CDZ Critics Slam Movie 'Midway' Because it is Embarrassing to be Reminded of How Good We Once Were

[Flash]

That’s because the American military men who fought that fight were real American men. The ones liberals are trying to stomp from history.

Yeah, they sure werent pajama Boys, thats for sure.

Can you imagine what would have happen if Obama was President when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor?

He would have loaded up airplanes full of cash and sent them to the Japs begging them not to attack any more.

 

[Flash]

The thing about the Battle of Midway is not solely that we were that good but that we were also pretty darn lucky. The battle could have gone differently.

It was not luck, it was planned.

We understood Japanese tactics and they under estimated us constantly.

The result was very similar to the shelacking the GOP is giving the Dims in these Rumorblower impeachment hearings that are not legit.

Most major battles have a significant degree of luck with it. Midway was not an exception.

The luck in this battle was the confusion the Jap commander had with deciding what to do between pursuing the attack on Midway, defending against a possible attack on his ships or launching a counter attack against the American ships.

He essentially made all the wrong decisions. Had he chose to just defend his ships or launch a counter attack against the American ships immediately the results could have been much different.

The timing of the American attack contributed to the confusion the Japs had and that was not planned.

The Japs had a lot of luck with the success on the attack on Pearl Harbor so this was get even time for us good guys.

 

[Correll]

Can't love Merika if you want to change everything about it.

Wanting it to get better shows you love it

You forget, you've shared your vision of the future of this nation.

No sane person could describe that as "better".

So have you Klan Boy

What was wrong with my vision, you fucking asshole?

20/20 White male Christian vision

So, White equals bad in your world? Not to mention male and Christian. So much for multiculturalism.


Is that all that is bad about it? It being my vision. Or you got something, you know, actually bad?

 

[Correll]

Wanting it to get better shows you love it

You forget, you've shared your vision of the future of this nation.

No sane person could describe that as "better".

So have you Klan Boy

What was wrong with my vision, you fucking asshole?

20/20 White male Christian vision

My, what a racist statement

Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant.


A dead potted plant.

 

[rightwinger]

Wanting it to get better shows you love it

You forget, you've shared your vision of the future of this nation.

No sane person could describe that as "better".

So have you Klan Boy

What was wrong with my vision, you fucking asshole?

20/20 White male Christian vision

So, White equals bad in your world? Not to mention male and Christian. So much for multiculturalism.


Is that all that is bad about it? It being my vision. Or you got something, you know, actually bad?

Exclusive white while all others are second class......yes BAD

 

[Correll]

You forget, you've shared your vision of the future of this nation.

No sane person could describe that as "better".

So have you Klan Boy

What was wrong with my vision, you fucking asshole?

20/20 White male Christian vision

My, what a racist statement

I agree totally

Correll is a racist

Said the man who's vision of the future, contains one racial group being massively discriminated against and marginalized.


If there was anything wrong with my vision of the future, you would have led with what was actually wrong about it, instead of just throwing bullshit personal attacks.


You are being an asshole, INSTEAD of making an actual point.

Because you know that you are in the wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

So have you Klan Boy

What was wrong with my vision, you fucking asshole?

20/20 White male Christian vision

My, what a racist statement

I agree totally

Correll is a racist

Said the man who's vision of the future, contains one racial group being massively discriminated against and marginalized.


If there was anything wrong with my vision of the future, you would have led with what was actually wrong about it, instead of just throwing bullshit personal attacks.


You are being an asshole, INSTEAD of making an actual point.

Because you know that you are in the wrong.

Tell it to your KKK friends

They will sympathize

 

[Correll]

When is the last time, that a film with even the possibility of a right leaning political message, got a positive critical review while the audience panned it?

Happens all the time.
10 movies released this year that critics loved but audiences didn't, including the unsettling horror film 'Hereditary'

And yes- the audiences had it right for Anhilation.

Sorry, can't see past the ad blocker.


Which one was right leaning, got a positive critical review score while the audience panned it?

Sorry- I don't go around first judging whether a film is 'right leaning' or 'left leaning'- is there some special Sean Hannity approved list for this- sort of the new Vatican approved list of movies for Conservatives?

