I have pretty much always had a contention that one of the contributing factors for the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the fact that the U.S. was involved with protecting China from Japan. Japan had already made it's 50 plus demands from China but we were there shooting down Japanese planes and sinking some of their boats in the defense of China. Some of the folks I have talked to have told me it was almost like a mercenary action, but it looks more like what we have had going on in Iraq. We are there with no declared war but as a tactical and teaching task force. I know the Flying Tigers (marine pilots) were deployed, as well as other forces for China's defense, so under what sanction were we there and to what extent did we have permission to fight? And, do you think this might have added a little to the Pearl Harbor bombing and subsequent war?
You do realize, do you not, that the "Flying Tigers," that is, the American Volunteer Group, did not enter combat operations against the Japanese until Dec 20, 1941, well after the attack on Pearl Harbor. So, just which Japanese were shot down (when, where, what types lost to what types engaged) and which Japanese ships (name, date, location, attacking aircraft) were sunk by which US flagged forces (name and organization/unit) or even organized mercenary organizations (specific organizations in the pay of what government or other organization) prior to Pearl Harbor? Please provide a verifiable list of US Army (to include the AAF) and US Navy (to include attached USMC unit) units . . . ships, squadrons, regiments, whatever, deployed by what command authority to engage in combat operations against the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy forces operating in an around China in what actions, when and where, prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Try to be specific because I can and will check. And please, do not be distracted by the fact that over half the pilots in the AVG were former US naval aviators. Most of those former naval aviators were Navy, not Marine Corps, as you seem to believe, and ALL OF THEM and the former USAAF pilots, as well, resigned their commissions and left their respective services, i.e., became civilians, in order to join the AVG. As members of the AVG they were each under individual employment contracts with CAMCO (Central Air Manufacturing Company), a contractor itself to the Nationalist Chinese. Please do not let theory get in the way of the facts.
My, we are hostile today aren't we! The reason I put the thread out there was to get some questions answered and possibly have some conversation on the matter. If you like, I can do like most of the guys have been doing and just put out a bunch of links to the facts and let it go at that! The info I put out was all theory based on other old folks I have talked to about it but admitedly, I did not go the true route and try to give a history lesson instead of a thread which might happen to involve other people in this forum thereby creating a small bit of interest. Thank you for your wonderful history lesson. Next time I put up a thread, I will try to do the same as you and offer absolutely no room for speculation or conversation much less military comradery. And by the by, 14 days is not WELL AFTER as most of your expository is also puffed up.
I can answer part of the questions of R. Leonard. At least ONE Japanese vessel was sunk prior to the Pearl Harbour air raid. The USS WARD sank a Japanese mini-submarine on the night of 6 Dec., 1941. Of course the mini-sub was trespassing in a posted security zone, trying to penetrate harbour defences.
Hostile? Not I, you'll have much more evidence than the above were I being hostile. Perhaps you are being overly defensive when someone throws a challenge flag. Let me see if I understand you . . . you pose your theory, I reply with fact and that is "hostile?" Hmmmm. Asking you to supply some verifiable instances of your theory is hostile? Hmmmm. My, and here I thought you were getting just that conversation on the matter which you sought. And just how were you planning on conducting your conversation without some recitation of historical fact? Of, course, it is somewhat difficult to discuss the type of events raised in your theory of US intervention in the Sino-Japanese war when there were no such events . . . kind of tends to squelch further discussion. I note you failed to provide any of the answers as to who, what, where, when and how. I presumed you have read up on the subject and that your theory did not spring from some gossamer weaving, obviously that was a mistake . . . mea culpa. And did these other "old folks" with whom you discussed your theory have concrete examples? Here's a flash, I, too, am an old person . . . well into my sixth decade . . . being old does not offer any protection when one presents a theory with no basis in fact. Tell, me, just how does one have a "conversation" on something that never happened? I went to the bank today, a couple of them, in fact. Shall we discuss my technique for bank robbing? Oh, rats, I didn't rob them, not this time, not any time . . . pretty much the end of the discussion, eh? And if by your own words: ". . . I did not go the true route . . ." you mean you knew your theory was unsubstantiatable, why, oh, why, even go down that road . . . unless you were setting up some poor soul for an ambush. Yep, I'm an old guy, too; one with a moderately sensitive bovine excretia detection meter . . . the alarm went off. You are most welcome. Maybe sticking to the facts really would be a good idea and as for "military comradery" I would hazard a guess that well over half the people using this discussion forum have never put on a uniform and shouldered a rifle in their lives . . . makes no difference, but my take on that particular turn of phrase is that you are trying to build a straw fort. If you wish to play "talk to the veterans" then may I suggest a veteran centered discussion group. I visited some with regularity when first venturing on to the internet, lo those many years ago, but eventually found them tedious and abandoned the practice. Arrr, you got me matey . . . you've yerked me twixt the ribs. You may want, on the other hand, to look up what the Japanese accomplished in those 14 days. And now, to call a recitation of verifiable facts, even in its superficial format (for example, though I have the information readily available I provided no statistical data on the service source of the individual AVG members) "puffed up" . . . would you care to point out where I have inflated actual facts? Or are you being hostile?
The action in which USS Ward fired on, depth charged, and reported sinking an unidentified submarine in the harbor entrance to Pearl Harbor occurred in daylight, albeit, morning daylight, on 7 December 1941, sunrise, that is, when the sun appears above the horizon, being at 0625 that morning. This action occurred approximately between 0630 and 0650 local time. The island of Oahu is roughly 2,395 miles from San Francisco California and 4,925 miles from Shanghai, China . . . so this event is hardly the OPs theoretically espoused US combat units intervention in the Sino-Japanese war before the attack on Pearl Harbor. One might point out that this unidentified submarine, determined to be Japanese on the face of later evidence, i.e. the air raid, was, in fact part and parcel of the Japanese attack plan. LCDR Outerbridge's message about this encounter did not even have any variation on the words "Japan" or "Japanese". The sequence of events . . . and I only do this because I am apparently unbelievable: Times noted are Hawaiian Time - 0342: The minesweepers USS Condor (AMc-14) and USS Crossbill (AMc-9) are patrolling 1.75 miles (2.8 km) south of the Pearl Harbor entrance buoys. Ensign R.C. McCloy, the captain of Condor, sights a white wake and asks his quartermaster what he thinks the object is. The quartermaster identifies the object as a periscope. 0357: Condor sends a blinker message to USS Ward (DD-139) on entrance patrol. The message read: "Sighted submerged submarine on westerly course, speed nine knots." 0408: Ward goes to general quarters and conducts a sonar search for the next hour without acquiring a target. 0435: Ward secures from general quarters. 0630: Stores issue ship USS Antares (AKS-14) arrives off Pearl Harbor entrance with a 500 ton steel barge in tow. At 0630, the ship was turning slowly to the east when a suspicious object was sighted about 1500 yards off the starboard quarter. This object appeared to be a small submarine with upper conning tower awash and periscope partly raised. Ward, in the vicinity, was notified by blinker message and proceeded to investigate. 0633: The crew of a PBY from Patrol Squadron Fourteen (VP-14) out of NAS Kaneohe Bay, also spots a suspicious object and drops two smoke pots near the object spotted by Antares. 0645: Lookouts on Ward's bridge notice a small feather wake astern of Antares and the barge she is towing. Ward goes to general quarters and charges the submarine at flank speed. Number one 4-inch mount fires on the target but the round went over the target. The number three gun atop the galley deckhouse fires as Ward passes abeam and its round was observed to pass squarely through the conning tower of what is now identified as a submarine. As the submarine starts to settle, or submerge depending on one's point of view, Ward passes close aboard and drops four depth charges which result in an up-welling of black water (this probably from the bottom strata as the Japanese midget submarines were battery powered, no fueled engines). 0653: Ward radios an action report to Commandant, 14th Naval District headquarters: "We have attacked, fired upon and dropped depth charges upon submarine operating in defensive sea area." 0715: Ward's message, delayed in decoding, is delivered to the CinCPac duty officer. If anyone wants to cite a for real instance of US units firing on the Japanese, in China, prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, I could suggest the USS Panay incident, 12 December 1937, but, of course the firing done by Panay was in defense against a Japanese air attack which sank her . . . and machine gunners on the gunboat did not open fire until after the ship had been hit. If one wants to present that incident as a cause of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, one would be forced to observe that the Japanese certainly had a slow burn fuse.
