ADM Yamamoto: "I fear we will awaken a sleeping
giant". Terrorists: "History repeats itself..."
As an FYI, although this statement fairly accurately portrayed
his personal opinion according to people who knew him personally,
its actual attribution to Admiral Yamamoto was throughly debunked
years ago. It was a writer's creation for the movie "Tora Tora Tora".
Your source, please? I've seen the quote (which I paraphrased, it's longer) many times in many "official" sources; and seen nothing to disavow it.
Dean Robb
www.PC-Easy-va.com
On-site computer services
Member, ICANN At Large
Maybe he said it and was quoted for the movie? A rare case of a screenwriter being historically accurate? Since Yamamoto ain't around to ask, it's really moot - I was simply trying to make a point that terrorists have made a severe strategic error.
BTW: Sen. Biden used that quote today...
'Nuff said - let's try to be operational 
Dean Robb
www.PC-Easy-va.com
On-site computer services
Member, ICANN At Large
><http://www.io.com/~flashlk/quizofweek.htm> says:
>
>Question 1: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and
>fill him with a terrible resolve." Who said that and in what circumstance?
>(Difficulty 6).
>Answer 1: Japanese Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, commenting on the aftermath
>of the attack on Pearl Harbor (1941). Probably no truer words were ever
>spoken. The sneak attack that decimated the Pacific Fleet also unified the
>American people like no other single event in its history. From that point
>forward, the fascist powers were doomed.
>Source: Pearl Harbor, a Life Magazine Collector's Edition
If whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn
hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American
involvement at all. The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was
Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all
fronts.
US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from
occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany. It was
already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin).
From the point of view of saving Europe from communism it was a brilliant
move - wait for both sides to become exhausted before getting in. By that
time the Red Army had no resources to fight both desperate Nazi and Allied
Forces (Japanese were no threat at all to USSR because it was protected
by huge very sparsely inhabited landmass, so they could be safely
ignored for a while), and this is how the modern political map of Europe
came to be.
Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make
it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism. It didn't.
To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see
And if you ever wondered why America dropped A-bomb on Japan - it was to
prevent imminent occupation of Japan by the Red Army. After Germany
capitulated the Soviet armies were quickly shipped eastward, and were
quickly advancing (this you can also see on the world political map,
especially if you compare pre-war and post-war boundaries). The only way
to prevent People's Republic of Japan was to scare s*t out of Japanese to
force them to capitulate to Americans.
The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference
from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth. What US
involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis.
No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet
Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler.
Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel
they teach you as "history". "Fascist powers were doomed" because of
Pearl Harbor, sure. Until you check the figures and actually think for a
second or two.
--vadim
PS If you want to know how _that_ is related to Sep 11, you may be
interested to know that Chechens were collaborating with Nazi;
which prompted Stalin to retaliate after the war with mass
deportations. They were allowed to return decade or so later,
having no love for Russians and the Allies in WWII. That's how
their militant leaders became natural allies with Middle-Eastern
terrorists, including (surprise) bin Laden.
If whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn
hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American
involvement at all. The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was
Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all
fronts.
well, honestly rarely military actions turn a war... its way too easy to
define one battle or happening as the turning point for a world war. it was
the cascadation of several incidents which lead into the fall of the "third
reich". untill today historians are argueing about those incidents and
identifying which ones that could be. stalingrad was identified as one of
those incidents. there are several dozen incidents next to it. and several
times we had real luck that the germans underestimated several happenings
and took wrong decisions.
One thing please: Never underestimate the important role which the americans
had on the path of ww2, think of this, if america wouldn't had supported the
allies with a steady stream of ressource shipments, the end of ww2 may have
been very different.
US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from
occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany. It was
already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin).
it was agreed between the alliance forces that the red army was allowed to
take berlin first. i think it was one of the things winston churchill
claimed afterwards as one of the biggest failures.
From the point of view of saving Europe from communism it was a brilliant
move - wait for both sides to become exhausted before getting in. By that
time the Red Army had no resources to fight both desperate Nazi and Allied
Forces (Japanese were no threat at all to USSR because it was protected
by huge very sparsely inhabited landmass, so they could be safely
ignored for a while), and this is how the modern political map of Europe
came to be.
well communism was also a fear for the european countries at that point of
time. at least they felt very uncomfortable about that upcoming thread.
there was no official cold war during the time before ww2.
Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make
it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism. It didn't.
agreed, but not only us school box tell a modified truth. but gladly we have
the internet for ppl who want to inform theirselves. mostly the problem is
if you want to tell the whole truth, it would just take too much time. maybe
teachers at school should motivate their students more to inform themselves.
way too much ppl still think that stuff in books or tv just has to be true
because it is put into books and tv. ppl in general should ask more
questions and start to use their brains.
To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see
And if you ever wondered why America dropped A-bomb on Japan - it was to
prevent imminent occupation of Japan by the Red Army. After Germany
capitulated the Soviet armies were quickly shipped eastward, and were
quickly advancing (this you can also see on the world political map,
especially if you compare pre-war and post-war boundaries). The only way
to prevent People's Republic of Japan was to scare s*t out of Japanese to
force them to capitulate to Americans.
well there are different aspects, consult this link
http://www.marynet.com/hirosh.html
fact is the drop of the nuclear bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki was
unnecessary to end the war. japan was allready brought down to the knees. if
the bomb was used as final revenge because of pearl harbour, or as an
indirect thread for USSR is something you can discuss about... well it
doesnt change the facts hundred thousand of civilians found a terribe death.
i hope we all agree that there is no justification to use this weapon
anymore.
The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference
from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth. What US
involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis.
the us traditionally never wanted to get involved into european conflicts.
No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet
Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler.
agreed, stalin was no difference compared to hitler. the conflict between us
and ussr was not avoidable...
Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel
they teach you as "history". "Fascist powers were doomed" because of
Pearl Harbor, sure. Until you check the figures and actually think for a
second or two.
well its generalism. not all americans think like this, and those who do, i
think one explanation may be: that ww2 except of pearl harbour didnt had
the same influence on america as it had on europe. so most ppl aren't
interested about the detailed happenings of ww2 as we europeans maybe are.
--vadim
PS If you want to know how _that_ is related to Sep 11, you may be
interested to know that Chechens were collaborating with Nazi;
which prompted Stalin to retaliate after the war with mass
deportations. They were allowed to return decade or so later,
having no love for Russians and the Allies in WWII. That's how
their militant leaders became natural allies with Middle-Eastern
terrorists, including (surprise) bin Laden.
never forget that the middle east was a battlefield during the cold war, red
and blue missused ppl as peasants in a cruel game. However the middle east
problem is factors more complicate then the balkan problem... actually a
problem only middle east can solve on themselves. western nations can
support them, but dont dare to dictate them. never forget most countries in
middle east have histories going back 5000 years (like iran). and well the
osmanian empire also collapsed during ww2... a point you have to see too.
one of the problems may be that america always claims their role as global
leader. you can question if a global leader is allowed to follow his
national interests within the whole world. (i am sorry to say so but a lot
of those national interests are business interests) that is one of the
reasons why only a global community should claim global leadership.
my two cents to this topic
cheers
eric
If whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn
hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American
involvement at all. The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was
Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all
fronts.
Most Eastern Front action (although the 15th Air Force was helpful to the Russians with air support and Lend-Lease provided a great deal of Russian logistic vehicles), true. However, the North African campaign (Operation Torch, et al) and the Italian campaigns were conducted primarily by Americans. Of course, while the Normandy invasion and advance eastward were multi-national operations, the USA provided the vast majority of materiel, manpower, etc.
Stalingrad is widely regarded as the turning point for Germany's *Russian* campaign.
US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from
occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany. It was
already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin).
