Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm



That those British begun WWII, of course.

warspite1

[:@] WHAT!! Euro nazi, acne, dodgy odour, obesity, schoolboys, payment for intimacy, more euro nazis, finest sword, porridge, insurrection etc etc

Cant hear you. Can't hear you. I am running so fast that I can't hear you. Can't hear a word you are saying. Can't he... what?! Acne??? Acne!

Acne!

warspite1

Shut it pimple face.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

[:@] WHAT!! Euro nazi, acne, dodgy odour, obesity, schoolboys, payment for intimacy, more euro nazis, finest sword, porridge, insurrection etc etc

Cant hear you. Can't hear you. I am running so fast that I can't hear you. Can't hear a word you are saying. Can't he... what?! Acne??? Acne!

Acne!

warspite1

Shut it pimple face.

Take that back. I know savate so you better take that back now.

[desicat]

The question isn't absurd as numerous television shows and papers have been written to either speculate or refute the issue. Even the Naval War College uses literature that covers the possibility.

Commander in Chief by Eric Larrabee has been used for selected classes. On page 83 the author take care in stating; "Of his guilty foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor it must be said at the onset, and emphatically, that there is no substantial evidence whatever." He goes on from there but you get his point.

Prior to this section the author spends several pages listing Intel failures by the US that seem unconscionable in hindsight, yet hindsight is often (not always) 20/20.

The question isn't ridiculous, but some of the antagonism on both sides may be a bit much.

[desicat]

...and not to cause consternation but the military value of an asset has to include its strategic envisioned usage and role. The Zero can't hold its own against the Wildcat, but that wasn't its primary design role. The Zero was designed as a long range escort fighter, hence the almost 1700 nm range vs 900 nm for the Wildcat.

Military Innovation in the Interwar Period does a great job of describing Japanese experimentation with CV operations in the 1930's and strategic operational visions. Self sealing wing tanks and armor were excluded on many aircraft for strategic reasons, not technological ones. I know many of you already know this so I'm not trying to preach some new found religion and look for conversions.

I just want to point out that the Zero was a better fit for Japanese carrier operations, and even though the Wildcat was superior to the Zero once combat began, it was wholly unsuited the the purpose the Japanese would have needed it to fulfill. So I guess deciding which a/c is better depends the need.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm



Cant hear you. Can't hear you. I am running so fast that I can't hear you. Can't hear a word you are saying. Can't he... what?! Acne??? Acne!

Acne!

warspite1

Shut it pimple face.

Take that back. I know savate so you better take that back now.

Warspite1

Well I don't know who that Savate geezer is but he looks dangerous so I take it back not

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

I can't remember when I was in such a hostile forum before.

Noticable is how people react to controversial theories. I mean the big picture here is obviously that there is no room for any other ideas. It feels like beeing stoned to death as soon as you are trying to think outside the box.

I have made a mistake. It is obviously pointless to discuss such matters in a forum like this. I have just today found a more objective forum on a scientific site that discusses this matter in a more serious way with a little more educated, mature and less intolerant people.

I do apologize for having stired up emotions. I was not trying to prove or refute anything.

Since I have joined the new forum to discuss my matters there I would be thankfull if the admins locked down this thread. Thank you in advance. No further comments.

The Big Bang theory was a controversial theory and created a lot of debate. However, the theory you are proposing to talk about is not a controversial theory-just some folderol. There is a difference. Sometimes the most outlandish theories can eventually be proven true. But not that one. It was put to bed long ago.

"found a more objective forum on a scientific site that discusses this matter" Tempted but not going to touch this one..

And yes, it "was" a Chilean not Chinese prostitute that told me that...[:D]

[Orm]

Well I don't know who that Savate geezer is

Professor Calculus is a fictional character in The Adventures of Tintin.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

I can't remember when I was in such a hostile forum before.

Noticable is how people react to controversial theories. I mean the big picture here is obviously that there is no room for any other ideas. It feels like beeing stoned to death as soon as you are trying to think outside the box.

I have made a mistake. It is obviously pointless to discuss such matters in a forum like this. I have just today found a more objective forum on a scientific site that discusses this matter in a more serious way with a little more educated, mature and less intolerant people.

I do apologize for having stired up emotions. I was not trying to prove or refute anything.

Since I have joined the new forum to discuss my matters there I would be thankfull if the admins locked down this thread. Thank you in advance. No further comments.

The Big Bang theory was a controversial theory and created a lot of debate. However, the theory you are proposing to talk about is not a controversial theory-just some folderol. There is a difference. Sometimes the most outlandish theories can eventually be proven true. But not that one. It was put to bed long ago.

And yes, it "was" a Chilean not Chinese prostitute that told me that...[:D]

Warspite1

You discussed the Big Bang Theory with a Chilean Prostitute? Post coital theorising? Was that included in the price? [:)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

I can't remember when I was in such a hostile forum before.

Noticable is how people react to controversial theories. I mean the big picture here is obviously that there is no room for any other ideas. It feels like beeing stoned to death as soon as you are trying to think outside the box.

I have made a mistake. It is obviously pointless to discuss such matters in a forum like this. I have just today found a more objective forum on a scientific site that discusses this matter in a more serious way with a little more educated, mature and less intolerant people.

I do apologize for having stired up emotions. I was not trying to prove or refute anything.

Since I have joined the new forum to discuss my matters there I would be thankfull if the admins locked down this thread. Thank you in advance. No further comments.

The Big Bang theory was a controversial theory and created a lot of debate. However, the theory you are proposing to talk about is not a controversial theory-just some folderol. There is a difference. Sometimes the most outlandish theories can eventually be proven true. But not that one. It was put to bed long ago.

And yes, it "was" a Chilean not Chinese prostitute that told me that...[:D]

Warspite1

You discussed the Big Bang Theory with a Chilean Prostitute? Post coital theorising? Was that included in the price? [:)]

"It was put to bed long ago." "Big Bang theory" & "Chilean Prostitute"

Take a hint, man! [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: desicat

The question isn't absurd as numerous television shows and papers have been written to either speculate or refute the issue. Even the Naval War College uses literature that covers the possibility.

Commander in Chief by Eric Larrabee has been used for selected classes. On page 83 the author take care in stating; "Of his guilty foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor it must be said at the onset, and emphatically, that there is no substantial evidence whatever." He goes on from there but you get his point.

Prior to this section the author spends several pages listing Intel failures by the US that seem unconscionable in hindsight, yet hindsight is often (not always) 20/20.

The question isn't ridiculous, but some of the antagonism on both sides may be a bit much.

Warspite1

Well I think history is all about constantly re-examining the past as new evidence / information (or even just new interpretations) comes to light. So is the question ridiculous from someone who initially said he is new to WWII and seemingly wanted a sensible debate? No, of course not - and why I gave him the courtesy of a response. Others may have seen this debate come up more often and were less inclined to give him the time of day, but each to their own.

But in answer to the OP there are two immediate problems with this one (and to be honest I struggle to get my head past the first one).

Namely, would FDR consider mass murder of his own people? I mean really?

Secondly, if we suspend belief for the moment and say yes to the first question, then just how many people would have known that FDR knew - its not like the President was cracking codes himself.

So despite 10's of people (if not more) knowing or having an inkling that something was going on, no one has ever provided any evidence of this. What did FDR have them all silenced too?

[Big B]

This gets to the meat of the issue - was it 'mass murder'?

There are volumes of information out there about who knew what, and who recanted under pressure later. Most of that is found in 'revisionist history' a dirty word here. But any reexamination of an official history is by default 'revisionist'.
Any who are curious and open minded - search for yourselves and sus it out.

I would leave any reader of this with one question however: FDR did everything in his power to drag America unwillingly into that war - that is not disputed.
If any leader who is trying to enter a war that any sane observer must know will ultimately cause at least million casualties of his own countrymen - and finds this acceptable, why would the bombing of one instillation constitute a price too great to pay given the balance sheet ultimately to be paid?

And with that - I'm done.

[desicat]

Warspite, I'm not arguing that FDR knew PH was going to be attacked on the morning of Dec 7, 1941. I can easily look up citations where US Navy leadership was strongly against deploying the fleet forward at PH. I can also find numerous papers that state that FDR's economic policies forced the fragile Japanese political establishment into a war footing.

I can also state that US forces stationed in South Korea after the Korean War were basically a trip wire - were/are the subsequent Presidents potential mass murders for basically placing them in an untenable situation in case of a North Korean attack?

I agree with you that someone just looking into the Pacific War historical era can ask the question, just like historians have.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: desicat

I can also find numerous papers that state that FDR's economic policies forced the fragile Japanese political establishment into a war footing.

