Posted on 03/31/2011 5:54:49 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
By talking about them behind their back. You truly don't have any integrity at all do you.
Post after post you defend Clausen's version of events, while calling the Stinnett and Victor interpretations "crap".
Again you lack the ability to understand. All I've done is correct you on your blantant disregaurd of Clausen's work and the false accusations you have made against him. I'm not hear to defend Clausen's point of view. I have my own. But when you toss out his information just because you don't like what he says, then you are just showing how weak your argument is. Basically, what is going on here is that your pet authors have decided to attack Clausen's work and you have blindly followed their lead without looking into what actually is being said that investigation.
But the fact remains that lawyer Clausen conducted a highly aggressive, sometimes intimidating or even coercive, but legal, defense of General Marshall and by extension, other higher Washington officials.
Again, repeating the same thing over and over will not make it true. You need to take some time and read the report and the affidavits. Until then you will just continue to ignorantly repeat your pet authors' theory.
In the end, he casts all of the blame on lower level underlings, and none on those at the top.
If you have read his report you would know that this is not true. Repeating the same thing over and over again will not make it true.
You've never explained whom either Clausen or you believe was responsible --
I have stated my assessment on responsibility for Pearl Harbor. I just have not gone into great detail into it since I'm going to present the evidence as it becomes current. This is probably why you failed to pick up on that. As for Clausen, read his book, he lists who he thinks is responsible there.
Do you agree with Clausen's names and priorities, or would you add names, or change the ordering?
Not entirely no. This is too complex an issue to just put up a list of names and prioritize them. Be patient, I will present my case as we go.
I very much wish to "expand my knowledge" about the actions and responsibilities of President Roosevelt and his top people.
So you openly admit you are just on a witch hunt. You do realize that most of us here already knew that. You would be better served spending your time looking at all aspects of the event rather than just fixating on how it can be FDR's fault.
Clausen is irrelevant to this discussion.
Only because it doesn't support your accusations. The fact that you willfully discount an actual Pearl Harbor attack investigator speaks volumes about your own bias into the matter.
I have not "debated" anything about Clausen, except to point out various reasons why he is irrelevant to this discussion.
Nonesense. You have made several accusations against the man, none of which you can substantiate. You have done this without actually looking into the work he did.
Then your academic advisers are frauds and charlatans, and you should fire them immediately -- no wonder American education is in such goshaweful shape!
Lol. You are so pathetic. Now you are attacking over a dozen professors with PhD's in History as "frauds and charlatans". I really see why most people can't take you very seriously.
So it is your academic responsibility, and no one else's, to prove the validity of your charges
I have given you examples. I have shown you how they have misused source material. I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think. You have to man-up and take some sort of initiative to understand things.
The truth is, you have no real idea what Victor intended by his references, you don't even know for certain if I copied those numbers correctly.
When I read his book, I took note of several occasions where he misused source material. I do not own this book, I checked it out from the library. If you copied the reference numbers wrong then you should correct that. If you want to defend your pet authors I suggest that you put a little effort into it.
So it is your responsibility, not mine, to prove your charges, and to my satisfaction, not just to yours.
My charge is simple. There is no proof that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and intentionally let it happen. The only person who insists otherwise here is you. Present me with proof, and I will look at it. But "because Victor says so" is not sufficient, nor is just repeating the same thing over and over.
Untrue. I have never claimed anything that evidence doesn't support, including the suggestion of legal "proof" about FDR's advanced knowledge.
As I've said now many times, there is no such "proof" -- had there been, the debate would have ended many decades ago.
But there are a number of indisputable facts to remember:
I have never once claimed more than this, your mischaracterizations notwithstanding.
CougarGA7: "By talking about them behind their back."
Untrue. Only CougarGA7 continues, post after post, to talk about anyone behind their back.
CougarGA7: "All I've done is correct you on your blantant disregaurd of Clausen's work and the false accusations you have made against him. I'm not hear to defend Clausen's point of view."
Untrue. I've made no "false accusations" against Clausen.
It's a simple fact that Clausen was employed, and succeeded in defending General Marshall against the fate suffered by Admiral Stark.
CougarGA7: "But when you toss out his information just because you don't like what he says, then you are just showing how weak your argument is.
Basically, what is going on here is that your pet authors have decided to attack Clausen's work and you have blindly followed their lead without looking into what actually is being said that investigation."