What even would that mean I wonder "America good, everyone else bad?"

The Joker was perceived by critics as being right leaning, and was panned, despite being a great movie.

Batwoman, was seen as being left leaning by the critics and was loved by the critics, despite being crap.


Your pretense of not understanding this, is not credible. You are just dodging a point, you don't want to address.

And especially not credible, as you choose to come into this thread, and to comment on the issue.

LOL- I do love how you view movies entirely through a partisan lens. How sad your life must b e.

I can see why you love Joker though- since it is really about his victimhood and persecution.

1. My point was about the perceptions of the critics. Which you cowardly dodged.


2. The Joker was very well told story, about an iconic character. Yes, him being marginalized by society was a big part of the story. Is there something wrong with that? Or are you just being an asshole?

 

[mudwhistle]

What was wrong with my vision, you fucking asshole?

20/20 White male Christian vision

My, what a racist statement

I agree totally

Correll is a racist

Said the man who's vision of the future, contains one racial group being massively discriminated against and marginalized.


If there was anything wrong with my vision of the future, you would have led with what was actually wrong about it, instead of just throwing bullshit personal attacks.


You are being an asshole, INSTEAD of making an actual point.

Because you know that you are in the wrong.

Tell it to your KKK friends

They will sympathize

Tell it to your ISIS friends.

 

[Correll]

You forget, you've shared your vision of the future of this nation.

No sane person could describe that as "better".

So have you Klan Boy

What was wrong with my vision, you fucking asshole?

20/20 White male Christian vision

So, White equals bad in your world? Not to mention male and Christian. So much for multiculturalism.


Is that all that is bad about it? It being my vision. Or you got something, you know, actually bad?

Exclusive white while all others are second class......yes BAD

Nothing in my vision of the future supports that claim. That is shit you just made up.


While you, DO see whites being discriminated against and marginalized.


WHy are you lying about me and what I have said? Why are you being an asshole?

 

[Syriusly]

Happens all the time.
10 movies released this year that critics loved but audiences didn't, including the unsettling horror film 'Hereditary'

And yes- the audiences had it right for Anhilation.

Sorry, can't see past the ad blocker.


Which one was right leaning, got a positive critical review score while the audience panned it?

Sorry- I don't go around first judging whether a film is 'right leaning' or 'left leaning'- is there some special Sean Hannity approved list for this- sort of the new Vatican approved list of movies for Conservatives?

What even would that mean I wonder "America good, everyone else bad?"

The Joker was perceived by critics as being right leaning, and was panned, despite being a great movie.

Batwoman, was seen as being left leaning by the critics and was loved by the critics, despite being crap.


Your pretense of not understanding this, is not credible. You are just dodging a point, you don't want to address.

And especially not credible, as you choose to come into this thread, and to comment on the issue.

LOL- I do love how you view movies entirely through a partisan lens. How sad your life must b e.

I can see why you love Joker though- since it is really about his victimhood and persecution.

1. My point was about the perceptions of the critics. Which you cowardly dodged.


2. The Joker was very well told story, about an iconic character. Yes, him being marginalized by society was a big part of the story. Is there something wrong with that? Or are you just being an asshole?

Your point was a generalization unsupported by any facts. I ignored your unsubstantiated claim.

I haven't seen the Joker, but a good friend has, and said it was a good movie. I was observing how you would likely be able to relate to a tragic character marginalized by a society who rejects your values.

 

[Syriusly]

So I will leave this thread which like most here at USMB has devolved into the usual back and forth of personal attacks- of which I have contributed to. If there is any further discussion of the move itself or what actual critics have said about Midway- I may join back in.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Most major battles have a significant degree of luck with it. Midway was not an exception.
The luck in this battle was the confusion the Jap commander had with deciding what to do between pursuing the attack on Midway, defending against a possible attack on his ships or launching a counter attack against the American ships.
He essentially made all the wrong decisions. Had he chose to just defend his ships or launch a counter attack against the American ships immediately the results could have been much different.
The timing of the American attack contributed to the confusion the Japs had and that was not planned.

