Pearl Harbor Defense

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:

And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such

It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!

Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.

Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?

Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
French-held North Africa.

Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.

So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
go...

In article ,
"Guinnog65" writes:
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04...

Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
a bunch of white folks."


Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by
white folks was exactly what WAS expected. The problem
was that while they believed attacks would take place at
Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe
the IJN had the capability to attack at PH

Sure. And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such. But certainly
a read of the contemporary documentation wrt Pearl and Singapore as well,
reveals attitudes towards the Japanese that would seem very racist to us
nowadays. It is at least tempting to assume their low expectations of them
were connected to their racist beliefs of them. This 40 years after
Tsushima, mind.

Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial Japanese Navy was
only so large - they didn't have enough ships to be everywhere in the
Pacific at once. They _had_ to attack the Netherlands East Indies -
it was the only source of petroleum within reach, and without it, the
IJN and Japanese Industry ground to a halt in short order. With a
somewhat lesser priority, they had to attack the Philippines - not so
much for the resources, but becasue it provided bases that covered the
shipping lanes from the NEI and Indochina to Japan. Everything else
was secondary. They didn't have enough carriers to get airplanes over
the vital locations, and have enough left over for deep strikes. They
could fly htier land-based bombers from their forward based in
Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive without fighter escorts. The
same, of course, would apply to any sea-borne invasions force - no
fighter cover, and they'd be sitting ducks in the target area.

It didn't work out that way. One of the most closely held secrets if
the IJN was the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero) fighter.
It could escort the bombers and seaborne convoys from Japan's existing
land bases. This allowed simultaneous attacks on the widely separated
primary tagets, and the deep strikes that were supposed to unbalance
the Allies enough to allow the invasions to be successfully prosecuted
and consolidated.

Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key to its
success early in the war. And, indeed, it certainly had that. But
the real key was its fuel economy. Just being able to get fighters
over the battle area trumped everything else. Interestingly enough,
the dogfight performance of the Zero was irrelevant, in these cases.
If the Japanese had been flying (notional) long range P-40s or
Brewster Buffalos, and the Allies flying Zeros, the results would have
been the same - Japanese fighters dropping like a box of rocks on a
gaggle of defenders trying desperately to take off and form up as the
bombs started to fall.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter" == Peter Stickney writes:

Peter Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial
Peter Japanese Navy was only so large - they didn't have enough
Peter ships to be everywhere in the Pacific at once. /../

Peter /../ They could fly htier land-based bombers from their
Peter forward based in Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive
Peter without fighter escorts. The same, of course, would apply
Peter to any sea-borne invasions force - no fighter cover, and
Peter they'd be sitting ducks in the target area.

Peter /../ One of the most closely held secrets if the IJN was
Peter the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero)
Peter fighter. /../

Peter Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key
Peter to its success early in the war. /../

Sorry, but that's not true AFAIK: the fact that it came as a
surprise to some of the Allies is not the same as the IJN keeping
it a strict secret. The IJN never considered it secret, using it
in China. Chennault wrote of this fighter in 1940 and 1941, and
the Chinese certainly knew of this successor to the Type 96
'Claude'.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:

And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such

It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!

Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.

Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?

Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
French-held North Africa.

Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.

So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
go...

Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched successfully
from land. As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case you
didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

You dont need to ,even a third grader can understand what Brzezinski meant.

Perhaps, but I have no idea what you mean. Or even what ZB said.

Interesting,I think ZBs words need not much clarification,they are
very clear.
I dont understand why smart people start playing dumb when faced with
clear but implicating statements.


Does the average American really care much about people's ethnic
background? Or only the paranoid, such as yourself?

You are right,over 80% percent of American people do not care about
peoples ethnic background,but the problem is that the Anglo minority
that make up less than 20% of population but fully control US,they
care very much about ethnicity.While they openly advocate that
etnicity should not be a factor in US,(if ethnicity would be
factor,Anglo minority could not fully control US) and try to supress
the importance of the importance of heritage for the other ethnic
groups,behind closed doors they practice racism and make plans to keep
US under Anglo control.
Those who are old enough will remember signs like that "Help
Wanted,Irish do not need to apply" or stories of excelent Jewish
students that dared to apply to the top Anglo higher education
instutitions in US.
Anglos have recovered US after 1872,this time without using RN but
using much more subtle but much more effective methods

Rhodes wrote "Why should we form a secret society with but one object
the furtherance British Empire and the bringing of whole uncivilised
world under British rule for the recovery of United States for making
the Anglo-Saxon RACE but ONE empire".

