History Lies. A start at debunking [NRO interviews Larry Schweikart]

NRO ^ | September 09, 2008

[Tolik]

Larry Schweikart, previously co-author of A Patriot’s History of the United States, is author of the new (released today) 49 Liberal Lies About American History (That You Probably Learned in School). A professor of history at the University of Dayton, he takes some opening-day questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez, in the hopes of undoing some of the lies early in the school year.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: So only 49?

Larry Schweikart: You know, publishers do have cost restraints. The original version was the size of The Historical Statistics of the United States. So we allowed for volume 2, 3, 4, . . . .

Lopez: I never learned that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. Am I weird?

Schweikart: This one is quirky, and I admit that textbooks stay away from it — but it’s certainly out there. It began with a liberal, Charles Beard, a Marxist historian. For Marxist historians, every war is the fault of the capitalist class in either England or the United States. You know that. Anyway, over the past 20 years, it has morphed into a conspiracy thesis held by radicals of all political stripes, including a lot of Libertarians. Most recently, it was the subject of a couple of books that spend hundreds of pages asserting that Roosevelt “knew” in advance about the attack without producing one single shred of proof. Ultimately, at the critical point when actual evidence is required, they leap to a line such as, “Roosevelt almost certainly would have received this radio transmission,” or something to that effect. Bottom line: The Japanese maintained strict radio silence, the code breakers didn’t break the pre-December 1941 codes until 1944, and Pearl Harbor, like 9/11, was a failure of intelligence, not a conspiracy by patriotic Americans to drag us into a war.

Lopez: Why are you defending the Prohibition?

Schweikart: I don’t think “defending” is an accurate description of the entry. It is, pure and simple, revealing that a) Prohibition was not unpopular when passed — it was a Constitutional amendment, after all, and that entails phenomenal agreement among the electorate; b) it was not the work of “fundamentalist, back-woods hicks” who wanted to “impose their morality” on the rest of us — but rather was most heavily supported by the kinds of “Progressive” urban reformers that your colleague Jonah Goldberg called “liberal fascists”; and c) it did have some positive health effects, which I think are undeniable. Certainly a ban on all cigarette smoking also would have such effects, and we shouldn’t deny the benefits in defense of the more important liberties that were at risk.

Lopez: Is everything this generation of teachers knows about JFK coming from Oliver stone?

Schweikart: It certainly appears that way. More than half of the textbooks —

textbooks — I examined identified Lee Harvey Oswald as a “Marine,” a “deranged Marine,” a “former Marine,” or some such reference to his military service. But that was entirely irrelevant to his motivation for killing JFK, which was his Communism. Yet fewer than half even identified him as a “communist” or “Marxist.” I think it’s clear that they view the assassination as the result of an American “militaristic” character. While few of them take the next step and directly say JFK was assassinated at the orders of Lyndon Johnson, most leave the issue open with phrases such as “no one knows” what really happened.

Lopez: The Mexican and Spanish-American wars weren’t imperialist efforts drummed up by “corporate interests”? Next you are going say that the Iraq war is about more than oil! Where do you get this stuff?

Schweikart: We tend to forget that real issues existed at different times in history. “54, 40, or Fight!” or “Free Silver at 16:1” sound silly now, but entire political movements were affected by these ideas. So, too, with both the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. In each case, there were real issues at stake (genuine bloodshed in the former, and what was thought to be a Spanish bombing of a U.S. ship in the latter). Neither was a “spur of the moment” war, but rather war had been building, over numerous issues, over many years in each case. It’s true some “business interests” wanted war with Spain — but many others did not, fearing the competition. Nine times out of ten, narrow economic interests are not the cause of a war.

Lopez: Will conservatives be defending Joe McCarthy forever?

Schweikart: I hope so. Joe’s timing was a little off — the Communists who were definitely in the administration had mostly been purged (but not entirely) — and his methods were heavy handed. But then, like now, the press was substantially against him, and the Democrats (all except Jack Kennedy and his family!) were opposed to him, because he made them look bad. The undeniable point, though, is that almost all those he tabbed as “Communists” or “Communist sympathizers” were at least that, and often outright agents of the U.S.S.R.