The Japanese commander was following standard Japanese war tactics doctrine for air craft carrier operations. He was a by-the-book sort of fellow and we knew that.

Military wargaming - Wikipedia

Wargaming thus became a vital means of testing hypothetical strategies and tactics.[38] Another problem was that by the time America entered World War 2 in 1941, none of the Navy's senior officers had any meaningful combat experience, but almost all of them had participated in wargames at the Naval War College.[39] The fact that America defeated Japan in World War 2, despite these shortcomings, is strong evidence for the value of the wargaming. After the war, Admiral Nimitz said that the wargames predicted every tactic the Japanese used except for the kamikazes (a somewhat hyperbolic assertion).[40][41]

The Naval War College organized two broad classes of wargames: "chart maneuvers", which were strategic-level games; and "board maneuvers", which were tactical-level games. The chart maneuvers were about fleet movements, scouting and screening operations, and supply lines.[42] The board maneuvers simulated battles in detail, with the aid of model ships. Most of the wargames were played on the floors of lecture halls, as they needed more space than any table could provide.

The two most frequently played scenarios were a war with Japan and a war with Britain. Japan was code-named ORANGE, Britain was code-named RED, and America was code-named BLUE. Neither the students nor the staff at the Naval War College expected a war with Britain.[43] It's possible that the US Navy didn't imagine getting into any sort of serious naval conflict in the Atlantic with anyone, and that it simulated wars against Britain simply because it saw the Royal Navy as its role model.[44] A war with Japan, on the other hand, was a real concern, and as the years passed the wargames were increasingly played against ORANGE.

In case of a war with Japan, the US Navy's grand strategy was to send an armada straight across the Pacific and quickly defeat the Japanese navy in one or two decisive battles.[45] The wargamers at the College tested this strategy extensively, and it routinely failed. In 1933, the Navy's Research Department reviewed the wargames played from 1927 to 1933 and concluded that the fundamental problem was that the armada over-extended its supply lines. The BLUE armada would exhaust itself, and ORANGE would recover and counter-attack.[46] After this, the wargamers at the College abandoned the old doctrine and instead developed a more progressive strategy, which involved building a logistics infrastructure in the western Pacific and making alliances with regional countries. By the mid-1930s, the wargames resembled very much what the Navy later experienced in the Pacific War.[47]

The wargames also produced tactical innovations, most notably the "circular formation". In this formation, as it was used in World War 2, an aircraft carrier was surrounded by concentric circles of cruisers and destroyers. This formation concentrated anti-aircraft fire, and also was easier to maneuver than a line of battle because all the ships could turn at once with a signal from the central ship. The circular formation was first proposed in September 1922 by Commander Roscoe C. MacFall. Initially, the wargamers at the College used a battleship as the central ship, but this was eventually supplanted by the aircraft carrier. Chester Nimitz, who was a fellow student that same year, was impressed by what the circular formation could do, and Nimitz played a pivotal role in making it Navy doctrine.[48]​

Naval Wargames and related stuff: Original Japanese Gaming of Midway, Pt 2 The Fixed Wargame Theory

we learn that Ugaki was concerned about the Nagumo forces plans to deal with the American carriers if they should sortie, which seem to have been dismissed with a content free expression of confidence (one touch of an armoured sleeve) by Genda, air staff officer of the Nagumo force. The naming of Genda here is an amplification of what is in [3] and is attributed to Genda himself. Also on page 35 we have the story about the hits on the AKAGI and KAGA from [3] repeated but with some ambiguity about what the nature of the strike was. On page 36 we learn that in the games the American fleet did not sortie, and this uncharacteristic behaviour was of concern to Genda. The second mention is in chapter 8, but refers only in passing to additional games on May 24th of which there is no real detail (which again mirrors [3]). The final mention is in chapter 40 where the games are referred to as rigged. So in conclusion we find Prange adds very little to Fuchida and Okumiya's account other than the name and exact words of the staff officer who was off hand about how the Nagumo force would cope if the American Carriers appeared on the battle field (the account in Fuchida and Okumiya is not reproduced in the quote above)...