He succeded.period.


So if an ethnic group wants to rule a big country , they need either
Republican Guard divisions manned by the members of ruling ethnic and/or
religious group or if you cannot do that, PSYOPs that gives the impression that
the US under massive external threat.

What?

I think you still have difficulty in understanding Brzezinskis words.

Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
--

Good Luck to all Anglos including our minority Anglos as well as to Anglos in
Anglo homeland and in Australia.

They,specially Anglos in Anglo homeland will need good luck in future.


Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.


Meaning of Anglo? Well you should check out works and deeds of great British
Statesman Lord Rhodes.

Who? If you mean Cecil Rhodes, he was many things, but never a Lord.
Your credibility, minuscule as it is, is diminished further by your lack
of accuracy.

Is an Anglo someone of purely* English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
JFK and Reagan?

*Do you have any idea how the English came to be?

You know all of our Presidents are either Rhodes scholars or certified by
Boston Brahmins.

I know no such thing. I have never given such considerations a moment's
thought.

If you think that Rhodes Scholarships are an Anglo-American conspiracy,
why did they originally include Germans?


Nice bit of snipping of the preceding post, BTW. It's all right, you
don't have to apologise for making a mistake and calling the Roosevelts
"Anglos", we wouldn't like you to do anything that's out of character

To be a part of Anglo conspiracy you dont need to be an ethnic
Anglo,some become a part of it even without realizing it,some become a
part of it for personal gains.

Lets name it sir,Pearl Harbor,Northwoods and 9/11 were not planned by
Germans,Jews,Hispanics,Irish or Arabs,they were both Anglo
operations,designed to provide broad Public support behind ruling
Anglo minority.

"United we stand"
Translation: "if we unite behind our Anglo rulers we stand"

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:

And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such

It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!

Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.

Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?

Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
French-held North Africa.

Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.

So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
go...

Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
successfully
from land. As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
you
didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

I did know there really were Japanese spies there. What is this 'again' by
the way? This has to count as one of the most ungracious agreements I have
ever encountered!

My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.

Sheesh!

In article , denyav
writes

You dont need to ,even a third grader can understand what Brzezinski meant.

Perhaps, but I have no idea what you mean. Or even what ZB said.

Interesting,I think ZBs words need not much clarification,they are
very clear.
I dont understand why smart people start playing dumb when faced with
clear but implicating statements.

I don't know how many ways there are of conveying to you that I have no
idea what ZB said in this context. It's no use banging on about it
without telling me what you're talking about.

Does the average American really care much about people's ethnic
background? Or only the paranoid, such as yourself?

You are right,over 80% percent of American people do not care about
peoples ethnic background,but the problem is that the Anglo minority
that make up less than 20% of population but fully control US,they
care very much about ethnicity.While they openly advocate that
etnicity should not be a factor in US,(if ethnicity would be
factor,Anglo minority could not fully control US) and try to supress
the importance of the importance of heritage for the other ethnic
groups,behind closed doors they practice racism and make plans to keep
US under Anglo control.
Those who are old enough will remember signs like that "Help
Wanted,Irish do not need to apply" or stories of excelent Jewish
students that dared to apply to the top Anglo higher education
instutitions in US.
Anglos have recovered US after 1872,this time without using RN but
using much more subtle but much more effective methods

Rhodes wrote "Why should we form a secret society with but one object
the furtherance British Empire and the bringing of whole uncivilised
world under British rule for the recovery of United States for making
the Anglo-Saxon RACE but ONE empire".

He succeded.period.


Lots of babble but very little sense. If you live in an English-speaking
(and I bet that ****es you off) country, at least make an effort to use
the language comprehensibly. Your arguments, such as they are, are lost
in a non-grammatical morass of syntactical gobbledegook.

So if an ethnic group wants to rule a big country , they need either
Republican Guard divisions manned by the members of ruling ethnic and/or
religious group or if you cannot do that, PSYOPs that gives the
impression that
the US under massive external threat.

What?

I think you still have difficulty in understanding Brzezinskis words.


See above. Even if I knew what his words were, which I don't, they'd
probably be more comprehensible than yours.

Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
--

Good Luck to all Anglos including our minority Anglos as well as to
Anglos in
Anglo homeland and in Australia.

They,specially Anglos in Anglo homeland will need good luck in future.


Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.


Meaning of Anglo? Well you should check out works and deeds of great British
Statesman Lord Rhodes.

Who? If you mean Cecil Rhodes, he was many things, but never a Lord.
Your credibility, minuscule as it is, is diminished further by your lack
of accuracy.

Is an Anglo someone of purely* English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
JFK and Reagan?

Answer the question (if you can)

*Do you have any idea how the English came to be?

Answer the question (if you can)

You know all of our Presidents are either Rhodes scholars or certified by
Boston Brahmins.

I know no such thing. I have never given such considerations a moment's
thought.

If you think that Rhodes Scholarships are an Anglo-American conspiracy,
why did they originally include Germans?

Answer the question (if you can)

Nice bit of snipping of the preceding post, BTW. It's all right, you
don't have to apologise for making a mistake and calling the Roosevelts
"Anglos", we wouldn't like you to do anything that's out of character

To be a part of Anglo conspiracy you dont need to be an ethnic
Anglo,some become a part of it even without realizing it,some become a
part of it for personal gains.

I've obviously missed out somewhere, because despite having links to
religious groups, the police, the armed services, charities, medical
services, broadcasting and business, and having family, friends and
business contacts in 11 or so countries, nobody has ever invited me to
be part of the conspiracy. Not even the Freemasons or the Rotary Club.

Perhaps that just proves your conspiracy theory: the absence of direct
proof or personal experience just shows how effective the conspiracy is!

Lets name it sir,Pearl Harbor,Northwoods and 9/11 were not planned by
Germans,Jews,Hispanics,Irish or Arabs,they were both Anglo
operations,designed to provide broad Public support behind ruling
Anglo minority.

Very clever of the "Anglos" to persuade all those Saudis to perpetrate
9/11. If the "Anglos" are that good, then they DESERVE to rule the world
(again).

"United we stand"
Translation: "if we unite behind our Anglo rulers we stand"

We stand where? Do you understand what "United we stand" means?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

I don't know how many ways there are of conveying to you that I have no
idea what ZB said in this context. It's no use banging on about it
without telling me what you're talking about.

Then you must read Brzezinskis book titled "Grand Chessboard".

Lots of babble but very little sense. If you live in an English-speaking
(and I bet that ****es you off) country, at least make an effort to use
the language comprehensibly. Your arguments, such as they are, are lost
in a non-grammatical morass of

Apparently you are experiencing difficulties in understanding of Rhodes' words
too.
BTW why a country with less than 20% Anglo population should be forced to nake
English the official language?

Is the language alone not one of the main tools of Anglo Empire building
process?


English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
JFK and Reagan?

Answer the question (if you can)

Well,there were only two presidents that got the job without approval of Boston
Brahmins ,JFK and Nixon,the first one got killed after he killed Operation
Northwoods the latter one (politically) got killed after he killed
Bretton-Woods.period.

The president wanna be that Anglos hated most was Gore,closely followed by
Dean.

I've obviously missed out somewhere, because despite having links to
religious groups, the police, the armed services, charities, medical
services, broadcasting and business, and having family, friends and
business contacts in 11 or so countries, nobody has ever invited me e part of
the conspiracy. Not even the Freemasons or the Rotary Club.

Are you sure?

Perhaps that just proves your conspiracy theory: the absence of direct
proof or personal experience just shows how effective the conspiracy is!


Dont forget some people become the part of the even without realizing it,so
others for personal gains.

Very clever of the "Anglos" to persuade all those Saudis to perpetrate
9/11. If the "Anglos" are that good, then they DESERVE to rule the world
(again).

Dont you know how Anglos play the "Great Game"?

First game area selected then proxies not other way around.

So if the the game area selected populated predominanly by muslims then your
proxy must be an islamic terrorist organization.

If game area were Cuba then cuban terrorists would be the natural choice.

BTW no operative of any intel agency identifies him/herself to any terrorist
organization as such.
Saudis that piloted 9/11 planes probably did not even now for whom they were
working.

We stand where? Do you understand what "United we stand" means?
--

I think I know pretty well.
Do you know why these signs popped up everywhere in US after 9/11?

In article , Denyav
writes
I don't know how many ways there are of conveying to you that I have no
idea what ZB said in this context. It's no use banging on about it
without telling me what you're talking about.

Then you must read Brzezinskis book titled "Grand Chessboard".

