2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: passivekinetic on June 13, 2016, 08:14:42 PM
-
Factcheck, which we recent discussed, says:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.
Are there any other references for this?
Factcheck plays the "neutrality card" and also says:
We make no argument either for or against gun ownership. But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.
-
I am interested in the quote as well as I have heard it many times.
I think there are logic problems with the quote though.
For starters, for Japan to invade the mainland USA would be very difficult simply given the long expanse of ocean between them. And if they did, what benefit would it give them?
Secondly, the Japanese did actually invade the USA so clearly the thought that there was a gun behind every blade of grass (if the quote is true) wasn't a very good deterrent.
-
I am interested in the quote as well as I have heard it many times.
I think there are logic problems with the quote though.
For starters, for Japan to invade the mainland USA would be very difficult simply given the long expanse of ocean between them. And if they did, what benefit would it give them?
Secondly, the Japanese did actually invade the USA so clearly the thought that there was a gun behind every blade of grass (if the quote is true) wasn't a very good deterrent.
Logic?
Pearl did not get invaded by ground forces, so fear of a US armed public was not a concern. The deterrence was talking about a ground invasion of the mainland US.
As for the logistics, Japan hit Pearl in hopes of destroying our Navy. They took many islands as stepping stones to stage a maniland invasion from. Without a Navy, the US would not have been able to stop the build up by Japan at Midway, Iwo Jima, and any other islands they wanted as supply bases. We were lucky they missed a few ships out at sea.
-
Logic?
Pearl did not get invaded by ground forces, so fear of a US armed public was not a concern. The deterrence was talking about a ground invasion of the mainland US.
As for the logistics, Japan hit Pearl in hopes of destroying our Navy. They took many islands as stepping stones to stage a maniland invasion from. Without a Navy, the US would not have been able to stop the build up by Japan at Midway, Iwo Jima, and any other islands they wanted as supply bases. We were lucky they missed a few ships out at sea.
Japan did do a ground invasion of the USA, thus the logic behind the alleged quote obviously did not serve as a deterrent.
-
Japan did do a ground invasion of the USA, thus the logic behind the alleged quote obviously did not serve as a deterrent.
Please educate me, when did Japan do a ground invasion of USA in WW2?
-
Please educate me, when did Japan do a ground invasion of USA in WW2?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mahalo. I was not aware of that, but I was actually wondering more about CONUS. Anyway, still good to know.
-
A friend and I were having a conversation along the lines of this quote the other day. He said something like "there are more guns in the US than people". When he said it, my thoughts were that I wouldn't be that surprised of that was the case, but I didn't think so.
It's probably difficult to determine with even ok accuracy how many guns are in circulation in the US, but it seems like data appears to indicate that there are more guns in the US than people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/)
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/dean-weingarten/how-many-guns-are-there-in-america/ (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/dean-weingarten/how-many-guns-are-there-in-america/)
Some of y'all must have a lot of guns. ;D For every gun that I have, I probably know at least 5 people that don't own guns.
-
Just so every knows, when I first heard this I was told it was Stalin who said it. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Japan did do a ground invasion of the USA, thus the logic behind the alleged quote obviously did not serve as a deterrent.
You are actually not correct in your conclusion.
The quote is
"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
-
You are actually not correct in your conclusion.
The quote is
"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Is Alaska not the mainland? Would Japan in wartime make that distinction based on such semantics?
Maybe since it was snowing there wasn't any grass for the armed Americans to hide behind so they felt safe to invade!
-
Is Alaska not the mainland? Would Japan in wartime make that distinction based on such semantics?
Maybe since it was snowing there wasn't any grass for the armed Americans to hide behind so they felt safe to invade!
Mainland of what? Alaska was not a state yet. How could they know back then that 20 years later Alaska would become a part of the U.S.????
The quote was "...Mainland United States. So no, Alaska is NOT the mainland based on the quote.
-
Is Alaska not the mainland? Would Japan in wartime make that distinction based on such semantics?
Maybe since it was snowing there wasn't any grass for the armed Americans to hide behind so they felt safe to invade!
Based on most of your comment, you're being an idiot. I can't decide if it is intentional, or if you can't help it!
