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 ...
I agree. It’s a matter of “Duh, what do you think they were up to.” But back then, America hadn’t been attacked for a really, really long time. Plus, whodathunk Japan would want to fight us when they could go on conquering little nothings.
As for provoking them, that’s what nations do. We throw their weight around, and when other nations don’t respond as they thought they would, we throw up our arms and say, “Who me? But what did I do? Oh yeah, but I didn’t mean it. Jeez, you’re a jerk.”
I am sure FDR new, and wanted the attack. But Admiral Kimmel and General Short certainly made it worse by bonehead moves on their part.
If Admiral Kimmel and General Short had cooperated together and set up a system to USE the information that was provided by a fully functioning radar system, the loss would have been much, much less.
Nothing FDR did would be surprising.
“Put me in the believer column until someone offers definitive proof that it was not used as the only way to get the US people to agree to another war”
What a mindset. Our leaders, corrupt and rapacious as they are, are presumed to be capable of conspiring to effectively attack their own country in order to make a policy decision more possible until proven innocent? That’s not exactly the way our criminal justice system or Science work, but hey, if you like it.
If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.- Winston Churchill
“The oil embargo, instituted by the US, led directly to the conflict. But as with all instigations, the US thought it would end quickly.”
Instigation/provocation, maybe. But not in the sense that war was what we wanted, methinks. More like how it is with Iran nowadays, only vastly harsher. We knew Japan was bad news and wanted to intimidate and neutralize them. If it came to war, we probably thought we could take ‘em. As for desiring war, I doubt it. Just like almost no one wants to go to war with Iran. Just like no hardly ever wants to go to war. But we all play these gaes, and kinda sometimes do want it, but don’t, but do, but don’t, but do...
“Truth is the first casualty of war.”
War may still hold that distinction but history is gaining fast.
The militarists in Japan controlled the Diet and the throne, and instead of looking into the future, decided on the 'one-big-battle' to put the US in it's place.
Obviously, they didn't believe what happens when you piss off the big dog in the neighborhood.
“An actual successful attack would have knocked us out of the war before we ever got started.”
It reminds me of a line of dialogue from the greatest Out of Control Bus movie of all time, “Speed,” when Reeves punches a screwdriver through the gas tank or something, and somebody says (paraphrasing), “What, you thought you needed more of a challenge?”
If FDR was Machiavellian, why would he make his path to more power so difficult? Forget how much power he had already, let’s say he wants to be King of America and all he needs is a war to put him over the top. Why allow so much damage at Pearl? It’s like stabbing yourself in the testicles before the 100-yard dash. Isn’t winning part of the evil scheme?
Additionally, the ostensible trigger for the U.S actions was the Japanese occupation of French Indochina. Yet Roosevelt was demanding Japanese withdrawal from CHINA as a condition for lifting the embargo. Considering the Japanese had been at war with China since 1937 [1931 if you count Manchuria], and had spent blood and treasure on that war, that condition was a major sticking point in negotiations.
One must also consider the overall context of the U.S moves, on a broader scale. Roosevelt had just spent almost two years trying to get the Germans to declare war on the U.S [Hitler didn't bite]. The Lend lease deals made the U.S a co-belligerent with Britain. Dividing the Atlantic into two defense zones, escorting British convoys, helping to defend Iceland, radioing U-boat positions to British Naval units [and occasionally attacking them], furnishing aircrew for British reconnaissance flights [e.g the co-pilot on the PBY that spotted the BISMARCK]. By the time Doenitz got
Hitler's permission for U-boats to engage U.S destroyers late in 1941, the resultant sinkings did not arouse a demand for war in the U.S, since most people realized what had led to them.
Where Roosevelt may have miscalculated, I believe, was in assuming that, with a minimum of intelligence info, the command team at Pearl, would have displayed greater competence pre-hostility in positioning and using their assets
Woodrow Wilson also ran on a promise to keep out of the war, and then after being elected went right in. Roosevelt did the same thing.
Yes, exactly the same thing, including The League of Nations. The agenda was socialism for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a global oligarchy. T'was ever thus, the only thing that has substantively changed are the technical means by which to exert government control over the individual.
You have in your hands an effective countermeasure.
“If Hitler hadn’t been so crazy, it would not have. Germany had no treaty or agreement with Japan to fight anyone just because Japan did. Hitler declared war because he was a fool.”
You think we wouldn’t have fought the Hun had they not declared war on us? You think we’d have let Britain perish and focused on the Japs? There was no Japanese war. There was one war: THE WAR. Step in one part of it, you’re in it all. Germany’s declaration was merely a legal technicality anyway. With or without their little statement they posed zero threat to us, outside of U-boats in shipping lanes. Yet no one besides Pat Buchanon wastes much time on that distinction, just like no one would have cared at the time.
