Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by geofflambert »

You're supposed to take this opportunity to say "NO" or "HELL NO". Remember this is your friendly neighborhood desicat.

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

One thing I don't understand about the "Did FDR know" PH conspiracy is why he would have opted for a massacre at the base, rather than just a simple attack. It would seem to me that a "last minute" warning in the early AM PH time would have gotten the ships buttoned up, planes ready, torpedo nets (assuming PH had them for BB row) etc. in time to have a hot reception waiting. If he was worried about ships being sunk at sea versus in the harbor, make the warning late enough to prevent a fleet sortie in time.

I bet a significantly less-successful sneak attack would have served just as well to rile up the country as the massacre that really happened. And then you'd have a fleet to do something about it a lot quicker.

Of course, I am sure the conspiracy theorist has answers to all those.

Mike
warspite1

Panther Bait you are spoiling a good conspiracy theory here [;)].

Mussolini was a great leader of his people - what was it? I only have to present a few thousand dead at the peace conference..... nice, what a humanitarian [8|].

Well in a similar way FDR obviously wanted a few thousand dead in order to get his war.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by LoBaron »

C´mon don´t be so harsh.

All you need to do is prove is that the president and a number of highly decorated veterans in reality were raging maniacs willing to promote their own ideas against the majority of US population by killing a couple of thousands of em.

After this is done, assuring that the rest of the puzzle parts fall into place is a piece of cake. Like what happened on 9/11 to ensure assent to a war against Iraq by faking plane attacks and then demolishing the towers. Or getting a number of NASA professionals to act in a Hollywood movie as if they landed on the moon and then sell it to the press for a couple of decades.

All you need is a bit of effort. Where is your imagination? You aren´t open minded enough! [:-]

Image
User avatar
Olorin
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:35 pm
Location: Greece

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by Olorin »

I am totally convinced by DeZanic. He is an original thinker.
At last, someone who breaks the shackles of the official educational system and frees his mind from the burden of reality. Someone so open-minded that his brain fell out.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I am totally convinced by DeZanic. He is an original thinker.
At last, someone who breaks the shackles of the official educational system and frees his mind from the burden of reality. Someone so open-minded that his brain fell out.
warspite1

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Jok ... 195592ED78
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
desicat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:10 pm

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by desicat »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: 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.


desicat, you do realize that we are still at war with the DPRK? How does defending yourself by having troops dig trenches equal mass murder? Can we dispose of this fellow? He's a troll, and that's pretty definitive coming from me. I for one don't need to hear any more opinions from this fellow, furthermore science as well as nature itself doesn't care about your opinions. Please don't give us a link to any website which takes you seriously.

Wow, I was never supporting the conspiracy theory, I just thought the OP was being treated a bit harshly. I provided a few links and book excerpts that showed he wasn't alone in his wonderings.

I also pointed out that calling political or military leaders who make difficult deployment decisions "mass murderers" was inappropriate - and I'm personally attacked for that?

As someone who spent 7 years deployed to the Japanese and Korea AOR's I find your attack on me wholly misinformed and ironically comical. As a former military faculty member at the Naval War College I find your close minded personal attacks on persons just asking questions shameful. The idea of Political fore knowledge of the attack on PH is routinely discusses in those halls.

Conspiracy theories abound, chose your flavor; FDR knew about PH, President Kennedy assignation, LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin, The Benghazi Embassy attack, Fast and Furious, 911, etc... The best way to get at the truth isn't to shame or shout folks down, it is to discuss and bring forth facts.

If you don't agree with the OP or think his question was unworthy of comment then don't comment. The guy may have just been looking for more information as he was new to the forum/historical Period.

This is one of the reasons I miss Nemo Posting. He was well researched, unafraid to post a radical position, and unapologetic. Poster comments could often be viewed as attempting to shut him down or run him off, but there he was, posting opinion after opinion.

I enjoy the forums here, I learn a lot and also find new avenues to research. If folks find my comments offensive I take no issue with them not replying to me or putting me on ignore. I like your humor, and plan on continuing to read your posts (especially since I have hacked your account and am responsible for their content) - can you say the same?
desicat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:10 pm

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by desicat »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think this thread has evolved into a great example of why we're in the Forum. Those Polls cited above are excellent material for a WWII buff. After reading them and examining the sources, I want to use them in my pre-Pearl Harbor lecture. Those are fantastic pearls of history that reveal the conflicted nature of the nation. NICE!
Just an example of someone who found some research that was of interest to them in this thread. Wouldn't have happened if the thread had been locked or the question not even asked.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Symon
ORIGINAL: Big B
Well, most of us know that pre-war Gallup polls show that in the summer of 1941, the US was NOT strongly isolationist. The isolationists were just a minority with a loud voice. See http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm
I think that is the most informative group of statistics that I have seen. And it shows well, the dichotomy of thought in the US, at the time.

Nobody, in their right mind, wants to go to war. The US didn’t have to go through the Somme, but the casualty lists from Aisne-Marne, Oise-Aisne, Ypres, St Mihiel, Meuse-Argonne, were enough to get some serious attention. War seriously sucks. Your husband, father, brother, son, nephew, niece, fiancé, friend, are going to die.

So what is unusual in the national desire to avoid another war? Nothing. But then again, we ain’t stupid. We know right from wrong and usually (back then) come down on the side of truth, light and righteousness.

So we knew who the pissants were. We may not have wanted to fight them just then, but we knew who they were, oh, yes, we knew. Maybe not today, or not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of their miserable, stinking lives.

We did not want war, but we did not want the a$$holes to win either. That much is clear. So we were skating on the thin ice between two imperatives. Sooner or later, we would have had to crack the ice on one side or the other, and earlier or later, makes no real difference all things considered.

We were on a tipping point, and it wouldn’t have taken much to move the lever. Japan did it with PH; just witness the outrage; but sooner or later, somebody was gonna do a nasty and get us pissed-off. Then, all bets are off.

[ed] to answer the OT about conspiracies, I can only refer one to when one is sailing away. You little conspiracy weenies have a clue when you see this?


Image
Yes, this it a good point. To think that three political systems so divergent as that of the US, Japan and Germany could have co-existed for any length of time is not realistic. The US with it's own economic priorities just could not survive the ascendancy of Japan and Germany. War with both powers was just simply inevitable, and to suggest that the US would have backed away from continued successes by the Axis is just foolish. We could not have stood the economic burden much less the social and political. The fall of the UK would have actually accelerated conflict with Hitler regardless of what Japan did. The conflict might have lasted 20 years for the US instead of 4 but there could only have been one power standing when it was over. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by Big B »

This discussion has been both heated and interesting in many ways.

I have read many revisionist histories, official histories, and critical reviews of revisionists work. Official histories are written at the behest of the government. Revisionists use materials not often found in official histories (an excellent example of good revisionist history is John Parshall's Shattered Sword - unused information that changed our understanding of The Battle of Midway).
The key weapon of critics of the revisionists is that they (revisionists) fail to supply smoking guns in the form of official documents. Now, that standard of proof or lack of can be highly subjective (since there are many documents revisionists supply and or site) - but lets examine that anyway (for Pearl Harbor).

Many assertions have been raised and documents uncovered since the middle of WW2 itself. The orthodox defense is that - yes - those things were known, but not at the time revisionists claim, or are just fabricated.

Question: What is to be gained by an organization (in this case the government) releasing information that would have negative ramifications - if they didn't have to release that information? No one would rationally be expected do that, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect to see that.
Next Question - Has the government ever demonstrated efforts to keep servicemen (or civilians) from speaking freely about incidents the government would like to keep quiet? I think we can reasonably agree that answer is yes.

So what are we left with? No reasonable expectation from the government or any organization to voluntarily release controversial documents that would put said organization in an embarrassing position....nor a reasonable expectation for the government or any organization not to do what it can to keep people from talking.

So is it reasonable to expect these two key conditions to be overcome? I don't think so.

So given the above - what is left if one questions an official position?
Other than whistle blowers and or a lot of luck and perseverance in digging up documents - I think there is the test of reasonable action given what IS NOT disputed.

What is not disputed that the Presidents Cabinet knew as of Dec 6th 1941?

1) War with Japan was imminent - War warnings had been issued, Major portions of the Japanese Navy were at sea heading towards Allied territory in the Far East.
2) Signal Intelligence showed an important 14 part message was being delivered to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, from Tokyo.
3) All of the men in key positions in the administration were born in the 19th century, and in their lifetimes Japan had always gone to war without prior warning (4 times previously I believe)....and in their last naval war had attacked the Russian Pacific Fleet at Port Arthur to open hostilities, crippling their fleet to open they way for offensive naval operations.
4) They knew aircraft carriers were crucial to any naval moves in the Pacific - the Navy slowed reinforcement to the Philippines because they stated they could not spare carriers for escort.
5) Pearl Harbor was a vulnerable target to a carrier raid - the US Navy itself demonstrated this in 1938 with Fleet Problem XIX (deemed a devastating attack by CV Saratoga...which closed from the North West and launched the strike 100 miles from PH).
6) Battleships in port are quite vulnerable to a carrier raid. HMS Illustrious with 21 bi-plane torpedo bombers did this to the Italian Fleet at Taranto 13 months earlier, sinking one BB and crippling two others (The Japanese Navy took note of this).
7) Admiral James Richardson, in 1940 CinC Pacific Fleet, believed that Pearl Harbor was the logical first point of attack for the Japanese High Command, given Japan's demonstrated tactic of undeclared attack and surprise warfare. He was relieved before Dec 7th.
8) A look at a map of the Pacific shows a lot of blue...meaning a navy will be the key weapon in a war in this theater....an important target - THE important target.
9) The Japanese had 6 fleet carriers (at least 360 first line aircraft) who's position and destination is 'unknown' at the imminent outbreak of hostilities.

Combined - this is all circumstantial evidence - no smoking gun (held to the required standard I cited above).

So given all of the above - Is it reasonable to assume the President and his Cabinet could be surprised that the Japanese would start the war there?
Since we cannot reasonably expect the government to ever dig up a smoking gun and shoot itself, all you can do is try to put yourself in their shoes and think about it.

Let me give an allegory in real life.
I was in charge of the Facilities Dept. in a large Data Center worth 100 million dollars in my professional career. It was my responsibility to assure it was protected and never operationally down.

If I had information that the storm of the century was likely headed my way, and I did nothing to safeguard it, did not assure a supply of fuel for generators, did not make sure the generators and UPS system were well maintained, did not make sure we had a Transient Voltage Suppression System in place and working, did not make sure the roof scuppers and drains were clear, did not made sure my employees were available and on duty as the storm drew near - and was not present at work myself .... if I did not do those things and my data center was hit unprepared (while I happened to decide to be unavailable for contact at the critical time - like Gen Marshall allegedly was)...if I did that -
I would be derelict in my responsibilities at best - and would surely expect to be canned.

So as a professional, this is all I can see as the alternative explanation to what revisionists claim.
The professionals in charge in Washington, those with the responsibility and authority to make things happen - were (to me) inexcusably negligent and should have been "canned".

To me - that is not a very good defense. I can't believe the Nation's Chiefs were so ignorant, unimaginative, and nonchalant at that moment. Does that put an aluminum foil hat on me? Perhaps, perhaps not.


B
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: desicat
If you don't agree with the OP or think his question was unworthy of comment then don't comment. The guy may have just been looking for more information as he was new to the forum/historical Period.

You may be right [:)] In any case: more information and some methodology = less conspiracies. I guess he did not know, expect that people here take these matters seriously (which is a good thing IMO). In his defence, he's done what they do in the other massive games forums, I guess. This is not a normal place LOL

Cheers
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by witpqs »

I think the whole problem is alien lizard people posing as humans with some clever make-up.
User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by Symon »

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Yes, this it a good point. To think that three political systems so divergent as that of the US, Japan and Germany could have co-existed for any length of time is not realistic. The US with it's own economic priorities just could not survive the ascendancy of Japan and Germany. War with both powers was just simply inevitable, and to suggest that the US would have backed away from continued successes by the Axis is just foolish. We could not have stood the economic burden much less the social and political. The fall of the UK would have actually accelerated conflict with Hitler regardless of what Japan did. The conflict might have lasted 20 years for the US instead of 4 but there could only have been one power standing when it was over. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
There is another paradigm that informs this decision. The US spent multi-millions supporting the Western Allies.

A ways ago, wars were won and the cost was paid from reparations by the losers. As wars became more national, the costs grew to where nothing but ultimate victory would pay for the effort. Back in War-I, nobody would make peace because of the cost. Both sides wanted peace, but neither side could pay for it, if it didn’t involve reparations.

Ok, so here we are in 1940, and the same financial constraints obtain. What ‘cha gonna do? Spend the money and support your allies; and put yourself into a financial hole, or what?
Ciao. JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
desicat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:10 pm

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by desicat »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: 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.


desicat, you do realize that we are still at war with the DPRK? How does defending yourself by having troops dig trenches equal mass murder? Can we dispose of this fellow? He's a troll, and that's pretty definitive coming from me. I for one don't need to hear any more opinions from this fellow, furthermore science as well as nature itself doesn't care about your opinions. Please don't give us a link to any website which takes you seriously.
I have been trying to figure out what you found offensive in my comment and it may be possible you misunderstood my intent.