The CONTIGUOUS 48 US STATES are the mainland.
-
Based on most of your comment, you're being an idiot. I can't decide if it is intentional, or if you can't help it!
The CONTIGUOUS 48 US STATES are the mainland.
Forget it, this clown is a troll that hangs out here to endlessly argue.
He reminds me of the pics with one oddball character in a group and the caption "Which one does not belong?"
-
Rember at the time America only included Alaska and Hawaii as territories, They were not part of The United states. So what he said would of only applied to what we now call "The Mainland"
-
Forget it, this clown is a troll that hangs out here to endlessly argue.
He reminds me of the pics with one oddball character in a group and the caption "Which one does not belong?"
Yeah, that's the picture I'm getting. Everytime he's proved wrong, he tries to lie or comes up with some tangential point that in his eyes proves you wrong, making what he typed less wrong. Heck, most of what he posts I find the opposite is true. Takes about 2 seconds on Google! Why can't he take a minute to do the same before posting blatantly false comments?
I see a few on here have lots of patience with him. I don't think I can be one of them. Pathetic way to have adult conversations about deadly force and political realities that are life changing for all of us.
-
Based on most of your comment, you're being an idiot. I can't decide if it is intentional, or if you can't help it!
The CONTIGUOUS 48 US STATES are the mainland.
I was clearly making a joke and you are taking this way to seriously all for what end? To prove there is logic behind a quote that might not even be real? I showed why the logic didn't hold and you went off on a technicality about what constituted the "mainland"
I made a simple comment about the original topic, giving my reasoning, and you trolled it up to be some big issue. Then you have the gall to call me a liar and imply I am the troll? You are getting to be as bad as robtmc.
-
I was clearly making a joke and you are taking this way to seriously all for what end? To prove there is logic behind a quote that might not even be real? I showed why the logic didn't hold and you went off on a technicality about what constituted the "mainland"
I made a simple comment about the original topic, giving my reasoning, and you trolled it up to be some big issue. Then you have the gall to call me a liar and imply I am the troll? You are getting to be as bad as robtmc.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I was clearly making a joke and you are taking this way to seriously all for what end? To prove there is logic behind a quote that might not even be real? I showed why the logic didn't hold and you went off on a technicality about what constituted the "mainland"
I made a simple comment about the original topic, giving my reasoning, and you trolled it up to be some big issue. Then you have the gall to call me a liar and imply I am the troll? You are getting to be as bad as robtmc.
Based on most of your comment, you're being an idiot. I can't decide if it is intentional, or if you can't help it!
Thank you very much for clearing that up! Now I know :stopjack:
-
Maybe that exact quote wasn't used, but I'm sure they (and the Germans) had put some thought about invading a nation that was armed with citizens that had a history of rebellion and independence. Would have been foolish not to. I'm not sure how well armed citizens in Hawaii was at the time as the islands were filled with immigrants and probably didn't have a large hunting population.
I saw a documentary on the Germans and found that one of the major factors the US got involved in WWII was Germany was talking to Mexico about starting trouble.
-
A friend and I were having a conversation along the lines of this quote the other day. He said something like "there are more guns in the US than people". When he said it, my thoughts were that I wouldn't be that surprised of that was the case, but I didn't think so.
It's probably difficult to determine with even ok accuracy how many guns are in circulation in the US, but it seems like data appears to indicate that there are more guns in the US than people.
For every gun that I have, I probably know at least 5 people that don't own guns.
I only own 6 guns, less than when I was only 17 years old, but that equates to 2 per person in my household. My brother owns about 20 or 10 per person in his household. My other brother owns 5, with only him. A friend of mine has 70 with 1 in his household. I know a lot of the guys here probably have at least a 5 to 1 ratio in their home. I believe there are more guns than people in the US.
I was in the IKEA store in Vegas this morning and I saw an old guy walking around the store open carrying a Glock. Nobody even seemed concerned or looked twice. I love Nevada.
-
Thank you very much for clearing that up! Now I know :stopjack:
Let me be clear then when I give you an award for intelligence I will be doing so sarcastically since you have trouble telling.
-
Let me be clear then when I give you an award for intelligence I will be doing so sarcastically since you have trouble telling.
