Oh yeah, the English are sooo educated.

[MakiSupaStar]

Your navy was rendered ineffective, it took a huge hit at Pearl Harbor.

Just the Pacific Fleet.

 

[morf]

Well whoever said it is not important because I'm an American. The conversation degenerated into possible staging areas for invading the US. You mentioned Japan, and I poo poo'd your idea. Then you countered my poo poo with someone elses comment like I was foolish for even addressing the very idea that you presented. Oh I'm wise to you and your buttery philosophical tactics my little French friend.

I agreed with his argument, we were discussing this within a given context... I do also post here to learn something and exchange idea, not just shove your face in your poo-poo I didn't "counter" your argument, you do have a point outside the given context, no doubt about that. However, as to not to hurt your sensitive pride, next time I will say "I entirely agree with you Maki" before moving on to discussing something on point

 

[morf]

Just the Pacific Fleet.

My point exactly. Which left your whole west coast undefended and invasion-ready.

 

[Thor]

Your navy was rendered ineffective, it took a huge hit at Pearl Harbor.

Didn't the Brits sink most of your Navy?

 

[Tegzsa]

Your navy was rendered ineffective, it took a huge hit at Pearl Harbor.

But even then they knew they had failed. Missed the carrier groups.

Bizmarck, Tirpitz, Yamato: all destroyed or incapacitated by aircraft (Tirpitz by Lancaster Bombers, admittedly).

 

[MakiSupaStar]

I agreed with his argument, we were discussing this within a given context... I do also post here to learn something and exchange idea, not just shove your face in your poo-poo I didn't "counter" your argument, you do have a point outside the given context, no doubt about that. However, as to not to hurt your sensitive pride, next time I will say "I entirely agree with you Maki" before moving on to discussing something on point

Thank You. That will suffice. Now have a spliff.

 

[Thor]

My point exactly. Which left your whole west coast undefended and invasion-ready.

If that was the case, the Battle of Midway would have been in
Catalina.

 

[morf]

Thank You. That will suffice. Now have a spliff.

Yes I entirely agree with you Maki.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

If that was the case, the Battle of Midway would have been in
Catalina.

LMAO. Some of those j holes boater out in Catalina deserve a good whooping at sea.

 

[morf]

Didn't the Brits sink most of your Navy?

What is your point? You see what I mean? I state a historical fact and here they come a-jumping on my back as if I took the glove off and slapped em across the face. I hope your next post won't be about how Europeans despise Americans and displays of "hate" are witnessed across the globe.

If that was the case, the Battle of Midway would have been in
Catalina.

Not with Russia and Japan by Germany's side.

 

[Nikoubis]

This thread is well on its way to epicness. I hope it doesn't get locked before it reaches its prime.

 

[middy]

Your navy was rendered ineffective, it took a huge hit at Pearl Harbor.

You need to hit the books some more. Our shipyards, carriers, and subs were untouched. Our carriers and subs went on to dismantle the Japanese fleet. The heyday of the battleship had already passed when Japan took ours out.

 

[morf]

You need to hit the books some more. Our shipyards, carriers, and subs were untouched. Our carriers and subs went on to dismantle the Japanese fleet. The heyday of the battleship had already passed when Japan took ours out.

Is that why 4 days after Pearl Harbor there was a new Pacific Fleet Admiral appointed? I don't think that the Pacific Fleet could have defended the coast against an invasion if it had followed up Pearl Harbor, given Russia had been in the game.

 

[abngourmet]

No, it wouldn't be ignoring going on the ground. It would just place airpower higher on the deciding scale than ground troops, and I believe it was. My wording was strong, deciding factor is a bit of a stretch, but I'm pretty sure that air power played the most important (well, second most after the bomb) role in this war. That does not belittle the importance of ground troops at all, nor the importance of the battles, won or lost, but I believe it is the bombing that did the psychological damage which led leaders to make the decisions they did.

I'd disagree. If one looks at the role airpower has played in history, it has never been a deciding factor in the outcome of a conflict (with the possible exception of the dropping of the atom bomb). Psychologically speaking, it's never led leaders or the led to give up. In fact, numerous studies I've seen note that bombing actually hardens resolve rather than weaken it.

