Posted on 01/24/2011 4:36:42 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
Who killed the Cuban proposal for refugee camps? It wasn’t European Jews.
Q:Whats the difference between SAIC and academia?
A: You move the leather patches from the knees to the elbows.
So that’s why my knees have stopped aching. I was thinking of moving one of the leather patches over my eye though. Maybe I’ll move both there and make up a good story.
It got the babes for Nelson.
True, but remember when Nelson got home from Trafalgar he was quite literally pickled.
Like the Duke of Wellingtons Brother in Law (IIRC) who got his azz handed to him at the Battle of New Orleans.
Killed by a sniper (USA! USA!)his body was shipped home in a barrel of rum, it was said he “Arrived in good spirits.”
Do you think there was an open bar at his wake? (If so, shouldn’t have the Mojito)
For once we agree.
Why did I think you were at UGA. I see you flying a New Mexico flag. I didn't know that you were frequenting the North Texas area.
I don’t and I haven’t been to North Texas for a long time. But after a lot of research on PhD programs and other factors UNT was the one that was the best fit for myself and the family. It won’t be as long a move as my second choice, the University of North Carolina.
Two analogies have now been suggested -- Patton before the Bulge and Stalin before Barbarossa.
In both cases there is at least some historical documentation -- and in the case of Stalin, quite a lot -- showing that they were informed or suspected ahead of time what was coming.
In Stalin's case, he made no obvious defensive moves, it is now concluded, out of fear of provoking Hitler and from a conviction that Hitler was not stupid enough to invade in 1941.
In Patton's case, the responsibility lay with Bradley and Eisenhower, but Patton himself would be derelict in his duty if he did not inform them of his concerns.
Therefore I believe he must have informed them, and why they chose not to respond is a matter for speculation (so far as I know, anyway).
So here's my point: in the analogous case of Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, there is much less historical data suggesting that America's "top brass" knew of the coming attack, but there is some.
There is also the most curious fact that huge quantities of data which could shed light on that question were either destroyed at the time, or remain sealed in secrecy to this very day!
And so any serious historian (I'd suppose), would ask the same questions of FDR as of Stalin or Eisenhower?
From what I've read, the entire US military apparatus was super-sensitive to the movements and locations of those Japanese aircraft carriers.
Therefore I tend to rule out options A & B above and highly suspect C or some still unknown D.
You know, pal, there are at least some irrefutable facts here, and one of them is the title of the book Homer posts from, but which posts you all seemed determined not to read: "At Dawn We Slept".
So all I'm doing is going with the flow of Homer's history lessons, and asking the obvious (to me at least) question: why are those soldiers and sailors still asleep if, 10 months before, an attack on Pearl Harbor was already considered "easily possible," by the highest US military authorities?
At this point I'm not suggesting more, though as time goes on we'll see there were other specific warnings.
Well... if I remember correctly, it was the Nazis.
So what are you suggesting, that those Nazis worked in the White House?
Naw, no way.
But do you agree with henkster?
So, as Mike Myers used to say: feel free to talk amongst yoursleves... :-)
Again, this is silly. My dad smoked like a chimney. He goes to a doctor. “You could die from lung cancer. It’s EASILY POSSIBLE.” So he lived on and died a few years later . . . from prostate cancer. It’s “EASILY POSSIBLE” I’ll win a Pulitzer. Then again . . . .
The problem is that no one is suggesting that there weren’t hints that Pearl Harbor may be attacked. The upper echelons just felt that an attack was most likely to come elsewhere.
What is the problem is that you interpret “easily possible” as “FDR knew and let it happen”. You make this unrealistic leap because you are fixated on a theory in which there is just not corroborating evidence. This obsession really hurts your credibility on the whole issue. Don’t you think if there was proof that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen that I would jump all over it? I’m no fan of Roosevelt.
At the end of the day the evidence suggests that Washington and the Navy was convinced that the Japanese were going to attack and that it would be in the Philippines. They were correct on that account but they failed to locate the task force that turned up off of Hawaii.
Remember, if the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor and we had repulsed the attack it would have had the same effect. We still would have declared war on Japan. Why would you sink your fleet to start a war? No one who clings to this conspiracy has ever sufficiently answered that question.
Just to help you out I suggest you read “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History” by Captain A.T. Mahan. It will give you some insight into the general naval doctrine that both the Japanese and U.S. Navy subscribed to even in 1941. Only those who thought out of the doctrine like Yamamoto could easily conceive long ranged carrier strikes. But men like Yamamoto were the minority in both navies and we will see some examples of Mahan doctrine slipping back into the light in some of these battles to come despite the proverbial bubble being burst on that doctrine.
