to be honest i believe that pearl harbor was known to at least some people in our government. the main reason i say that is because who did we go after? answer, germany not japan. our main thrust after pearl harbor was to maintain britain, to get supplies to britain. practically all of our resources was put to the battle of the atlantic. only after germany was defeated did we go after japan in earnest.
hahahahahahhaaha!!!!! ok guy. you just insulted me earlier saying that it wasnt true, and now you say "yes we knew something was up". ok buddy. so? they are right wing, just like you..i would think you would welcome it. you have some sort of problem with libertarianism? wow, you must realllly hate the founding fathers! yes, because the encyclopedia britannica article was supported by no sources, no citations, nothing. that is called conjecture....when someone draws a conclusion based on observation alone, without corroborating evidence: conjecture. i think, most of all, that you cant handle having your pants pulled down and being called on your bullshit. now watch, everybody...as the furious buffalo roam rages around this thread, blustering, and calling names! its too easy.
also, buffalo....read this VERY CAREFULLY, and your "no telephone" argument wouldnt matter anyhow, regardless of how ridiculous your claim of hawaii being isolated from the rest of the world: now make sure you read it nice and slowly, guy...there is a single sentence in this paragraph that rips everything you have been saying to shreds.... a gold star to you if you find it!
i wanted to narrow it down for our republican friend. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! god forbid someone think a little bit.
Senior Radioman Ralph Briggs w9jcm there is no mention of him out side of your right wing Fascist web site, and it wouldn't be the first time that they made up information to compliment their agenda, Question, how come it seems to be you who is always quoting Right Wing White Supremacist for your source references? [7.0] US Codebreakers In World War II US Navy codebreakers did not make real progress on JN-25 until January 1942. They were too late to defeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they would provide ... http://www.vectorsite.net/ttcode_07.html * The IJN used a manual code system because the service hadn't had the resources to buy the quantities of cipher machines needed for the whole fleet, but JN-25 still proved very hard to crack. By the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, US Navy cryptographers were only able to read about 10% of the content of JN-25 messages. * US Navy codebreakers did not make real progress on JN-25 until January 1942. They were too late to defeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they would provide significant help to allow America put a stop to Japan's six-month rampage across the Pacific.
you dont have an answer, so you go off topic? haha! hey guy, this is the first time i have ever even LOOKED at a white supremacist site. if you are trying to imply that i am one, let me make you privy to a little fact: my father was a turkish born kurd. seems a little self defeating to be a white supremacist, doesnt it?
"you dont have an answer, so you go off topic? haha!" In all fairness, you were proven wrong so you ran from a thread.
huh? im not sure what you mean, tyler. *edit: the "off topic" remark was a reference to something buffalo said in a different post tonight.
Purple code - US military name for Japanese Foreign Office code Purple code - US military name for Japanese Foreign Office code ... had been a Red 'code' (also a cypher) used by the Japanese Foreign Office and purple was ... http://www.japan-101.com/history/purple_code.htm The US never found any hint of the attack on Pearl Harbor in the Purple traffic at the time, nor could they have as the Japanese were very careful to not discuss the planned attack in Foreign Office communications. In fact, no detailed information about the planned attack was even available to the Japanese Foreign Office; it was regarded by the military, particularly the more nationalistic military, as insufficiently 'reliable'. US access to private Japanese diplomatic communications (even the most secret ones) was less useful than it might otherwise have been because policy in Japan in the pre-War period was controlled largely by military groups (eg, in China and Manchuria), not by the Foreign Office. And, the Foreign Office itself deliberately kept from its embassies and consulates much of the information it did have, so the ability to read Purple transmissions was less than definitive regarding Japanese tactical or strategic military intentions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PURPLE The decrypted PURPLE traffic, and Japanese messages generally, was the subject of acrimonious hearings in Congress post-WW-II in connection with an attempt to decide who, if anyone, had allowed the disaster at Pearl Harbor to happen and whom therefore should be blamed. It was during those hearings that the Japanese learned, for the first time, that the PURPLE cypher machine had indeed been broken. So as usual congress spilled the beans, a great track record all the way back to 1942.
I disagree. While the contribution of manpower by the Americans is underwhelming compared to the Russians, every world leader at the time attributed the downfall of the Nazi regime to the amazing industrial capacity of the Americans. We just swamped the Axis with materiel and men. Besides... the thing that helped Germany the most may have been our war in the Pacific. Japan always had as its goal the acquisition of expansion room in China. Were it not for the early and amazing luck at Midway, the Japanese would have forced Russia into looking to its own second front. Let's not forget the Russo-Japanese war that wasn't so old at the time. While Stalin was fond of pressuring Churchill and FDR for a second front, he fully realized that he already had the protection of a second front, to his EAST. What he really wanted was a third front, and all Churchill wanted was more delays in the Med. To answer the question of the original poster, the Nazis would not have tried to maintain their winnings. All they were looking for was concessions and retribution. Hitler was not looking to dominate the world, he was looking to strike back at a Europe that had snubbed Germany. He wanted the rich industrial and agricultural land to the West, and he wanted room to expell the "inferior races" that tormented his demented brain. In all likelyhood he would have allowed some semblence of freedom to exist in these other countries, like he had planned with Austria (and which Austria fully wanted, but were denied) and Vichy France. You would have seen something like the Soviet Union, where you had various entities, but a singular drain on taxation. And it would have lasted until large enough uprisings, or a sufficient outside pressure, imploded it.
