The Root Causes of Pearl Harbor Serve as Important Lessons for America Today

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

[ealgeone]

Yet you offered it up to try and support your argument.

[BroJoeK]

ealgeone: "The economy was benefiting from the War beginning in 1939 and subsequently in 40 and 41.
What we do not know is what would the economy be doing without that boost.
More New Deal spending? More regulations?"

Agreed.

ealgeone: "There is no way to know if the unemployment level would have continued to improve. "

Agreed.

ealgeone: "Dims love high unemployment and government spending."

Agreed.

[ealgeone]

Trace the working relationship between Layton and Rochefort.

[BroJoeK]

ealgeone: "Yet you offered it up to try and support your argument."

My argument on Pearl Harbor is that neither Washington nor Kimmel in Hawaii knew an attack was coming Sunday Morning, December 7.
To my knowledge, Layton himself never admitted to knowing more specifics.
Whatever he might have suspected did not impress itself on his boss, Admiral Kimmel.

That's the impression the movie leaves, and it's likely not so far from the truth.

[ealgeone]

Yet you have no way to know that for certain.....

[Crusher138]

I was under the impression that we expected an attack, but thought it would be the Philippines and/or Guam.

While we did not know the where or when, we knew it was inevitable.

Japan chose to go after the big prize - the Pacific fleet at Pearl - and we were just lucky our carriers were out on maneuvers.

They chose poorly.

[BroJoeK]

"Trace the working relationship between Layton and Rochefort."

They got along, Layton tolerated Rochefort's eccentricities, which many naval officers would not have, and by war's end Rochefort was canned for p*ss*ng off the Washington brass.
I suspect he was right once too often... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

"Yet you have no way to know that for certain....."

Many different investigations, by Congress and scholars, have not produced 100% definitive answers.
There remains some doubt.

[Vehmgericht]

Can you give me a direct quote where I advocate Nazi victory. If you insist on claiming I wanted a Nazi victory I will persist in calling you a Communist. Not that any of that matters. It “require(d) doing everything possible to support Stalin’s Soviet armies in the East.” That included giving them territory belonging to our ally China. It included giving the half of Korea resulting in another war with 50,000 dead. Read Diana West’s American Betrayal. It will give you a more accurate perspective. Please don’t accuse her of being a Nazi. Like the term racist it is designed to shut down debate.

[BroJoeK]

Vehmgericht: "Can you give me a direct quote where I advocate Nazi victory. "

I already did, in my post #141 I quoted your #137.
In it you say the Soviets were always the greater threat and US should have stayed out of WWII entirely.
That can only mean the Nazis would have won the war, in your scenario.

So, like I've said already, that's the first time I can remember seeing a poster on Free Republic openly advocating for a Nazi victory.
But then, possibly you know some trick of logic & language where the US stays out of WWII and yet somehow the Nazis are still defeated?

Vehmgericht: "That included giving them territory belonging to our ally China.
It included giving the half of Korea resulting in another war with 50,000 dead.
Read Diana West’s American Betrayal.
It will give you a more accurate perspective.
Please don’t accuse her of being a Nazi. "

If you claim that President Roosevelt "gave away" too much to Stalin's communists, I'd certainly agree -- it would have been much better had FDR struck better deals with "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
But as late as 1943, so we're told, Stalin was still trying to strike a separate peace deal with Hitler, which Hitler was still brushing aside.
Had any of Stalin's peace "feelers", or any of the late-war Nazi peace "feelers" born fruit, the US would have faced either increasing our army from 90 divisions to, potentially, over 200 divisions, with correspondingly higher casualties, and some loss of war-production or atom-bombing Germany in the summer of 1945, or striking a peace deal with the Nazis, or some combination.

Which brings up the question of A-bomb diplomacy -- you may remember that's what MacArthur wanted to do along the Yalu in North Korea, but President Truman fired him for it.

Not at all clear what Truman would have been up for in 1945, assuming the Soviets had made a separate peace with Hitler and the US was trying to win WWII in Europe by itself.
All of that sounds like "Nazi victory", or at least long term survival, to me.

So, do you have a scenario where the US stays out of WWII, Stalin makes a separate peace with Hitler and yet the Nazis are still somehow defeated?

