h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*Tips hat gallantly*

Battle of Pearl Harbor: Little loss of life compared to many, many other battles in WWII, pacific theater or not. Drastically affected the course of the war...

dave

Looks like I won. I'm surprised you gave up so easily.

*tips hat arrogantly*

dave

*Battle of Pearl Harbour*???

The sneak attack of the Japanese in which the US barely fired a shot??

I suppose you mean that the entry of the US into the war was the greatest event of the war? How amazingly arrogant.

No, Dave - I'm still waiting for you to provide an actual battle that won the war and how and why it did.

zoomer, how simple minded you are. We are talking about important battles, not battles that won wars. Are you saying the US entry was unimportant?

The battle of Pearl Harbor is a clear example in which despite relatively low casualties, it had a HUGE outcome on the course of the war.

Come on zoomer, read the posts more carefully.

dave

From http://www.voyagenow.com/travel-references/en/wikipedia/a/at/attack_on_pearl_harbor.html

*In terms of its strategic objectives the attack on Pearl Harbor was, in the short to medium term, a unique and spectacular success which eclipsed the wildest dreams of its planners and has few parallels in the military history of any era. For the next six months, the United States Navy was unable to play any significant role in the Pacific War; with the U.S. Pacific Fleet out of the picture, Japan was free to conquer South-East Asia, the entire South West Pacific and extend its reach far into the Indian Ocean.

In the longer term, however, the Pearl Harbor attack was an unmitigated strategic disaster for Japan. In the first place, one of the main Japanese objectives was the three American aircraft carriers stationed in the Pacific, but these had been dispatched from Pearl Harbor a few days before the attack and escaped unharmed. Putting most of the USN battleships out of commission, was widely regarded -- in both Navies -- as a tremendous success. The U.S. Navy had no choice but to put its faith in aircraft carriers and submarines, and these would prove to be the tools with which the USN first stopped and then reversed the Japanese advance. Loss of the battleships didn't turn out to be as important as most everyone thought before (in Japan) and just after (Japan and the US) the attack.*


So in fact the strategic importance is the fact that luck was with the US...hmm I suppose God really is on your side, Dave. It took getting your ass kicked before you got off it and joined the party. And then of course it was beating 1/2 of the Axis...or is that 1/3 or 1/4, I forget. And with no other help....except Russia and China, but they weren't *superpowers* so somehow they don't count. So basically the monumental act of actually joining the war was the deciding factor. Who knew?

btw Dave, no other country calls it *The Battle of Pearl Harbour*, only the US. It was an unprovoked attack with little resistance. It would like calling something *The Battle of Hiroshima* or *The Battle of Dresden*.

Of course the US joining of the war was important you ass, so was the incredible loss of life by the Russians and D-day, so was the war in North Africa and the North Atlantic convoy. Now prove to me how important it was- tell me HOW it won the war.

you should watch your language...you could get moderated.

No one in the US calls it a battle either, but technically it was.

Zoomer, can't you stay on task for more than 30 seconds?

Pearl Harbor is an example of a battle with low relative casualties, high impact. It disproves your hypothesis that statistics are a pure criteria for evaluating the importance of battles.

dave

You should learn your language, an ass is an animal.

The only sites where it is called a battle are US ones that I could find. How is a bombing a battle? Dresden was fire bombed and no one calls it a battle. London was bombed and no one calls it a battle.

On task? You objected to my ironic offhand remark that Russia won the war and have since inferred that the US did. You gave the Pacific theatre as and example and Pearl Harbour as a specific. I backed up my belief with facts, you back up your statements with statements like *The battle of Pearl Harbor is a clear example in which despite relatively low casualties, it had a HUGE outcome on the course of the war.* which is a statement of opinion, unsupported by any outside facts. Once again you are making generalizations with nothing to back them up. Who's off task?

HEEHAW
HEEHAW

saying the battle of pearl harbor had a HUGE impact is not opinion, it is fact. Why can't you discuss the fact that your statistical model fails? I cited Pearl Harbor as an example in which YOUR MODEL FAILS. You go off task when you try to twist new meaning into beyond that. So, how about addressing why YOUR MODEL FAILS?

dave

My *model* is in fact not mine but the established method by which historians determine the *winners* or *losers* of most battles and more importantly, wars. There have been many wars throughout history that are determined by who slaughters who the most, who expends the most, and who is left standing. Just as there have been lopsided battles or wars that have been won by the underdog. I am just asking for you to show me one example of what you are talking about- a battle, not a bombing, not a joining to the Allies, just one battle where it turned the tide against the entire Axis forces and was exclusively American.

Your model is circular logic. The US is the major contributer to the war effort because it's battles were more important than statistics. Your example is Pearl Harbour which was important because it brought the US into the conflict. Therefore the US's addition to the Allies makes it the most important.

The US was the most important Ally because it was brought into the conflict? You still have failed to supply any *proof* you are still just expressing opinions.

I was just lurking through the *ask H2G2* threads and thought I would have a look at some of the one's I unsubscribed to. And lookee what I found!!!

*The US lost Vietnam, no arguing that. They retreated. But to say that got their "ass whooped" that's a stretch. Consider the casualty figures (already posted to this thread). Some estimates say 1 million North Vietnamese dead, vs much fewer americans.*

Justifying a loss by statistics? That doesn't sound like you Dave....oh but wait, it is.

OK. Time for some moderation. I can't be bothered to actually read all of this pedantry, but I really need to say this.

The event of Pearl Harbour was an ATTACK, not a BATTLE. The latter indicates some kind of conflict, ie: an army against an army. It was a historical predecessor to September 11th, which was also an attack. Yes, it took place within a world war, but considering the fact that the US had not dedicated troops towards the effort, they were not involved in the war. They were not neutral, but they certainly weren't active.

"Dave"...learn to use a dictionary if you are going to be ill educated and rude.

Zoomer do you bother to read my posts? Why do you consistently misquote me? I never said the US was the major contributor. THat's the source of your imagined circular argument. I never claimed that any US battle was the major one which tipped the tide. I just said YOUR MODEL FAILS REPEATEDLY. which it does. So conclusions based on your model are WRONG. It's that simple. Your questions are irrelevant to the FAILING of YOUR MODEL. I don't have answers to them, and I'm not bothering to get answers, because they are IRRELEVANT.

Vietnam: I didn't justify the loss. I said the US lost. I just said we didn't get our ass whooped. THat's something statistics ARE valid for. Cannae = Romans got their asses whopped. Thermopylae = mixed, Persians annihilated the spartans and "won" but they didn't advance. Pearl Harbor = US got annihilated.

None of the win/loss assignments to the above battles says anything about HOW IMPORTANT THEY WERE.

BTW, I think it's really great you "unsubscribed" to the WWWA thread, but still go back there That makes me really happy. So basically you're too much of a coward to hang in there and post, despite the fact that it still interests you and you want to be there. Cheers! You just made my day.

dave

"Looks like I won. I'm surprised you gave up so easily.

*tips hat arrogantly*"

Ignoring my entry into a debate is a dangerous thing. Especially when you have a gross lack of knowledge. Learn quickly and you won't get burnt.

OED:

Saturnine. adj.

3. Of or pertaining to lead.

b. Path. Of disorders: Caused by absorption of lead. Of a patient: Suffering from lead-poisoning.


If you're feeling too sluggish to read he backlog, maybe you should get tested for lead poisoning SATURNINE.

dave

Considering the great wealth of power that the United States has held over the rest of the world for the past couple of centuries, I believe it's safe to say that when they lose a war, it's because they have had their backsides decimated. Especially considering most of the modern conflicts caused have been caused by Republican governments who adopt a more Southern style of doing what they believe is right regardless of the consequences (see : Vietnam, the Gulf and the present day war in Iraq).

Geez, aren't you facile.

Now, can you move onto the history textbooks? Seeing as you have grasped the use of the dictionary (but still don't know the difference between a battle and an attack)...

That's pure genius Sluggy. You really just said:
"Considering the great wealth of power that the United States has held over the rest of the world for the past couple of centuries,"

The US isn't even 3 centuries OLD!!!! GO back to history books Sluggy, then come back here and say something a little less ignorant.

dave

You "lead" the way to the history books and I'll follow.

dave