Parshall and Tully begin the narrative on the wargames with a description of an initial run, in the series that started on May 1st, where the American carriers sortied early and hit three of the Japanese Carriers. This initial round was ruled impossible (presumably because the Americans sortied before they could have on the basis of reconnaissance from Midway) see note 1.​

Through repeated simulations both we and the Japanese found that an early sorte by American carriers would ruin the Japanese battle plan and cause a catastrophic loss of carriers for the Japanese. Retrofitting the Yorktown to be sea worthy post haste just sealed the deal.

All of this was not only very predictable but was predicted with highly recurring outcomes IF our carriers left harbor early, and we did because the Japanese had no idea that we broke their code and knew what they planned to do with fairly accurate prognostics.

None of this has a damned thing to do with luck. Winners plan for the unexpected and go into confrontations with lots of 'hole cards' to play, while losers go in with predetermined outcomes and ignore bad signals that should cause them to revise their plans.

The US Navy was a winner back then, but the Pink Mafia has probably changed all that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Exclusive white while all others are second class......yes BAD

Nothing in my vision of the future supports that claim. That is shit you just made up.
While you, DO see whites being discriminated against and marginalized.
WHy are you lying about me and what I have said? Why are you being an asshole?

He is trolling you. Best strategy is to not take the bait, just put him on ignore.

 

[JimBowie1958]

2. The Joker was very well told story, about an iconic character. Yes, him being marginalized by society was a big part of the story. Is there something wrong with that? Or are you just being an asshole?

Why is it that no one ever calls on the guy frantically waving his hand cause he KNOWS the answer?

I dont get it.

 

[Flash]

Most major battles have a significant degree of luck with it. Midway was not an exception.
The luck in this battle was the confusion the Jap commander had with deciding what to do between pursuing the attack on Midway, defending against a possible attack on his ships or launching a counter attack against the American ships.
He essentially made all the wrong decisions. Had he chose to just defend his ships or launch a counter attack against the American ships immediately the results could have been much different.
The timing of the American attack contributed to the confusion the Japs had and that was not planned.

The Japanese commander was following standard Japanese war tactics doctrine for air craft carrier operations. He was a by-the-book sort of fellow and we knew that.

Military wargaming - Wikipedia

Wargaming thus became a vital means of testing hypothetical strategies and tactics.[38] Another problem was that by the time America entered World War 2 in 1941, none of the Navy's senior officers had any meaningful combat experience, but almost all of them had participated in wargames at the Naval War College.[39] The fact that America defeated Japan in World War 2, despite these shortcomings, is strong evidence for the value of the wargaming. After the war, Admiral Nimitz said that the wargames predicted every tactic the Japanese used except for the kamikazes (a somewhat hyperbolic assertion).[40][41]

The Naval War College organized two broad classes of wargames: "chart maneuvers", which were strategic-level games; and "board maneuvers", which were tactical-level games. The chart maneuvers were about fleet movements, scouting and screening operations, and supply lines.[42] The board maneuvers simulated battles in detail, with the aid of model ships. Most of the wargames were played on the floors of lecture halls, as they needed more space than any table could provide.

The two most frequently played scenarios were a war with Japan and a war with Britain. Japan was code-named ORANGE, Britain was code-named RED, and America was code-named BLUE. Neither the students nor the staff at the Naval War College expected a war with Britain.[43] It's possible that the US Navy didn't imagine getting into any sort of serious naval conflict in the Atlantic with anyone, and that it simulated wars against Britain simply because it saw the Royal Navy as its role model.[44] A war with Japan, on the other hand, was a real concern, and as the years passed the wargames were increasingly played against ORANGE.

