|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 12, 2020 19:26:46 GMT
fact of the matter is that any era is substantially unlike any other era, and so while we can see how attitudes change depending on the nature of the peacetime/wartime status
it would be interesting to catalog all the missed information and why people missed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 12, 2020 19:56:00 GMT
fact of the matter is that any era is substantially unlike any other era, and so while we can see how attitudes change depending on the nature of the peacetime/wartime status it would be interesting to catalog all the missed information and why people missed it. I have to ask again. Is there any concern that a thread like this could start "attracting flies"? Meaning, the thread turns up on someone's conspiracy theory search out on the internet, and they end up joining here under a screen name, wanting to post a few of their own threads... possibly very different than this one. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2020 0:03:02 GMT
fact of the matter is that any era is substantially unlike any other era, and so while we can see how attitudes change depending on the nature of the peacetime/wartime status it would be interesting to catalog all the missed information and why people missed it. I have to ask again. Is there any concern that a thread like this could start "attracting flies"? Meaning, the thread turns up on someone's conspiracy theory search out on the internet, and they end up joining here under a screen name, wanting to post a few of their own threads... possibly very different than this one. it's possible. it's also possible it delivers us a flood of nutbars, and cyber has to set up screening for new members. it's also possible we get more interested minds and freshen up the population a bit. only time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 13, 2020 21:20:05 GMT
Part of the reason this comes up is that figuring out the future of warfare is hard. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback something, but Saturday night is a totally different story. The problem with planning for future attacks is that it is almost entirely reactive, not proactive. When the World Trade Center was attacked in 1990, it was using a truck bomb. So they addapted and implemented various measures to prevent a future attack. They were ready for the next attack and would keep that bomb from getting close. The problem is the next attack is not something anyone expected. It was passenger airplanes used as guided missiles. At that point, all the previous planning went out the window. We had no defense against someone that no one had ever tried before. Since then, we have adapted and implemented new security measures. Armored door for airliner cockpits. TSA security screenings. Etc. You can argue how effective those are, but so far it has prevented a repeat of 9-11. The problem is that that does nothing to help us tell what the next attack will be. Maybe it's drone cluster bombs. Or a dirty bomb. Or who knows what. We don't know what it will be. That is the $64 Trillion question. "So, yes, conspiracy is easy. It is also conveniently easy to accentuate the absurdity too: taking the whole story way over the top such that no one can see it." Take the thing so over the top that no one can see it and then throw in a type of warfare that no one has ever seen before. In 1941, nearly all the brass in the USN were former battleship commanders. So how did they think when it came to attacking a land target? Pull up your big guns off short and start lobbing shells. One guy tried telling the Navy that air power would change warfare. He was an Army guy who managed to embarrass the Navy commanders in some 1920's war games. He was Brigadier General William L. Mitchell, and would eventually be forced to retire when the brass at the time didn't agree with his view of the future. Pearl Harbor, in a way, was history showing Mitchell to be right. In a way, the Navy didn't couldn't think that an attack on Pearl was possible because they had simply never conceived that it was even possible. Even if they had all the evidence in front of them, I don't think they could have figured out what the bigger picture was because it was something the world had never seen before. Because of the way they had been trained and they way they had fought wars for, really, a couple hundred years previous to this, the who idea of long range air strikes just never was something they thought could happen. 1937. Airforce painfully introduces Pacific fleet of the U.S. Navy to the notion of bombing battleships with aircraft. The ideas regarding what aircraft could do had been floated years before 1941 in many ways. It was well established. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2020 22:47:44 GMT
Part of the reason this comes up is that figuring out the future of warfare is hard. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback something, but Saturday night is a totally different story. The problem with planning for future attacks is that it is almost entirely reactive, not proactive. When the World Trade Center was attacked in 1990, it was using a truck bomb. So they addapted and implemented various measures to prevent a future attack. They were ready for the next attack and would keep that bomb from getting close. The problem is the next attack is not something anyone expected. It was passenger airplanes used as guided missiles. At that point, all the previous planning went out the window. We had no defense against someone that no one had ever tried before. Since then, we have adapted and implemented new security measures. Armored door for airliner cockpits. TSA security screenings. Etc. You can argue how effective those are, but so far it has prevented a repeat of 9-11. The problem is that that does nothing to help us tell what the next attack will be. Maybe it's drone cluster bombs. Or a dirty bomb. Or who knows what. We don't know what it will be. That is the $64 Trillion question. "So, yes, conspiracy is easy. It is also conveniently easy to accentuate the absurdity too: taking the whole story way over the top such that no one can see it." Take the thing so over the top that no one can see it and then throw in a type of warfare that no one has ever seen before. In 1941, nearly all the brass in the USN were former battleship commanders. So how did they think when it came to attacking a land target? Pull up your big guns off short and start lobbing shells. One guy tried telling the Navy that air power would change warfare. He was an Army guy who managed to embarrass the Navy commanders in some 1920's war games. He was Brigadier General William L. Mitchell, and would eventually be forced to retire when the brass at the time didn't agree with his view of the future. Pearl Harbor, in a way, was history showing Mitchell to be right. In a way, the Navy didn't couldn't think that an attack on Pearl was possible because they had simply never conceived that it was even possible. Even if they had all the evidence in front of them, I don't think they could have figured out what the bigger picture was because it was something the world had never seen before. Because of the way they had been trained and they way they had fought wars for, really, a couple hundred years previous to this, the who idea of long range air strikes just never was something they thought could happen. 1937. Airforce painfully introduces Pacific fleet of the U.S. Navy to the notion of bombing battleships with aircraft. The ideas regarding what aircraft could do had been floated years before 1941 in many ways. It was well established. remember that the air force brass is currently buying dogfighters in an era when most air to air combat happens from over the horizon. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 13, 2020 22:55:11 GMT
It had previously been argued, rather firmly, that the U.S. was not yet at war. So U.S. alert levels were low and contact not a consideration for Hawaii, December 1941.
It turns out we were at war. Worse, it was on the Atlantic coast, nearer the U.S. war department such that officials there would be in constant awareness of war.
So, as it turns out, entering 1941 alert levels were high. (At least within the war department and FDRs offices they were)
There is absolutely NO excuse for any "denied intelligence" December, 1941, denied Hawaii command by U.S. War Department officials in Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2020 23:28:21 GMT
It had previously been argued, rather firmly, that the U.S. was not yet at war. So U.S. alert levels were low and contact not a consideration for Hawaii, December 1941. It turns out we were at war. Worse, it was on the Atlantic coast, nearer the U.S. war department such that officials there would be in constant awareness of war. So, as it turns out, entering 1941 alert levels were high. (At least within the war department and FDRs offices they were) There is absolutely NO excuse for any "denied intelligence" December, 1941, denied Hawaii command by U.S. War Department officials in Washington. no, there is no excuse, however, since it happened, there must be an explanation. and, of course, it is the explanation we are interested in. we have an explanation why the radar contact was ignored - there was a flight of planes expected and somebody assumed the radar contact was that flight of planes. here is a basic overview of the progression of communications during the wars. - I found it while I was looking to see if there was a reason the radar contact didn't include a conversation of a nature of commander:"expected flight, we see you on radar at _____" flight: "but that's not where we are." commander:"..." so if there was a german hostility on the east coast - would the brass have become more alert to the possibility of a hostility from Japan? or would they have been looking for another Lusitania incident? |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 13, 2020 23:33:52 GMT
It had previously been argued, rather firmly, that the U.S. was not yet at war. So U.S. alert levels were low and contact not a consideration for Hawaii, December 1941. It turns out we were at war. Worse, it was on the Atlantic coast, nearer the U.S. war department such that officials there would be in constant awareness of war. So, as it turns out, entering 1941 alert levels were high. (At least within the war department and FDRs offices they were) There is absolutely NO excuse for any "denied intelligence" December, 1941, denied Hawaii command by U.S. War Department officials in Washington. no, there is no excuse, however, since it happened, there must be an explanation. and, of course, it is the explanation we are interested in. we have an explanation why the radar contact was ignored - there was a flight of planes expected and somebody assumed the radar contact was that flight of planes. here is a basic overview of the progression of communications during the wars. - I found it while I was looking to see if there was a reason the radar contact didn't include a conversation of a nature of commander:"expected flight, we see you on radar at _____" flight: "but that's not where we are." commander:"..." so if there was a german hostility on the east coast - would the brass have become more alert to the possibility of a hostility from Japan? or would they have been looking for another Lusitania incident? All of what you say here works, until you factor in that "east coast brass" was aware of intelligence about Hawaii that they apparently "denied" Hawaii brass. Such that if Kimmel (Hawaii) had, had that intelligence his people would NOT have behaved in the manner you outlined above. Anyway, the argument that we were all asleep isn't true. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2020 23:43:06 GMT
no, there is no excuse, however, since it happened, there must be an explanation. and, of course, it is the explanation we are interested in. we have an explanation why the radar contact was ignored - there was a flight of planes expected and somebody assumed the radar contact was that flight of planes. here is a basic overview of the progression of communications during the wars. - I found it while I was looking to see if there was a reason the radar contact didn't include a conversation of a nature of commander:"expected flight, we see you on radar at _____" flight: "but that's not where we are." commander:"..." so if there was a german hostility on the east coast - would the brass have become more alert to the possibility of a hostility from Japan? or would they have been looking for another Lusitania incident? All of what you say here works, until you factor in that "east coast brass" was aware of intelligence about Hawaii that they apparently "denied" Hawaii brass. Such that if Kimmel (Hawaii) had, had that intelligence his people would NOT have behaved in the manner you outlined above. Anyway, the argument that we were all asleep isn't true. right. all intelligence got funneled to the east coast, and then the east coast brass made the decision whether to send it down the ladder. so did they ignore the pacific information because they were fixated on germany? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 13, 2020 23:56:52 GMT
All this, "brass couldn't figure out new warfare" and "brass was focused on the Atlantic" is not a viable argument.
