Excuse my ignorance, but when did the US start to attack Japan? Following Pearl Harbour or before? Stefan.
I believe the first offensive action was the Doolittle raid in April of 1942. There was the Panay attack in 1937 which might be interesting to you. USS Panay incident - Wikipedia
USN USN submarines began offensive patrols against Japan in Dec 1941 within days of Pearl Harbour - the first patrol being carried out by USS Gudgeon during this patrol she sank a Japanese submarine off Midway on 27th Jan 1942
The reason for my question was: one of the civilian sensors in OFLAG Vb Biberach in a report in 1946 stated the following: The censored Sunday speech of the British priest said that in Autumn 1941 the Allied forces would attack Japan before The Reich. He was asked to not mention it to the other officers. What do you think? Stefan.
In Autumn 1941 the term "the Allies" would not include the USA and Britain and the Soviet Union were already fighting Germany
This censor included a number of errors, mistakes in her report. Especially about "The Great Escape of Biberach." She knew about the escape, but was not informed by the commandant about all the facts It would not surprise me if by Allied forces, she meant to say US/canadian/British Forces. In-between the lines the whole report sounds to me like:" Sorry, I was an innocent censor doing my duty for The Reich. And these officers were so well treated. The treatment was confirmed by the diaries of many officers and local witnesses. She belonged to a well known family in my town. Living members did not want to comment to me. Black sheep of the family? Stefan.
You still a You still aren't giving us the context. Who was this censor? what were her duties? to whom was she reporting in 1946? Was she censoring the padre's sermon before he was allowed to give it? How would he have information that other POWs did not? How could they stop him passing it on even if he didn't put it in his sermon?
Sorry, if I was a bit confusing or not precise enough. The censor was a civilian working in the camp from 1939 to 1945 reporting to the commandant with excellent knowledge of English. In 1946, like many Germans suspected to be too much involved with the NSDAP had to "confess" what they were doing. Any speech, etc. to the POWs in English had to be censored before. Of course it did not stop the padre to talk to the officers in private before or after. Stefan.
Thanks Makes things a little clearer but they still don't make sense. In late 1940 a series of US military strategy meetings were held under the auspices of Admiral Stark. He argued that developments in military technology made an attack on the American Eastern Seaboard increasingly practical whereas the much greater distances in the Pacific (where the bulk of the US naval forces were) made a serious attack on the Western seaboard still impractical. He further argued that US security on the Eastern Seaboard had been and still was largely due to the RN's control of the Atlantic and the British Empire's strength particularly in Africa. This did not go down well in some quarters. Nevertheless Stark was able make the point that it was essential to long term US defence that Britain was not forced to the peace table. Recent assessments had concluded that a German invasion of Britain was impossible at the time but that Britain could not win a European land war on her own. He therefore proposed Plan Dog. Under Dog the US would prepare for a future war in Europe whilst standing on the defensive in the Pacific. This was accepted in December 1940 and then by the Administration in Jan 1941 and secret talks at staff level began with Britain. In March 1941 a secret agreement was signed - it was known as ABC-1. This was the first "Germany First" agreement All this would be highly secret but there was nothing whatsoever to suggest that US offensive action against Japan before Pearl Harbour was so much as contemplated. see M Mark A Stoler, Allies in War - Britain and America against the Axis Powers 1940 - 1945,Hodder Arnold, NY
It is a proper noun and should be spelled as indicated. If you want to refer to the harbour at Pearl Harbor, by all means please do so. Your response to Owen's comment could be countered by me spelling Leicester as Lester, as that is the way we Americans spell that word. But I shan't do so as I as I am aware that it is a proper noun and should be spelled as such. Quite frankly, your comment sounded a bit snotty.
There was a raid on the Marshall Islands on 1 Feb 1942 by a US task group They attacked merchant shipping with aircraft and surface ship gunfire. Primary US ships were the carrier Enterprise, and cruisers Northhampton and Salt Lake City. Halsey and Spruance were the commanders.
T There are plenty of US accounts of D Day that refer to Portsmouth Harbour as Portsmouth Harbor. To complain about this would at best seem to be extreme pettifoggery at worst obnoxious nationalism
But hes not complaining about it - if its written by an American its Harbor wherever in the world that might be - if its written by someone British then it would be written Harbour - exactly the same with center or centre TD
And The Guardian backs both sides! Headline says Pearl Harbour. Article says Pearl Harbor. The significance of Pearl Harbour to America and the second world war Tim
"Harbour Lights" song......music and lyrics,the work by non US artists. Francis Langford recorded it as "Harbor Lights" .....appropriately the u is missing in North American English in many words,a deviation from British English.....honour...colour etc I notice that the Australians now spell Labour as Labor as the Americans.Japanese appear to use North American English. The North American English using "ize" where British English uses "ise" Tim,I have to say that the Guardian extract is an example of poor editing.There is in reality, no location such as Pearl Harbour
Exactly - my comment was to poke fun at The Guardian rather than support any idea that Pearl Harbour was the correct terminology. Anyway as so often happens we're now well off the thread. Tim