If you're so keen on spreading your message to the world, why don't you
tell us what he said?

Lots of babble but very little sense. If you live in an English-speaking
(and I bet that ****es you off) country, at least make an effort to use
the language comprehensibly. Your arguments, such as they are, are lost
in a non-grammatical morass of

Apparently you are experiencing difficulties in understanding of Rhodes' words
too.

I would understand what he said if you could quote it in a
comprehensible form.

BTW why a country with less than 20% Anglo population should be forced to nake
English the official language?


Might the fact that the USA has English as its official language just
have something to do with its history as an English colony?
Just imagine the history of the USA if the French or Spanish had been
the major power there. Or even the Germans.

Is the language alone not one of the main tools of Anglo Empire building
process?

The British Empire was acquired largely accidentally. The language does
tend to follow the colonisers/occupiers, not the other way around.


English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
JFK and Reagan?

Answer the question (if you can)

Well,there were only two presidents that got the job without approval of Boston
Brahmins ,JFK and Nixon,the first one got killed after he killed Operation
Northwoods the latter one (politically) got killed after he killed
Bretton-Woods.period.

Not much of an answer. I still want to know what an "Anglo" is.

The president wanna be that Anglos hated most was Gore,closely followed by
Dean.

I've obviously missed out somewhere, because despite having links to
religious groups, the police, the armed services, charities, medical
services, broadcasting and business, and having family, friends and
business contacts in 11 or so countries, nobody has ever invited me e part of
the conspiracy. Not even the Freemasons or the Rotary Club.

Are you sure?

I think I would have noticed.

Perhaps that just proves your conspiracy theory: the absence of direct
proof or personal experience just shows how effective the conspiracy is!


Dont forget some people become the part of the even without realizing it,so
others for personal gains.

Then how do you know that you're not part of it as well?

Very clever of the "Anglos" to persuade all those Saudis to perpetrate
9/11. If the "Anglos" are that good, then they DESERVE to rule the world
(again).

Dont you know how Anglos play the "Great Game"?

The Great Game was specifically in 18th/19th century India. Stopping the
French, and even more so the Russians, from taking over there.

First game area selected then proxies not other way around.

So if the the game area selected populated predominanly by muslims then your
proxy must be an islamic terrorist organization.

If game area were Cuba then cuban terrorists would be the natural choice.

You do talk some crap.

So where is this game of yours leading? World domination by some
undefined group of goodness-knows-what? Once "they" have the world in
their grasp, what then? Brainwashing, Big Brother (Orwell, not Endemol)?

BTW no operative of any intel agency identifies him/herself to any terrorist
organization as such.
Saudis that piloted 9/11 planes probably did not even now for whom they were
working.

We stand where? Do you understand what "United we stand" means?
--

I think I know pretty well.
Do you know why these signs popped up everywhere in US after 9/11?

Well, what does it mean?

I have a good idea why the signs might have been there, but I didn't see
them.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

In article ,
Gernot Hassenpflug writes:
"Peter" == Peter Stickney writes:

Peter Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial
Peter Japanese Navy was only so large - they didn't have enough
Peter ships to be everywhere in the Pacific at once. /../

Peter /../ They could fly htier land-based bombers from their
Peter forward based in Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive
Peter without fighter escorts. The same, of course, would apply
Peter to any sea-borne invasions force - no fighter cover, and
Peter they'd be sitting ducks in the target area.

Peter /../ One of the most closely held secrets if the IJN was
Peter the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero)
Peter fighter. /../

Peter Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key
Peter to its success early in the war. /../

Sorry, but that's not true AFAIK: the fact that it came as a
surprise to some of the Allies is not the same as the IJN keeping
it a strict secret. The IJN never considered it secret, using it
in China. Chennault wrote of this fighter in 1940 and 1941, and
the Chinese certainly knew of this successor to the Type 96
'Claude'.

The existance of the Zero wasn't a secret - the fact that the Japanese
had built a single-engine fighter that could fly from Taipei to Manila
and back was. That was certainly not apparent to anybody, and the IJN
wasn't advertising that fact.

A short range fighter with extremely high performance certainly wasn't
unexpected - consider teh case of the Curtiss CW-21 "Demon" - a
lightweight short-ranged interceptor that exceeded the A6M in climb
and agility. The KNIL had a bunch of them in Java. Without the
ability to be warned in time to get off the ground and into position,
it didn't do them a bit of good.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster