Posted on 01/24/2011 4:36:42 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
I'm not a scholar, don't have time.
So I support real scholars by buying some of their books at places like Barnes & Noble and Amazon.
LS: "So you admit you don't want to do the real research needed to acquire answers."
No, I "hire" and "pay" real scholars to do real research by buying and reading their books.
LS: "You have now unsuccessfully dodged every decent question posed:"
Untrue, I've dodged nothing.
LS: "you won't address Jacobsen's PROOF that the Japanese were using decoy signals;"
Untrue, no such "proof" was presented on this thread. What are you thinking of?
In fact, those decoy signals are mentioned in most Pearl Harbor histories I've read, so they are not an issue.
LS: "you skirted the issue that Kimmel and Short incompetently did not have long-range aircraft out;"
Untrue, I quoted extensively from Prange on that subject.
LS: "you didn't address the EVIDENCE that I sent you in a private mail so as not to embarrass you that Clausen and Lee---whom Prange knew about and didn't acknowledge---showed that the 14 part "war" message was never delivered (which makes the Layton book irrelevant, since Layton didn't know that); "
Sorry, I haven't read my "private mail" in a week.
If by "14 part war message" you mean Japan's message to it's Washington negotiators, that is not an issue.
It's well known that message was not decoded on time to warn Pearl Harbor, nor did the resulting message sent from Washington arrive in Pearl on time.
If you're referring to the November 1941 "War Warning" message, it was received in Pearl Harbor, but was misunderstood and not even passed on to some lower level commanders.
LS: "you refused to admit that Rochefort DIDN'T HAVE the Purple code breaking machinery"
Untrue, the issue was not discussed on this thread. What are you thinking of?
In fact, most histories I've read point out that Rochefort didn't have a Purple code breaking machine, even though several were sent to Britain!
LS: "you completely miss (and have to be pretty thick here, I must say) the fact that Clausen had access to Top Secret files and Prange and Stinnett did not!!!!;"
Untrue, it was not discussed on this thread. What are you thinking of?
In fact, I understand that Stinnett did have access to formerly Top Secret files, through Freedom of Information Requests.
Stinnett also tells us that some of this archived data has since been re-withdrawn from public access.
LS: "or that Layton could not coordinate any kind of intelligence"
Untrue, Eddy Layton has never been discussed on this thread. What are you thinking of?
LS: "or that Marshall was NOT notified about the "winds" message; and on and on and on."
Untrue. Neither Marshall nor the "winds" message have been discussed on this thread, beyond my claim that Marshall knew more than he passed on to Short et al at Pearl Harbor. What are you thinking of?
LS: "Now, for the zillionth time---and I'm finished with you because you are totally impervious to actual evidence---the commanders were woefully incompetent and the cryptanalysts have overwhelmingly shown that any "warnings" they had were decrypted and analyzed LONG after 1942."
Untrue. I've quoted Prange at length saying things like:
But I've also quoted Prange laying some of the blame at the door of top brass in Washington.
It's also untrue because we have not in any way discussed specific warnings that could have, and should have been passed on to Pearl Harbor.
LS: "Finally, you seem tone deaf to the fact that just because something is (foolishly) stated by Lindbergh..."
Untrue. No mention has been made of anything -- foolish or otherwise -- stated by Lindbergh. What are you thinking of?
LS: "or printed in a crap book like Stinnett it carries equal weight as evidence from people who were THERE and had ACCESS to the materials."
Untrue. Stinnett writes that he had access to previously secret materials.
He also quotes from a number of people who were there.
LS: "You, sir, really need to understand how historians do their jobs and why Stinnett and his ilk are NOT historians."
For whatever my opinion might be worth to you: real historians write and sell books explaining to "average Joes" like me -- what is the real truth of the matter?
As best I can tell, the most popular Pearl Harbor books today are those by Prange, Stinnett and Victor.
But I am eagerly awaiting the next new Pearl Harbor book, which will definitively address all the issues, tie up all the loose ends, answer all the questions, and end all the debates.
That will be a good book!
;-)
Good Lord; this thread won’t die. Kind of like some conspiracy theories.
The only thing Wikipedia has going for it is that it comes up first on a Google search. That doesn’t mean it’s accurate. In fact, I prefer blowing past the Wiki article and critically compare several other sites.
LS clearly has the better of this one; a series of scholarly peer-reviewed articles by an actual codebreaker with first-hand knowledge vs. a pulp fiction writer like Stinnett? Sure, put my money on the pulp fiction writer.