Simply put, Germany declared war not because it was crazy but because the U.S. was now in THE WAR, and the U.S. invaded Germany because Germany was in THE WAR. Their declaration was only useful in the U.S. for whoever cares about just war theory and pretends the meaningless is meaningful.
that’s one of my favorite quotes of all time. If you read Manchester’s two biographies about Churchill you’ll finish with hundreds of similar ones.
Another favorite: when Churchill is shown a railroad boxcar filled to brim with boxes of countless vintages of French champagne, he was heard to utter, “So much to do, so little time.”
Churchill was a well-known nudist in his own surroundings — he had servants bring him robes, supplies, etc., back in the UK and they were accustomed to it. Not really a nudist, just walked about nude after a night’s rest or a bath, until a servant brought his clothes. Anyway, when he was visiting the White House during WWII, he got lost and ended up on a landing above a well-trammelled staircase. No clothes. FDR was at the bottom, and looked up. Churchill blushed, but recovered and said, “the Prime Minister of England has nothing to hide from the President of the United States.” With a grin, he raised his chin and walked back to his room.
“And what was the ‘deliberate misrepresentation’ that got us into the Vietnam war?”
Gulf of Tonkin incident.
“What was the ‘deliberate misrepresentation’ that got us into the Gulf war? Did Saddam not really invade Kuwait after all?”
Pretty sure they mean Iraq Part II: The Reckoning. Though technically it was Saddam’s violation of the peace treaty, not the infamous WMDs that justified our invasion. If you care about legalistic official justifications.
“World War I”
We all dreamed that the Lusitania and all those other ships sunk. The wreckage they occassionbally find are all pieces that fell off the Titanic.
“The civil war?”
Unsurprisingly, there are questions concerning what went down at Fort Sumter. Specifically whether Lincoln intentionally provoked Johnny Reb by resupplying it, or something. I forget.
I am sure FDR knew in advance that Japan would attack America. America’s action against Japan’s source of resources virtually assured Japan would respond. I am also sure that FDR did not know how the attack would manifest itself or if the attack would be economical or physical, or when or where.
FDR knew no more than President Bush knew about when or where the next terrorist attack against America would manifest itself. There had been over twenty years of unanswered terrorist attacks against America and no reason to not suspect there would be more.
What is obvious with nearly 70 years of hindsight was not obvious in 1941.
I think FDR was anticipating some precipitating incident that would get us into the war with Japan, but not anticipating a full frontal assault on American forces in a sneak attack on the fleet. “They wouldn’t dare,” being the operative perspective.
There was a piece he wrote in the 1920’s, “Can We Trust Japan?” I don’t have it in front of me but the short answer was yes.
Although Japan was already expansionist by then, and already very offended by the American attitude toward Japanese (as seen in new immigration law), there was no alarm nor reason for alarm in the earlier decades. A few writers and observers tried to warn us — such as O’Conroy (which I do have in front of me, “The Menace of Japan”) — but they were considered to be in the wilderness. You have to read contemporary sources from that era and avoid post-war history, to get into their heads.
Anyway, in 1941 the Japanese saw themselves as having two options, consolidate their gains to the north, or bite off more toward the south. If they’d taken the first option America might have left them alone; taking the second meant taking out as much as possible the American forces in the Pacific, and they chose poorly.
They were arrogant. We were arrogant, too, thinking they wouldn’t sneak up on us.
Think about it, if FDR had known, he could just as easily have prepared to greet them, and still have gotten his war. It would still have been a dastardly act of aggression calling for a declaration of war, even if we’d hurt them harder than they hurt us.
“The agenda was socialism for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a global oligarchy.”
Yes, that’s the agenda, and it’s not a secret or anything. Does it mean they’d deliberately get themselves attacked to enact it? I don’t know, do all those plots of “24” ring true? You know, when Jack uncovers patriotic right-wingers setting up terrorists to attack civilians on our soil so that we can say, “See, there really is a threat. Now, fund my defense spending program, damnit!”
Post 37
Somebody DID spot that elephant.
Gosh, maybe Obama is right after all, without the unbridled aggression and nation building by the U. S. THE WORLD WOULD BE AT PEACE. Click to sing http://www.countrygoldusa.com/teach_world_to_sing.asp
The antipathy for war among Americans is massive, yet it is also damaging, for lack of a needed war when it would be less expensive in lives and money to wage.
War is Hell, as Sherman declared, and must be hell, for short of hell it does not solve the problems that lead to it.
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.