Lopez: Will American students ever learn anything good about Christopher Columbus?

Schweikart: Maybe that Columbus, Ohio, was named for him? Poor old Chris has been the subject of entire multidisciplinary symposia. Slowly, but surely, the word is getting out that Native Americans were nowhere near as numerous as historians and anthropologists once thought; that they suffered from most of the diseases once thought to be “introduced” by the Europeans long before Chris ever dipped his toe in the Caribbean, and that they killed each other off far faster than the Spaniards ever could.

Lopez: What’s one lie about women in American history that maybe Sarah Palin can take on?

Schweikart: Women not only had numerous legal rights in early American society (and throughout history) but the U.S. has been light years ahead of most of the rest of the world in elevating the position of women. American women, for example, had the right to vote almost 100 years ago that is still denied females in many parts of the earth today, and which the French didn’t enjoy until after World War II.

Lopez: Do lies about guns in American history hurt the Second Amendment?

Schweikart: Yes. They make it seem like a “gun culture” ginned up a fairy tale. The argument, provided in a book called Arming America, claimed that few early Americans had guns, and that the idea that they did was entirely a concoction of a post-Civil War “gun culture.” This is beyond silly. Other than a Bible, virtually every American home that wasn’t in a “big city” had at least one musket or rifle, and they valued them so much that one reason militias were equipped with state weapons was because individuals didn’t want to bring “Old Betsy” to the war and risk damaging their own weapon!

Lopez: What’s a contemporary liberal lie that you can easily see becoming a new myth of history?

Schweikart: Unfortunately — and the reason I included it — the notion that there were no terrorists or WMDs in Iraq prior to 2003 will likely become a staple of U.S. college textbooks. The good news is that sales of these textbooks is following the same trendline as subscriptions of the New York Times, so perhaps fewer students will read them.

Lopez: What’s the worst lie in your estimation? Schweikart: Certainly the lie that terrorists were not behind the 9/11 attacks is not only incomprehensible, but at its root, it is evil. I don’t see this one taking root in too many of the textbooks . . . but all it takes is a couple.

Lopez: Why are you defending Richard Nixon?

Schweikart: I don’t “defend” Richard Nixon — I say quite clearly that he engaged in obstruction of justice for ordering the CIA to interfere with the FBI investigation. What I do defend him of is the charge that he originally planned and authorized the DNC Watergate break-in. I side with G. Gordon Liddy in arguing that this came from elsewhere in the White House, and the evidence seems to point to John Dean’s office. We can’t be sure, but Dean has been unable to prove in court that Liddy is lying about this.

Lopez: Who is defending the welfare state of LBJ still?

Schweikart: You’d be surprised. I quote several textbooks gushing about the tremendous strides against poverty made by the Great Society. When these books mention Charles Murray’s Losing Ground or bother to suggest that people actually criticized the Great Society, they follow up with an extensive apology for its failure to eradicate poverty. It seems, according to them, the motivations were good, the programs were sound, but somehow along the way racist Republicans must have done something to undercut it. The sections in lie #28 dealing with the Contract With America reveal the extent to which the authors almost unanimously seek to discredit the substance of welfare reform — while at the same time praising Bill Clinton for signing it!

Lopez: Do you actually think you’ll get anyone to believe George Bush didn’t steal the 2000 election?

Schweikart: No. But as a historian, I have to speak truth to power.

Lopez: What is being taught about 9/11 in history classes this week?

Schweikart: Right now, it’s so recent of an event that textbooks usually show a photo and admit that Muslim terrorists flew the planes into the buildings. But they quickly follow up by noting that the “cause” of their “rage” was likely poverty or oppression by the U.S., and that only “understanding” or “communication” can stop future “misunderstandings.” One of my entries shows unequivocally that terrorists are uniformly well-to-do, educated, and completely clear about their goals, which do not involve “understanding” or “communication,” but murder and death in the name of Allah. To my knowledge, I’m one of the few professors who routinely recognizes 9/11 by showing the excellent HBO special, 9/11: In Memoriam, to my classes. Most students tell me they have not seen these images in their entirety, and almost all say they had never seen the people leaping out of the buildings.

