Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: "Sneak Attack"?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575

    "Sneak Attack"?

    The progress in aviation , with the aircraft carrier and carrier borne aircraft made Japans "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor possible.
    And I think that is a basis for why many people in the U S, particlarly in those days have so much animosity toward Japan. I note that Japan did not attack civilan areas on Oahu.I dont know if this was moral method or just best use of airpower?

    Is this a fair view? I dont know if there were any genearlly accpeted international agreements back then that prohibited an attack before war was declared ed. My brief research found that Japan had a surprise attacl on Russia in 1904, assume it was naval, and the tatic was applauded by the U S and England as we were on the same side.
    If the U S,for instance was to launch a preemptive air strike on Iran or N Korea, would it be secret or war declared in advance? My guess is it would be secret.

    I do think Japan has a lot more to aplogize for with their conduct of the rest of the war, horrible treatment of both prisoners and civilians with many civilians killed in China. And they have offered some apologizes like last year, Ie from P M Abe, that Japan " took the wrong course" to war. The wording is sometimes round about , not so direct.

    Why would Japan even attack a country 10 times its industrial strength? We had cut off trade in steel and oil to Japan in protest over their actions toward China.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 12-11-2016 at 01:27 PM.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    The progress in aviation , with the aircraft carrier and carrier borne aircraft made Japans "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor possible.
    And I think that is a basis for why many people in the U S, particlarly in those days have so much animosity toward Japan. I note that Japan did not attack civilan areas on Oahu.I dont know if this was moral method or just best use of airpower?

    Is this a valid view? I dont know if there were any genearlly accpeted international agreements back then that prohibited an attack before war was declared ed. My brief research found that Japan had a sneak attacl on Russia in 1904, assume it was naval, and was applauded by the U S and England for it as we were on the same side.
    If the U S, Brits, or Israel for instance was to launch a preemptive air strike on Iran or N Korea, would it be secret or war declared in advance? My guess is it would be secret.

    I do think Japan has a lot more to aplogize for with their conduct of the rest of the war, horrible treatment of both prisoners and civilians with many civilians killed in China. And they have offered some apologizes like last year, Ie from P M Abe, that Japan " took the wrong course" to war. The wording is sometimes round about , not so direct.

    Why would Japan even attack a country 10 times its industrial strength? We had cut off trade in steel and oil to Japan in protest over their agression toward China.
    Bill, I understand the historical aspect of this post, but I think it's riding a fine line of creating an aviation centered conversation.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Glory Aulik View Post
    Bill, I understand the historical aspect of this post, but I think it's riding a fine line of creating an aviation centered conversation.
    I and others here I'm sure disagree. Bill's post(s) is not only legitimate, it's highly
    relevant for this forum and this warbirds sub-section. No fine line here. If the Pearl Harbour attack was not completely 100% about aviation then it was about nothing.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    I and others here I'm sure disagree. Bill's post(s) is not only legitimate, it's highly
    relevant for this forum and this warbirds sub-section. No fine line here. If the Pearl Harbour attack was not completely 100% about aviation then it was about nothing.
    The intent of the post is to stir up a controversy about global politics and world power. The first couple of sentences are an attempt to anchor the topic in aviation, but the remainder of the post is trolling at its finest.
    Last edited by Kyle Boatright; 12-09-2016 at 04:57 PM.

  5. #5
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    I and others here I'm sure disagree. Bill's post(s) is not only legitimate, it's highly
    relevant for this forum and this warbirds sub-section. No fine line here. If the Pearl Harbour attack was not completely 100% about aviation then it was about nothing.
    No...it's an attempt at a political discussion with a flimsy attempt to make it look like it belongs in an aviation group.

    Every capital in the world has an airport, and the local financial health affects the quality of the airport. Hence, discussion of, for instance, the market price of goats in Botswana would then become a legitimate topic for the EAA forums. Don't you WANT good airports????!!!!

    Ron Wanttaja
    Last edited by rwanttaja; 12-09-2016 at 05:34 PM.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Glory,the word "politics is not even in my topic above, I didnt write it. "Global politics and world power" was written by Kyle in his attempt to slant my topic, those arent my words or theme. Mine is about 230 planes attacking with bombs torpedos and strafing, and by surprise. if a discussion of this is not about aviation and warbirds, then what is? No better evidence than EAA s own warbird magazine with stories of AIRPLANES, WARBIRDS that are reputed to have been at Pearl Harbor. Have you ever been to the Pacific AVIATION Museum on Ford Island, which is full of and focused on the PLANES of the attack, including the remains of a genuine Zero which was actually in the attack. I have also taken an aeriel tour of Oahu which retraced the path of the attacking PLANES, which Id highly reccomend to vistors. I also just saw again the movie Pearl Harbor which focuses on two PILOTS as part of the story, with artist license, and I know a couple of PILOTS who actuall FLEW for the movie.
    And it is also about navy ships since these were the main target of the attack.

    Even the the mini sub has a small aviation connection which I was going to post next, because its of interest and not widely known.
    I included the discussion of the nature of the attack since it is such a factor and several posters here had expressed such strong feelings about itand our declartion of war the next day mentioned it.
    And for Kyle and Bryan, its not about world politics other than the note that P M Abe attended the ceremony this year.
    I invite Kyle to just avoid reading any post I write, since he seems to have a personal objection, though far as I know we've never even met.

    Glory, I am not sure if objectors want a harsher view or more forgiving view of this event,but I think my post is not "riding a fine line" but is firmly on the side of aviation and I try to take a factual and fair middle ground.

    I have just found an indirect connection between Pearl Harbor and the atomic bomb mission. I was going to post it one day, because I think folks would find it INTERESTING. An the atomic bomb is certainly about aviation, and warbirds, B-29s and my post will have nothing to do with politics.If you read the two books, Enola Gay, and Abondon Ship you may find the information that I just did, and my post will not be about politics though that is a part of the bomb story.

    Finally Glory, what sentence or phrase to you object to? I dont see one.The word politics is not even in what I first wrote, much less anything about "global politics and world power"contoversy.

    I also have a story of my personal flying at Ford Island which some may find of interest and even learning from it, AND IT WONT HAVE ANY POLITCS IN IT.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 12-11-2016 at 06:53 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright View Post
    The intent of the post is to stir up a controversy about global politics and world power. The first couple of sentences are an attempt to anchor the topic in aviation, but the remainder of the post is trolling at its finest.
    Naaaaahhhh....Bill is just being enthusiastically interesting.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    No...it's an attempt at a political discussion with a flimsy attempt to make it look like it belongs in an aviation group.

    Every capital in the world has an airport, and the local financial health affects the quality of the airport. Hence, discussion of, for instance, the market price of goats in Botswana would then become a legitimate topic for the EAA forums. Don't you WANT good airports????!!!!

    Ron Wanttaja
    Yes, I WANT good airports. I also want reasonably priced goats from Botswana because I believe in fair market value for Botswanian goat herders. I now return you to Pearl Harbour where no goats were harmed during the attack.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    Naaaaahhhh....Bill is just being enthusiastically interesting.
    It is a boundary that certain individuals push and push and push. Some boards move the line to give the boundary pushers more space (or ignore when they are repeatedly over the line), some places (here) are obviously trying to figure out what to do about posts like these, and others ask people not to push the boundaries, then ultimately end up banning posters who can't respect the board's guidelines.

    I suspect it is tougher to manage here, because anyone who posts here is an EAA member and the EAA is <probably> pretty leery of denying posting privileges to paying members.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Some get an e-mail explaining the rules. I guess some don't get this e-mail. I wonder how I would know about this e-mail?

Posting Permissions

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