The nature of the North Korean threat and military deployment is such that if hostilities break out the city of Seoul would sustain heavy damage and many civilians and military detachments within artillery range of the DMZ would become casualties. This does not take into account DPRK Possible nuclear warhead possibilities.

I do not think having US military forces deployed to the DMZ as a "tripwire" should be considered as "mass murder" for the political establishment in charge in the case of the outbreak of hostilities.

Consider the actual Korean War. I do not consider Eisenhower guilty of "mass murder" for his policy of holding the 38th parallel and not using US naval and amphibious superiority to flank the line and liberate all of Korea. The survivors of Pork Chop Hill and Old Baldy may disagree, but strategic decisions take priority over tactical ones.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, this it a good point. To think that three political systems so divergent as that of the US, Japan and Germany could have co-existed for any length of time is not realistic. The US with it's own economic priorities just could not survive the ascendancy of Japan and Germany. War with both powers was just simply inevitable, and to suggest that the US would have backed away from continued successes by the Axis is just foolish. We could not have stood the economic burden much less the social and political. The fall of the UK would have actually accelerated conflict with Hitler regardless of what Japan did. The conflict might have lasted 20 years for the US instead of 4 but there could only have been one power standing when it was over. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
warspite1

This was a point I made earlier. FDR was not a warmonger for putting pressure on Japan to quit China (even though his economic policies were likely to lead to that) nor was he a warmonger for realising the danger of Nazi Germany.

He was simply prescient in understanding that the US had two choices: fight now with European Allies - or fight later against a much stronger, victorious Germany.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think the whole problem is alien lizard people posing as humans with some clever make-up.

Did you just accuse me of being clever? I will not stand for it. Sitting is less tiring.

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: desicat

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: 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.


desicat, you do realize that we are still at war with the DPRK? How does defending yourself by having troops dig trenches equal mass murder? Can we dispose of this fellow? He's a troll, and that's pretty definitive coming from me. I for one don't need to hear any more opinions from this fellow, furthermore science as well as nature itself doesn't care about your opinions. Please don't give us a link to any website which takes you seriously.
I have been trying to figure out what you found offensive in my comment and it may be possible you misunderstood my intent.

The nature of the North Korean threat and military deployment is such that if hostilities break out the city of Seoul would sustain heavy damage and many civilians and military detachments within artillery range of the DMZ would become casualties. This does not take into account DPRK Possible nuclear warhead possibilities.

I do not think having US military forces deployed to the DMZ as a "tripwire" should be considered as "mass murder" for the political establishment in charge in the case of the outbreak of hostilities.

Consider the actual Korean War. I do not consider Eisenhower guilty of "mass murder" for his policy of holding the 38th parallel and not using US naval and amphibious superiority to flank the line and liberate all of Korea. The survivors of Pork Chop Hill and Old Baldy may disagree, but strategic decisions take priority over tactical ones.

I was probably tippling a bit. I see that there are other possible interpretations of what you said. It's just that I get annoyed with isolationists who accuse FDR of starting anything especially considering his foresight of globalization which has advanced far beyond what he was immediately dealing with. Today it's only too clear that what is done in one part of the world may have rapid and substantial consequences in any other part of the world.

On another note, If I was him and I knew (likely more than he actually knew) about what was happening to the Jews in Europe, I would have done whatever was necessary to stop it, and my conscience would be clear if it was necessary to not be transparent about it, as Presidents are never transparent unless they're really f***ing up. That was true then and it's still true today.

wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I am totally convinced by DeZanic. He is an original thinker.
At last, someone who breaks the shackles of the official educational system and frees his mind from the burden of reality. Someone so open-minded that his brain fell out.

I believe I asked people to be polite. There is no need to attack someone personally for having differing ideas. The idea that FDR knew is an old idea that has been kicked around by many over the years.

The facts point to it being rather unlikely that he knew, but no smoking gun evidence that he did or didn't know does not exist. Or at least has never been made public. When there is some kind of conspiracy, often people who were involved will confess to it many years later. In some cases to clear their consciences in their last years. I am not aware of this happening with Pearl Harbor and the FDR administration and/or people near the top of the US military at the time.

