Skip to comments.
Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?
Independent Institute ^
Posted on 12/07/2005 6:00:02 AM PST by Irontank
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 next last
For those who've not read it...I highly recommend
Day of Deceit...Robert Stinnett's book on this subject
Day of Deceit
1
posted on
12/07/2005 6:00:04 AM PST
by
Irontank
To: Irontank
Can't say that the pre-war intelligence was wrong here.
To: Irontank
Of course. And Bush and the Israelis had advance notice of 9/11. /sarc
This is DUmmy Moonbat stuff.
3
posted on
12/07/2005 6:03:43 AM PST
by
peyton randolph
(Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
To: Irontank
What was Halliburton's role in this?
4
posted on
12/07/2005 6:06:33 AM PST
by
atomicpossum
(Replies should be as pedantic as possible. I love that so much.)
To: Irontank
5
posted on
12/07/2005 6:06:53 AM PST
by
rellimpank
(Don't believe anything about firearms or explosives stated by the mass media---NRABenefactor)
To: peyton randolph
After reading intensively on "Magic" and "Purple" I can only surmise that FDR was the stupidest President in history.
6
posted on
12/07/2005 6:07:17 AM PST
by
massgopguy
(massgopguy)
To: peyton randolph
Part of the November 25 message read:
the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow
Does sound sort of Al Jazeerish, doesn't it?
7
posted on
12/07/2005 6:09:53 AM PST
by
ErnBatavia
(403-3)
To: peyton randolph
This is DUmmy Moonbat stuff.
That's what I thought at one time...but Stinnett uncovered some amazing facts that changed my opinion...and its worth noting that Stinnett is of the opinion that FDR was justified in provoking Pearl Harbor
8
posted on
12/07/2005 6:14:37 AM PST
by
Irontank
(Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
To: Irontank
You write that in late November 1941 an order was sent out to all US military commanders that stated: The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. According to Secretary of War Stimson, the order came directly from President Roosevelt. Was FDRs cabinet on record for supporting this policy of provoking Japan to commit the first overt act of war?
I interpet that to mean: we aren't going to start it but if they do, we better be ready
9
posted on
12/07/2005 6:14:55 AM PST
by
PeterPrinciple
(Seeking the truth here folks.)
To: Irontank
"Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japans naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Deweys speeches could have sacrificed Americas code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time. "
I question this line of reasoning. The Jappanese were alerted to our code-breaking abilities by a story run in the Chicago Tribune following the Battle of Midway and by a speech made by a Congressman on the floor of the House.
Furthermore, the code used before Pearl was changed shortly after Midway, leading to a blackout of actual decoding prior to the invasion of Guadalcanal. Had the Jappanese been clued in by Dewey's speeches they would have learned that the US could break codes last used in mid 1942. Codes that had been changed multiple times since.
10
posted on
12/07/2005 6:16:55 AM PST
by
brothers4thID
("Kerry demands that Iraqis terrorize children in the dead of night")
To: Irontank
I just don't know what to think. FDR could have let the Japanese get close enough, then we could have sunk their ships. We could still have declared war on Japan, but not lose as many people as we did by letting them sandbag us.
I really do have to question the timing of this article. It sounds like a disinformation ploy for people to question our role in Iraq.
11
posted on
12/07/2005 6:19:50 AM PST
by
TheSpottedOwl
("The Less You Have...The More They'll Take"- bf)
To: Irontank
There were all kinds of small events that could have changed the future. There were snafus throught out the whole process.
If you think your enemy is going to strike and you act in preperatiion, it doesn't mean you cause it. Japan was going to attack, you can try to influence when.
12
posted on
12/07/2005 6:20:10 AM PST
by
PeterPrinciple
(Seeking the truth here folks.)
To: ErnBatavia
Does sound sort of Al Jazeerish, doesn't it?This is the money quote for the Moonbat strait jacket tinfoil hat brigade
"Stinnett: Thats right. But you see they wanted the successful overt act by Japan."
To assert that a U.S. President (with the possible exception of Bill Clinton) would do this is certifiably nuts. It would be treason - a willful refusal of the Commander-in-Chief to defend this country against foreign enemies.
13
posted on
12/07/2005 6:20:24 AM PST
by
peyton randolph
(Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
To: Irontank

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535158/posts?page=9#9
14
posted on
12/07/2005 6:21:45 AM PST
by
TheRobb7
(The American Spirit does not require a federal subsidy.)
To: Irontank
15
posted on
12/07/2005 6:21:52 AM PST
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Irontank
16
posted on
12/07/2005 6:22:40 AM PST
by
peyton randolph
(Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
To: Irontank
Our ability to decode intercepted Japanese messages was well less then 100%. But, even if we had the information, what were we supposed to do with it? Tensions between the US and Japan had been building for some time, and the rest of the world was in the middle of a world war. We were already at a high alert and gearing up war-level production of military equipment and personnel. A state of war did not exist.
- Would it be smart to let the Japanese know that we have broken their code, by publishing the exact content of their coded message?
- Should the administration attack the Japanese fleet in international waters, without a declaration of hostilities, without a declaration of war, and strike the first blow?
We did all that could have been done. We warned our bases and continued to prepare. It was Kimmel who failed to appreciate the risk. It was his fault that we were caught with our pants down at Pearl Harbor. He should have appreciated that we had a large number of assets assigned to his command, and he should have used some of them to establish adequate pickets and responses.
17
posted on
12/07/2005 6:24:46 AM PST
by
ARCADIA
(Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
To: Irontank
Looks like this must be an old article:
One might wonder if the theory that President Franklin Roosevelt had a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack would have been alluded to in this summers movie, Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor was a 2001 movie.
doesn't change the thrust of the article, just the timing. Presumably being post 9/11 it would also explain why this kind of revelation would have been overlooked (besides the normal "protect dems at all cost" media)
18
posted on
12/07/2005 6:26:48 AM PST
by
Phsstpok
(There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
To: peyton randolph
a willful refusal of the Commander-in-Chief to defend this country against foreign enemies. Yes, perhaps you're right, maybe it is treason...........
19
posted on
12/07/2005 6:28:24 AM PST
by
WhiteGuy
(Vote for gridlock)
To: Irontank
I've read the book, and can heartily recommend it...
To those who don't really understand how strong the isolationist sentiment was here before the war, ( and parenthetically, to those who decry the level of partisan bitterness in DC today) during the Senate debate on FRD's Lend-Lease bill, Sen Wm Borah (R-Idaho) a leader of the isolationist bloc, in a passionate speech opposing the bill, said that "if it passes...if will drag us into a war in Europe, and plow under every fourth American boy!"
20
posted on
12/07/2005 6:28:42 AM PST
by
ken5050
(Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson