Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: oblomov

I just can’t buy that “FDR knew”. FDR was a navy man. He knew the importance of the Navy.

Why in the world would anyone, who understood the importance of the Navy—especially in the Pacific, jeopardize the entire fleet—knowing how important (and long it would take to rebuild)?

The fact the Carriers weren’t at Pearl—so? The majority of the thinking of the day basically was carriers were “toys” and battleships were king.


10 posted on 12/07/2009 7:33:47 AM PST by WKUHilltopper (Fix bayonets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: WKUHilltopper

See post 18.

[Errata: “captial” should be “capital”.]


20 posted on 12/07/2009 7:42:34 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: WKUHilltopper

I think FDR, despite the occasional bones he may have thrown to the “America First” crowd, had to know that war was inevitable even back in 1939, but politically he knew it was a loser to suggest it.


99 posted on 12/07/2009 11:25:06 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: WKUHilltopper
Well, perhaps if you knew ...

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.

104 posted on 12/07/2009 11:55:31 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: WKUHilltopper

The Navy believed that the fleet was safe at Pearl. Among the reasons was the idea that torpedos couldn’t arm in shallow water, a problem that the Japanese solved.


141 posted on 12/07/2009 7:05:45 PM PST by Pelham ("Badges?!! We don' need no stinkin' badges!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: WKUHilltopper

There were no modern battleships at Pearl.


151 posted on 12/07/2009 8:08:16 PM PST by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson