OT: Battle of Midway

[witpqs]

StrategyPage's Military Jokes and Military Humor


If Today's Media Reported the Battle of Midway


Midway Island Demolished. Yorktown, destroyer sunk.

Many US planes lost

June 7, 1942

The United States Navy suffered another blow in its attempt to stem the Japanese juggernaut ravaging the Pacific Ocean. Midway Island, perhaps the most vital U.S. outpost, was pummeled by Japanese Naval aviators. The defending U.S. forces, consisting primarily of antique Buffalo fighters, were competely wiped out while the Japanese attackers suffered few, if any, losses.

In a nearby naval confrontation, the Japanese successfully attacked the Yorktown which was later sunk by a Japanese submarine. A destroyer lashed to the Yorktown was also sunk.

American forces claim to have sunk four Japanese carriers and the cruiser Mogami but those claims were vehemently denied by the Emporer's spokeman.

The American carriers lost an entire squadron of torpedo planes when they failed to link up with fighter escorts. The dive bombers had fighter escort even though they weren't engaged by enemy fighters. The War Dept. refused to answer when asked why the fighters were assigned to the wrong attack groups. The Hornet lost a large number of planes when they couldn't locate the enemy task force. Despite this cavalcade of errors, Admirals Fletcher and Spruance have not been removed.
Code Broken

The failure at Midway is even more disheartening because the U.S. Navy knew the Japanese were coming. Secret documents provided to the NY Times showed that "Magic" intercepts showed the Japanese planned to attack Midway, which they called "AF".
Obsolete Equipment

Some critics blamed the failure at Midway on the use of obsolete aircraft. The inappropriately named Devastator torpedo planes proved no match for the Japanese fighters. Even the Avengers, its schedule replacements, were riddled with bullets and rendered unflyable. Secretary of War Stimson dodged the question saying simply: "You go to war with the Navy you have, not the Navy you want or would like to have". Critics immediately called for his resignation.

[Yamato hugger]

Why are you re-posting this? This was here a week or 2 ago. Could have just bumbed the old one up if thats what you wanted to do.

[GaryChildress]

That would be a very nationalistic article which you just described--not having any tollerance for even minor failure against an enemy. Is that what you were alluding to?

Or are you saying the News isn't tolerant enough of minor failures in military campaigns? Perhaps we shouldn't be critical of the TBD Devastator's poor performance at Midway so the appropriate defense contractor isn't embarrassed?

Not sure I'm following you. [&:]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Why are you re-posting this? This was here a week or 2 ago. Could have just bumbed the old one up if thats what you wanted to do.

I missed it. I had shoulder surgery 1 1/2 weeks ago and have only read a bit of the board in the meantime. Sorry.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

That would be a very nationalistic article which you just described--not having any tollerance for even minor failure against an enemy. Is that what you were alluding to?

Or are you saying the News isn't tolerant enough of minor failures in military campaigns? Perhaps we shouldn't be critical of the TBD Devastator's poor performance at Midway so the appropriate defense contractor isn't embarrassed?

Not sure I'm following you. [&:]

Alluding to nothing. Posted it because I found it humorous and decided to share it.

By the way, I did not comment - I simply posted the entire joke-article.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Alluding to nothing. Posted it because I found it humorous and decided to share it.

By the way, I did not comment - I simply posted the entire joke-article.

How does one allude to nothing, especially when telling a joke? Is that like holding up a stop sign and saying, "this doesn't say stop"? Do you go into bars and tell blonde jokes and then say, "I wasn't putting you down, was I?" to the blonde lady you just insulted?

[witpqs]

The joke was about the media reporting the event in the worst possible light.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

That would be a very nationalistic article which you just described--not having any tollerance for even minor failure against an enemy. Is that what you were alluding to?

Or are you saying the News isn't tolerant enough of minor failures in military campaigns? Perhaps we shouldn't be critical of the TBD Devastator's poor performance at Midway so the appropriate defense contractor isn't embarrassed?

Not sure I'm following you. [&:]

I think the "joke" alludes to the fact that "it makes a better story" if you can scream about "the disaster" and point "fingers of blame". Note the "fair play" SINGLE SENTENCE mentioning the "report" that the Japanese lost 4 CV's and a CA being "vehemently denied"...., while every mention of a US problem gets a paragraph of dialect about the US Government and Military's failings. During the real war such things were few and far between---the joke was based on the idea of our CURRENT Paparazzi/Press covering the story. All that was missing was a couple of paragraphs on what Frank Sinatra thought had happened and his plans to do a protest concert....