One wonders why Iosef Stalin was then so adamant that the other Allies MUST open a second front in France to sap German resources away from the Eastern Front? I must point out, too, that GEN Patton was poised to take Berlin well before the Russians arrived - but the political decision was made to allow the Red Army to take the city.
>From the point of view of saving Europe from communism it was a brilliant
move - wait for both sides to become exhausted before getting in. By that
time the Red Army had no resources to fight both desperate Nazi and Allied
Forces (Japanese were no threat at all to USSR because it was protected
by huge very sparsely inhabited landmass, so they could be safely
ignored for a while), and this is how the modern political map of Europe
came to be.
I might point out that the Americans (and allies) had been fighting Germans in North Africa and Italy for quite some time - not "waiting to get in".
Furthermore, to say that Russia was not concerned with Japan is a gross mis-statement. From 1938-1940 Russia and Japan fought a series of skirmishes and minor battles along the Mongolian border with Manchuria (then the Japanese province of Manchuko, captured from the Chinese). The Japanese incursions into Russian territory were troubling enough to Iosef Stalin that he sent Zhukov (THE Zhukov) to stop them. On Aug 20,1939 he did just that - wiping out the entire Japanese 23d Div of the Kwantung Army at the Battle of Khalkin-Gol in the world's first example of blitzkrieg (learned from the Germans who used it in Poland 33 days later). After destroying the Japanese forces all the way to the interior Manchurian border, Zhokov then loaded his tanks onto trains for a quick trip east. Waiting for Zhukov and his armor is why the Russians were two weeks behind the Germans in taking their chunk of Poland.
Several divisions of men were left on the Mongolian border to ensure the sanctity of the Non-Aggression Pact signed on 16 Sep 1939.
After the Japanese took Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, and wiped out the Russian Pacific Fleet, Russia *NEVER* took Japan lightly. In fact, modern Red China exists because of heavy Russian support to the People's Army in their fight against the Japanese; support intended to keep the Japanese from being a major threat to Russia. Russia didn't even declare war on the Japanese until 8 Aug 1945 - 2 days AFTER Hiroshima and the day before Nagasaki were A-bombed.
Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make
it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism. It didn't.
My history books included all kinds of small details - like the 15th Air Force flying ground support missions from North Africa and Sicily to assist the Red Army. Like Lend-Lease which provided Russia with most of it's logistic vehicles and a significant number of tanks - not to mention war materiel.
To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see
?? This does nothing to support your contentions...
And if you ever wondered why America dropped A-bomb on Japan - it was to
prevent imminent occupation of Japan by the Red Army. After Germany
capitulated the Soviet armies were quickly shipped eastward, and were
quickly advancing (this you can also see on the world political map,
especially if you compare pre-war and post-war boundaries). The only way
to prevent People's Republic of Japan was to scare s*t out of Japanese to
force them to capitulate to Americans.
Again, note that Russia didn't declare war on Japan until 8 Aug 1945 - 6 days before Japan surrendered. Although Russia *DID* invade Manchuria after declaring war, the Japanese had already abandoned it. Furthermore, the Russians had NO naval capacity and no landing craft - were they going to swim to Tokyo from Mongolia? With the US on the Japanese doorstep?
The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference
from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth. What US involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis.
I think that the NDSP, Vichy French and Italian Fascisti would find fault with that statement.
No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet
Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler.
Stalin was always suspicious of the other allies. The enemity of the US/USSR is a far larger issue than this.
Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel
they teach you as "history". "Fascist powers were doomed" because of
Pearl Harbor, sure. Until you check the figures and actually think for a
second or two.
Sorry, "fellow American" - your viewpoint of history shows a strong disregard for the facts and figures - as well as a lack of thought.
PS If you want to know how _that_ is related to Sep 11, you may be
interested to know that Chechens were collaborating with Nazi;
which prompted Stalin to retaliate after the war with mass
deportations. They were allowed to return decade or so later,
having no love for Russians and the Allies in WWII. That's how
their militant leaders became natural allies with Middle-Eastern
terrorists, including (surprise) bin Laden.