In case of a war with Japan, the US Navy's grand strategy was to send an armada straight across the Pacific and quickly defeat the Japanese navy in one or two decisive battles.[45] The wargamers at the College tested this strategy extensively, and it routinely failed. In 1933, the Navy's Research Department reviewed the wargames played from 1927 to 1933 and concluded that the fundamental problem was that the armada over-extended its supply lines. The BLUE armada would exhaust itself, and ORANGE would recover and counter-attack.[46] After this, the wargamers at the College abandoned the old doctrine and instead developed a more progressive strategy, which involved building a logistics infrastructure in the western Pacific and making alliances with regional countries. By the mid-1930s, the wargames resembled very much what the Navy later experienced in the Pacific War.[47]

The wargames also produced tactical innovations, most notably the "circular formation". In this formation, as it was used in World War 2, an aircraft carrier was surrounded by concentric circles of cruisers and destroyers. This formation concentrated anti-aircraft fire, and also was easier to maneuver than a line of battle because all the ships could turn at once with a signal from the central ship. The circular formation was first proposed in September 1922 by Commander Roscoe C. MacFall. Initially, the wargamers at the College used a battleship as the central ship, but this was eventually supplanted by the aircraft carrier. Chester Nimitz, who was a fellow student that same year, was impressed by what the circular formation could do, and Nimitz played a pivotal role in making it Navy doctrine.[48]​

Naval Wargames and related stuff: Original Japanese Gaming of Midway, Pt 2 The Fixed Wargame Theory

we learn that Ugaki was concerned about the Nagumo forces plans to deal with the American carriers if they should sortie, which seem to have been dismissed with a content free expression of confidence (one touch of an armoured sleeve) by Genda, air staff officer of the Nagumo force. The naming of Genda here is an amplification of what is in [3] and is attributed to Genda himself. Also on page 35 we have the story about the hits on the AKAGI and KAGA from [3] repeated but with some ambiguity about what the nature of the strike was. On page 36 we learn that in the games the American fleet did not sortie, and this uncharacteristic behaviour was of concern to Genda. The second mention is in chapter 8, but refers only in passing to additional games on May 24th of which there is no real detail (which again mirrors [3]). The final mention is in chapter 40 where the games are referred to as rigged. So in conclusion we find Prange adds very little to Fuchida and Okumiya's account other than the name and exact words of the staff officer who was off hand about how the Nagumo force would cope if the American Carriers appeared on the battle field (the account in Fuchida and Okumiya is not reproduced in the quote above)...

Parshall and Tully begin the narrative on the wargames with a description of an initial run, in the series that started on May 1st, where the American carriers sortied early and hit three of the Japanese Carriers. This initial round was ruled impossible (presumably because the Americans sortied before they could have on the basis of reconnaissance from Midway) see note 1.​

Through repeated simulations both we and the Japanese found that an early sorte by American carriers would ruin the Japanese battle plan and cause a catastrophic loss of carriers for the Japanese. Retrofitting the Yorktown to be sea worthy post haste just sealed the deal.

All of this was not only very predictable but was predicted recurring outcomes IF our carriers left harbor early, and we did because the Japanese had no idea that we broke their code and knew what they planned to do with fairly accurate prognostics.

None of this has a damned thing to do with luck. Winners plan for the unexpected and go into confrontations with lots of 'hole cards' to play, while losers go in with predetermined outcomes and ignore bad signals that should cause them to revise their plans.

The US Navy was a winner back then, but the Pink Mafia has probably changed all that.

Lucky for the Japs at PH that the US refused to believe the early radar reports of the incoming planes. They could have gone to battle stations earlier and possibly prevented as much damage.

The sighting of the incoming Jap planes were confused with an incoming US bomber formation.

There were intelligent reports of potential Jap actions but were lost in the military bureaucracy.

Of course the bad luck the Japs had was that they couldn't translate the declaration of war to the Americans before the attack and that really pissing off the nation. Then there was of course the fact that the carriers were not in port.

Luck is always a factor in any battle. Both good and bad. At Midway luck was on our side and that often can be the difference between winning and losing.

The Japs were crazy to attack the US. If there leaders had been more rational they never would have taken on the US. Just like that crazy asshole Hitler invading the Soviet Union. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[rightwinger]

Most major battles have a significant degree of luck with it. Midway was not an exception.
The luck in this battle was the confusion the Jap commander had with deciding what to do between pursuing the attack on Midway, defending against a possible attack on his ships or launching a counter attack against the American ships.
He essentially made all the wrong decisions. Had he chose to just defend his ships or launch a counter attack against the American ships immediately the results could have been much different.
The timing of the American attack contributed to the confusion the Japs had and that was not planned.