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I think the "joke" alludes to the fact that "it makes a better story" if you can scream about "the disaster" and point "fingers of blame". Note the "fair play" SINGLE SENTENCE mentioning the "report" that the Japanese lost 4 CV's and a CA being "vehemently denied"...., while every mention of a US problem gets a paragraph of dialect about the US Government and Military's failings. During the real war such things were few and far between---the joke was based on the idea of our CURRENT Paparazzi/Press covering the story. All that was missing was a couple of paragraphs on what Frank Sinatra thought had happened and his plans to do a protest concert....

Your are absolutely right in the respect that the joke would be funny if the current press were like that. However you aren't likely to see such critical rantings in the current press. Just look at the treatment the captain of the Vincennes got for shooting down a civilian airliner of a country we weren't at war with (he was awarded a medal????? and the Press didn't think it was absurd), versus, what the press had to say about the Soviets when they shot down flight 007 during the "Cold War" when it was flying in Soviet airspace. The joke sort of has a bad case of non-funniness if you ask me which is why I didn't really get the point of it. [>:]

[worr]

Reminds me of the joke told a couple years ago.

President Bush invites to the presidential yacht on the Potomac, the Pope. The pope comes on board with his full regalia, and a gust of wind blows off his miter.

A secret service agent makes a move for the railing to jump over the side to retrieve it, but the president says, "Do bother. I'll get it."

The present then gets down from the boat, walks on water, recovers the Pope's hat and walks back to the boat and places it on the Pope's head once again.

The next day CNN carries the headline, "Bush Can't Swim. Allow's Pope's hat to get soaked in the Potomac."

Thanks for the post, witpqs. I must have missed the other one too.

Worr, out

[Charles2222]

It makes perfect sense to me. Take the war in Iraq for example. We win a war with "just now" 2,000 dead. We're a VERY decadent nation if we win a war, which is still going on in a very limited sense, and the press keeps pointing at the 2,000 and then we would take the press seriously. Where have those idiots been? 2,000 dead is close to miraculous stuff frankly. Any of the WWII armies would've thrown a party if they had that few dead in a week. A lot of times they lost that many in a day. I would be more ready to think the rate of the dead were a falsehood, it's so unbelievably low, than to think that 2,000 is some overflow of coffins coming home. It's sad to have any losses, but those losses are there to make sure you don't suffer 200,000 losses, in a day, later. I think the 9-11 losses still exceed the Iraq War losses by over a thousand.

The plain fact of the matter is that the press has a very leftist view and is more than happy to smear the military and to try by the power of the pen/microphone (often lies and half-truths) to destroy any success that the military may achieve.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

The plain fact of the matter is that the press has a very leftist view and is more than happy to smear the military and to try by the power of the pen/microphone (often lies and half-truths) to destroy any success that the military may achieve.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! You call that "very leftist"???? (To use a stark example even you can hopefully understand) That would almost be like Goebbels complaining the German press is too "leftist" because it questions the casualties in Poland being worth the fight in order to "rightfully" reclaim Danzig as part of the Fatherland (their justification).

[GoofTrooper]

I think he was comparing the losses of a single terrorist attack (9/11) versus the cumulative losses of a war (Iraq), not that Iraq was responsible.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: GoofTrooper

I think he was comparing the losses of a single terrorist attack (9/11) versus the cumulative losses of a war (Iraq), not that Iraq was responsible.

I'm aware of that. My point, however, is that he is complaining about the press being too "leftist" regarding Iraq because of its attention to (albeit American) casualties when it is highly contestable that we even belong in Iraq to begin with. What does he want the press to do? Just ignore Iraq altogether or maybe completely propagandize the whole war? Should the press just look the other way? Would that imply "balance"? What kind of world does he live in? What kind of "balance" is he looking for? The "balance" between those who want justice and those who want injustice? Is he saying their ought to be more propaganda in the press? Maybe the press ought to just outright lie to us every now and then, you know, just to strike the necessary "balance" between lying and telling the truth!?? [X(]

[doktorblood]

The actual U.S. headlines about the battle were almost as fantastic. The USAAF quickly claimed the credit for the victory and newspapers were running stories about B-17 based on Midway blasting 2 Jap fleets, when in fact the USAAF didn't hit a single ship. The public belived this BS for the rest of the war and the Navy hated the USAAF for it longer that that.

[GoofTrooper]

I happen to agree that there is definitely a negative outlook in the current press regarding any military action made by the U.S. Does anyone remember the crap from the first gulf war? “Saddams desert veterans are going to make mince meat out of the green armies of America” and so forth. Then when it was all but over and the “highway of death” thing happened they implied that the U.S. went too far. Jeez…never happy. While there is definitely merit in the question of “should the U.S. and allies be in Iraq”, the press certainly latches on to anything that places the U.S. (and U.K.) in a negative light. Take the up armored HMMWV’s issue for example. “Why were they sent there with out the equipment needed?” they asked. Because each unit has something called an MTOE (Mission, Tables of, Organization, and Equipment) that identifies what each unit, by type, needs to accomplish its mission (under current doctrine). The doctrine at the time of the war’s start didn’t list up-armored HMMWV’s in the MTOE of most units. The question isn’t the one above at all, but rather why are units doing missions outside of their role? Not enough troops is where I'll put my money. But the press made a point of trying to make it out that the U.S. military sent the troops over there with out giving them the equipment that they were suppose to have (i.e. they didn’t care about the troops safety). I think the original post is just poking fun at the current climate in the press. Is the press left wing? There are certainly some big names who are, but no, not as a whole. I think the current political climate here in the U.S. has more to do with what gets reported and how. Feeding into people’s emotions regarding a hot topic (Iraq) is an obvious way to boost ratings.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