I also had the privilege of exchanging posts and e-mails with Phil Jacobsen while he was alive. A more knowledgeable and gracious man I’ve never met. And he had the trump card for this debate:
“I was there, you weren’t.”
As an attorney, I’ll accept the first-hand eyewitness account, and there’s a reason that second-hand hearsay isn’t admissible.
So my previously termed "diatribe" has now graduated and been promoted to a "rant"?
Wow... ;-)
Hundreds of books have been written on Pearl Harbor, but only a small number of serious histories, and of those the books by Prange, Stinnett and Victor are among the most popular today.
And there are at least half a dozen brand new books in the works, of which possibly this one may be representative:
The Attack on Pearl Harbor, by Alan Zimm
Scheduled for release in March 2011.
Does it address all the issues? Does it answer all the questions? Does it end all the debate?
When someone finds that book, I'll be interested in reading it.
They usually contain a similar lack of substance.
For sake of discussion, I went back and counted up your own posts on this thread = 11 total: #s 23, 29, 37, 39, 40, 57, 72, 79, 83, 100, and 105.
Of those, three (23, 37 & 57) include actual substantive arguments.
Your other eight, including all of the last 5, are mere hand-waving, using words like "diatribe", "rant", "amusing", "entertaining", and "lack of substance" as substitutes for the substance of your argument.
In this same thread, I've made dozens of posts, some quite lengthy, nearly all with substantive arguments (sure, a couple of quippy responses).
So, whenever you wish to increase the substance of your own arguments, please feel free to pick out one of mine, and go at it!
;-)
Your excuse for substance is just a rehash of points that we have already gone over many times in the past. Anytime I put down a specific you fixate on a single word or take what I say out of context. Honestly, you are just not good at this and I don’t feel obligated to waste my time trying to show you the fallacy on accepting two lousy authors as gospel.
Are you referring to Gordon Prange's book, "At Dawn We Slept"?
Because that's the only author I've quoted on this thread -- or any other recent thread about Pearl Harbor.
If you do consider Prange such a "lousy author" why not take it up with Homer, and recommend someone you consider more reliable and authoritative.
I'm pretty sure he'll appreciate your suggestions, so he doesn't mislead the whole Free Republic world by posting possibly bogus Prange data.
Of course I do sometimes mention the names of Stinnett and Victor, but in the context that they used more previously secret files than Prange did, and are even more "revisionist" that Prange was.
But I have not quoted them here, because as of February 1941, as best I can tell, their data and Prange's is pretty much along the same lines.
As we get nearer and nearer the "finish line" of December 7, I'm pretty sure Stinnett and Victor -- and who knows now which others? -- will add facts that may have effected the way Prange looked at things.
I'm actually quite interested to learn how the various authors' reports, taken in sequence and context, may effect our overall understandings of those historic events.
You know who I'm talking about. Stop being simple.
And yet Prange is the only author I've quoted on this thread -- see post #94 -- and you did not address the substance of that quote.
I've quoted nothing specific from Stinnett & Victor, only mentioned they had access to more secret data than Prange and are, perhaps not surprisingly, more "revisionists".
By the way, let us note yet again, that CougarGA7 never misses an opportunity to fire off a loaded word or two -- in this case "simple."
But if I shoot that word "simple" right back at you, pal, what are you going to do?
That's right, you'll squeal like a stuck pig, claiming I'm fixated or out of context.
Come on, buddy, knock it off.
If you don't want loaded words fired right back at you, don't shoot them off in the first place.
I'm not being "simple", but I am making a simple point: that CougarGA7 has been doing a lot more hand-waving, arrogantly dismissing arguments and insulting authors, than actually presenting a good case.
You are being simple. This discussion has encompassed more than just this specific thread. Prange will not support your theory that F.D.R. knew about the attack on Pearl and let it happen, and Victor and Stinnett have already been soundly shown to be poor sources of information by more people than just myself. Like I said, you are just not good at this and I’m just not going to waste time repeating the points I’ve already made (that you ignore if it doesn’t support your pet theory).
So, in a nutshell. What proof is there that F.D.R knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and let it happen to get us into the war? You have been asked this several times by several people and have yet to provide any evidence that supports your theory.
{sigh}
CougarGA7: "This discussion has encompassed more than just this specific thread."
By all means, if you wish to revisit previous threads, bring out the relevant quotes, and we'll go to it.
CougarGA7: "Prange will not support your theory that F.D.R. knew about the attack on Pearl and let it happen, and Victor and Stinnett have already been soundly shown to be poor sources of information by more people than just myself."