The Japanese commander was following standard Japanese war tactics doctrine for air craft carrier operations. He was a by-the-book sort of fellow and we knew that.

Military wargaming - Wikipedia

Wargaming thus became a vital means of testing hypothetical strategies and tactics.[38] Another problem was that by the time America entered World War 2 in 1941, none of the Navy's senior officers had any meaningful combat experience, but almost all of them had participated in wargames at the Naval War College.[39] The fact that America defeated Japan in World War 2, despite these shortcomings, is strong evidence for the value of the wargaming. After the war, Admiral Nimitz said that the wargames predicted every tactic the Japanese used except for the kamikazes (a somewhat hyperbolic assertion).[40][41]

The Naval War College organized two broad classes of wargames: "chart maneuvers", which were strategic-level games; and "board maneuvers", which were tactical-level games. The chart maneuvers were about fleet movements, scouting and screening operations, and supply lines.[42] The board maneuvers simulated battles in detail, with the aid of model ships. Most of the wargames were played on the floors of lecture halls, as they needed more space than any table could provide.

The two most frequently played scenarios were a war with Japan and a war with Britain. Japan was code-named ORANGE, Britain was code-named RED, and America was code-named BLUE. Neither the students nor the staff at the Naval War College expected a war with Britain.[43] It's possible that the US Navy didn't imagine getting into any sort of serious naval conflict in the Atlantic with anyone, and that it simulated wars against Britain simply because it saw the Royal Navy as its role model.[44] A war with Japan, on the other hand, was a real concern, and as the years passed the wargames were increasingly played against ORANGE.

In case of a war with Japan, the US Navy's grand strategy was to send an armada straight across the Pacific and quickly defeat the Japanese navy in one or two decisive battles.[45] The wargamers at the College tested this strategy extensively, and it routinely failed. In 1933, the Navy's Research Department reviewed the wargames played from 1927 to 1933 and concluded that the fundamental problem was that the armada over-extended its supply lines. The BLUE armada would exhaust itself, and ORANGE would recover and counter-attack.[46] After this, the wargamers at the College abandoned the old doctrine and instead developed a more progressive strategy, which involved building a logistics infrastructure in the western Pacific and making alliances with regional countries. By the mid-1930s, the wargames resembled very much what the Navy later experienced in the Pacific War.[47]

The wargames also produced tactical innovations, most notably the "circular formation". In this formation, as it was used in World War 2, an aircraft carrier was surrounded by concentric circles of cruisers and destroyers. This formation concentrated anti-aircraft fire, and also was easier to maneuver than a line of battle because all the ships could turn at once with a signal from the central ship. The circular formation was first proposed in September 1922 by Commander Roscoe C. MacFall. Initially, the wargamers at the College used a battleship as the central ship, but this was eventually supplanted by the aircraft carrier. Chester Nimitz, who was a fellow student that same year, was impressed by what the circular formation could do, and Nimitz played a pivotal role in making it Navy doctrine.[48]​

Naval Wargames and related stuff: Original Japanese Gaming of Midway, Pt 2 The Fixed Wargame Theory

we learn that Ugaki was concerned about the Nagumo forces plans to deal with the American carriers if they should sortie, which seem to have been dismissed with a content free expression of confidence (one touch of an armoured sleeve) by Genda, air staff officer of the Nagumo force. The naming of Genda here is an amplification of what is in [3] and is attributed to Genda himself. Also on page 35 we have the story about the hits on the AKAGI and KAGA from [3] repeated but with some ambiguity about what the nature of the strike was. On page 36 we learn that in the games the American fleet did not sortie, and this uncharacteristic behaviour was of concern to Genda. The second mention is in chapter 8, but refers only in passing to additional games on May 24th of which there is no real detail (which again mirrors [3]). The final mention is in chapter 40 where the games are referred to as rigged. So in conclusion we find Prange adds very little to Fuchida and Okumiya's account other than the name and exact words of the staff officer who was off hand about how the Nagumo force would cope if the American Carriers appeared on the battle field (the account in Fuchida and Okumiya is not reproduced in the quote above)...