The plain fact of the matter is that the press has a very leftist view and is more than happy to smear the military and to try by the power of the pen/microphone (often lies and half-truths) to destroy any success that the military may achieve.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! You call that "very leftist"???? (To use a stark example even you can hopefully understand) That would almost be like Goebbels complaining the German press is too "leftist" because it questions the casualties in Poland being worth the fight in order to "rightfully" reclaim Danzig as part of the Fatherland (their justification).

My statement that the press is very leftist was a general comment instead. It was not a reference to the Iraq War, or 9-11, but more to the point of how they treat the enormous[8|] total of 2,000 dead. That fact that I threw 9-11 and the Iraq War together, had a little something to do with President Bush's declared war on terror. So I see it like this. There's the 9-11 attack, which is followed by the war on terror declaration, which is followed, among other things, by the Iraq War. Whether the Iraq War has anything to do with the war on terror declaration, or indeed that the Iraq War has anything to do with the 9-11 attack, it's just that a lot of people, be they right or wrong, see the Iraq War as being a response for 9-11 or as a portion of the declaration of war against terror. I think even many of the leftist press, out of the many endless garbage reasons they've claimed the war happened, have drawn the conclusion that the war in Iraq was a portion of the war on terror. If you don't want to believe it, fine. It's just that it certainly isn't an unreasonable conclusion to draw. I personally think it mwas the main reason it happened, but I know there's a number of more minor reasons as well.

I hope you understand that I wasn't saying that drawing the conclusion that the Iraq War and 9-11 are probably related was a leftist viewpoint. One would have to be ignorant to not draw the conclusion that the 9-11 attack wasn't at least a minor reason for that war (and the one in Afghanistan as well). Again, my comment on the mainstream media left had more to do with their complaints about numbers of dead and more generally with their attitude towards the US military.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: GoofTrooper

I think he was comparing the losses of a single terrorist attack (9/11) versus the cumulative losses of a war (Iraq), not that Iraq was responsible.

I'm aware of that. My point, however, is that he is complaining about the press being too "leftist" regarding Iraq because of its attention to (albeit American) casualties when it is highly contestable that we even belong in Iraq to begin with. What does he want the press to do? Just ignore Iraq altogether or maybe completely propagandize the whole war? Should the press just look the other way? Would that imply "balance"? What kind of world does he live in? What kind of "balance" is he looking for? The "balance" between those who want justice and those who want injustice? Is he saying their ought to be more propaganda in the press? Maybe the press ought to just outright lie to us every now and then, you know, just to strike the necessary "balance" between lying and telling the truth!?? [X(]

Wow, you sure are painting me into a corner. Where have I said anything in that one mere post that supports those questions? The simple truth of the matter is that I would want the casualties treated just for what they are; light. I wouldn't, OTOH, go and start encouraging more war, because the last two (Iraq wars) have had very few dead, but waxing non-stop about one more soldier dying, every blasted day there is one, is just as bad an excess.

[ChezDaJez]

Maybe the press ought to just outright lie to us every now and then, you know, just to strike the necessary "balance" between lying and telling the truth!??

I believe they've been known to do that a time or two. CBS News and the New York Times come to mind. There's a huge difference in reporting the truth and reporting the truth as they see it.

As far as the conflict in Iraq goes, when was the last time the press paid significant attention to anything good that's being done there? All they ever report is the blood and guts. They seldom interview the Iraqis who are happy that the coalition removed Hussein from power, they just want to put the ones on TV with the "Death to America" banners.

You can believe what you want but the press doesn't give a rat's ass about fair and balanced reporting. And it doesn't matter whether its the liberal or conservative press doing it. Neither one can claim clean hands. They see something that looks like it will make a good bandwagon so they build it up. Then they jump on it with all their drums banging.

A good example is the amount of press Cindi Sheehan received for her anti-war activities after losing a son in Iraq. How much press was devoted to her ex-husband who supports our efforts in Iraq? If you can find more than a brief mention of him anywhere, I will be amazed.

Chez

[Knavey]

Better take this crap to Madcows. This has nothing to do with WitP.

If you do not know where it is, here is the link.

Madcows...you can talk about anything here