Here's what you don't seem to understand: Prange spreads the blame around to everyone, not just the commanders in Hawaii, but also the top brass in Washington.
And Prange did not have all the data available to him which was later released to Stinnett and others.
So, with additional data about "what Washington knew", Stinnett shifts more of the blame away from Hawaii and towards Washington.
Remember, the basic argument has not changed since Day One: Kimmel, Short & company all claimed soon after 12/7/41 that had they known what Washington knew, they would have figured out and been prepared for the coming Japanese attack.
So even Prange shows us that Washington knew plenty -- enough to have more adequately warned Kimmel & Short.
CougarGA7: "Like I said, you are just not good at this and I’m just not going to waste time repeating the points I’ve already made (that you ignore if it doesn’t support your pet theory)."
It's certainly true that I do my best to resist the urge to insult, put-down, hand-wave or arrogantly dismiss arguments I disagree with.
So you're right, I'm not good at that. ;-)
CougarGA7: "What proof is there that F.D.R knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and let it happen to get us into the war?
You have been asked this several times by several people and have yet to provide any evidence that supports your theory."
Every time I've been asked this question, I've repeated the same answer: there is no legal "proof."
If there had been such "proof", the debate would have ended many decades ago.
What there is, is highly suggestive data -- some of the very data which Kimmel et al said would have led them to realize an air attack was imminent.
So the question becomes, did anyone in Washington also realize such an attack was coming, and if so, why weren't Kimmel & Short more specifically warned?
And now we come to President Roosevelt's provocative actions toward Japan, combined with his need for a major incident to unite the country politically in a declaration of all-out war.
So, was there a cause-and-effect relationship to the vague and misleading "war warnings" sent Kimmel & Short?
No, no legal "proof" -- possibly never will be.
But some curious behavior which will bear a closer look, when we reach that point in Homer's lesson plan... ;-)
That kind of sums it up then. You shouldn't try to imply that F.D.R. knew when you can't prove it. Nobody argue's the fact that mistakes were made up and down the line. But to suggest, especially on supposition, that F.D.R. knew of the attack without anything to back it up just doesn't stand up to muster. I've already made this point repeatedly with you, but I'm OK with the fact that you can't get it.
So I'm certain you would also argue that since OJ was declared innocent by a jury of his peers, that he never killed those people, right?
"No legal proof" does not mean "no important evidence."
There is lots of evidence to support the following claims:
I think those charges, at a minimum, are established facts.
Beyond that is the question, did Roosevelt & company have a strategy to lure Japan into an attack on America, an attack absolutely politically necessary for a Congressional Declaration of all-out War?
Here, the evidence is spotty, at best, but there is still lots of evidence -- enough to connect the dots showing a big picture.
Pal, because there is so much evidence, and because my time available to devote here is so erratic, my hope is to post a large part of it, over the next nine+ months.
So stay tuned... ;-)
When you think about it, the only other question about WWII which still grips at the hearts and minds of Americans today, the way Pearl Harbor does, is Truman's decision to drop A-Bombs on Japan.
And even that question will not be a major debate here on Free Republic, because nearly all Freepers know full well that Truman's decision was not just a military necessity which saved hundreds of thousands of American lives (including almost certainly my Dad), but also a humanitarian action which saved the lives of millions of otherwise suicidal Japanese civilians.
But Pearl Harbor is different.
Even on Free Republic, we have people with the very best of intentions defending Roosevelt and the Washington top brass, while condemning commanders in Hawaii as incompetent idiots.
So it's a worthy discussion, I think.
Well worth the efforts -- already I know ten times more on the subject than I did just a few months ago.
That has to count for something... ;-)
Your OJ comparison is irrelevant and as usual a comparison of apples to oranges from you.
There is plenty of responsibility to go around on all levels, but again, there is no evidence that F.D.R. deliberately let his fleet get attacked and sunk to get the U.S. in the war. There is no proof that he knew of the attack was coming and that he let it happen. Over the next nine months you will just simply continue to fall short on that mark and as I said, I’m fine with you doing that.
Since you are the one supporting the conspiracy theory, the burden of proof is on you. I’ll be interested to see what sort of wild yarns you will come up with to make an unprovable point.
I just cant wait to see what the next conspiracy theory will be after December. I think the death of Sikorski would be a good one.
My conspiracy theory is that Stalin, who was every bit as anti-semitic as Hitler, allowed Hitler to invade the parts of the Soviet Union with the most Jews, so as to allow Hitler to take care of Stalin's "Jewish Problem."
During the war, Lindy flew in a lot of missions in the Pacific, but it was kept hush-hush:
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.