[Vehmgericht]

BroJoeK, If the US stayed out of the war the only result would be a Nazi victory. You don’t seem to have much imagination. There could have been a stalemate or a Communist victory. Your claim that I openly advocated for a Nazi victory is an attempt to discredit me. There is a direct quote of me advocating Nazi victory. Your “so we’re told” is not very reliable. We are told so many things that are not so. I don’t have “a scenario where the US stays out of WWII, Stalin makes a separate peace with Hitler and yet the Nazis are still somehow defeated.” Do you have a scenario where everyone holds hands and sing Kumbaya?” Lets deal with reality.

[BroJoeK]

Vehmgericht: "You don’t seem to have much imagination.
There could have been a stalemate or a Communist victory."

Anything less than utter destruction & unconditional surrender was a Nazi victory, leaving them in power for World War Three.
There was no acceptable alternative to Allied victory.

Vehmgericht: "Your claim that I openly advocated for a Nazi victory is an attempt to discredit me."

There is no justice in any court which allows Nazi Germany to survive undestroyed and Nazis still in power.
That court can go straight to h*ll, FRiend.

Vehmgericht: "Do you have a scenario where everyone holds hands and sing Kumbaya?”
Lets deal with reality."

The only scenario I have is the one which actually happened: President Roosevelt made nicey-nicey with "Uncle Joe" Stalin, keeping hundreds of Soviet divisions fighting the Eastern Front and so reducing the number of US divisions (and casualties!) required on the Western Front by at least half.

The result was utter destruction of Nazi Germany, Unconditional Surrender, war crimes trials, Allied Victory & complete freedom for Western Europe (including West Germany).
Eastern Europe did not do so well for the following 50 years, though it is at least arguable whose regime was more beastly, Nazis or Soviets?

[dearolddad]

Who is watching Indy Naidel’s Pearl Harbor Episodes...I already have learned a lot I didn’t know.

I have watched most of Indy Naidel's WW2 series. I only wish that You Tube would put them in some kind of order.

[Vehmgericht]

BroJoeK, 75 years of Hollywood movies have been effective in shaping your views. While I don’t have much sympathy for the Nazi regime I don’t think it was much more evil than the Soviet one that had already killed untold millions or the British Empire whose hands were not completely clean. The history of this period is part of a religion. You can not argue with people’s religious beliefs.

[BroJoeK]

Vehmgericht: "You can not argue with people’s religious beliefs."

Your whole argument is 100% complete nonsense, FRiend.

What you really can't argue with are the facts of history, and they clearly show the Nazi regime and Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed, unconditional surrender.

The historical question is whether the U.S. could have, or should have, tried to win WITHOUT Soviet help?
And it's not really a question, since I've never seen anybody argue we SHOULD have.
Nobody then or now ever argued the U.S. should have suffered double or triple the number of casualties in Europe, just so we didn't sully ourselves by helping out "Uncle Joe" Stalin.

[Vehmgericht]

BroJoeK, Glad to see you have exposed yourself as a big fan of Soviet agent Harry Dexter White: “the Nazi regime and Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed.” White’s Morgenthau Plan was implemented as much as possible until 1947. German industry was being dismantled, its POWs enslaved and its civilian population starved. France and Italy were on the verge of electing Communist governments. That is what inspired the Marshall Plan. There were many reasons for the Second World War. The unique evil of the Nazi regime was not one of them. According to Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School anti-Semitism was much worse in the U.S. than in Europe. I would suggest you read Diana West’s American Betrayal but I know you are not interested in learning anything that contradicts your beliefs. You would silence me if you could. Eventually people of your ilk will be able to do that.

[BroJoeK]

Vehmgericht: "I would suggest you read Diana West’s American Betrayal but I know you are not interested in learning anything that contradicts your beliefs.
You would silence me if you could.
Eventually people of your ilk will be able to do that."

That's total nonsense.
Common sense and simple sanity would silence you, if you had any, FRiend.

In my small library of WWII books, I have two which make similar points to your Diana West's.
They are Patrick Buchanan from 2008: "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War -- How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World", and
Guido Giacomo Preparata from 2005, "Conjuring Hitler -- How Britain and America made the Third Reich."

Buchanan argues that the US should have stayed out of WWII and forced Britain to make peace with Hitler, while Preparata goes even further, claiming that the US & Britain actually put Hitler in power so that they could then destroy Germany.