Somehow, the connection between Chechens not liking the US and the argument that the US was a minor player in WWII escapes me...
Further discourse can be off-list - but I could not let this public gross mis-representation of history stand.
Dean Robb
www.PC-Easy-va.com
On-site computer services
Member, ICANN At Large
>Question 1: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and
>fill him with a terrible resolve." Who said that and in what circumstance?
>(Difficulty 6).
>Answer 1: Japanese Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, commenting on the aftermath
>of the attack on Pearl Harbor (1941). Probably no truer words were ever
>spoken. The sneak attack that decimated the Pacific Fleet also unified the
>American people like no other single event in its history. From that point
>forward, the fascist powers were doomed.
>Source: Pearl Harbor, a Life Magazine Collector's EditionIf whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn
hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American
involvement at all. The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was
Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all
fronts.
if we restrict that particular comment made by a japanese admiral,
regarding the attack on on pearl harbor and the effect it had on the
us/japan portion of ww2, to the theater in which it applies (the
us/japan portion of ww2), then it's not really a pseudo-quotation.
i doubt very much that the japanese admiral was thinking that now that
the us had become interested in participating in ww2, the us would end
the war. i imagine he was just considering the effects the us would
have on japan.
Most Eastern Front action (although the 15th Air Force was helpful to the
Russians with air support and Lend-Lease provided a great deal of Russian
logistic vehicles), true. However, the North African campaign (Operation
Torch, et al) and the Italian campaigns were conducted primarily by
Americans. Of course, while the Normandy invasion and advance eastward
were multi-national operations, the USA provided the vast majority of
materiel, manpower, etc.
Of course, but the scale of any US operation in WWII was at least an order
of magnitude smaller than Eastern front battles. See casualty figures.
Stalingrad is widely regarded as the turning point for Germany's *Russian*
campaign.
Of course. But it was that campaign which broke Nazi's back.
>US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from
>occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany. It was
>already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin).One wonders why Iosef Stalin was then so adamant that the other Allies MUST
open a second front in France to sap German resources away from the Eastern
Front? I must point out, too, that GEN Patton was poised to take Berlin
well before the Russians arrived - but the political decision was made to
allow the Red Army to take the city.
Because he wasn't stupid and preferred to have Allies weakened by
protracted fighting with Nazis while saving Red Army's manpower for
subsequent occupation of the _entire_ Europe.
A lot is made of Staling "begging" for help; this contradicts all his
track record of being ruthlessly merciless, paranoid and always scheming.
Most likely, he simply wanted Allies to be dragged into land war
prematurely to get into much better position later.
WWII wasn't two-sided (Communists and Allies vs Nazi) but rather
three-sided; and Western leaders (I particularly admire Churchill's
ingenuity) played the stalling game quite well.
I might point out that the Americans (and allies) had been fighting Germans
in North Africa and Italy for quite some time - not "waiting to get in".
So did Soviet Union in Spain. For "waiting to get in" i were saying get
in to the land war in Europe. I think delaying was a very smart move,
strategically.
Furthermore, to say that Russia was not concerned with Japan is a gross
mis-statement. From 1938-1940 Russia and Japan fought a series of
skirmishes and minor battles along the Mongolian border with Manchuria
(then the Japanese province of Manchuko, captured from the Chinese).
Yep, but these were exactly what you said - skirmishes. They had no
geopolitical significance whatsoever - until the time to divide the world
between Communists and the West came.
The
Japanese incursions into Russian territory were troubling enough to Iosef
Stalin that he sent Zhukov (THE Zhukov) to stop them. On Aug 20,1939 he
did just that - wiping out the entire Japanese 23d Div of the Kwantung Army
at the Battle of Khalkin-Gol in the world's first example of blitzkrieg
(learned from the Germans who used it in Poland 33 days later). After
destroying the Japanese forces all the way to the interior Manchurian
border, Zhokov then loaded his tanks onto trains for a quick trip
east. Waiting for Zhukov and his armor is why the Russians were two weeks
behind the Germans in taking their chunk of Poland.
