At 09:51 PM 9/13/2001, you wrote:
<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
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 http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm 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
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
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
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.
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. -- |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----| codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!" andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
participants (4)
-
Andrew Brown -
Dean Robb -
Eric Scholten -
Vadim Antonov