People from World War One invented the new war technology and techniques. Hitler and his commanders coming up with Lightning Warfare, for one.
Once a military like the United States, using commanders like these with experience in war from world one, gets rolling the only thing preventing them from committing forces where needed was immense pacifism of the American congress and American public.
People were sick of war and were not about get on board. FDR already went to the American public once, if you've seen Mark Felton's video (which I doubt). Had the attack been repressed in Hawaii America could enter the war, it's true. But, just like previous skirmishes, the public would apparently still prefer keeping the incident behind them and blissful peace ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2020 0:41:34 GMT
All this, "brass couldn't figure out new warfare" and "brass was focused on the Atlantic" is not a viable argument. People from World War One invented the new war technology and techniques. Hitler and his commanders coming up with Lightning Warfare, for one. Once a military like the United States, using commanders like these with experience in war from world one, gets rolling the only thing preventing them from committing forces where needed was immense pacifism of the American congress and American public. People were sick of war and were not about get on board. FDR already went to the American public once, if you've seen Mark Felton's video (which I doubt). Had the attack been repressed in Hawaii America could enter the war, it's true. But, just like previous skirmishes, the public would apparently still prefer keeping the incident behind them and blissful peace ahead. and why was it that hitler's blitzkreig was successful, again? |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 14, 2020 0:47:07 GMT
remember that the air force brass is currently buying dogfighters in an era when most air to air combat happens from over the horizon. If you'll recall, the very first generation of F-4s had no guns; only missiles. Back during the first part of Vietnam, the Air Force brass and several top aircraft designers all came to believe that advancements in air-to-air missiles had led to cannons being completely obsolete. It wasn't until some humiliating incidents against North Vietnamese (and possibly Chinese or even Russian) MiG aircraft that a hasty machine gun attachment was put together as a stop-gap until the aircraft could be refitted with proper cannons. Barring a few specific examples (like the YF-23 and the proposed Navy version of the AH-64), it seems the Navy and Air Force haven't forgotten this lesson and are still trying to keep it in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 14, 2020 0:47:35 GMT
All this, "brass couldn't figure out new warfare" and "brass was focused on the Atlantic" is not a viable argument. People from World War One invented the new war technology and techniques. Hitler and his commanders coming up with Lightning Warfare, for one. Once a military like the United States, using commanders like these with experience in war from world one, gets rolling the only thing preventing them from committing forces where needed was immense pacifism of the American congress and American public. People were sick of war and were not about get on board. FDR already went to the American public once, if you've seen Mark Felton's video (which I doubt). Had the attack been repressed in Hawaii America could enter the war, it's true. But, just like previous skirmishes, the public would apparently still prefer keeping the incident behind them and blissful peace ahead. and why was it that hitler's blitzkreig was successful, again? Money. He got money sent to him from an "adoring" world because he would fight Communism. So he built up a lot of weaponry. (Money from his book too that the world just couldn't get enough of. 1936, ol Hitler was a worldwide hit. He had most of us fooled, drunk on anti communism) Meanwhile people like Chamberlain, people like the American public, people like the Polish, all wanted to deny an upcoming war (Polish getting introduced to it early on) It WAS NOT because "old warhorse, world war one types" couldn't figure out how to fight. Tell that to Patton, Montgomery, Mcarthur, and the like. They'd introduce you to your rear sector pretty quick. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 14, 2020 0:59:07 GMT
and why was it that hitler's blitzkreig was successful, again? Which part of it? For example, the top brass in France were convinced that Hitler's armor was too heavy to make it through the thick forests of the Ardennes, and so if he was going to invade he'd likely go through Belgium where the terrain was flatter. As such, they left the central portion of France guarded largely by reservists and second-line units, most of whom lacked the training, discipline, or firepower needed to deal with the kind of heavy armor Hitler was packing. A junior officer grimly noted that if Hitler did come through the Ardennes they were toast, but high command ignored him. Sure enough... that's just what Hitler did. His commanders realized that if they could push through the Ardennes and capture a key river crossing within 24 hours, they'd be so deep within France that it'd be impossible for the northern and southern French forces to dislodge them. At something like 23.5 hours, the defenders of a key bridge over that crossing broke and panicked, at which point the German armor rolled right over it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2020 1:05:30 GMT
and why was it that hitler's blitzkreig was successful, again? Money. He got money sent to him from an "adoring" world because he would fight Communism. So he built up a lot of weaponry. Meanwhile people like Chamberlain, people like the American public, people like the Polish, all wanted to deny an upcoming war (Polish getting introduced to it early on) It WAS NOT because "old warhorse, world war one types" couldn't figure out how to fight. Tell that to Patton, Montgomery, Mcarthur, and the like. They'd introduce you to your rear sector pretty quick. from Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_warfarealso, if I may point out: patton was not stationed in Washington DC before WWII. I didn't look up the other two. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 14, 2020 1:08:39 GMT
"Summer 1940"
In your OWN text it shows we were getting up to speed BEFORE December 1941.