Untrue. I've "tossed out" nothing Clausen said, except to point out factually that it's mostly irrelevant to the question of President Roosevelt's actions -- because Clausen never investigated that.
I have attacked none of Clausen's work, except to point out that he forced some officers to change their testimony to better support General Marshall's version of events.
In that regard, I've pointed out that Colonel Bratton's revised affidavit is highly suspicious, because according to some he later recanted it, privately.
This data goes directly to the question of General Marshall's prior knowledge of, and refusal to warn about the coming attack.
Seems to me, that is exactly the kind of question a good scholar would want to be totally knowledgeable about before passing any summary judgment.
CougarGA7: "If you have read his report you would know that this is not true."
If so, then you can easily correct me by naming those in President Roosevelt's closest circle, including FDR himself, whom Clausen blames, and what degree of responsibility he assigns each of them.
CougarGA7: "As for Clausen, read his book, he lists who he thinks is responsible there."
My understanding is that he lists no one at the very top.
So I await your correction. Should I hold my breath?
CougarGA7: "So you openly admit you are just on a witch hunt.
You do realize that most of us here already knew that.
You would be better served spending your time looking at all aspects of the event rather than just fixating on how it can be FDR's fault."
Untrue. I am not in the least "fixated" on FDR.
It only seems that way to someone like yourself who's hell-bent to defend FDR against any charges of responsibility.
In fact I'm near certain there is plenty of blame to go around.
But none of the official investigations, including Clausen's, ever reached the level of FDR and his inner circle.
That's what makes those investigations irrelevant to this discussion.
CougarGA7: "Only because it doesn't support your accusations.
The fact that you willfully discount an actual Pearl Harbor attack investigator speaks volumes about your own bias into the matter."
Untrue. I don't "willfully discount" any investigation.
But I do dismiss them as irrelevant to the question of FDR's role, for the obvious reason that none of them seriously investigated that.
CougarGA7: "You have made several accusations against the man, none of which you can substantiate. You have done this without actually looking into the work he did."
Untrue. I've made no "accusations" against Clausen.
I have pointed out the fact that he worked very aggressively to defend General Marshall.
CougarGA7: "Now you are attacking over a dozen professors with PhD's in History as "frauds and charlatans".
I really see why most people can't take you very seriously."
If your academic advisers approve of just the kind of shoddy work-product you've shown here, then they certainly are frauds and charlatans, and should be immediately fired.
You have time and again accused both Stinnett and Victor of being words like "crap" and "twisting the facts" without having done any serious investigation into what it was they actually said, and what sources they intended to reference.
So, if you were my student, I'd flunk you and tell you to go back to whatever it was you were doing before you came to college, pal. ;-)
CougarGA7: "I have given you examples. I have shown you how they have misused source material.
I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think.
You have to man-up and take some sort of initiative to understand things."
Not one of your examples amounts to a proof of your charges -- they only prove that you are a careless and far-less-than-thorough researcher.
If you were my student, you'd fail the course, pal.
CougarGA7: "When I read his book, I took note of several occasions where he misused source material."
So you've repeatedly claimed, but have never actually demonstrated to my satisfaction.
Your claim is that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attack and intentionally allowed it to happen. If you cannot prove it than it is just you making ridiculous claims.
Untrue. Only CougarGA7 continues, post after post, to talk about anyone behind their back.
Everytime I mention someone in my post I ping them to it. You are the one who doesn't.
Untrue. I've made no "false accusations" against Clausen. It's a simple fact that Clausen was employed, and succeeded in defending General Marshall against the fate suffered by Admiral Stark.
Claiming as you have that Mashall was Clausen's client is a false accusation.
Untrue. I've "tossed out" nothing Clausen said, except to point out factually that it's mostly irrelevant to the question of President Roosevelt's actions
No, you just keep claiming that Clausen's work is irreverent because it doesn't cover the specific aspect you want to focus on. I'm looking at the total picture in order to get a better understanding of everything that took place.
If so, then you can easily correct me by naming those in President Roosevelt's closest circle, including FDR himself, whom Clausen blames, and what degree of responsibility he assigns each of them.
One of the people he blames is FDR himself, as well as General Gerow in the War Plans Division. He gives them a priority, I don't necessarily agree to the degree he assigns to each person on his list, but it's there. Again, I suggest you take the time to read the book. I'm not claiming that it will answer all your questions, or that his book is the final word on the subject. All I've said is that its an interesting read by someone who was actually involved in the investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack.