Parshall and Tully begin the narrative on the wargames with a description of an initial run, in the series that started on May 1st, where the American carriers sortied early and hit three of the Japanese Carriers. This initial round was ruled impossible (presumably because the Americans sortied before they could have on the basis of reconnaissance from Midway) see note 1.​

Through repeated simulations both we and the Japanese found that an early sorte by American carriers would ruin the Japanese battle plan and cause a catastrophic loss of carriers for the Japanese. Retrofitting the Yorktown to be sea worthy post haste just sealed the deal.

All of this was not only very predictable but was predicted recurring outcomes IF our carriers left harbor early, and we did because the Japanese had no idea that we broke their code and knew what they planned to do with fairly accurate prognostics.

None of this has a damned thing to do with luck. Winners plan for the unexpected and go into confrontations with lots of 'hole cards' to play, while losers go in with predetermined outcomes and ignore bad signals that should cause them to revise their plans.

The US Navy was a winner back then, but the Pink Mafia has probably changed all that.

Lucky for the Japs at PH that the US refused to believe the early radar reports of the incoming planes. They could have gone to battle stations earlier and possibly prevented as much damage.

The sighting of the incoming Jap planes were confused with an incoming US bomber formation.

There were intelligent reports of potential Jap actions but were lost in the military bureaucracy.

Of course the bad luck the Japs had was that they couldn't translate the declaration of war to the Americans before the attack and that really pissing off the nation. Then there was of course the fact that the carriers were not in port.

Luck is always a factor in any battle. Both good and bad. At Midway luck was on our side and that often can be the difference between winning and losing.

The Japs were crazy to attack the US. If there leaders had been more rational they never would have taken on the US. Just like that crazy asshole Hitler invading the Soviet Union. What could possibly go wrong?

Hitler also declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor

 

[JimBowie1958]

Luck is always a factor in any battle. Both good and bad. At Midway luck was on our side and that often can be the difference between winning and losing.
The Japs were crazy to attack the US. If there leaders had been more rational they never would have taken on the US. Just like that crazy asshole Hitler invading the Soviet Union. What could possibly go wrong?

Luck is a feeble excuse for losers, a whine that means 'I did not plan for unforeseen contingencies and got my ass handed to me.'

The Japanese refused to believe that a deployed carrier fleet NW of PH could actually happen because Americans could not know that the Nipponese fleet were going to attack.

Darwin showed them otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

Luck is always a factor in any battle. Both good and bad. At Midway luck was on our side and that often can be the difference between winning and losing.
The Japs were crazy to attack the US. If there leaders had been more rational they never would have taken on the US. Just like that crazy asshole Hitler invading the Soviet Union. What could possibly go wrong?

Luck is a feeble excuse for losers, a whine that means 'I did not plan for unforeseen contingencies and got my ass handed to me.'

The Japanese refused to believe that a deployed carrier fleet NW of PH could actually happen because Americans could not know that the Nipponese fleet were going to attack.

Darwin showed them otherwise.

Anyone who doesn't believe that luck was involved in the Battle of Midway hasn't actually read about the Battle of Midway.

Bad luck in the case of the American torpedo bombers.
Good luck in the case the American dive bombers who had the zeroes lured away by the torpedo bombers.
Bad luck in the case of the Japanese carriers caught with their planes on deck changing armaments.
Bad luck in the case of the lone American carrier that the Japanese pilots found.

 

[Correll]

What was wrong with my vision, you fucking asshole?

20/20 White male Christian vision

My, what a racist statement

I agree totally

Correll is a racist

Said the man who's vision of the future, contains one racial group being massively discriminated against and marginalized.


If there was anything wrong with my vision of the future, you would have led with what was actually wrong about it, instead of just throwing bullshit personal attacks.


You are being an asshole, INSTEAD of making an actual point.

Because you know that you are in the wrong.

Tell it to your KKK friends

They will sympathize

See the difference is that you are making shit up about me, to smear me,


while I am being honest about your vision of the future, to try to make a real point.


How can the fact that you need to lie to sabotage any real discussion of your real position, not tell you that you are in the wrong?