If I were to accept your argument that bombing influences leaders to make the decisions they do, I'd agree, but not in a positive way. For example, in 1943 Hamburg was firebombed. The whole city became a giant firestorm, with tens of thousands killed and many more made immediately homeless. Yet, the Nazi regime continued on for another two years. Dresden was hit in the same way in one of the most controversial air attacks in history; yet the Nazi regime carried on until May 7, 1945, three months after that raid. Our bombing campaign in Kosovo didn't end that conflict - negotiations did. In fact, many of the targets we hit in Kosovo were decoys. We know this since once the agreement was made, Milosevic's troops basically left intact in the same numbers they'd arrived in for the most part. Psychologically, it was a failure. I'd submit that airpower is but one of many factors which influence adversaries to take the actions and make the decisions they do.

 

[morf]

I'd disagree. If one looks at the role airpower has played in history, it has never been a deciding factor in the outcome of a conflict (with the possible exception of the dropping of the atom bomb). Psychologically speaking, it's never led leaders or the led to give up. In fact, numerous studies I've seen note that bombing actually hardens resolve rather than weaken it.

If I were to accept your argument that bombing influences leaders to make the decisions they do, I'd agree, but not in a positive way. For example, in 1943 Hamburg was firebombed. The whole city became a giant firestorm, with tens of thousands killed and many more made immediately homeless. Yet, the Nazi regime continued on for another two years. Dresden was hit in the same way in one of the most controversial air attacks in history; yet the Nazi regime carried on until May 7, 1945, three months after that raid. Our bombing campaign in Kosovo didn't end that conflict - negotiations did. In fact, many of the targets we hit in Kosovo were decoys. We know this since once the agreement was made, Milosevic's troops basically left intact in the same numbers they'd arrived in for the most part. Psychologically, it was a failure. I'd submit that airpower is but one of many factors which influence adversaries to take the actions and make the decisions they do.

If their decisions were limited to "give up/dont give up", but didn't negociations take place because of the bombings?

 

[abngourmet]

If their decisions were limited to "give up/dont give up", but didn't negociations take place because of the bombings?

Dresden and Hamburg no. In the case of Kosovo, negotiations were ongoing while the air campaign was ocurring.

 

[morf]

Dresden and Hamburg no. In the case of Kosovo, negotiations were ongoing while the air campaign was ocurring.

I'm not talking about the when but the why. Negociations taking place after a bombing (up to weeks) seems pretty normal if its the result of said bombing.

 

[middy]

Is that why 4 days after Pearl Harbor there was a new Pacific Fleet Admiral appointed? I don't think that the Pacific Fleet could have defended the coast against an invasion if it had followed up Pearl Harbor, given Russia had been in the game.

The fleet wasn't even needed to defend the coast. Remember that air power you were talking about? Remember how our carriers took out Japanese battleships. Airfields are much better than carriers. A couple handfuls of bombers and a few squadrons of fighters could have sunk anything that got close to the coast.

 

[morf]

The fleet wasn't even needed to defend the coast. Remember that air power you were talking about? Remember how our carriers took out Japanese battleships. Airfields are much better than carriers. A couple handfuls of bombers and a few squadrons of fighters could have sunk anything that got close to the coast.

True, but an invasion doesn't strictly mean ships only on the attacker's side, and the air force was lacking pilots at the time. If we're talking invasion, it also means a fleet of Germans and a fleet of Japanese. Inevitably the only real obstacle was the distance, not the Pacific coast defense.

 

[Thor]

What is your point?

Mers-el-Kébir. Brits attack Vichy French Navy.

You see what I mean? I state a historical fact and here they come a-jumping on my back as if I took the glove off and slapped em across the face. I hope your next post won't be about how Europeans despise Americans and displays of "hate" are witnessed across the globe.

Yes, my next post is about that!

Its all about the cheese. Don't blame you there.

You can't trust a country with that many varieties of cheese.
Gen. Charles de Gaulle, remarking on the difficulty of uniting the
French on a single issue after WWII, famously grumbled: "you cannot
easily bring together a country that has 265 kinds of cheese." And now
600 and counting.

It becomes a politically divisive situation. I mean, would
a person whose village makes Brie fight to save a person
whose roots prescribe Camembert or Roqueforte as the
politically correct food of choice? I think not! And do said
individuals look down on the consumers of 'American Cheese'
with disdain? Of course! I mean, its not even food. They
have to label it 'processed cheese food' or something like that.

This had lead to a post war rift in Franco-American relations
that had been so carefully cultivated by the Marquis de Lafayette
with the help of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and later
Thomas Jefferson, and finally James Madison.

These men obviously appreciated liberty, the pursuit of happiness
and good cheese.

From this, we can infer that the production of products like
American Cheese and 'Miracle Whip' have reflected the decline
and fall of American culture.