My understanding is that he lists no one at the very top. So I await your correction. Should I hold my breath?
And it shows another example of your willful ignorance. Go to a library, check out the book and read it. That's what I did with the books that you rely the most on.
It only seems that way to someone like yourself who's hell-bent to defend FDR against any charges of responsibility.
Once again you misrepresent me. I have never defended FDR "against any charges of responsibility". In fact I've said very succinctly that there is plenty of blame to spread around. What I have said is that I do not believe that FDR knew about the attack and intentionally let it happen.
But I do dismiss them as irrelevant to the question of FDR's role, for the obvious reason that none of them seriously investigated that.
And this is what makes your argument so weak. You refuse to focus on anything but FDR's roll. You need to take some time to expand your knowledge on the event and what led up to it. If you fixate on one aspect you will naturally draw the wrong conclusions.
If your academic advisers approve of just the kind of shoddy work-product you've shown here, then they certainly are frauds and charlatans, and should be immediately fired.
Again, I think I will take the opinion of respected scholars over one conspiracy nut.
You have time and again accused both Stinnett and Victor of being words like "crap" and "twisting the facts" without having done any serious investigation into what it was they actually said, and what sources they intended to reference.
I have posted examples on this. Take a little time to go look at those examples, and look up the actual documents they cite. You will see the problem if you objectively look at what they say verses what the document says.
I have pointed out the fact that he worked very aggressively to defend General Marshall.
You said that Marshall was Clausen's client. That is an accusation and it is untrue.
Not one of your examples amounts to a proof of your charges -- they only prove that you are a careless and far-less-than-thorough researcher. If you were my student, you'd fail the course, pal.
I'm not of the opinion that you could capably teach anyone anything. Again, go back and look.
So you've repeatedly claimed, but have never actually demonstrated to my satisfaction.
Your lack of understanding is not my problem.
When any other organization is as "dysfunctional" as our guys were in the Pacific in 1941, one of the first and most intense places you normally look for reasons is: the very top leadership.
But for many years before and after 1941, the entire US federal government was controlled by FDR's political party, the Democrats, and so there could not possibly be any effective investigations into the President's actions.
"What did the President know, and when did he know it," was never officially asked of FDR.
The result is, we now have a number of more-or-less amateur investigators (notably Toland, Stinnett & Victor) attempting to fill in where the official investigations never went.
These new investigators have uncovered some new data, and by reinterpreting old data, have arrived at conclusions that FDR's inner circle knew more, and directed more than has been previously acknowledged.
I think they are on the right track, and probably have the right ideas, for a major reason that those ideas fit with what we know about President Roosevelt -- that he was in no-way "stupid," just the opposite, a brilliant political leader, hugely personable but also highly secretive and devious.
FDR was his own spymaster and had rings of spies operating which didn't even know about each other.
In FDR's world, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, but FDR himself knew everything there was to know.
For example, the attack on Hawaii: it was warned about many months before hand, and was even reportedly tracked across the Pacific.
When FDR's closest associates met with him the evening of December 7, after the attack, one of them reported he seemed not at all surprised by the attack, only highly concerned that it do the job of uniting Americans for a Declaration of War.
I'll repeat, today we know a lot about the failures of many underlings far down the chain of command.
We know far less about the actions and responsibilities of those at the very top.
That's why the subject continues to be discussed and debated, often with great vigor! ;-)
CougarGA7: "Your claim is that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attack and intentionally allowed it to happen. If you cannot prove it than it is just you making ridiculous claims."
Pal, the important point you really, really need to keep in mind here is that it's not just me saying this.
I am merely supporting the side which has said these things since Day One.
In that sense, I am "representing" as "clients" many of those who received most of the blame, and I oppose those who deserved blame but escaped it, beginning with President Roosevelt.
Of course I understand the "total picture" -- a lot better than you are attempting to portray me as -- namely, the need for wartime political unity, and the more specific requirement to protect US code-breaking successes.
Those are the reasons -- understandable and legitimate -- why FDR's inner circle was never seriously investigated.
But today is now 70 years later, and it's time for the Truth to come clean, imho.
CougarGA7: "Claiming as you have that Mashall was Clausen's client is a false accusation."
In effect, Marshall was Clausen's client.
The purpose of Clausen's investigation was to defend Marshall and other top-brass against the fate suffered by, for example, Admiral Stark.
CougarGA7: "No, you just keep claiming that Clausen's work is irreverent because it doesn't cover the specific aspect you want to focus on.
I'm looking at the total picture in order to get a better understanding of everything that took place."
The "total picture" -- meaning the screw-ups of underlings -- was thoroughly investigated and reported on.
As a result, there is very little new to be learned there, and nothing of consequence for today.
What was never thoroughly investigated and reported was the knowledge and role of FDR and his inner circle.
That's why it is still a matter of interest and debate today.
CougarGA7: "One of the people he blames is FDR himself, as well as General Gerow in the War Plans Division.
He gives them a priority, I don't necessarily agree to the degree he assigns to each person on his list, but it's there."
Any blame which amounts to nothing more than, "FDR was Commander in Chief and therefore responsible" is not appropriate to the situation.
In fact, FDR played a very active role, for just one example, in ordering commanders that:
So there are specific reasons why Pacific commanders were, in effect, asleep at the switch, and they include FDR's actions.
CougarGA7: "All I've said is that its an interesting read by someone who was actually involved in the investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack."
The bottom line is that Clausen's investigation was intended to defend those at the very top.
So it doesn't tell us what we want to know about them.
CougarGA7: "What I have said is that I do not believe that FDR knew about the attack and intentionally let it happen."
None of the official investigations addressed that question directly.
The only people who do -- for better or for worse -- are authors like Toland, Stinnett and Victor.
And your categorical refusal to take those authors seriously, means you aren't really interested in the question.
But it's the only question which still seriously matters to Americans, now 70 years later.
CougarGA7: "Again, I think I will take the opinion of respected scholars over one conspiracy nut."
If your academic advisers approve of the quality of slip-shod, incomplete, cursory work-product you've presented here, then they are not doing the job you've hired them for, and you should be finding new advisers.
Those people need to set very high academic standards for you, and I don't see evidence that they do.
So you should hire better advisers, imho.
CougarGA7: "You will see the problem if you objectively look at what they say verses what the document says."
I've seen no evidence suggesting you've made any serious efforts to learn and understand what you so quickly condemned as "crap," "completely false" and "twisting the facts."
Your claim that "Victor's is the easy one to rip apart," displays a less-than-scholarly attitude, imho.
CougarGA7: "You said that Marshall was Clausen's client. That is an accusation and it is untrue."
But it's a fact that Clausen acted in effect as Marshall's defense lawyer, and that Marshall was in that sense Clausen's client.
You need to look everywhere. Fixating on one person is to just draw a conclusion before you have all the information.
the important point you really, really need to keep in mind here is that it's not just me saying this.
You are the only one here and your side is very much in the minority.
Of course I understand the "total picture" -- a lot better than you are attempting to portray me as
You show zero evidence of that.
In effect, Marshall was Clausen's client.
Repeating the same thing over and over still will not make it true.
"If hostilities cannot be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act..." and "...Undertake no offensive action until Japan has committed an overt act."
These are classic examples of orders sent to the Hawaiian commanders that are taken out of context by people like Stennitt and Victor. Here is the entire message as it was transmitted to General Short in Hawaii:
If hostilities cannot comma repeat cannot comma be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act Period This policy should not comma repeat not comma be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense Period
They were not told to sit back and get their butt kicked, they were told not to start a fight but to defend themselves as well. This message goes on to say:
Prior to hostile Japanese action you are directed to undertake such reconnaissance and other measures as you deem necessary but these measures should be carried out so as not comma repeat not comma to alarm civil population or disclose intent Period
So they were also instructed to conduct reconnaissance in order to detect an attack prior to it the arrival of the attacking force. We all know that there was a major failure here.
That sentence you quote takes on a whole new meaning when it is placed in its proper context.
The bottom line is that Clausen's investigation was intended to defend those at the very top. So it doesn't tell us what we want to know about them.
Which is why it is not my only source of information. You should try this. It may help you increase your knowledge.
And your categorical refusal to take those authors seriously, means you aren't really interested in the question.
