Posted on 12/07/2009 7:25:33 AM PST by oblomov
Introductory Remarks:
On December 7, 1941, U.S. military installations at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii were attacked by the Imperial Japanese Navy. Could this tragic event that resulted in over 3,000 Americans killed and injured in a single two-hour attack have been averted?
After 16 years of uncovering documents through the Freedom of Information Act, journalist and historian Robert Stinnett charges in his book, Day of Deceit, that U.S. government leaders at the highest level not only knew that a Japanese attack was imminent, but that they had deliberately engaged in policies intended to provoke the attack, in order to draw a reluctant, peace-loving American public into a war in Europe for good or ill. In contrast, historian and author Stephen Budiansky (see his book, Battle of Wits) believes that such charges are entirely unfounded and are based on misinterpretations of the historical record.
It’s been often said that “Truth is the first casualty of war.” Historians and policy experts now know that the official government claims, including those made by U.S. Presidents, that led to the Spanish-American War, World War I, Vietnam War, Gulf War, and other conflicts were deliberate misrepresentations of the facts in order to rally support for wars that the general public would otherwise not support. Was this also the case regarding the tragedy at Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II—or are such charges false? We are very pleased to provide a debate between these two distinguished experts.
(Excerpt) Read more at independent.org ...
This message was known to FDR (and Churchill) days prior to the attack. FDR mentions it the the US Congressional leaders the evening of 7Dec41 as they meet at the White House.
Of course, it all started when the Japanese military dictatorship invaded China and the far east for its resources...like oil. Here’s a fact for you-—World War II was fought over oil and other resources—”living space”—and not the moralistic/humanistic fever that America propaganda—”Why We Fight/John Ford” tried to portray it as. In fact, if there was ever a war or two that was fought over human rights or dignity, it was the Civil War, which was a religious war lead by those “religious zealots” abolitionists, and the Vietnam War, where Vietnam had no resources worth fighting over.
WWII was the last time that the major powers could throw everything at each other. Today, mutually assured destruction (MAD) keeps countries such as the US, China, Russia and the European Union cannot do this, as the damage would render large parts of the world uninhabitable.
During WWII, there were no qualms about using any weapon available.
Is this the FDR who was President at the time of the "pop-up" cruises, or sending warships into the Bonin Islands, was considering getting the USSR Lend-Lease aid through to Vladivostok - all as violations of Japanese territorial waters?
Um ... fishing for an "incident" in the Pacific was that President, as those attempts in the Atlantic (FDR's "Undeclared War") resulted in Congressional hearings and a very contrite Admiral Stark?
So, if FDR loved the Navy that much, in fact, so heart-felt was FDR's affection that Admiral Stark (CNO), in a memorandum written 11 February 1941, captures its precisely:
" ... Particularly do I recall your remark in a previous conference where Mr. Hull suggested this and the question arose as to getting them out and your 100% reply, from my standpoint, was that you (sic "you" here is FDR) might not mind losing one or two cruisers (we have 2 out there now), but that you did not want to take a chance on losing 5 or 6. ..." (See Beard's President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941 - Appearances and Realities Yale University Press, 1948, page 242).
You might extend you research to understand how the Japanese knew, and when they knew, that the British would not commit to defending the Far East - leaving one obstacle. The US Pacific Fleet, so nicely settled in Hawaii.
FYI - they were attacked within hours after Pearl Harbor (most used is with 8 or 9 hours).
FYI - they were attacked within hours after Pearl Harbor (most used is within 8 or 9 hours).
And, consider too the timing of aid going to ... while the US was still a neutral country.
US attacks Japanese would have triggered the Tri-Partite Treaty, not the other way around.
In fairness to FDR, he seems to have been under the belief that the commanders at Pearl Harbor had been warned and could easily repulse an air attack. In truth, the early warnings were not clear and urgent and the last one was not transmitted in a timely fashion due to technical problems.
In addition, there was a lack of recognition by the US government and military about the capabilities of Japanese aircraft. This was due to cultural blindness and an unwillingness to accept contrary information from sources like Claire Chennault of the Flying Tigers.
On the whole, FDR, George Marshall, and Ernest King seem to have expected that the US would enter the war with a stunning defensive victory at Pear Harbor. That would free the US to move aggressively in Europe, with an invasion across the Channel in 1942 or 1943. Meanwhile, the US Navy would have defeated the Japanese Navy in the west Pacific and invested the home islands.
Post 78
We can argue about whether WW II was caused by provocation by the U. S. or aggression by Axis nations (or to what degree) until the cows come home and we aren’t likely to get beyond preconceived notions.
It seems many here are inclined to agree with Pres. Obama, that world peace is threatened by U. S. provocation... I am not among them.
Good day, I am going to have a Coke and listen to their little jingle.
So what do you think the motivation of allowing Japan do this was?
We wanted to save England from Germany. Japan was more of an irritation to England—not the threat Germany was.
Brings to mind the supposed quote from Yamamoto: "Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass."
The 9/7 Truthers?
Woops make that the 12/7 Truthers
FDR had promised Churchill a “Europe First” approach to the war when the US got involved. Germany was not going to unilaterally declare war on the US, unless we were in a war with Japan. Hitler did declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, because he felt in return, Japan would engage the Russians in Siberia, thus taking pressure off of Hitler in the East.
Of course, Japan wanted no part of that.
Yeah, Germany declared war on the US on Dec 10 (I think). Which still surprises people today. Japan and Germany weren’t all that close despite the treaty they had. So I’m surprised Germany thought the Japanese would declare war on Russia if Germany declared war on the US.
Hitler at first doubted it as well, but he got reassurances from Japan that they would help against Russia, then afterwards, he agreed to declare war on the US.
I always wondered had he not declared war on the US, what would have happened. My guess is the US would have just gone ahead and beefed up arms shipments to Britain knowing eventually the Germans would attack one of our ships, this giving us Casus Belli.
I believe we had “shoot on sight” for U-boats about six months before Pearl Harbor. So we were already technically at war against Germany.
Also remember, Britain declared war with Japan as of December 8 as well, which would have been our justification for beefing up our supplies to Britain.
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.