This has new information that basically undercuts much of Prange and certainly all of Stinnett.
BroJoeK
I’m going to put in my final two cents and then I’m not going to discuss this issue any longer. In addition to agreeing 100% with what Cougar posted:
1. It was clear that the “war warnings” went out to the Philippines before December 7, and it was clear that the Americans expected an attack on the Philippine Islands. MacArthur and his top commanders KNEW before dawn that Pearl Harbor had been attacked by the Japanese, and that for all intents and purposes, we were at war with Japan. And yet, MacArthur and Brereton’s air force was CAUGHT ON THE RUNWAYS AT CLARK FIELD AND DESTROYED during the first morning of the war. What you saw at Clark Field was just the same thing you saw at Pearl Harbor, and that was that the United States Army was simply not prepared to go to war. Not psychologically, not materially. where is the claim that FDR “knew” that the Philippines were going to be attacked, but suppressed the information?
2. The Navy wasn’t really ready for war either. Even though the USN had been escorting British convoys halfway across the Atlantic for months, when Germany declared war on the United States, Doenitz immediately initiated Operation Paukenschlag (Drumbeat) where his U-boats slaughtered US coastal shipping. It was months before we began a convoy system and developed ASW warfare for our own coast. This is further evidence of the same sloppy lack of preparedness for war as at Pearl Harbor and at Clark Field. So where is the claim that FDR deliberately allowed our coastal shipping to be sunk at will by the Germans?
3. At the beginning of the war, and well into 1943, United States Navy torpedoes were worse than faulty. Often times all they did was point a trail back to the submarine that launched them (assuming they ran straight, which they didn’t always do.) Once again, our equipment just wasn’t up to snuff for being ready for a real war. Where is the claim that FDR deliberately covered up the faulty torpedoes?
4. Churchill and FDR met several times and corresponded frequently during the months before Pearl Harbor. Yes, FDR was looking for a way to get the USA into the war…but during all of these conferences the “Germany First” strategy had ALREADY BEEN WORKED OUT between the UK and the USA. It does not follow logically that allowing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor furthered this strategy, in fact, it is contrary to that strategy. For on December 8, FDR did not declare war on Germany, he was forced to declare war on Japan. Instead FDR was in quite a conundrum for a few days because we were at war with Japan but NOT with Germany and FDR did not have a casus belli handy to use against Hitler. But it was against Germany that FDR was itching for war. Hitler resolved the conundrum by declaring war on us, which he did not have to do. You cannot argue that FDR followed some sinister logic in getting the USA into a war, but then argue that the way he did it was contrary to all logic applied to his strategy.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely NO concrete evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, and NO evidence that he deliberately allowed the attack to happen. You have taken some inferences from a string of somewhat connected but more often isolated facts to surmise or infer the existence of knowledge on the part of FDR. This is what is known as “proof by circumstantial evidence.” As you have more or less accused the President of a crime, allow me to educate you on what is necessary for you to “win your case.” The pattern jury instruction for direct and circumstantial evidence reads as follows:
Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact, and that, if true, conclusively establishes that fact.
Circumstantial evidence means evidence that proves a fact from which you may conclude the existence of (an)other fact(s).
It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof. A conviction may be based solely on circumstantial evidence. Where proof of guilt is by circumstantial evidence only, it must be so conclusive and point so convincingly to the guilt of the accused that the evidence excludes every reasonable theory of innocence.
As stated above, you do not have direct evidence of FDR’s knowledge. No such witness or document has ever been produced, and as a matter of proof, logic does not allow you to speculate its existence. What you have is circumstantial evidence, and in order to “win a case” on circumstantial evidence it must EXCLUDE EVERY REASONABLE THEORY OF INNOCENCE. As I illustrated above, through other analogies, it is very clear what that “other reasonable theory of innocence” is. The armed forces of the United States, on December 7, 1941, were unprepared and unfit for combat. Those examples show, quite reasonably, that what really happened at Pearl Harbor was an incompetent army general, Walther Short, failed to have his forces on a 24/7 war alert, which he had more or less been ordered to do, and those forces simply did not do their job of defending the fleet while at anchor. In addition, the motives attributed to FDR are contrary to the historical record of his motivations during the latter half of 1941.
Man up; the Japanese had brains to plan the operation, the equipment and men to bring it about, and the balls to even try it. We just got beat.
That is all I am going to say on the issue. As I said before, it isn’t even debatable, and I’m not going to waste my time further debating this, the flat earth as the center of the universe, turning feathers into gold, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
see post 59
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.