I took them seriously when I read them. In fact, if you look back you will see that when we first started discussing Stinnett I gave him a lot of benefit of the doubt since I had not read his book at that point. I looked at them very carefully. Nothing would give me more pleasure than if their claim were true. There's just too many holes in their work.
But it's a fact that Clausen acted in effect as Marshall's defense lawyer, and that Marshall was in that sense Clausen's client.
Again, repeating it will still not make it true.
By the way, we should stop and take a brief note here: in now seven years of often very vigorous discussions with "opponents" (to me they are all fellow Freepers, and therefore "pal"), this is the first time I've been called a "conspiracy nut."
So, it shouldn't be allowed to pass without comment.
By definition, a "conspiracy" must be both planned and illegal.
I've never seen evidence that anything the FDR administration did, or didn't do, relating to Pearl Harbor was illegal.
Nor have I seen evidence that the results achieved by Japanese at Pearl Harbor were in any way "planned" by FDR.
Therefore, by definition, there is no evidence for a "conspiracy."
Those claims made by authors like Toland, Stinnett and Victor can be roughly summarized as follows:
In my opinion, all that does not add up to an illegal "conspiracy."
But it does suggest that FDR's inner circle knew of the coming attack and failed, even refused, to adequately warn commanders in Hawaii.
I stand by my statement. I think you are a conspiracy nut.
You're missing the forest for all those trees.
Remember, there were already nine official investigations into the screw-ups of underlings.
Those were well documented and frequently commented on.
What was never thoroughly investigated -- and for good and necessary reasons -- was the role, leadership and effects of President Roosevelt and his closest circle.
So let me say, your interest in those nine official investigations is all well and good, since they tell us how people down the chain of command screwed up what might still have been saved.
But they don't tell us anything about FDR's closest circle, and that's the reason we continue to debate it.
CougarGA7: "You are the only one here and your side is very much in the minority."
Only amongst those determined to defend the Roosevelt administration at all costs -- for example, amongst academics in liberal universities.
Here at Free Republic, we are naturally suspicious of FDR and his crowd, an less committed to giving them the benefits of all doubts.
CougarGA7: "Repeating the same thing over and over still will not make it true."
I have at least provided evidence that it is true -- quotes from Stinnett and Victor.
You've provided no evidence beyond your assertions that it's not true.
CougarGA7: "These are classic examples of orders sent to the Hawaiian commanders that are taken out of context by people like Stennitt and Victor."
In reality, you've applied your own post-December 7 mindset to those same quotes, emphasizing the warning portions and deemphasizing the "don't do this or that" parts.
But from a pre-December 7 perspective, Kimmel and Short saw those "warnings" as telling them to:
CougarGA7: "So they were also instructed to conduct reconnaissance in order to detect an attack prior to it the arrival of the attacking force. We all know that there was a major failure here."
False. In fact, this message is from Admiral Stark to Admiral Kimmel (not to General Short), the "warning" says nothing about a possible air attack and it directs Kimmel to "undertake such reconnaissance... as you deem necessary."
This is in no way and adequate warning.
Indeed, it is proof positive of the second part of the statement: FDR knew, but failed to adequately warn commanders in Hawaii.
CougarGA7: "That sentence you quote takes on a whole new meaning when it is placed in its proper context."
What you here call "proper context" was not the context seen by Kimmel, Short and other commanders in Hawaii before December 7.
CougarGA7: "Which is why it is not my only source of information. You should try this. It may help you increase your knowledge."
Again, none of the official investigations adequately address the roles of FDR and his closest circle.
For that data, we have to look elsewhere.
By the way, from time to time here I've mentioned Wikipedia reports on Pearl Harbor, and noted how they have changed over the months and years.
This Wikipedia report on Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories has been updated within the past week.
I would call it half-way "fair and balanced," since it does at least mention some of the data showing what Washington knew.
On the other hand, some of its arguments attempting to discredit "conspiracy theories" are weak to the point of being silly, and amount to nothing more than the author's denials.
Still, it's a better summary than I've seen before.
And it does bring out a point that for me could be decisive: a connection between John Toland (Infamy, 1986) and the Institute for Historical Review.
I have zero tolerance for IHR, or anyone associated with them, including the likes of David Irving.
To me, IHR are nothing more than enemy propagandists, lost causers still working to defend a thoroughly defeated and discredited Big Lie.
To find John Toland associated with that crowd tells me there is a fundamental flaw in his character, and possibly in his scholarship.