I can also state that US forces stationed in South Korea after the Korean War were basically a trip wire - were/are the subsequent Presidents potential mass murders for basically placing them in an untenable situation in case of a North Korean attack?

Warspite1

Sorry desicat I am not really sure of the point in the first paragraph. I think you are saying FDR was wrong to stop supply of oil and other materials to Japan - because this would lead to war? If so then yes this would lead to war, but only if the Japanese continued with their aggression in China. You can easily argue that FDR was seeking peace in the Pacific - but he was not going to accept peace at any price, namely he would stand no longer for the Japanese war against their neighbours.

If that is your argument then do you feel that appeasement of Hitler was right? Presumably yes as you cannot have it both ways and that the Western Allies should have continued appeasing so as not to be the aggressors. But at some point there is a line in the sand to be drawn, beyond which if that means war then it means war. If FDR was guilty of effectively starting war because of his economic policies, then Chamberlain started WWII because he was not going to stand aside while Hitler crushed Poland. In actual fact neither were the aggressor of course.

As for the second point, that is not mass murder - they were soldiers there to do a job. You can debate how wise the order is, but it's not murder. By the same token, the sending of Force Z to Singapore was a rubbish decision by Churchill, but the deaths of those sailors was not murder (although some on this forum will say it was [8|]).

Apologies if I have mis-read your post.

[desicat]

Warspite, Don't misunderstand me - I'm not arguing with you. FDR was not wrong to oppose Japan, and appeasement of Hitler was wrong. I was just noting that FDR's policies were obviously confrontational and the US military was on high alert.

I was just making a case that some could read that as FDR knowing something was coming, hence conspiracies.

I also agree with you that in all three cases presented the soldiers/sailors were in harms way to do a job, I don't think mass murderer has any place in military strategic conversations (including peace time force distributions).

I appear to on your side, but I just want to say that the OP should be able to ask his questions and not be treated as a pariah. Again, you did give him an answers so I'm not pointing fingers.

The interesting thing is that just aging through some of my books I found a passage in One Hundred Years of American Sea Power that asked how the US forces at PH could have been taken by surprise with all the intel they had at their disposal - it was left unanswered.

[Bo Rearguard]

For me the weakest link in the Pearl Harbor conspiracy is, yes it got us into a war, but with the wrong enemy. It was the United Kingdom that FDR wanted to come to the aid of, and Nazi Germany he wished to fight and in many ways was already fighting in the North Atlantic. However, to the the eternal bewilderment of world history, Hitler, although he was under no treaty obligation to do so (as if treaties mattered to Hitler anyway) declares war on the United States a few days later.

Therein lies the rub. Under the terms of the Axis Tripartite pact, the parties were required to come to the assistance of each other ONLY if being attacked. Germany had no obligation, moral OR legal to come to the aid of their ally by declaring war on the US. That's what makes it so inexplicable.

After all, why borrow a new enemy (and a great big one) when you haven't even beaten the enemies you already have? Why toss a new weight into the scales, one with the world's largest industrial base by a considerable margin? Why ask for trouble? More to the point, why solve President Roosevelt's political problems for him? FDR saw Nazi Germany, not Imperial Japan, as the gravest threat to democracy, but even this wiliest of U.S. politicians knew it was going to be difficult to get an American public outraged by the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor into a war against Germany.

You could argue that the last thing Roosevelt needed was a war in the Pacific. The administration had been unwilling to go to war over China and mistakenly believed that it could deter or retard a Japanese advance into Southeast Asia via the retention of powerful naval forces in Hawaii, the imposition economic sanctions, and the deployment of long-range bombers to the Philippines. It presumed realism and rationality on the part of the Japanese and failed to understand that sanctions it imposed upon Japan in the summer of 1941 were tantamount to an act of war.

I've yet to see a conspiracy theory that explains Hitler's inexplicable and rash decision that not only took his own high command by surprise, but got FDR out from over a political barrel. It's not like the sort of decision you could just automatically depend on from a man, who up to that point had been strenuously avoiding war with the US.

[desicat]

I have read in many places that the Christian Missions and Missionaries in China and FDR's association with them colored his personal feeling towards Japan (and had an impact on his political calculations).

Was this a primary driver? Probably not, but in any case he was unwilling to abandon the Chinese so long as they were resisting.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

For me the weakest link in the Pearl Harbor conspiracy is, yes it got us into a war, but with the wrong enemy. It was the United Kingdom that FDR wanted to come to the aid of, and Nazi Germany he wished to fight and in many ways was already fighting in the North Atlantic. However, to the the eternal bewilderment of world history, Hitler, although he was under no treaty obligation to do so (as if treaties mattered to Hitler anyway) declares war on the United States a few days later.

Therein lies the rub. Under the terms of the Axis Tripartite pact, the parties were required to come to the assistance of each other ONLY if being attacked. Germany had no obligation, moral OR legal to come to the aid of their ally by declaring war on the US. That's what makes it so inexplicable.

After all, why borrow a new enemy (and a great big one) when you haven't even beaten the enemies you already have? Why toss a new weight into the scales, one with the world's largest industrial base by a considerable margin? Why ask for trouble? More to the point, why solve President Roosevelt's political problems for him? FDR saw Nazi Germany, not Imperial Japan, as the gravest threat to democracy, but even this wiliest of U.S. politicians knew it was going to be difficult to get an American public outraged by the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor into a war against Germany.

You could argue that the last thing Roosevelt needed was a war in the Pacific. The administration had been unwilling to go to war over China and mistakenly believed that it could deter or retard a Japanese advance into Southeast Asia via the retention of powerful naval forces in Hawaii, the imposition economic sanctions, and the deployment of long-range bombers to the Philippines. It presumed realism and rationality on the part of the Japanese and failed to understand that sanctions it imposed upon Japan in the summer of 1941 were tantamount to an act of war.

I've yet to see a conspiracy theory that explains Hitler's inexplicable and rash decision that not only took his own high command by surprise, but got FDR out from over a political barrel. It's not like the sort of decision you could just automatically depend on from a man, who up to that point had been strenuously avoiding war with the US.

In 1941, tankers loaded with American crude oil from Texas and Louisiana were hugging the US coast in US territorial waters all the way to Nova Scotia where they were put in heavily defended convoys and sent to the UK. Hitler saw declaring war on the US as an opportunity to put u-boats in US coastal waters before the US ASW effort was up to speed and sink enough tankers to knock the UK out of the war. From December 1941 through February 1942, the Germans did sink a lot of shipping right off the US coast, but Doenitz pulled back his u-boats concerned US ASW was about to catch all his long range u-boats in shallow coastal waters. If he had left them there a bit longer, the UK would have been in trouble, though probably not knocked out of the war.

Germany also vastly underrated American capabilities. When Goering was asked about whether he was concerned about American air power just after the declaration of war, he made a comment that he had no fear of the US dropping refrigerators on Germany. The Japanese and Germans both thought the US was too soft and lazy to get fully involved in overseas wars. The US public was fiercely against foreign wars after WW I, so there was some reason to believe that. They vastly underestimated how public opinion can change when a country is attacked.

In any case, as long as people remain polite, I can leave this thread unlocked. I have seen a couple of calls to shut it down. Opinions?

Bill

[witpqs]

No reason to lock it. The OP's call to lock it was largely, IMO of course, just sour grapes.

[desicat]

Day of Deceit

I don't have this book, below is one of the reviews.

"From Publishers Weekly
Historians have long debated whether President Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Using documents pried loose through the Freedom of Information Act during 17 years of research, Stinnett provides overwhelming evidence that FDR and his top advisers knew that Japanese warships were heading toward Hawaii. The heart of his argument is even more inflammatory: Stinnett argues that FDR, who desired to sway public opinion in support of U.S. entry into WWII, instigated a policy intended to provoke a Japanese attack. The plan was outlined in a U.S. Naval Intelligence secret strategy memo of October 1940; Roosevelt immediately began implementing its eight steps (which included deploying U.S. warships in Japanese territorial waters and imposing a total embargo intended to strangle Japan's economy), all of which, according to Stinnett, climaxed in the Japanese attack. Stinnett, a decorated naval veteran of WWII who served under then Lt. George Bush, substantiates his charges with a wealth of persuasive documents, including many government and military memos and transcripts. Demolishing the myth that the Japanese fleet maintained strict radio silence, he shows that several Japanese naval broadcasts, intercepted by American cryptographers in the 10 days before December 7, confirmed that Japan intended to start the war at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett convincingly demonstrates that the U.S. top brass in Hawaii--Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Husband Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Walter Short--were kept out of the intelligence loop on orders from Washington and were then scapegoated for allegedly failing to anticipate the Japanese attack (in May 1999, the U.S. Senate cleared their names). Kimmel moved his fleet into the North Pacific, actively searching for the suspected Japanese staging area, but naval headquarters ordered him to turn back. Stinnett's meticulously researched book raises deeply troubling ethical issues. While he believes the deceit built into FDR's strategy was heinous, he nevertheless writes: "I sympathize with the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom." This, however, is an expression of understanding, not of absolution. If Stinnett is right, FDR has a lot to answer for--namely, the lives of those Americans who perished at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett establishes almost beyond question that the U.S. Navy could have at least anticipated the attack. The evidence that FDR himself deliberately provoked the attack is circumstantial, but convincing enough to make Stinnett's bombshell of a book the subject of impassioned debate in the months to come. (Dec.)
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title."

