were a sneaky, underhanded bunch. Part of the fury at this treachery was taken out on the Japanese-Americans who resided on the west coast and who were subsequently rounded up and sent off to internment camps

 

You seem to have an inclination to sympathise with the Empire of the Rising Sun, justifying in part what they did. South-East Asia suffered 4 brutal years of occupation. Thousands of allied POWS died building the Burma railway as well as the indigenous people who died working for the greater prosperity of that Empire.

 

The Japanese were as bad as the Germans in every way. They both held the arrogant opinion of racial superiority.

 

I happen to be one who believes that Japan got exactly what it deserved in August 1945. Certainly the A-Bomb saved at least 500 thousand lives of US solders, sailors, airmen and marines who would have either been killed or wounded taking Japan by force. Prior to Hiroshima they had no intention of surrendering. Their cities had been bombed flat, thousands already killed but the totally brainwashed numpties still believed that if their Emperror God continued the fight they would still triumph. Their soldiers were fanatics to the core. Ask any old veteran (if you can still find one) who fought against them. You had to kill them because they never surrendered voluntarily

[mjw47]

As thousands of innocent women and children died in those atomic bomb attacks I think believing they got what they deserved is a little on the cruel side.

 

As the US had the atom bomb I always wondered why they didn't simply call a truce and demonstrate the power of the bomb to the Japanese.

 

If they still refused to surrender then fair enough.

 

My theory for what it's worth, is that what the US was really doing was showing the Russians not only that they had the weapon, but were ruthless enough to use it on a civilian target.

 

Still makes me smile when Americans or the British for that matter start lecturing other nations on use of power.

 

Telling other countries that it's unexceptable to use force against another country does not seem right coming from either party.

[blake]

 

 

 

You seem to have an inclination to sympathise with the Empire of the Rising Sun, justifying in part what they did.

 

you have got to be kidding. I live in south east Asia half the year, and have done for over ten years. I certainly do not need any lectures about what the Japanese got up to over there from the likes of you.

 

my post was merely to try to correct some of the myths that have been force fed to the American public over the years regarding Pearl Harbor - namely that it was the USA and the USA only that was attacked, when in fact Pearl Harbor was only one part of the Japanese general offensive on that day and that Malaya was actually fired upon first, before any of the bombs dropped in Hawaii. And also that it was a surprise, when it clearly was not, to those in the know (which does not I'm afraid include, our man behind the counter of the feed store, in Minnesota).