It moves me from giving him the benefit of doubts, to automatically deny such benefits.
It is a major blow to the arguments I've supported here, but not necessarily by itself a fatal blow.
I still think there's a lot of truth in what Stinnett and Victor wrote, and a lot of weaknesses in various attempts to deny them.
Anyway, for anyone who's interested, I recommend the revised Pearl Harbor summary referenced above.
I'm interested in all aspects. Up and down the entire chain of command.
Here at Free Republic, we are naturally suspicious of FDR and his crowd, an less committed to giving them the benefits of all doubts.
Certainly, and most of us here, myself included can see plenty of fault with FDR's actions. But most of us here with the minority exception of you also don't feel that he would have intentionally withheld information that his fleet was going to be attacked just to get into the war. He could have defended the attack and still gotten the same result. As far as the general feeling of most Freepers on the subject you need to ask yourself, "Why is no one defending me on this debate?"
I have at least provided evidence that it is true -- quotes from Stinnett and Victor.
Just because they say so doesn't make it true either.
In reality, you've applied your own post-December 7 mindset to those same quotes, emphasizing the warning portions and deemphasizing the "don't do this or that" parts.
Nonesense, I have provided you with the message in its full and proper context. No where in that warning from Marshall to Short does it suggest to be on the defense against sabotage, and it doesn't say a word that implies that Pearl Harbor will not be attack. In fact it does just the opposite stating that "hostile action [is] possible at any moment." While it doesn't state specifically that Pearl Harbor will be attacked the suggestion to undertake reconnaissance certainly lends that Marshall wants Short to be on the lookout for exterior forces coming to the Hawaiian area. I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think.
What you here call "proper context" was not the context seen by Kimmel, Short and other commanders in Hawaii before December 7.
It is one of my points that shows how Short and Kimmel made some critical errors in their command at Hawaii.
Again, none of the official investigations adequately address the roles of FDR and his closest circle.
I'm looking in far more places than just the official investigations. I've even looked at the only two sources you use on the subject (with the exception of Wikipedia which according to you has changed again). I assure you my research is far more diverse than yours on the subject.
To find John Toland associated with that crowd tells me there is a fundamental flaw in his character, and possibly in his scholarship.
I don't associate with that group either and neither does most historical societies (at least not the ones I rely on). This is a group that predominantly focuses on holocaust denial which is not accepted by most historian and historical societies. It is unfortunate that Toland decides to associate himself with that group since, though there are a lot of flaws in his book Infamy, I did at least enjoy reading The Rising Sun. I have never done a source analysis on that book though so I have never quoted it.
It's a highly complex discussion, and anyone not seriously familiar with the details can easily become confused and disoriented.
Still, from Day One there were many, including commanders in Hawaii, who believed that Washington knew, but failed to adequately warn them.
The absence of "proof", even today 70 years later, is more than explained by document destructions after the attack, and the fact that some documents even today remain secret and not released to the public.
Could anyone seriously suggest that those documents might serve to clear FDR's inner circle of all charges?
CougarGA7: "No where in that warning from Marshall to Short does it suggest to be on the defense against sabotage, and it doesn't say a word that implies that Pearl Harbor will not be attack."
Marshall's vague warning to Short (actually written by Secretary Stimson, as directed by FDR, since Marshall was away at the time) came on November 27.
The following day, Nov 28, Short received a second, longer and more specific warning emphasizing the dangers of "subversive activities," "sabotage," "propaganda," "espionage" and the necessity to "avoid unnecessary publicity and alarm."
Short replied to both saying on Nov 28: "department alert to prevent sabotage."
and on Nov 29: "full precautions are being taken against subversive activities,"
Clearly, neither Short nor Kimmel understood that they must prepare for an air-attack, and they reported their anti-sabotage actions back to Washington.
Indeed, there is a clear contrast between what Short and Kimmel in Hawaii understood, and the response of General MacArthur from the Philippines:
MacArthur at least had the right idea.
Still, his execution was weak.
CougarGA7: "I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think."
Now you're just getting silly again.
The issue has nothing to do with what BroJoeK thinks, after 70 years of 20-20 hindsight.
The question is, what did Short and Kimmel think they were being warned about in 1941?
Obviously, they were not expecting air-attacks.
And that's what Short reported back to Washington.