Lopez: Is it all the fault of liberals? Could your title be unfair?

Schweikart: Okay, I’ll give you that while “FDR Knew About Pearl Harbor” started with a liberal, it includes wackos of all stripes now, and that there are a few radical libertarians who still think Thomas Jefferson was a “small-government guy” (who proposed the largest “infrastructure” expenditure in American history, and who engaged in the first foreign war, without a declaration of war). But every one of these at times has been a mainstay of liberal groups. The challenge was to find quotations in textbooks (as opposed to slant, or a broad inference) that stated as much. And I guess that’s what surprised me, was that in so many cases, it wasn’t hard to find liberals flat-out stating their views. We read from one, for example, that the Rosenbergs were “convicted in a controversial trial . . . [and that] the controversy over their guilt has continued to the present day.” We see in another that “McCarthy never uncovered a single Communist agent in government,” and in another that “the state doctored evidence and witnesses changed testimony” in the Sacco-Vanzetti trial. Still another popular text says “the changes [whites produced on the frontier] were nearly as cataclysmic as those that occurred during the Ice Age” [!], or that “transcontinental railroad building was so costly and risky as to require government subsidies.” (So . . . how did James J. Hill do it without government subsidies?) We see of the Reagan tax cuts that they resulted in “slashing rates for the rich . . . [meaning] less money for federal programs,” when revenues for federal programs rose by more than 40 percent. They propagate utter nonsense such as the claim that Ronald Reagan’s election was due to massive “nonvoting,” or that Reagan’s supporters (none of them named Marc Rich) ushered in a “decade of greed.” They continue to perpetuate utter absurdity by claiming that Richard Nixon “escalated” the Vietnam War when he reduced troop levels there by 90 percent before he resigned. In short, I was a little depressed that it was so easy to pin the liberals down.

Lopez: What can be done about bad American history?

Schweikart: I’m doing my part. Many other excellent historians — Burton Folsom at Hillsdale, Bill Forstchen at Montreat, for example — are fighting these battles in the trenches every day. People who aren’t historians by training — Victor Davis Hanson and Paul Johnson — have provided more, and better, American history than 90 percent of the textbooks out there. So-called “popular” history — written by guys such as the late Stephen Ambrose — is steadily eroding the “scholarly” ediface. And one of the most reassuring developments is that on the micro level, there are dozens of good studies coming out every year that, taken together, undermine the traditional liberal scaffolding. But it’s a fight, and, like the Spartans, those who enter the Gates of Hell from our side better be prepared!

[defconw]

I did not realize you were in Ohio. Cool. Born and raised. Grew up in the Peoples Republic of Cleveland and I went to Youngstown State. I still ended up a conservative, despite the lefts best efforts. LOL

[BroJoeK]

"You are accusing Short and Kimmel of murdering 3,000 of their men. You need to have some serious evidence to back such a thing up."

Didn't you tell us that you are an expert on this subject?
Then why is it you don't understand what I'm saying?

It is a matter of historical record, not disputable, that Kimmel and Short did receive a "war warning," in the weeks prior to December 7, and that they did respond to the warning.

What IS highly debatable is whether that "warning" predicted what would happen, and whether Kimmel and Short responded appropriately.

You may remember that Kimmel and Short were relieved and disciplined after the attack, for their failure to be prepared, despite the warning.

And you may also remember that in recent years they were exonerated by Congress. None of this is debatable.

What is in question is whether FDR, Marshall & all, knew more than their warning implied.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

From economic principles to an understanding that our rights, in the words of JFK, "come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God," generations of Americans have not been taught the philosophy upon which their constitutional protections rested.

It's not the job of the state to teach religion. Do you want the state teaching Islam in Dearborne. Michigan? If Christians can't get their message across from their Churches then the fault lies with them. Jews manage to rear their children to thoroughly understand the Torah and lead a Temple service by the age 13. Usually the voices decrying that religion is banned from public schools would be happy for the state to establish a fundamental version of Christianity. One has to wonder what they think the First Amendment means?

