JimO: "Chinese space advances benefit everyone"

In article ,
B. Isaksen wrote:
No way; the US would have armed up against Soviet Germany the way it did
against Hitler. It feared communism long *before* it feared Hitler. Whether
it could have saved Europe from the reds is another matter.

Don't try to fool history. US did'nt arm up against Hitler, and had no
wish to do so. It armed up because of Pearl Habor.

You need to read a bit more history. The US was visibly arming for war
well before Pearl Harbor. It entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

You need to read a bit more history. The US was visibly arming for war
well before Pearl Harbor. It entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.

The US oppinion did'nt want to interfere in the "European confict",
and only a "leasing deal" kept GB floating. In fact it has been
roumored that the ships were consentrated at PH to make it a tempting
carrot for the Japanese in order to turn public opinion.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

In article ,
B. Isaksen wrote:
...entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.

The US oppinion did'nt want to interfere in the "European confict",
and only a "leasing deal" kept GB floating.

The way not to interfere in the "European conflict" was not to get involved.
Lend-Lease most assuredly constituted getting involved; it made the US a
silent (or not so silent :-)) partner in Britain's war effort.

In fact it has been
roumored that the ships were consentrated at PH to make it a tempting
carrot for the Japanese in order to turn public opinion.

There have been all sorts of stupid rumors about Pearl Harbor, and even a
few stupid books about it.

The ships were concentrated at Pearl Harbor because it was the *main base*
of the Pacific Fleet. No sinister explanation is required.

Had there been a deliberate intent to offer up the fleet as a target, the
carriers would have been in port (they weren't) and the battleships would
have been at sea (they weren't). As it happened, it worked out well,
because carriers were rapidly becoming far more important... but that was
*not* obvious at the time. Except for a few heretics :-), the general
naval view was that battleships were the main striking force of the navy,
while carriers were useful auxiliaries.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
The way not to interfere in the "European conflict" was not to get involved.
Lend-Lease most assuredly constituted getting involved; it made the US a
silent (or not so silent :-)) partner in Britain's war effort.

Based on the facts as presented here, I rest my case. US was arming.

Sincerley
Bjørn Ove

(B. Isaksen) wrote in message . com...
You need to read a bit more history. The US was visibly arming for war
well before Pearl Harbor. It entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.

The US opinion did'nt want to interfere in the "European confict",
and only a "leasing deal" kept GB floating. In fact it has been
roumored that the ships were consentrated at PH to make it a tempting
carrot for the Japanese in order to turn public opinion.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

Take two hours and watch "Tora Tora Tora" it's accurate and pretty
even-handed about both American and Japanese problems that led to PH.
Besides, it's a pretty good movie. (Much better than that Ben Affleck
schlock that they put out two years ago.)

(On another note, President Bush will be meeting with PH survivors
Thursday here at the Arizona Memorial...they probably wouldn't be too
excited by conspiracy theories that they were a political carrot.)

Tom Merkle

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
B. Isaksen wrote:

No way; the US would have armed up against Soviet Germany the way it did
against Hitler. It feared communism long *before* it feared Hitler. Whether
it could have saved Europe from the reds is another matter.

Don't try to fool history. US did'nt arm up against Hitler, and had no
wish to do so. It armed up because of Pearl Habor.


You need to read a bit more history. The US was visibly arming for war
well before Pearl Harbor. It entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.



Even more indicative, the US had already adopted a "Hitler-First"
strategy by mid-June 1941 when it was quite apparent that the
US was going to be involved in the war.