CougarGA7: "It is one of my points that shows how Short and Kimmel made some critical errors in their command at Hawaii."
The truly critical errors were made in Washington, which did have enough data to predict an air attack on Hawaii but failed, or refused, to share that with Kimmel & Short -- or to insure Hawaii understood the nature of the threat.
CougarGA7: " I assure you my research is far more diverse than yours on the subject."
I am a part-time "history buff," not a full-time scholar.
There are severe restrictions on both my time and resources.
However, I hugely enjoy this discussion, and appreciate your vain efforts to defend the nearly indefensible -- FDR's inner circle actions in the fall of 1941.
CougarGa7: "I have never done a source analysis on that book though so I have never quoted it."
I've never read or quoted from Toland's book, but did at least think it was a legitimate reference.
Now I'm not so sure since, imho, IHR is beyond the pale of legitimacy.
So my standard for Toland would be the same as, for example, for David Irving: did he ever disassociate himself and denounce them?
If not, then he's just one of them, in my opinion.
So, your charge of "conspiracy nut" would certainly apply to IHR, but the more accurate term for Pearl Harbor investigators, imho, is "truth seekers."
And that would certainly include everyone on Free Republic, so long as they don't blatantly deny obvious facts.
;-)
I would say no. Like I've said, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Clearly, neither Short nor Kimmel understood that they must prepare for an air-attack, and they reported their anti-sabotage actions back to Washington.
I don't think anyone denies that. The message from the 27th should have cued them off but did not. This was despite a request to conduct appropriate reconnaissance. The message from the 28th was from General Adams, General Marshall's adjunct. It added the concern about sabotage to the entire picture. Had Short interpreted the two separate messages correctly, he would have placed his forces on Alert 2. This really shows just how systemic the errors were. Short misinterprets the warnings given to him. Marshall does not follow up on the response and neither does Gerow in the War Plans Department. Both assumed that Short was taking the correct reconnaissance and defensive measures to protect the facility from attack, but neither verified it. There were plenty of mistakes to go around along with some procedural issues that exasperated the situation. Nobody intentionally tried to set Pearl Harbor up, it was just a comedy of errors.
The truly critical errors were made in Washington, which did have enough data to predict an air attack on Hawaii but failed, or refused, to share that with Kimmel & Short -- or to insure Hawaii understood the nature of the threat.
Errors were made at all levels.
I am a part-time "history buff," not a full-time scholar.
It shows.
I've never read or quoted from Toland's book, but did at least think it was a legitimate reference.
It may still be, but I would avoid it unless you take a serious look at his references that he uses to draw his conclusions. I just find it disappointing that he would be associated with the IHR. If that association was made between them an myself, I would be very vocal about showing how I was not. I hate all forms of racism and have no patience for groups like the IHR.
So, your charge of "conspiracy nut" would certainly apply to IHR, but the more accurate term for Pearl Harbor investigators, imho, is "truth seekers.
My charge of "conspiracy nut" was not aimed at Pearl Harbor investigators. That was aimed solely at you.
Then you must agree with me that President Roosevelt and his inner circle -- Stimson, Knox, Marshall & Stark for starters -- share a good part of the blame.
May I also draw your attention to the roles of a "band of brothers" -- close friends for life, going back to their time together in Tokyo -- Commanders Arthur McCollum, Joe Rochefort, Eddy Layton, and McCollum's assistant, Lt. Commander Ethelbert Watts.
McCollum wrote the original Eight Action Plan, Rochefort & Layton somehow failed to inform their commanders about everything they knew concerning the approaching Japanese fleet. Of course, they weren't the only ones.
And of course, as soon as you begin acknowledging such things, then by your own definition, that will make you also a "conspiracy nut."
CougarGA7: "The message from the 27th should have cued them off but did not. This was despite a request to conduct appropriate reconnaissance."
Once again: you are reading these messages with your own 20-20 hindsight. In fact, they suggest nothing about an attack on Hawaii, and there is no "request for appropriate reconnaissance."
What the messages say about recon is:
Since long-range recon was only necessary -- indeed only possible -- in the event of a known threat, and since the warnings say nothing about an imminent air attack on Hawaii, Hawaiian commanders naturally focused on what those warnings did describe: sabotage and subversion.
CougarGA7: "Nobody intentionally tried to set Pearl Harbor up, it was just a comedy of errors."