As Forrest might say:
"I'm not a smart man, but I can tell an argumentative liar when I see one."
Slinging insults from behind a keyboard is easy. But you should try to be more creative! :rofl: :stopjack:
-
I only own 6 guns, less than when I was only 17 years old, but that equates to 2 per person in my household. My brother owns about 20 or 10 per person in his household. My other brother owns 5, with only him. A friend of mine has 70 with 1 in his household. I know a lot of the guys here probably have at least a 5 to 1 ratio in their home. I believe there are more guns than people in the US.
I was in the IKEA store in Vegas this morning and I saw an old guy walking around the store open carrying a Glock. Nobody even seemed concerned or looked twice. I love Nevada.
i don't own any firearms...
-
i don't own any firearms...
Wise man, I decided to do the same after the media made me see how dangerous they are.
-
i don't own any firearms...
If Nerf Guns count you own a bunch!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
i don't own any firearms...
Wise man, I decided to do the same after the media made me see how dangerous they are.
Boating accidents?
Many former gun owners have mentioned losing their guns in bottom of rivers and lake in boating accidents. They really ought to be more careful on those boats. :P
:rofl:
-
If Nerf Guns count you own a bunch!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Two of my buddies' kids have tons of Nerf guns. Way more than I own. Lots of ammo too, but they seem to have limited reloading capabilities.
-
As Forrest might say:
"I'm not a smart man, but I can tell an argumentative liar when I see one."
Slinging insults from behind a keyboard is easy. But you should try to be more creative! :rofl: :stopjack:
You draw first blood and are going to complain my comebacks aren't witty enough for you?
And we would still be on topic if someone didn't decide to start a flame war.
-
You draw first blood and are going to complain my comebacks aren't witty enough for you?
And we would still be on topic if someone didn't decide to start a flame war.
By first blood, if you mean I corrected your statement that the subject quote had to do with the mainland US, then I guess I did do that!
I didn't think you were going to react so emotional and irrationally when something you posted was disputed. Seems to me, you've had that done so often you should be used to it by now!
-
By first blood, if you mean I corrected your statement that the subject quote had to do with the mainland US, then I guess I did do that!
I didn't think you were going to react so emotional and irrationally when something you posted was disputed. Seems to me, you've had that done so often you should be used to it by now!
My point was to illustrate a logical flaw behind the quote . Rather than address the logical flaw I was talking about out you focused on semantics.
You were the first to level insults, I remained calm. You kept at it then when I bit back you try to flip the tables and suggest I am emotional and over reacting?
If you wanted to discuss what the Japanese might have meant by "mainland united states" we certainly could have done that cordially.
-
My point was to illustrate a logical flaw behind the quote . Rather than address the logical flaw I was talking about out you focused on semantics.
You were the first to level insults, I remained calm. You kept at it then when I bit back you try to flip the tables and suggest I am emotional and over reacting?
If you wanted to discuss what the Japanese might have meant by "mainland united states" we certainly could have done that cordially.
My point was to illustrate a logical flaw behind the quote . Rather than address the logical flaw I was talking about out you focused on semantics.
You were the first to level insults, I remained calm. You kept at it then when I bit back you try to flip the tables and suggest I am emotional and over reacting?
If you wanted to discuss what the Japanese might have meant by "mainland united states" we certainly could have done that cordially.
The only flaw was in your basic thought process and general 3rd grade knowledge of the US. The US didn't include Alaska (or Hawaii) as a state until 1959. If you want to argue logic, let's discuss how you didn't know that little factoid. If you had, the whole definition of mainland would have never been a problem for you.
-
Let's stay focused. The reason is, many other people are reading these gun-related threads, and many of them probably do not even log in, or are just visiting once.
Many of those people could also be liberals, who are looking to see whether or not these gun owners are as nutty as the TV tells them.
Sometimes, posts can veer off into all kinds of directions, whether intentional or not, providing ammo for propagandists.
Anyway, back to the topic:
Eatingeyefish said: "Japan did do a ground invasion of the USA, thus the logic behind the alleged quote obviously did not serve as a deterrent."
We can only theorize what the logic is, but it is not unreasonable to think that a sustained invasion campaign would be close to impossible, even if you started a beach-head, because the contiguous and connected states have a large population of armed citizens dwarfing any landed enemy force.
Now, no military commander is going to land his troops just to have some bullet fun at the beach. It must be the start of a sustainable invasion campaign.
When the entire native population is armed, it is very unlikely said beach-head could even hold, much less support subsequent plans.
So while this topic was to ascertain whether or not the quote is authentic, there is nonetheless good reasoning behind it.
Certainly, an armed population of citizens is significantly harder to conquer than a disarmed population.
There should be no doubt about that point.
-
Certainly, an armed population of citizens is significantly harder to conquer than a disarmed population.
hmmm, perhaps the gun grabbers know this?...
-
Most of them probably don't. Useful though.
-
The only flaw was in your basic thought process and general 3rd grade knowledge of the US. The US didn't include Alaska (or Hawaii) as a state until 1959. If you want to argue logic, let's discuss how you didn't know that little factoid. If you had, the whole definition of mainland would have never been a problem for you.
Alaska was still a US territory. Do you think they reasoned that just because Alaska hadn't entered into statehood that the residents there didn't have guns? Someone at a table said "good thing they are just a territory and not a state, that way we wont face a gun behind every blade of grass" ?
You are focusing on the wording of the quote and you are right on that technicality, but the logic behind the quote, that there are a lot of guns in the USA making a land invasion difficult, is not contingent on whether a location is classified as a state or territory, or whether it is the mainland or the continental USA or the contiguous states, etc. Wouldn't Alaskans be just as well armed as citizens in the lower 48?
I suspect private gun ownership would not be at the top of the list of problems Japan would have trying to invade the USA. Private gun ownership would certainly be a concern for them but I think logistics would be the biggest issue. Transporting enough soldiers almost 5,000 miles away from the homeland and keeping them stocked for a lengthy ground war would be the 800lb gorilla in the room.
Any country with significant private gun ownership serves as a deterrent to a land invasion, that we can all agree on I think. I just don't think that ended up as much of an issue in the case of the Japanese.
-
From what I understand* the concept was brought up by one of Yamamoto's aides in a planning session and Yamamoto sort of took it and ran with it. Just from memory, and I don't feel like digging it up by chapter and page.
Terry
* Not sure where I got this from. Perhaps Jablonski's "Airwar" series, or "Total War" by Calvoressi and Wint. In either case, it was presented by known and accredited WWII historians.
-
Contiguous states implies people can more easily cross land to reinforce the front line.
-
Contiguous states implies people can more easily cross land to reinforce the front line.
Very true, but this is a concern whether the populace is armed with firearms or not. We knew that if we invaded Japan there were plans to have civilians with any and every improvised weapon available attack american troops. But in hindsight, all this logic and tactics really doesn't prove or disprove the accuracy of the quote.
-
Very true, but this is a concern whether the populace is armed with firearms or not. We knew that if we invaded Japan there were plans to have civilians with any and every improvised weapon available attack american troops. But in hindsight, all this logic and tactics really doesn't prove or disprove the accuracy of the quote.
Yes, the villagers can attack the invading force with pitchforks, scythes, wooden bats, and rocks.
Or with things that shoot .308, .45, BMG...
-
Yes, the villagers can attack the invading force with pitchforks, scythes, wooden bats, and rocks.
Or with things that shoot .308, .45, BMG...
I would be worried about the children armed with suicide bombs.
-
I would be worried about the children armed with suicide bombs.
No need for that if the adults are sufficiently equipped.
Guns save children's lives.
-
I would be worried about the children armed with suicide bombs.
I was unaware children used as suicide bombers was a common practice of the Japanese.
Maybe that fear is caused by projecting the horrific actions of a particular group now onto another group in the past?
-
I was unaware children used as suicide bombers was a common practice of the Japanese.
Maybe that fear is caused by projecting the horrific actions of a particular group now onto another group in the past?
I would have to find a source to be sure but I recall that nearly the entire civilian population (including children) was trained and expected to fight American soldiers to the death.
-
I would have to find a source to be sure but I recall that nearly the entire civilian population (including children) was trained and expected to fight American soldiers to the death.
Please, post your sources. I'd be very interested to see that info.
-
Please, post your sources. I'd be very interested to see that info.
I think it was mentioned here but cannot remember if it specified children or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfyNNVuLCn8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children_in_World_War_II#Japanese_youth_military_groups
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/jap/inv/w2ij-ket.html
-
I think it was mentioned here but cannot remember if it specified children or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children_in_World_War_II#Japanese_youth_military_groups
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/jap/inv/w2ij-ket.html
I saw where youth were trained to fight and perform military functions, and a few were tagged to potentially be used as Kamikaze pilots. I also saw that the child soldiers were never actually used, and suicide bombing was never a part of their training.
Any other Google results you found supporting your ficticious fear of child suicide bombers from Japan? Because I'm just not seeing it in any of your sources.
-
I saw where youth were trained to fight and perform military functions, and a few were tagged to potentially be used as Kamikaze pilots. I also saw that the child soldiers were never actually used, and suicide bombing was never a part of their training.
Any other Google results you found supporting your ficticious fear of child suicide bombers from Japan? Because I'm just not seeing it in any of your sources.
Really? You didn't know Japan invaded Alaska and you are going to test me again?
Perhaps you should have read the sources thoroughly before replying with such attitude. I hope your foot tastes good.
"Soldiers were assigned to schools to train even primary-level children in the use of weapons like bamboo spears. Boys were trained to strap on satchel charges and charge a tank, roll under it and set off the charge."
And obviously the children were never actually used, we never invaded Japan. They surrendered before a land invasion was necessary. Or do I need to provide proof of that for you too? Sorry, I figured that was covered basic public school education.
-
Really? You didn't know Japan invaded Alaska and you are going to test me again?
Perhaps you should have read the sources thoroughly before replying with such attitude. I hope your foot tastes good.
"Soldiers were assigned to schools to train even primary-level children in the use of weapons like bamboo spears. Boys were trained to strap on satchel charges and charge a tank, roll under it and set off the charge."
And obviously the children were never actually used, we never invaded Japan. They surrendered before a land invasion was necessary. Or do I need to provide proof of that for you too? Sorry, I figured that was covered basic public school education.
Okay, so they trained to commit suicide blowing up tanks. To me, a modern Muslim-style suicide bomber targets people, not tanks, but I guess that qualifies as TRAINING to do the deed. Terrorism looks to strike fear in the hearts of the populace, whereas a bomber with a military mission would target soldiers, communications, and armor.
I guess if you have to be afraid of something, Japanese kids with bombs strapped to them can be as scary to you as soldiers with weapons that kill from hundreds of yards or more away.
-
Okay, so they trained to commit suicide blowing up tanks. To me, a modern Muslim-style suicide bomber targets people, not tanks, but I guess that qualifies as TRAINING to do the deed. Terrorism looks to strike fear in the hearts of the populace, whereas a bomber with a military mission would target soldiers, communications, and armor.
I guess if you have to be afraid of something, Japanese kids with bombs strapped to them can be as scary to you as soldiers with weapons that kill from hundreds of yards or more away.
What are you even talking about? How did this transition into a discussion about terrorism?
We were discussing WW2 land invasions and you turned it into fear of muslim suicide bombers?
-
What are you even talking about? How did this transition into a discussion about terrorism?
We were discussing WW2 land invasions and you turned it into fear of muslim suicide bombers?
I can't be sure if you actually can't follow the conversation from one post to the next, or if you're just trying to troll me for a response.
Either way, there's nothing topic related I can reply to your questions with. Moving on now. :stopjack:
-
Posted on wrong thread. Sorry. Wa trying to post on the :"Don't eat at this restaurant" thread.
Thanks for the "like," but I moved the post to there.
-
:stopjack:
"Sorry, I figured that was covered [in] basic public school education."
Are you kidding? The way history is taught in today's schools?
America bad, nasty, evil. You little schoolchildren should feel guilty about America's power and carry that message with you always. Bad America !
Most of what Bill Whittle said in the above video conforms to the accredited historical texts... some of which were written by non-Americans. He gets a wee bit ranty towards the end, but that's OK with me, since I am aware of the gross atrocities committed by the Japanese.
Terry, 230RN