[dixiechick2000]

If you are going to expose all of the liberal lies,
you’ve got a job for life, and one you can pass on
to your kids! lol

Congratulations on the book, LS!

Very nice interview!

[BroJoeK]

"Where is the evidence that FDR knew something that he failed to pass on to our fighting men for their preparedness?"

I refer you again to The Pearl Harbor Myth, to fill in the blanks of what you don't know.

It is 303 pages long, filled with data & quotes.
Quoting from page 42:

"Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, chair of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) in 1941, wrote years later about the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor:

"We knew that they changed course. I remember presiding over a J.I.C. meeting [on December 5, 1941] and being told that a Japanese fleet was sailing in the direction of Hawaii, asking 'Have we informed our transatlantic brethren?' and receiving an affirmative reply... [We had given] the US authorities...ample time to at least send most of the fleet out of Pearl Harbor.""

[Polybius]

What is in question is whether FDR, Marshall & all, knew more than their warning implied.

Back in the days of pre-Obama America, it did not take the sinking of an entire line of battleships to have the U.S. whipped into a war fever.

Back in those days, all it took was the bombardment of a fort flying the U.S. flag that did not result in a single casualty during the battle (Fort Sumter) or the belief that a country intended to sink a single U.S. battleship (USS Maine).

If FDR had known of the attack but wanted to guarantee a war by keeping quiet about the intended attack, the battleships would have been on maneuvers with the carriers and FAR away from the action while a near empty Pearl Harbor and the airfields suffered the brunt of the attack.

As it was, the USS Enterprise was so close to Pearl Harbor at the time that it lost some aircraft. The consequences would have been disastrous if Japanese aircraft had spotted the course of these U.S. carrier aircraft, followed it and found the U.S. carrier.

Report of Action with Japanese at Oahu on December 7, 1941. --- SCOUTING SQUADRON SIX - U.S.S. ENTERPRISE

Whether minor damage or catastrophic damage to the Pacific Fleet had occurred, the headlines the next morning would still have been, "JAP SNEAK ATTACK ON PEAR HARBOR!" and the U.S. would still have been at war with Japan to the bitter end.

If FDR wanted war, there was no need to lose the battleships and risk nearly losing a carrier to get the U.S. whipped into a war fever.

[Mr. Silverback]

Didn't you tell us that you are an expert on this subject?

Hmmm...your inability to comprehend written English doesn't really lend you any credibility. I never said I was an expert on Pearl Harbor or even WWII history, nor have I said anything in this thread that could be reasonably misinterpreted as such.

More later.

[Milhous]

Native American conflict resolution as practiced in my state back in the day.

Crowheart Butte was the site of a battle between the Crow and Shoshone American Indian tribes in 1866. According to legend, following a five day battle for rights to the hunting grounds in the Wind River Range, Chief Washakie of the Shoshone and Chief Big Robber of the Crow agreed to a duel, with the winner gaining the rights to the Wind River hunting grounds. Chief Washakie eventually prevailed, but he was so impressed with the courage of his opponent, that rather than scalp him, he instead cut out his heart and placed it on the end of his lance.

---

JFK confidant Thomas Watson Jr, ex-CEO of IBM and FDR confidant Thomas Watson, ex-CEO of IBM arguably acted as top level liaisons between Democratic administrations and big business. Watson Jr describes Watson Sr's feelings about entering WWII.

My father hardly talked to me about the war, but a couple of weeks after I enlisted he returned his Hitler medal. I knew he'd pinned an awful lot on the idea of World Peace Through World Trade, and the coming of war left him somewhat muted. He wasn't a pacifist, but he was very ambivalent about whether the United States should get into the fight. That was reflected in the way he treated munitions work. Some companies, like North American Aviation, had started shipping warplanes abroad even before Hitler invaded Poland. But Dad didn't like the idea of turning Endicott into an arms plant, and he wasn't happy when the War Department pressed a contract on IBM, in the autumn of 1940, to manufacture machine guns. He set up a subsidiary company in Poughkeepsie, New York, for this work and kept that whole enterprise at arm's length. Of course, when war finally came IBM went all out and Dad put our name proudly on the weapons we made.

---

"Nothing that happened during the war was a surprise ... except the kamikaze." Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz

[BroJoeK]

"If FDR wanted war, there was no need to lose the battleships and risk nearly losing a carrier to get the U.S. whipped into a war fever."

What exactly are you trying to suggest here?

During the election of 1940, FDR promised over and over again:

"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

At the same time, he confided to aides that an attack on the US would make it no longer a "foreign war."

During early 1941 there were several attacks by German U-boats on US ships, including the Robin Moore, Greer, Kearny, Salinas and most famously, the Reuben James.

Each time, FDR made fiery speeches against Germany, and each time Congress and the US public ignored him. Americans seriously wanted no part of that "foreign war."

So, it seems that many people do not understand what was going on in the US, and worldwide, at that time. That's leading to some pretty strange conclusions.

I'd suggest crack a book or two. Learn something about our history.

[BroJoeK]

"I've read most of these, including the newer ones with supposedly "better" evidence. It's baloney. The only thing to remember is for "FDR to know" mean willing and active complicity by hundreds of cryptanalysts and radio men THEN, and their lying about it for 50 years after the fact. Yet every single one of them tells the same story. There was no advance information."

"Hmmm...your inability to comprehend written English doesn't really lend you any credibility. I never said I was an expert on Pearl Harbor or even WWII history, nor have I said anything in this thread that could be reasonably misinterpreted as such."

Sorry, sincere apologies, my mistake.

I misread both quotes above as coming from Mr. Silverback.
In fact, the first quote is from LS.
But Mr. Silverback picked up on my response to LS, and I didn't notice the switch-off.

So, if I understand now, LS is the real expert here, while Mr. Silverback more-or-less specializes in insults -- is that about right?

[imintrouble]

Yikes - is FreeRepublic on top of issues or what???

I just saw a quickie interview on the morning Fox show with the author Schweikart and sure enough the topic is already being discussed here on this wonderful forum.

I’ll add no more - the work has been done! Well done!

Well I’ll add something:

If young minds are being fed unquestioned inaccurate information, what does this spell for the future of our
population - turning them into robots who all believe the one ideology preached out of texts?

Just look at the universities and what they are creating.
The one strength of this nation is that people have been free to question and argue and think outside the box - now we are happily raising robots who never think to challenge
the status quo?

Rape of the nation’s intellect.

[Iris7]

I never learned that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance.

The Japanese Imperial Navy operational code was known to US Navy analysts as JN 25. In those days communication between ships and shore stations, ships to ships out of line of sight, etc., was by medium wave (2-25 Megahertz) hand keyed Morse telegraphy. Human beings listened to the Morse beeps and operated hand telegraph keys. The messages were encrypted because the information was priceless to the enemy.

JN 25 was being read well enough to be useful, say one code group in three, on average, by the middle of 1941. Unfortunately the Japanese changed one of the three encryption steps (one known as an “additive”) in JN 25 in late 1941 and no useful decrypts were being made on December 7th.

Of course, in retrospect it looks like a truly amazing cluster f-— on the American side. The info was there in plenty of detail if one but looked at it. The usual human groupthink.

Besides, the record is clear that the Roosevelt Administration was attempting to provoke a Japanese attack. This should have been reason enough to plan for a Japanese attack, eh?

[Mr. Silverback]

Actually, the only insulting thing I've said was "moronic," and I didn't direct that at a specific person but at the idea that "FDR knew."

Please don't bother trying to make me feel guilty for thinking these theories are loopy...it's a waste of your time.

[Polybius]

"If FDR wanted war, there was no need to lose the battleships and risk nearly losing a carrier to get the U.S. whipped into a war fever."

What exactly are you trying to suggest here?

The tin foil hat, conspiracy theory that was being alluded to is summarized here:

PEARL HARBOR - MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES - - President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.