Point is: I'm very familiar with wild conspiracy theories, and they're all just nonsense.
To see this, you have only to honestly answer the following questions -- was it Stalin or Hitler who first invaded:

1. Austria
2. Czechoslovakia
3. Poland
4. Denmark
5. Norway
6. Holland
7. Luxembourg
8. Belgium
9. France
10. Yugoslavia
11. Greece
12. Romania
13. Bulgaria
14. Libya
15. Egypt
16. Crete
17. Soviet Union
18. Holocaust of Jews, Gypsies & other "untermenschen"
19. Declared war on the United States?

So, whatever else you may believe, remember this: there's a reason it's called the Second World War and that reason explains why leaders like Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were dead-set determined there would never, ever, be a Third.
And that's why Nazi Germany had to be utterly destroyed, even at the cost of unholy alliances with dictators like "Uncle Joe" Stalin.

As for your concerns about the Democrat Left's war on America, I'm sure I agree, but remember this: the choice in, say, 1941 was not between Left (Stalin) versus Right (Hitler), but rather between the far-far Left (Hitler) and the far-far-far Left (Stalin).
Both sides were anathema to American ideals of liberty and limited Constitutional government, but only one side (Hitler's) declared & waged war against the United States.

[Vehmgericht]

Hollywood and the Government education system did a really good job on you. “Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed” this involved the starving to death of infants and young children. That was a Satanic policy you advocate. Are you any better than a Nazi? Read The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy.

[BroJoeK]

Vehmgericht: "Hollywood and the Government education system did a really good job on you."

Now you're just repeating yourself.
That was a lie the first time you posted it, and repeating your lies -- contrary to what your hero Goebbels taught you -- repeating lies does not magically make them true, FRiend.

Vehmgericht: " 'Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed' this involved the starving to death of infants and young children."

See, here's the point which your buddy Goebbels never taught you: if you are going to score WWII only by counting up the numbers killed, then Nazi Germany WON World War Two, hands down, no contest, not even close.
Germans lost around 7 million killed, roughly two thirds of them military.
But Nazis killed around 40 million in countries they invaded of whom roughly 25 million were civilians.

So, if we go by body counts, the Nazis WON WWII in military deaths about 4 to one and in civilian deaths roughly 10 to one!

So, FRiend, what exactly is your argument for why Nazi Germany did not need, need, need to be utterly destroyed?

Vehmgericht: "That was a Satanic policy you advocate.
Are you any better than a Nazi?"

Any sane court of justice would issue death penalties for the massive war crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germans.
War is h*ll, and Germany suffered terribly, but for every German civilian killed, Nazi armies killed 10 civilians in the countries they conquered.

So Germany did not receive justice from the Allies, even those brutish Soviets -- Germany received infinitely kind mercy for the infinite brutal crimes they committed.

Vehmgericht: "Read The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy."

The Morgenthau Plan was not even remotely close to fair justice for the mass-murder war-crimes committed by Nazi Germans, and Morgenthau's plan was never fully carried out (except in East Germany) before it was utterly reversed by the Cold War Marshall Plan.

It turned out that we needed Germans as allies against the Soviet Communists, and, once their Nazi masters were removed and their Prussian arrogance wiped away, Germans were/are nice people, somewhat conservative, relatively hard working, friendly even, strong enough to become the economic backbone of Europe.

So, the Western Allies' policy of infinite mercy towards former Nazi Germany paid off for us, though the absence of justice for the tens of millions Nazi's murdered must be a bitter pill to swallow for those surviving families & countrymen.

[Vehmgericht]

I guess you contend that Hollywood and the government education system have not influenced your opinion. You formed your beliefs through independent research. Goebbels is not my hero. You write this in an attempt to discredit me.
You do not dispute the murder of children. Your argument that the Nazis killed more people sounds like one made by an adolescent. We would like to be remembered as the people who fought for justice not imitators of barbarians. One of the arguments for the Soviets is that they lost 25 million people. How many of those 25 million were killed by the Soviets themselves. Nearly 1 millions Soviets fought for the Nazis.
Your original statement was “Germany itself needed to be utterly destroyed” not Nazi Germany. Unconditional surrender prolonged the war and was just what Stalin ordered.
The Morgenthau Plan was designed to destroy the economy of Europe which would push it into the Soviet camp. It was never “fully” carried out. Neither was the Marshall Plan. By 1947 Europe was on the verge of going communist. The Morgentthau Plan and the Yalta Agreement had provisions for slavery in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.