Was Pearl Harbor really that bad?
Fewer than 3,000 Americans were killed by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. The target was military, not civilian -- seriously, warships are just asking for it aren't they? And this was 1941 -- Hawaii wasn't even a U.S. state! It was a justified strike against American imperialism.
So, the Japanese attack us, and then we go to war against them and the Germans and Italians. We invade North Africa? Talk about the wrong continent!
Did we overreact? Fewer than 3,000 dead at Pearl Harbor and then we go to war and add 297,000 to that number? What were we thinking?
If all of the above made sense to you, then this tripe probably does too.
Was 9/11 really that bad?
The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.
The author is history professor David A. Bell of Johns Hopkins University. We here at Hoystory would like to congratulate Professor Bell on making the value of Johns Hopkins history degree transparent; it isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.
0 comments on “Was Pearl Harbor really that bad?”
Tags
Did you read the entire article? Your blog seems to be an "over reaction"!
[...] Iowahawk has discovered the first draft of history professor David A. Bell’s controversial piece “Was 9/11 really that bad.” [...]
[...] As we mentioned on Tuesday, the LA Times stirred up a ruckus this weekend when its website posted an op-ed from the Sunday paper titled, “Was 9/11 Really That Bad?” The incendiary headline drew an instant and furious response (including from commenters on HuffPo’s main page) and as of this morning it had been changed to “Putting 9/11 In Perspective.” As it turns out, the original web headline differed completely from the print version, which ran with the line, “Apocalypse, No.” Meanwhile author of the piece David Bell, who was careful to note in the text that he meant “no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces,” has since been criticised over the headline as well as the questions raised in his analysis, with little heed to the fact that headlines are typically written by editors, not writers. When reached for comment, Bell, who also posted a statement about the article on the New Republic’s “Open University” blog, had this to say: You’re quite right that I didn’t write the original headline, and was not consulted about it. In fact, this was not even the headline in the print edition. The editorial page editor, Nick Goldberg, finally settled on “Apocalypse, No.” However, for reasons that weren’t made clear to me, the web editorial team was not informed of this change. When I saw the headline on Sunday morning I immediately wrote Nick to ask that it be changed. He thought, however (comedy of errors) that I was objecting to headline in the print edition, which he defended. When he finally realized that the website had been using the headline “Was 9/11 Really that Bad,” he had that one changed as well. [...]
And, come to think of it, was Vietnam all that bad? We aonly lost 58,000 soldiers. And, also, come to think of it, Iraq is another Vietnam. AT the rate we are losing soldiers, it'll only be another few decades until we equal Vietnam.