No, Britain moved all of its naval forces to the Atlantic in 1939. From Kissinger's Diplomacy: "During [...] April 1939, [F.D.R.] inched the United States closer to de facto military cooperation with Great Britain. An agreement between the two countries freed the Royal Navy to concentrate all of its forces in the Atlantic while the United States moved the bulk of its fleet to the Pacific. This division of labor implied that the United States assmed responsibility for the defense of Great Britain's Asian possessions against Japan. Prior to Word War I, an analogous arrangement between Great Britain and France (which had led to the concentration of the French fleet in the Mediterranean) had been used as an argument that Great Britain was morally obliged to enter World War I in defense of France's Atlantic coast." Two years later, American Naval control was extended to the western portion of the North Atlantic, leading inevitably to naval warfare. Also from Diplomacy: "In April 1941, Roosevelt took another step toward war by authorizing an agreement with the Danish representative in Washington (whose rank was minister) to allow American forces to occupy Greenland. Since Denmark was under German occupation and since no Danish government-in-exile had been formed, the diplomat without a country took it upon himself to "authorize" American bases on Danish soil. At the same time, Roosevelt privately informed Churchill that, henceforth, American ships would patrol the North Atlantic west of Iceland - covering about two-thirds of the entire ocean - and "publish the position of possible aggressor ships or planes when located in the American patrol area." Three months later, at the invitation of the local government, American troops landed in Iceland, another Danish possession, to replace British forces. Then, without Congressional approval, Roosevelt declared the whole area between these Danish possessions and North America a part of the Western Hemisphere Defense system. [...] In September 1941, the United States crossed the line into belligerency. Roosevelt's order that the position of German submarines be reported to the British Navy had made it inevitable that, sooner or later, some clash would occur. On September 4, 1941, the American destroyer Greer was torpedoed while signaling the location of a German submarine to British airplanes. On September 11, without describing the circumstances, Roosevelt denounced German "piracy." Comparing German submarines to a rattlesnake coiled to strike, he ordered the United States Navy to sink 'on sight" any Germany or Italian submarines discovered in the previously established American defense area extending all the way to Iceland. To all practical purposes, America was at war on the sea with the Axis powers."
Hello Folks, how are we doing. we all know that it was not the intervention of the US which saved us from Nazis germany, but the Nazis invasion of the Soviet Union. If the US had remained "neutral" the whole of Europe would have been over run by the RED Army
Hello Spurious thank you for your post i hope all is going good with you. The Us played a vital role of keeping Britain supplied etc.... However if this had not happened the Nazis still wouild have eventually been over-run along with tthe rest of Europe by the re-army. Probablysomewhere between 1947 -1949
We were supplying the Russians with materiel. Lend-Lease was for the Russians as well. And we gave them almost their entire freighter fleet. If American Isolationism had held, Germany would have had no problem handling the Russians. The forces in N. Africa would have been shifted after Rommel secured the oil reserves the German war-machine required. N. France would have been held with a pittance force, don't forget that Britain was very low on men, and hesitant to use them. That's why Monty was such a pussy general (extending the war by a year with his performance after D-Day), and why Churchill was such a pansy (keeping the Americans busy in meaningless engagements in the Med because he was sure that Overlord was going to fail). Besides, without American materiel, Britain would have had to come to terms with Germany pretty early on. Churchill was very clear about this in his writings. He takes credit for helping win the war solely by securing an alliance with America. All of his foreign policy tactics during the war were directed towards FDR, not towards Hitler, the ground war, or the constant shelling. Granted, Stalingrad was the turning-point of the war. No doubt. But the only reason it was the turning point was due to these other factors I mention. If it wasn't for N. Africa and the pressure to protect a cross-channel invasion, Germany would have been able to press a dozen more divisions into Russia, bringing much-needed supplies, men, and morale. Turning back the Red Tide would have been easy. And Stalin knew as much. All of this is moot, of course. Because what the revisionists are trying to do is discount the necessity of the American War Machine in WWII that was able to supply the Allies with all the materiel needed to win the war. What they ignore, is that even if the Americans never did anything else, they were already devoted to the manufacture of the atomic bomb, thanks to Szilard's pressure. If all we did was contribute to the war a dozen of these bombs, the war would still have been ended primarily due to American manufacture, probably in late '45 or early-to-mid '46.
And still the soviet union managed to produce more tanks than the US which were even better than that of the US.