Negative review

"e(What's this?)
This review is from: Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (Kindle Edition)
Mr. Stinnett weaves a lovely story of deceit, treachery, conspiracy, and treason. Every little point winds its way to a memo written by an Navy Lt. Commander in late 1940 that was supposedly used by President Roosevelt to force Japan into a war with America and thus allow America to fight Germany. Though there is no evidence this memo was ever seen by the President.

He makes the most of the president's statement he wanted Japan to fire the first shot. Certainly, America was not prepared for a war in 1941 and President Roosevelt DID NOT want it to appear the United States was the aggressor.

Mr Stinnett totally ignores the 10 years of Japanese aggression in the far east. He totally ignores the fact Roosevelt and many in his administration wanted in the war, but against Germany. Starting a two front war would take needed resources from one or the other theater. Though by 1944 American production was close to meeting the needs of a multiple theater war.

His premise would have us believe that the President, Secretary of State, Secretaries of War and Navy, the US Army Chief of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, a former commander of the US Fleet, and numerous others were privy to plot that allowed over two thousand American servicemen die. That the Army and Navy heads intentionally set up two of their own (Lt Gen Short and Adm Kimmel) to be sacrificial lambs.

He alleges that the Japanese naval code (JN-25) had been broken and was being read routinely. Numerous other NON-REVISIONIST histories paint a different story. By mid 1941 roughly only 10% of the messages could be read. Japan changed the code twice in 1941, setting code breakers back with each change.

He alleges the President ordered the northern Pacific Ocean to be cleared of American shipping to allow the Japanese a clear path to Hawaii. By late 1941, there was little or no need for American shipping to use the northern route. All trade with Japan had been halted. US primary trading partners were all in the south so closing the northern Pacific would potentially keep American shipping out of waters nominally controlled by Japan in case a war did break out.

Mr Stinnett does ask one very valid question. Why after nearly 75 years has the US government not fully released all the messages intercepted from the Japanese Navy in 1941. This does make one wonder, but other authors who were involved with the actual code breaking all tend to agree that JN-25 was not completely broken well into1942 (and after yet another major change in the code itself shortly after the Battle of Midway).

This book is 'interesting' reading if you are prone to believe the American government knew about the planned attack and let it happen. Read with a more open mind, many of the theories presented are laughable. For a more rationale book on what did happen I would recommend "Pearl Harbor: Verdict of History" by Donald Goldstein (and co credits his mentor Gordon Prange)."

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Hitler saw declaring war on the US as an opportunity to put u-boats in US coastal waters before the US ASW effort was up to speed and sink enough tankers to knock the UK out of the war. From December 1941 through February 1942, the Germans did sink a lot of shipping right off the US coast, but Doenitz pulled back his u-boats concerned US ASW was about to catch all his long range u-boats in shallow coastal waters. If he had left them there a bit longer, the UK would have been in trouble, though probably not knocked out of the war.

That's one possibility. Still I don't get it. To finish an enemy (the British) they are bringing another (underestimated, ok) enemy (the US), which they will be forced to finish too if they want to end this war. And that makes 3 enemies now (UK, USSR and US) [:)]

I find this scenario more rational (but this does not mean it was on Hitler's head): by declaring war on the US, your ally (Japan) might do you a favour => declare war on the USSR. December 1941. By then, the Germans knew Barbarossa had been a gross strategic mistake. The Russian bear was not defeated (the "kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down" clownish thing), and the winter counter-offensive had just started.