Discussion in 'Naval Warfare in the Pacific' started by Skipper, Oct 24, 2016.
Is that a Yes...
Or a No?
C'mon Takao, stop trolling.
According to your flawed reasoning Midway was a tragedy.
Would you please now stop posting deliberately provocative messages.
[SIZE=11.6667px] [/SIZE]War is the tragedy of young men and innocents dying over the pride, folly. and hubris of old men.
Exactly, only you forgot to include greed.
Trolling? I asked you a fair and legitimate question, regarding your blanket statement, that you do not want to answer...So, you resort to calling me a "troll."
Now, you have said
If you actually believe this, then you do not consider the sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff, General von Steuben and others, which resulted in large losses of axis troops and civilians, to be tragedies.
This thread is getting and going nowhere! Why don't you guys just agree to disagree, qualify out and move on?
Note: I've found the photos interesting in a social sciences context but the rest.......yyyyyaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn.
That may be but the attack was initiated well before the note was even scheduled to be delivered. The subs operating in Hawaiian waters for instance. Nor do I agree that "a properly prepared attack makes a declaration of war useless as an early warning tool." I don't see how this negates the attack being "treacherous" either. What the impact of a declaration of war prior to Japan attacking the US would have had is a rather open question and dependent on a lot of details.
The law only concerns itself with the opening of hostilities - i.e. an actual shooting war.
Entering a prohibited zone by a vessel is not generally regarded as an act of war, although obviously it can be punished/attacked with impunity.
American and British bombers regularly overflew the USSR in the fifties and the sixties, the Soviets being generally aware of them - but without any means of determining if they were they armed with nuclear weapons or not.
Even more "ruses of war" (disguising as someone else, flying false colors - like the British during the St. Nazaire Raid) are allowed (only an attack without flying battle ensign or while flying a surrender flag is forbidden) so even those subs prepositioning for an attack in American territorial waters were kosher too.
Actually it is. The party that is attacked has the option of declaring war or not but entry of warships and/or planes into a nations territory is an act of war. Similarly if you fired an artillery piece from one country at another it's not the round actually crossing the border that is the act of war it's firing the round. The launching of the raid vs PH was clearly an act of war.
Indeed and the Soviets were doing the same. Neither side declared war as neither side wanted a general conflict but these were "acts of war".
The subs entering US waters would have been "legal" if the US and Japan were at war they were not "legal" in the absence of a state of war.
Also note that Japan waited until well after the PH attack to declare war. The "14 part message" was not a declaration of war by any means.
Well, I would say the subs were illegal according to American law, which the Japanese didn't have to follow (and suffer the consequences if any), after all it wasn't their law. There were no international law that said they couldn't do it.
As long as they didn't open fire the subs could enter territorial waters, the planes could enter American airspace without committing a war crime. The Americans had the right to attack and destroy them, and then even to declare war because of it.
As the Hague Conventions didn't mention intentions it's reasonable to assume "hostilities" means actual fighting. Mere presence somewhere even if illegal is not fighting.
Only perfidy (exploiting good faith) was forbidden.
It should be noted many Allies' operations were Pearl-Harbor-like: the occupation of Iran, attacks on various parts of France colonial empire, Operation Wilfred, Operation Fork, the proposed Operation Pike.
???? Of course there was. Sending your warships into another's territorial waters without permission is an act of war, i.e. "illegal" under international law.
Wrong. The subs entering US water as well as the planes and arguably even launching the attack without a declaration of war was a hostile act and thus "illegal" without a declaration of war. The US could choose how to react to it but that doesn't mean that the Japanese actions were legitimate.
Not really. Violation of another countries territory is a hostile act. Presence even in the absence of fighting is a hostile act. Launching an air raid is a hostile act.
Wrong again, of course launching a surprise attack not only without a declaration of war but while negotiations are underway is pretty clearly a good example of "perfidy".
Proposed operations don't count. Were any of the others conducted without warning and while negotiations were under way?
But could you cite the actual law that said that?
of course, but the point was it wasn't a war crime as long as they didn't open fire.
Perfidy is exploiting people's higher, humanitarian impulses. Like faking surrender, or attacking under the cover of the Red Cross sign. Nothing more.
The mentioned Operation Fork (invasion of Ireland) and the occupation of Iran were done without declaring war. As Operation Wilfred (the British attack on Norway), which had begun but was interdicted by the Germans.
Operation Torch, an American invasion of French territory, the British invasion of Madagascar were done without a declaration of war too.
Are you saying that invading another countries territory isn't an act of war? By todays convention illuminating an someone else's vehicle with a radar is considered a hostile act. Certainly invading or launching an attack is? Are you maintaining it isn't?
But it was or at least it was a "crime" under international law. You could argue that it wasn't a war crime because they weren't at war but that's also pretty weak IMO.
Indeed like attacking while negotiations are underway and the two countries are not at war. Which is exactly what Japan did.
Who invaded Ireland during WWII? If you mean Iceland it was part of a country occupied by Germany. As such a declaration of war was hardly necessary nor were there any hostilities. Both Iran and Norway were warned were they not? Indeed there are indications that the Norwegians actually wanted the British to invade and of course the Germans invaded first. The fact that Germany essentially controlled Vichy France brought to question the need for a declaration of war but in both cases warnings were issued were they not?
Since a State has sovereignty over its territory, the entry into its territory by the armed forces of another State without consent is a prima facie breach of international law. Among the attributes of sovereignty is the right to exclude foreigners from entering the territory, which is traditionally referred to as the right to exclude aliens.
International custom – or customary law – is evidence of a general practice accepted as law through a constant and virtually uniform usage among States over a period of time. Rules of customary international law bind all States.
Undisputed examples of rules of customary law are (1) giving foreign diplomats criminal immunity; (2) treating foreign diplomatic premises as inviolable; (3) recognizing the right of innocent passage of foreign ships in the territorial sea; (4) recognizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State on the high seas; (5) ordering military authorities to respect the territorial boundaries of neighboring States; and (6) protecting non-combatants such as civilians and sick or wounded soldiers during international armed conflict
It's for the invaded country to decide. During cold war American nuclear bombers were overflying the USSR, sometimes in battle formations. American nuclear submarines were entering Soviet territorial waters (Operation Ivy Bells for example) for hours at time.
Their actions were much more dangerous by the mere possibility of no-warning decapitating strike at Soviet command centers than a few pos Japanese subs in Pearl Harbor.
But the Soviet didn't declare war because of them. They tried and sentenced one of the pilots that fell into their hands - according to their own laws.
As far as I know it wasn't. The League of Nation tried to codified this matter in 1930 and failed. It was a crime according to local laws of the offended country.
As far as I know it wasn't regarded as perfidy. Countries were expected to be prepared for war all the time and didn't use the declaration of war as an early warning system.
They tried to define a waiting period between the declaration and the war, a month or a day, and eventually come to the conclusion it would be pointless.
Perfidy could only happen during war anyway.
Iceland had declared independence, it was invaded by the British a month later.
Iran and Norway weren't warned, and warnings had no meanings anyway. A proper declaration of war was needed, or an ultimatum defining conditions triggering war.
But really the point is although the Japanese failed formally with their declaration of war, which was a war crime - because intentions or ineptitude are no defense in such cases, they could have easily done this properly - by simply getting their act together.
It would change nothing, the Americans had known for hours that the war was inevitable, and did nothing useful which would change the outcome of the Pearl Harbor attack.
So timely or not - the declaration changes nothing, and because of that the attack wasn't sneaky or traitorous.
Could you please list Types, Dates, Times and Places where US bombers overflew Soviet territory during the Cold War?
There were too many of them, most of the known are listed here.
Among others, according to The Price of Vigilance: Attacks on American Surveillance Flights by Larry Tart in on May 6, 1956 six B-47 bombers, flying abreast, crossed the North Pole and penetrated Soviet airspace in broad daylight, as if on a nuclear bombing run.
from Larry Tart's web site:
So you have now proved that it was considered an aggression, and the legitimate Soviet response was to shoot down the military aircraft when they were able...
It is also obvious to anyone with even a quarter brain, that the USA isn't invading the USSR with 1 or even 6 bombers. Even with nuclear weapons of the 50's, the futility of such a "first strike" is obvious. Just as the Soviets did, these exercises are for reconnaissance and to test response times, and to gather signals intelligence.
"29 April 1954 A RB-45C Tornado operated by the Royal Air Force narrowly escaped being was shot down by antiaircraft fire near Kiev. The mission was aborted."
If you are penetrating all the way to Kiev in an overflight, the response times are not particularly good.
Interesting, I was unaware that the C-130 was a nuclear bomber.
Unfortunately for wm., no nuclear bombers ever penetrated Soviet air space. However, the reconnaissance variants of these bombers did penetrate soviet air space many times.