Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 66

Thread: Tora, Tora, Tora

  1. #31
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Zack Baughman View Post
    Sigh...
    My thoughts exactly Zack.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  2. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    64
    i'm pretty sure there are more P-51's and B-17's flying now than there were 10 or 20 years ago.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    918
    And yet weirdly everyone gathers around a brightly colored WWI German airplane faster and thicker than they do a drab French or British one - and nobody gets upset at the implications of what the Great War meant in terms of lives lost.

    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  4. #34
    I don't have strong feelings either way regarding the Tora, Tora, Tora reenactment, but I guess that is because I am too young to relate. WWII was over long before my I was born. (I am 38). That said, I would be very upset if they had Boeing 767's simulating an attack on the twin towers.

    I guess I can see both sides of this issue.

    Bryan D

  5. #35
    That's interesting, Bryan. I thought about that also. There is a point of view by some that the terrorists were on a "honorable" mission. I don't buy it, of course, but as I noted previously, history is continually being re-written. Again, I will say that although I can appreciate seeing what was once enemy aircraft displayed and even flying (The reenactment is not with real jap aircraft.) my only point is about whether it "attack" will be honored. As mentioned before, a few years back former American pilots attending "Oshkosh" were not so appreciative former enemy pilots.

    I guess we can only wait and see if the now politically correct organization who had to change their name because it offended some will make changes in their presentation. I never suggested that the Tora, Tora, Tora reenactment should not happen at all, but if it is the desire to show what happened, let's be sure that we do not portray the attack as an act of conventional warfare. It was a war crime. Don't forget that the US and it's allies executed Japanese after the war because of war crimes and the Pearl Harbor attack was just one of them.

    I think I will stop making statements on this topic. I feel the "censorship" button is about to be pushed. I just hate that when it happens.

  6. #36
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    There's a pretty big difference between a hijacked airliner being flown as a manned cruise missile against a civilian population center and the use of a well-orchestrated strike by a military against a base.

    Don't forget that the US and it's allies executed Japanese after the war because of war crimes and the Pearl Harbor attack was just one of them.
    Actually, no, it wasn't. It was not a war crime because it did not violate any of the rules of warfare in place at that time. The folks who were executed were punished for the various examples of human experimentation, mass murder of unarmed parties (civilians or PoWs) , use of biological or chemical weapons, etc. No one was executed directly or indirectly for the Pearl Harbor attack itself. Even the mission to take out Yamamoto- while often painted as a "retaliation" for Pearl Harbor- had more to do with eliminating the most capable strategic and tactical leader the Japanese had in their ranks. The closest thing to a "war crimes" charge for the Pearl Harbor attacks could- in a very general way- be the charge leveled against some of the senior leadership of "waging aggressive war against the United States". However, the comments that accompanied those charges make it clear that they were leveled more towards the excesses allowed by the high command than the specific initiation of the war: "The indictment accused the defendants of promoting a scheme of conquest that "contemplated and carried out ... murdering, maiming and ill-treating prisoners of war (and) civilian internees ... forcing them to labor under inhumane conditions ... plundering public and private property, wantonly destroying cities, towns and villages beyond any justification of military necessity; (perpetrating) mass murder, rape, pillage, brigandage, torture and other barbaric cruelties upon the helpless civilian population of the over-run countries."
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  7. #37
    My point of my reply was not to say that the 911 attacks were more or less honorable than the Pearl Harbor attack. They both were dishonorable and despicable. My point was that the passing of time seems to make reenactments more palatable to the masses.

    Bryan D

  8. #38
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by flymichigan View Post
    My point of my reply was not to say that the 911 attacks were more or less honorable than the Pearl Harbor attack. They both were dishonorable and despicable. My point was that the passing of time seems to make reenactments more palatable to the masses.

    Bryan D
    Here's the odd thing: I know quite a few of the veterans of Pearl Harbor. One of them was sunbathing one of the hangars on Ford Island near where the first bomb landed. Almost all of them have made the point that while it was a sneak attack (which is kind of a given in military operations: you would have to be pretty stupid to give a well armed enemy a courtesy call before an attack), that from a military standpoint, it was a beautifully orchestrated and executed attack.

    I'm a veteran myself and while I see where you're coming from in assessing this as "dishonorable" and "despicable", I should point out that if you want to really look at it, most (all?) military operations tend to be able to be assessed in those same manners especially by the folks who were on the losing end of the battle. The attack the Americans made against Truk Lagoon, the Doolittle bombing raids on Tokyo, etc were all surprise attacks but you'd be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't look at them as heroic.

    There's nothing "honorable" or "dishonorable" about armed conflict (unless you're targeting civilians, etc). It sucks and the sooner we ditch this notion that there can be honor in it, the sooner we will start focusing on avoiding it at all costs. That said, there should be a lot of respect for the skill and bravery of the pilots on both sides. That is what should be taken away from the idea of a display about the raid on Pearl. Regardless of who won fought for, it takes a great deal of skill to operate from a carrier, fly into combat, do your job and then come back to land on that same carrier. I have no less respect for the Japanese pilots than I do for their American counterparts. That is one thing my grandfather- a veteran of the US Navy during WWII- drilled into my head as a kid. He said he never saw braver or more respectable men than those he fought with and against and anyone who disagreed was going to answer to him.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,538
    Japonese diplomats were supposed to deliver a document to Sec. of State Cordull Hull just before the Pearl Harbor attack, but they were an hour or so late. I am not sure if this document was a full declaration of war, or just canceling all diplomaitic relations, which amounted to the same thing.
    So it was a "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor. I don't know enough about the history of wars and legality of wars to know if that alone constitutes any war crime. I doubt it. If the U S and/or Israel make a bombing attack on IRAN, I don't think we will look at it as a crime.
    The Pearl Harbor attack was against legitimate military targets, not the civilian population or the city; any such damage was incidental and minor. Of course there were hundreds of crimes committed by the Japs in other parts of the war.
    Once the Allies got within bombing range of the home islands our B-29 raids were mostly against civilians in the cities and with the atomic bombs the U S is still the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons and the downside of it is that most of the victims of those two bombs were women, old men,and children in the cities,not the military fanatics most responsible for the war. We even intentionally spared the emperor.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 04-15-2012 at 04:33 PM.

  10. #40
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    any such damage was incidental and minor.
    ....and ironically mostly due to the anti-aircraft shells the Americans fired.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •