Was United 93 an inspirational movie?

[julianw]

Not with the Atomic Bomb being developed.  If the war continued to go badly when they were ready to deploy I am sure he would have targeted Tokyo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FDR didn't even push for the development of the A bomb until Germany started their own research, so he had no insurance policy during Pearl Harbor if the conspiracy theory is true.

[Nick_i_am]

Elder makes a fair point with Farenheight. Sure, America is great at trying to put a pricetag on everything and it's because they've managed to turn capitalism into an artform that other nations can only dream of (one of the only Olympic games to ever make money for it's nation directly, was staged in the US), but in this particular case 'only in america' is pretty shallow, and the only basis for it is 'Only in america because it's an 'american story' and america has the film industry to put this story on the big screen'.

 

Of course, if 9/11 had happened in france we wouldn't see this film for another 10 years, if at all, but the same goes for Farehneight, which I still can't spell.

[astr0creep]

Probably not, but they did attack the US first.  Don't start nothing there won't be nothing, as the saying goes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually, the US "attacked" Japan first.

 

Pearl Harbour was attacked in retaliation for a "show of power" off the coast of Japan(it was apparently a "test" for a new weapon...), presumably as a warning to stop hostilities towards the US military in a particular theater of the war(Philipines I think).

 

When Pearl Harbour was attacked, a peace treaty had just been signed(or was about to be) to stop the war but Japan refused to let go. This little known "warning" from the US was met with the attack at Pearl Harbour that was almost aborted because of this peace treaty that was being signed.

 

President (General) Truman decided to end the Japanese threat the only way America knows how: Overkill. It also sent a warning to other nations who would now think twice before f****ng with America.

 

:ph34r:

[julianw]

Probably not, but they did attack the US first.  Don't start nothing there won't be nothing, as the saying goes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually, the US "attacked" Japan first.

 

Pearl Harbour was attacked in retaliation for a "show of power" off the coast of Japan(it was apparently a "test" for a new weapon...), presumably as a warning to stop hostilities towards the US military in a particular theater of the war(Philipines I think).

 

When Pearl Harbour was attacked, a peace treaty had just been signed(or was about to be) to stop the war but Japan refused to let go. This little known "warning" from the US was met with the attack at Pearl Harbour that was almost aborted because of this peace treaty that was being signed.

 

President (General) Truman decided to end the Japanese threat the only way America knows how: Overkill. It also sent a warning to other nations who would now think twice before f****ng with America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The history I learned was that Japan always knew that a total war with America is unavoidable since they were seeking to expand their territory in Southeast Asia, so they distracted the US by negotiating the peace treaty while secretly deployed their fleet to attack Pearl Harbor.

 

As for dropping the A bomb, Japan was no longer a threat at the time. I think it's more of a warning to the Russian communists: don't get any funny ideas or we roast you.

Edited May 4, 2006 by julianw

[alanschu]

The raid did not get any of the brand spanking new North Carolina class battleships that were built earlier in the year.

 

The unsalvagable battleships were the old school (1915) Arizona, Oklahoma (1916), and the Utah (which at the time was nothing more than a target ship, commission way back in 1911). Damage was sustained to other battleships, but they were salvaged and repaired.

 

The military significance of the attack is overstated IMO. Most ships still in port were older ships, and no aircraft carriers were around. Enterprise was en route to Pearl Harbour, after removing planes from the airbase to reinforce Wake. Saratoga was picking up a load of planes in San Diego to bring to Wake Islane (which ended up being used to reinforce Pearl Harbour after the attack), and Lexington had just left with a shipment of planes from Pearl Harbour to Midway Island.

 

Other, more modern carriers like the Wasp and Hornet were just finishing up training, as were the brand new North Carolina class Battleships. The new South Dakotas were finishing up construction as well.

 

I hardly believe that Pearl Harbour almost had the US losing the war in the Pacific. The US began mobilizing for war, and redirected carriers from Norfolk and the Carribean to the Pacific Theater. The fact that no aircraft carriers were lost helped ensure that the War in the Pacific was anything but an easy one for the Japanese. Japan probably would have been better off destroying the infrastructure at Pearl Harbour than any of the battleships, as even in the aftermath carriers began docking and refueling.

 

I think the effect was believed to be devastating at the time, as the true effectiveness of an aircraft carrier at sea had not really been battle tested. The completion of the South Dakota class battleships were a nice boost as well, as they had fantastic firing control systems, as well as extensive AA guns.

 

 

Having said that, I doubt the conspiracy is really true. But IMO it is one of the more believable ones.

Edited May 4, 2006 by alanschu

[alanschu]

Probably not, but they did attack the US first.  Don't start nothing there won't be nothing, as the saying goes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually, the US "attacked" Japan first.

 

Pearl Harbour was attacked in retaliation for a "show of power" off the coast of Japan(it was apparently a "test" for a new weapon...), presumably as a warning to stop hostilities towards the US military in a particular theater of the war(Philipines I think).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I had never heard that. I agree with julian's assessment, as it's what I've read up on as well.

 

The Oil Embargo pretty much set the two on a collision course for war IMO.

[Fenghuang]

World War II was too long ago to be considered more tragic than Iraq to most of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nuts to you.

 

My family's still wounded because of the emotional strain my grandfather's suffered in WWII. Between Iwo Jima for the one, and the Battle of the Bulge for the other, they were in some of the worst that war had to offer.

 

Don't tell me it wasn't tragic. Ass.

[Nick_i_am]

Wait, you had one grandfather at Iwo Jima and another at the Bulge?

 

Jeez.

[Fenghuang]

Yeah. The one at Iwo Jima didn't even talk about it at all. We only found out where he was after he died and we found his service and discharge papers. I think we have like one picture of him from his days in the Marines, besides the ones of him in the fancy dress uniform, on a vaguely Pacific looking island posing with a buddy and some sort of wild boar they'd just killed.

 

He was in the third group of men that hit the island after the bomb was dropped, lucky he didn't get cancer.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Fenghuang

[astr0creep]

Yeah.  The one at Iwo Jima didn't even talk about it at all.  We only found out where he was after he died and we found his service and discharge papers.  I think we have like one picture of him from his days in the Marines, besides the ones of him in the fancy dress uniform, on a vaguely Pacific looking island posing with a buddy and some sort of wild boar they'd just killed. 

 

He was in the third group of men that hit the island after the bomb was dropped, lucky he didn't get cancer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Are you saying we are getting cancer because of the fallout from those bombs and others that the world's military have been testing/using?

 

I'm just asking, not trying to undermind your comment because I share your pain.

[Fenghuang]

No, I'm saying radiation gives you cancer and being in an area where an A-Bomb was set off a short while ago can't be good for you.

[~Di]

Wow. The enormous variance in how the history of World War 2 is taught in different countries is... enlightening, to say the least. Here I thought Hiro and Hitler were the bad guys. Little did I realize that it was really that evil FDR and Truman conspiring to take over the world.

 

So I guess this thread is officially not about the United 93 movie any more, but I'll still respond to the original topic. I don't know if the movie is inspirational or not, because I do not plan to see it. I didn't know anyone on that particular flight, but I did know people in the WTC and frankly the sickness in my gut from that day is something I honestly do not want to relive.

[Lucius]

Wait, who's saying Hitler wasn't a bad guy?

[Nick_i_am]

Meh, don't get on a high horse, sure, Hitler was the 'bad guy' but it wasn't like the other nations were spotless either.

 

After all, who caused the economic failure that ever allowed a man like hitler to get into power? Chirchil (sp?) set up chemical weapons factories in the midlands. ect ect.

[~Di]

Yes, yes, the devil made him do it.

Edited May 5, 2006 by ~Di

[Nick_i_am]

'good guys' and 'bad guys' in war is laughable anyway.

[LoneWolf16]

'good guys' and 'bad guys' in war is laughable anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very, very good point. Matter of perspective and all that.

 

 

To clarify on my earlier comment..."In the long run...well, we know how it turned out. In the short...he basically let thousands of U.S. sailors die.

 

That's a no-no"

 

I meant that, if true, FDR's decision cost the lives of thousands of U.S. sailors, for no real reason. War with the Axis was already inevitable, so why on earth would he do such a thing? To give "the people" a reason? Bull****. U.S. citizens didn't want a war, sure, but it was an inevitability. It was going to happen whether we wanted it or not.

 

The Nazis wouldn't suddenly halt their progression just because Americans frowned upon the practice of hostile takeovers. They'd have kept going, and going, and going, until they wound up on our damned coasts. It was a threat that had to be dealt with, by anyone who could carry and fire a rifle.

 

~Di, of course Hitler was a bad guy. There's no perspective there, he was an inhuman bastard...with one ball and a leather fetish. FDR, if this conspiracy has any merit to it, isn't much better. Letting your own soldiers die for so moronic a purpose is nothing short of mass murder. He'd of signed their death warrants the second he made his decision.

 

You know we dropped the A-bomb as a show of power, right? And because the Japanese just didn't want to give up their Emperor. An ancient position, and a major part of the tradition and culture. They were willing to negotiate a surrender, but weren't willing to lose their emperor. So...Hiroshima. We slaughtered innocent civilians (Yes, they were innocent. I don't give a flying **** if they worked in a "munitions factory". They were people, just doing their jobs...) there, and in Berlin. Carpet bombing the damned city!

 

America is no more the "Paladin of Truth and Valor" than are the Japanese and Nazis. (No, I'm not comparing America to those two, but we're not the beacon of goodwill and justice that we're taught in school.)

 

Edit: Typos...

Edited May 5, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[alanschu]

Wow.  The enormous variance in how the history of World War 2 is taught in different countries is... enlightening, to say the least.  Here I thought Hiro and Hitler were the bad guys.  Little did I realize that it was really that evil FDR and Truman conspiring to take over the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that.

[Calax]

I had a great uncle that got into the air during pearl...

 

 

(tried to follow the zeros back to their carriers but ran out of gas came back and started getting shot at by his own troops.)

 

and wolfie... don't forget dresden.

[LoneWolf16]

and wolfie... don't forget dresden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know, I know...more **** to shovel onto history's pyre.

Edited May 5, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[alanschu]

I meant that, if true, FDR's decision cost the lives of thousands of U.S. sailors, for no real reason. War with the Axis was already inevitable, so why on earth would he do such a thing? To give "the people" a reason? Bull****. U.S. citizens didn't want a war, sure, but it was an inevitability. It was going to happen whether we wanted it or not.

 

You underestimate the isolationist frame of mind that the US had. It's why many countries consider the start of WW2 to be the invasion of Poland, while the US considers the start of WW2 to be December 7th, 1941. Until then, it was "Europe's War."

 

 

The Nazis wouldn't suddenly halt their progression just because Americans frowned upon the practice of hostile takeovers. They'd have kept going, and going, and going, until they wound up on our damned coasts. It was a threat that had to be dealt with, by anyone who could carry and fire a rifle.

 

Unlikely. I've never seen anything that indicated that Hitler's Lebensraum involved the United States. He was content with ignoring the United Kingdom. He held his forces back to allow the evacuation of Dunkirk happen, in a show of good faith to the British, in hopes that he could agree to peace with them. He knew that the possibility of conquering the British Isle was virtually impossible, which is why they dropped Operation Sealion and tried to take the UK out of the war indirectly....primarily through the Battle of the Atlantic, as well as an attempt to bomb them into submission with the Battle of Britain.

 

Di~, of course Hitler was a bad guy. There's no perspective there, he was an inhuman bastard...with one ball and a leather fetish. FDR, if this consipracy has any merit to it, isn't much better. Letting your own soldiers die for so moronic a purpose is nothing short of mass murder. He'd of signed their death warrants the second he made his decision.

 

Also not necessarily true. Many of the ships destined for the Pacific Fleet (i.e. the new Carriers and Battleships) were just recently commissioned and still in the Atlantic and the Carribean, and hadn't gone through the Panama Canal yet. Even if he did know of the attack, it doesn't mean he could have done anything to stop the inevitability of it.

 

Evacuating all of the ships would have compromised any intelligence advantage the US might have had, as it would be an indicator to Japan that their communications were intercepted. It would have also caused more important targets (like the giant Fuel Depot nearby that was absolutely essential to any naval and air operations in the Pacific, and arguably way, way, WAY more important than any of the ships in the harbour. Losing ANY of the aircraft carriers would have severely compromised the effectiveness of the Pacific Fleet, much worse than the loss of obsolete battleships and picket ships.

 

War is a dirty business, and lives are sacrificed. Operations that have zero chance of success are planned in an attempt to feint the opponent and help ensure strategic success. For instance, the Soviets sent their men to be slaughtered in the Battle of Kursk. In doing so the Germans achieved an operational victory, while at the same time pretty much ensured total strategic defeat.

[LoneWolf16]

I meant that, if true, FDR's decision cost the lives of thousands of U.S. sailors, for no real reason. War with the Axis was already inevitable, so why on earth would he do such a thing? To give "the people" a reason? Bull****. U.S. citizens didn't want a war, sure, but it was an inevitability. It was going to happen whether we wanted it or not.

 

1.You underestimate the isolationist frame of mind that the US had. It's why many countries consider the start of WW2 to be the invasion of Poland, while the US considers the start of WW2 to be December 7th, 1941. Until then, it was "Europe's War."

 

 

The Nazis wouldn't suddenly halt their progression just because Americans frowned upon the practice of hostile takeovers. They'd have kept going, and going, and going, until they wound up on our damned coasts. It was a threat that had to be dealt with, by anyone who could carry and fire a rifle.

 

2.Unlikely. I've never seen anything that indicated that Hitler's Lebensraum involved the United States. He was content with ignoring the United Kingdom. He held his forces back to allow the evacuation of Dunkirk happen, in a show of good faith to the British, in hopes that he could agree to peace with them. He knew that the possibility of conquering the British Isle was virtually impossible, which is why they dropped Operation Sealion and tried to take the UK out of the war indirectly....primarily through the Battle of the Atlantic, as well as an attempt to bomb them into submission with the Battle of Britain.

 

Di~, of course Hitler was a bad guy. There's no perspective there, he was an inhuman bastard...with one ball and a leather fetish. FDR, if this consipracy has any merit to it, isn't much better. Letting your own soldiers die for so moronic a purpose is nothing short of mass murder. He'd of signed their death warrants the second he made his decision.

 

3.Also not necessarily true. Many of the ships destined for the Pacific Fleet (i.e. the new Carriers and Battleships) were just recently commissioned and still in the Atlantic and the Carribean, and hadn't gone through the Panama Canal yet. Even if he did know of the attack, it doesn't mean he could have done anything to stop the inevitability of it.

 

4.Evacuating all of the ships would have compromised any intelligence advantage the US might have had, as it would be an indicator to Japan that their communications were intercepted. It would have also caused more important targets (like the giant Fuel Depot nearby that was absolutely essential to any naval and air operations in the Pacific, and arguably way, way, WAY more important than any of the ships in the harbour. Losing ANY of the aircraft carriers would have severely compromised the effectiveness of the Pacific Fleet, much worse than the loss of obsolete battleships and picket ships.

 

5.War is a dirty business, and lives are sacrificed. Operations that have zero chance of success are planned in an attempt to feint the opponent and help ensure strategic success. For instance, the Soviets sent their men to be slaughtered in the Battle of Kursk. In doing so the Germans achieved an operational victory, while at the same time pretty much ensured total strategic defeat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Europe means a lot more to the U.S. than they probably though back then, being a major source of trade and all. But yes, I knew this already.

 

2. And given time, an exceptionally larger amount of resources and manpower, along with many, many more soldiers he'd of gotten from conquered lands in Europe, who's to say he would be content with that? There were Jews all over the world...accepting some key places...so why would he stop at slaughtering those in Europe? It seems like the next logical step after the acquisition of greater power would be to use said power...with Hitler's mind set. Then again, with the advent of nuclear weaponry...well, the Germans were close too, so it could very well have been a stand-off. (Like with the Soviets, but with a higher chance of a one hit K.O.)

 

Too many variables really, and not many are good.

 

3. So, a trap couldn't have been set? A warning not given, at least covertly, so men weren't sleeping onboard the ships? Why couldn't they have met the oncoming Japanese planes with a squadron or two...dozen...of America's finest pilots? It'd of surprised the hell out of them, to be sure.

 

4. Of course you don't evac the ships, but why not ready an air response? And where's the defensive minded tactician when you need one? It's not the ships I'm concerned about. It's the people onboard them. They would have been sacrificed, if this conspiracy is true, for no good reason. Hell, they could have just given a lot of them extra leave time or something.

 

5. I have no desire to see the military that represents my country acting in any way like the Soviets. Sending millions, or any number, to die with no chance of success is not acceptable, by any stretch of the imagination. How many millions of Soviet soldiers died? The poor men were dead the moment they put on the uniform. I can accept losses, that's one of those cheery parts of warfare, but to do so on purpose is just...deplorable.

[julianw]

I just like to point out that there is no solid evidence for this conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor. All the speculations are hindsight.

 

Alan, you are right that US was not hit as bad as they initially assessed and Japan wasn't able to achieve the result they desired from Pearl Harbor. But Lonewolf's got a point about US's total lack of preparation on the day of the attack. Remember that the Harbor's radar picked up Japan's bombers but stupidly thought they were US's own from mainland. The general in charge was playing golf when the attack happened. Most of the sailors just got out of bed and were gathered on the deck to raise the flags and actually waved at the Japanese bombers until they started dropping bombs. Most of US's aircrafts on the island were destroyed before they even took air. There are just so many things the US military could have done to reduce the loss at Pearl Harbor without alerting the Japanese fleet since they were already on a 30-day secret journey across the Northen Pacific, unless of course the conspiracy theory was not true.

[metadigital]

unless of course the conspiracy theory was not true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Lucius]

Good lord... Condescending smiley with thumbs up. It's even better than the " "

 

My new favorite.