Several divisions of men were left on the Mongolian border to ensure the
sanctity of the Non-Aggression Pact signed on 16 Sep 1939.
Some military hitoricans (particularly, Suvorov) now insist that Stalin,
until the last moment, didn't believe that Nazis will attack USSR - to the
point of dismissing quite explicit intelligence reports. In any case,
there was no hurry in getting piece under Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
BTW, Zhukov became THE Zhukov during WWII, not before. Nearly all
prominent military commanders were killed by Stalin in purges of 37-39,
leaving Red Army with inexpirienced carde of relatively junior commanders.
Zhukov himself was moved into what amounted to honourable retirement after
WWII because he became too popular and could present a threat to Stalin's
rule.
After the Japanese took Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, and
wiped out the Russian Pacific Fleet, Russia *NEVER* took Japan lightly. In
fact, modern Red China exists because of heavy Russian support to the
People's Army in their fight against the Japanese; support intended to keep
the Japanese from being a major threat to Russia. Russia didn't even
declare war on the Japanese until 8 Aug 1945 - 2 days AFTER Hiroshima and
the day before Nagasaki were A-bombed.
Russia still doesn't have a peace treaty with Japan - because of the Kuril
Islands issue. The formal declararion of war was made pretty much when
USSR was prepared to overtake Japan -- otherwise it wouldn't make any
sense.
The Red Army was shipped from west to east nearly immediately after
capitulation of Germany - leaving no question about Stalin's intentions.
This i know not from history textbooks, but from my grandfathers, both of
whom were servicemen there.
>Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make
>it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism. It didn't.My history books included all kinds of small details - like the 15th Air
Force flying ground support missions from North Africa and Sicily to assist
the Red Army. Like Lend-Lease which provided Russia with most of it's
logistic vehicles and a significant number of tanks - not to mention war
materiel.
You know, the only visible American war materiel on Eastern front during
WWII was canned beef (sarcastically called "The Second Front"). Shipping
a _significant_ amount of heavy machinery under lend-lease was rather
impossible, i'm afraid. The convoys of boats carrying lend-lease goods
were under intensive attacks by Germans; and USSR didn't have sufficient
naval forces to provide adequate protection.
Of course, any help was deeply appreciated. But it just couldn't make a
significant difference, being only in a single percent range of the Soviet
industry output at the time.
>To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see
>
> Map - Losses in World War Two?? This does nothing to support your contentions...
This gives a sense of scale of battles. Back then, US military technology
wasn't in any sense special, so the casualties can be taken as a crude
estimate of actual military powers deployed.
Again, note that Russia didn't declare war on Japan until 8 Aug 1945 - 6
days before Japan surrendered. Although Russia *DID* invade Manchuria
after declaring war, the Japanese had already abandoned it. Furthermore,
the Russians had NO naval capacity and no landing craft - were they going
to swim to Tokyo from Mongolia? With the US on the Japanese doorstep?
The Pacific fleet was there, and (unlike US fleets) its supply lines were
short. They could make many turns in a relatively short time. Besides,
given the state of Japanese forces by that time the occupation wouldn't
take much.
Kuril islands are still occupied (or belong to, depending on which side
you're listening to) by Russia. How they could be captured "with no
landing craft" in the first place is left as an excercise in elementary
logic.
Note that i _never_ referred to opinions of any historicans, just made
conclusions from undeniable facts, assuming rational strategies from
commanders. (Assuming an irrational strategy is a way to explain anything
and is not really productive - but is found in historical books all too
often).
--vadim
You know, the only visible American war materiel on Eastern front during
WWII was canned beef (sarcastically called "The Second Front").
Yes, it was only:
' canned beef'
'trucks (Studebekkers, I can misuse their name)'
'a little of planes Aircobra'
and that's all. It saved a lot of lifes, but Stalin did not bothered about 'lifes'
so it really did
not influenced the history.