I don't personally believe FDR knew, but I'm open to kicking around some ideas. Maybe I'll learn something?

Our entire civilization can thank those who thought differently for most of the biggest advances in technology, science, and general thought. Like they say about art, 99% of it is junk. 99% of ideas are junk too. But if you don't let the junk exist, there will be no Beethovens, no Einsteins, no Wegeners, no Xerox PARC.

Weak ideas won't stand up to counter arguments. There is no need to take down the person with the idea too.

Bill

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by geofflambert »

hands clapping without a smile, tho I came close myself, I guess.

wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: desicat
I have been trying to figure out what you found offensive in my comment and it may be possible you misunderstood my intent.

The nature of the North Korean threat and military deployment is such that if hostilities break out the city of Seoul would sustain heavy damage and many civilians and military detachments within artillery range of the DMZ would become casualties. This does not take into account DPRK Possible nuclear warhead possibilities.

I do not think having US military forces deployed to the DMZ as a "tripwire" should be considered as "mass murder" for the political establishment in charge in the case of the outbreak of hostilities.

Consider the actual Korean War. I do not consider Eisenhower guilty of "mass murder" for his policy of holding the 38th parallel and not using US naval and amphibious superiority to flank the line and liberate all of Korea. The survivors of Pork Chop Hill and Old Baldy may disagree, but strategic decisions take priority over tactical ones.

Putting troops somewhere where they would be the first casualties in a war is actually one way for a strong military power to keep the peace. It's a promise to any would be aggressors that if they harm the strong military power's troops, their war will get very large very fast. The US did the same thing around Shanghai and the lower Yangtze River after the Japanese took the Chinese parts of the city. The US Marines and Navy had a contingent there that promised Japan that if they were too aggressive around Shanghai, they risked the US coming into the war in China against them.

The USS Panay incident in 1937 when a US gunboat on the Yangtze was attacked by the Japanese almost started the Pacific War 4 years earlier than it did.

American troops in South Korea make the North Koreans hesitate from attacking the South because they can't do it without attacking US troops and drawing the US into the war. The strategy has worked for nearly 60 years.

It's a strategy of putting a relative few troops potentially in harm's way to prevent a major war that would put a lot of troops in harms way. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it works at least for a while.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Nami Koshino
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Salem, Oregon

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

Post by Nami Koshino »

I think this theory persists because many in this nation still feel that it was simply impossible for the United States to be completely and utterly fooled. For some bizarre reason, we find it more comforting to think that someone in a position of power in our nation was the clever traitor and helped our enemies to gain an advantage. Surly, no foreigner could match an American for imagination, ingenuity and cleverness. In that sense the “FDR knew” theory is very comforting. It essentially absolves everyone except the nefarious Roosevelt and his diabolical cronies; it implies that everyone else, and all their procedures, decisions, organizations and attitudes, were impeccable. If only a better man had been in charge, this fairy tale goes, the yellow horde wouldn’t have succeeded.

That arrogance was certainly the case before the entry of the United States into WWII. Throw in a side order of racism and you have a much clearer view as to how our government, particularly the military and state department intelligence services, could have underestimated the capabilities of our potential enemies.

Poor communications, an inefficient intelligence gathering and dissemination system, poor rules of engagement and a totally inadequate command structure is what caused the Pearl Harbor disaster. It was not a conspiracy. It was simply a nation and a government operating on inadequate information making assumptions that were not valid about an enemy who was more capable than we had anticipated.

This level of arrogance persisted well after Pearl Harbor even when we were on a war footing. The 1942 Savo Island debacle. The surprise 1944 German offensive in the Ardennes. The 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam. It happens in other nations as well. Israel was stunned by the extent of the 1973 Arab offensive just six years after humiliating them in the 1967 war. The UK was caught unawares by the Argentine descent of the Falklands. And Stalin's excuses for ignoring what was coming his way seem incredible in retrospect if not for his well-known pathological distrust of even his inner circle.

The 9-11 attack was a classic replay of the failure of our government to act responsibly. Just as I am sure that FDR hating conspiracy nuts will continue on their ignorant path, there will be those from the Bush hating side of the coin who will see conspiracies in that man. In the end, the failures are quite clear and easy to analyze. However, we as a nation will always be unwilling to face the reality that others who hate us, may be willing and able to strike at us in ways that we did not anticipate. This insures that similar tragedies as Pearl Harbor will occur again. That is the real conspiracy.
Rice is a great snack when you're hungry and you want 2,000 of something to eat.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”