It was the opposite of a "comedy of errors," it was a tragedy of misdirection.
But the end result, except for the thousands killed & wounded, was absolutely perfect for what President Roosevelt needed to unite America politically in an all-out declaration of war.
Even those old battleships, supposedly "sunk", were nearly all soon repaired and back in the fight.
Such perfect results don't happen by "accident," especially on the watch of such a brilliant and devious political leader as President Roosevelt.
CougarGA7: "Errors were made at all levels."
Too many "errors" to be entirely "coincidental."
CougarGA7: "It shows."
With great effort, I am respecting your claims to serious scholarship, and simply take note of the fact that you are surprisingly over-eager, for a scholar, to shift away from academic debate and into personal aspersions.
For this I blame your academic advisers, and suggest yet again, that if they cannot discipline you, then you should fire them and hire new ones.
CougarGA7: "My charge of "conspiracy nut" was not aimed at Pearl Harbor investigators. That was aimed solely at you."
Then you are also a "conspiracy nut" whenever you blame anyone beyond the commanders in Hawaii.
Nobody knows for certain how many of the "errors" committed in Washington were truly "accidental" and how many were intended to produce something like the results which actually happened.
The evidence suggests that not all were truly "accidental," and the key instructions in that regard are in no-way secret:
You’re not even making any sense anymore. Just keep trying to prove your point. Who knows, maybe you will find someone to agree with you.
Actually, I take that back. It’s not that you are not making sense, its just that you have become repetitive and boring. I’m afraid, like others here, I’m just losing interest in you.
I never grow bored of responding to your ridiculous charges, in calling serious authors "crap," "completely false," "twisting the facts again" and claiming one is "easy...to rip apart."
On top of that, you call your humble correspondent a "conspiracy nut", and all this while claiming for yourself the title of a "scholar," supposedly under the tutorship and guidance of academic advisers -- advisers who should at least be teaching you the difference between real scholarship and a political hack just loyally defending his partisan opinions.
Now here you claim, in one breath, that you can't make sense of what I've written, and in the next that, no, it's all just the same old same old, and so you're bored with it.
But real the truth of the matter is, we are getting nearer to the core of the issue.
While in one breath you call me a "conspiracy nut," in the next you admit there's "enough blame to go around."
I say, if you are a true scholar -- and not just masquerading as one -- and are willing to spread at least some of the blame on FDR and his inner circle, then we have basically agreed on everything except possibly the definition of the word "coincidence."
Where do we draw the line between "accident," "error" and "coincidence" on the one side and "conscious, intentional behavior" on the other?
I say there were too many "accidents" and "errors" to be entirely "coincidental."
I say the root cause of all these "mistakes" was the leadership (or mis-leadership) of President Roosevelt.
And CougarGA7 says... ?
;-)
You still are not adding anything new to the conversation. Like I’ve said, repetitive and boring.
See how little you pay attention. I said there is blame to be placed at all levels. I'm afraid you are really too simple for this complex an issue.
By my count, your post here is one part meaningless assertion:
Seriously, if that's what passes for "scholarship" at your school, then I'm suggesting yet again: don't walk, run and run fast away from those people.
Find a new school, and new professors, who teach real scholarship, and won't allow you to substitute meaningless insults for serious work.
Ping me when you can bring something new to the table, otherwise you are just wasting my time.
Sorry pal, but you don't get away with such nonsense here.
You began by attacking my first post on this thread, always with some insult, sometimes more insult than serious argument -- when not against me, then against the authors I quoted.
You admitted my basic premise -- there is enough blame to go around -- but continued to insult any suggestion that some of the blame might lie at the feet of President Roosevelt.
Indeed, in your words, that makes me a "conspiracy nut".
Further, you refused to name anyone from FDR's inner circle, or from US intelligence services, who might have "accidentally" forgot to tell commanders in Hawaii about the coming air-attack.
All the while you claim the support of academic advisers, who presumably are instructing you that this is the way to carry on a serious discussion of a major historical question.
So in the heat of your efforts to hurl "crap" at your opponents, and "cut... [them] to shreds", you never even considered that my basic argument is unbreakable:
President Roosevelt and his inner circle knew an attack was coming, but failed, even refused, to adequately warn commanders in Hawaii.
"Comedy of errors"? Those are your words.
I'd call it a "tragedy of misdirection," beginning with the President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.