Besides, my using Hitler before was just to show that world war one people weren't out of touch and asleep at the switch
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2020 1:09:10 GMT
and why was it that hitler's blitzkreig was successful, again? Which part of it? For example, the top brass in France were convinced that Hitler's armor was too heavy to make it through the thick forests of the Ardennes, and so if he was going to invade he'd likely go through Belgium where the terrain was flatter. As such, they left the central portion of France guarded largely by reservists and second-line units, most of whom lacked the training, discipline, or firepower needed to deal with the kind of heavy armor Hitler was packing. A junior officer grimly noted that if Hitler did come through the Ardennes they were toast, but high command ignored him. Sure enough... that's just what Hitler did. His commanders realized that if they could push through the Ardennes and capture a key river crossing within 24 hours, they'd be so deep within France that it'd be impossible for the northern and southern French forces to dislodge them. At something like 23.5 hours, the defenders of a key bridge over that crossing broke and panicked, at which point the German armor rolled right over it. the part where your tanks are your attacking force instead of being support for your infantry. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2020 1:14:29 GMT
"Summer 1940" In your OWN text it shows we were getting up to speed BEFORE December 1941. and I'm sure if Japan had invaded pearl harbor with tanks, we would have figured out they were coming and been ready for them. or if you prefer. youre absolutely right. why didn't our strategists in DC say "wow, the germans turned their tanks loose and they rolled right through france. we'd better change all our assumptions about Japan's naval warfare." |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 14, 2020 1:23:11 GMT
"Summer 1940" In your OWN text it shows we were getting up to speed BEFORE December 1941. and I'm sure if Japan had invaded pearl harbor with tanks, we would have figured out they were coming and been ready for them. or if you prefer. youre absolutely right. why didn't our strategists in DC say "wow, the germans turned their tanks loose and they rolled right through france. we'd better change all our assumptions about Japan's naval warfare." Kimmel and today Kimmel's family declare that intelligence about Hawaii was denied to be delivered. Not that it wasn't understood, or thought to really be about Germany. It emphatically declares that had Kimnel been privy to this war department information about Hawaii things would have gone differently. Trouble is, the resulting skirmish (had they been ready for an attack, the tables may have even been turned) could have been met with the same tepid response from the American public that FDR already dealt with. So... Was Hawaii a "surprise"? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2020 1:37:02 GMT
and I'm sure if Japan had invaded pearl harbor with tanks, we would have figured out they were coming and been ready for them. or if you prefer. youre absolutely right. why didn't our strategists in DC say "wow, the germans turned their tanks loose and they rolled right through france. we'd better change all our assumptions about Japan's naval warfare." Kimmel and today Kimmel's family declare that intelligence about Hawaii was denied to be delivered. Not that it wasn't understood, or thought to really be about Germany. It emphatically declares that had Kimnel been privy to this war department information about Hawaii things would have gone differently. Trouble is, the resulting skirmish (had they been ready for an attack, the tables may have even been turned) could have been met with the same tepid response from the American public that FDR already dealt with. So... Was Hawaii a "surprise"? yes, if kimmel had been given the information directly, he would probably have had a different response than the strategists in Washington DC had. that implies really strongly that the strategists in washington DC had a different thought process going on than Kimmel had going on. now, you've already dismissed "they wouldn't attack us, we're America" "no worries, we'll see their battleships coming miles away" and "we don't have time to worry about Japan, right now, we need to figure out how to have another Lusitania incident to get America behind us to go into war in Europe" as possible thought processes. However, you're basing that partly on hindsight and the assumption that the strategists were looking at the big picture. ll |
|