My point was that, if FDR had, indeed, known about the attack of Pearl Harbor, he would have gotten both his carriers AND his battleships far away from Pearl Harbor as an attack on U.S. soil would have whipped up the war fever no matter how many or how few battleships were sunk.

Knowing that "the Japanese wanted to attack us" and having Pearl Harbor caught by surprise on 7 December 1941 does not, by itself, make a credible conspiracy theory. Everybody and his pet dog knew on 10 September 2001 that Osama bin Ladin wanted to attack America someday, somehow, somewhere. That extremely non-specific information, however, does not give anybody the 20/20 hindsight on the morning of 11 September 2001 that we had on 11 September 2002 that would have had every Police and Federal SWAT team in New England waiting for a bunch of Arabs to arrive at the airport in Boston on the morning of 11 September 2001.

During the election of 1940, FDR promised over and over again: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

"I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a politician would lie to get elected. When has that EVER happened before on the Planet Earth?"

At the same time, he confided to aides that an attack on the US would make it no longer a "foreign war."

During early 1941 there were several attacks by German U-boats on US ships, including the Robin Moore, Greer, Kearny, Salinas and most famously, the Reuben James. Each time, FDR made fiery speeches against Germany, and each time Congress and the US public ignored him. Americans seriously wanted no part of that "foreign war."

All those incidents can be explained away and swept under that rug as "Fog of War Sh#t Happens" if both sides want to explain it away.

"Fog of War Sh#t Happens" to the others guys, both friends and foes ......

10 September 1939, British submarine HMS Triton sank another British submarine, HMS Oxley, mistaking it for a German U-boat ............ 1940: Operation Wikinger: German destroyer sunk by Luftwaffe bombs

"Fog of War Sh#t Happens" to us ......

Near damage of the battleship USS Iowa (with President Franklin D. Roosevelt aboard) by the destroyer USS William D. Porter. This incident led to the “Willie D.” being greeted thereafter with the hail, “Don’t shoot, we’re Republicans!” ...... USS Boston, USS Edson, USCGC Point Dume, HMAS Hobart and two U.S. Swift Boats, PCF-12 and PCF-19 are attacked by US aircraft on June 17 1968. Several sailors were killed and PCF-19 was sunk

A massive fleet attack on Pearl Harbor, however, cannot be be explained away and swept under the rug as Fog of War by either side. Such an attack is the Mother of All Rubicons.

So, it seems that many people do not understand what was going on in the US, and worldwide, at that time. That's leading to some pretty strange conclusions.

What was happening was that both FDR and Churchill believed that it was best for the future and the very survival of the Free World if the U.S. was in the fight against Nazi Germany. That, however, is a totally different animal than claiming that FDR deliberately allowed Pearl Harbor to be caught flat-footed into order for FDR to get his war. As I noted, if FDR wanted his war, he could have had his carriers AND his battleships out of Pearl Harbor and, when Japanese bombs fell on a U.S. Naval Base and a U.S. territory, FDR would have had his desired war plus, not only that, the Japanese would have had their Midway surprise at Pearl Harbor as U.S. carriers and land-based air power lay in wait for them to launch the Pearl Harbor attack. FDR would have had both his War and his VICTORY all on the same morning.

However, as in any historical event, conspiracy theories will always abound.

I'd suggest crack a book or two. Learn something about our history.

I still have absolutely no idea what your point was.

Did you believe that I believed the conspiracy theories that FDR deliberately allowed Pearl Harbor to be caught flat-footed? Do YOU believe the conspiracy theories that FDR deliberately allowed Pearl Harbor to be caught flat-footed? Were you saying that you had never known those conspiracy theories existed?

What was your point?

Cracking "a book or two" to learn that FDR made campaign promises he knew he couldn't keep does not do you much good in understanding History unless you have also cracked hundreds of other books and also know that politicians have been lying through their teeth to voters since the days of Pericles.

[BroJoeK]

"Please don't bother trying to make me feel guilty for thinking these theories are loopy...it's a waste of your time."

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "these theories."

The fact is, there are huge volumes of data showing both what FDR said, and what he knew at the time.

And, as I said on my first post (see #37), none of this data "proves" that Roosevelt knew precisely what was going to happen on December 7, 1941.

But it does definitely suggest that Roosevelt, Marshall & all, knew a lot more than was contained in the "war warning" sent to Kimmel & Short.

The reason I recommend The Pearl Harbor Myth is because, perhaps uniquely among such books, the author is sympatheticly pro-Roosevelt.

Nor does the author EVER pretend that the data says more than it does. So, I'll say again, I think it could open your eyes, and maybe even change your mind.

[BroJoeK]

"I still have absolutely no idea what your point was."

Ditto your point.

My point from the beginning has been that FDR knew more about a possible Japanese attack than was contained in the "war warning" sent to Kimmel and Short.

That "warning" actually mislead Kimmel & Short to take wildly inappropriate defensive measures, for which they were later crucified.

Precisely how much more FDR knew is not exactly clear.
However, there is evidence suggesting (only suggesting) that he knew a lot more.

Last time, I promise: The Myth of Pearl Harbor is probably unique in that the author is decidedly pro-Roosevelt, but does not flinch from looking at the available data.

[BroJoeK]

"If FDR wanted war, there was no need to lose the battleships and risk nearly losing a carrier to get the U.S. whipped into a war fever."

I'll say again, there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that FDR knew PRECISELY what was going to happen on December 7, 1941. There is evidence suggesting he knew more, and could have provided a clearer warning to the Pearl Harbor commanders, than he did.

[Polybius]

"I still have absolutely no idea what your point was."

Ditto your point.

My point was that, although I believe that FDR did feel that U.S. involvement in World War II was best for the future survival of the Free World, that FDR did NOT have actionable intelligence that pin-pointed specifically: Pearl Harbor, 7 December, 1941.

It is not enough to know from Japanese code intercepts that the Japanese were planning an attack on "AF" in June 1942. Only after intercepting the Japanese message "AF is short of water" after the U.S. sent a false, uncoded message that the Midway distillation plant was out of service did the U.S. know that the Japanese were planning an attack on Midway, SPECIFICALLY.

What. When. Where.

That is what is needed to react to a specific threat. Simply knowing that the Japanese are planning something is as useless as knowing that, right now, Osama bin Ladin has a plan to attack the U.S. some day, somewhere, somehow.

You can't be on full alert defending everything, everywhere, every day.

"He who defends everything, defends nothing." ...... Frederick the Great

Do you believe that FDR had the exact "What-When-Where" of the 7 December 1941 Pearl Harbor attack?

The conspiracy theorists believe so. I do not.

If FDR had know the the exact "What-When-Where" of the 7 December 1941 Pearl Harbor attack, a Battle of Midway style ambush would have awaited the Japanese and FDR would had had BOTH his desired War and his desired Victory all on the same day.

Could things have been done better in regards to communications, preparations, etc.?

You betcha!

However, each new generation of "War Commander Rookies" tends to get their clocks cleaned in their first Real World test whether it be at First Bull Run or at Kasserine Pass.

[BroJoeK]

"Do you believe that FDR had the exact "What-When-Where" of the 7 December 1941 Pearl Harbor attack?"

No, of course not. But the evidence suggests he knew quite a bit more than you imply. In fact, the evidence suggests the US government knew enough to have issued a much clearer "war warning" than they did.

Remember, at the time Kimmel and Short were crucified for their failure to heed the "war warning" sent them. But a careful examination of the "warning" along with their actions shows they did exactly what was expected of them.

That's why, in recent years they were exonerated by the US Congress. The real problem was not Kimmel & Short, it was the warning they received.

The evidence suggests that FDR & Marshall knew enough to have given them a much clearer warning.

[Polybius]

"Do you believe that FDR had the exact "What-When-Where" of the 7 December 1941 Pearl Harbor attack?"

No, of course not. But the evidence suggests he knew quite a bit more than you imply. In fact, the evidence suggests the US government knew enough to have issued a much clearer "war warning" than they did.

And I conceded that point.

There is nothing more frustrating than for a veteran commander with three years of war experience under his belt to look back at his own performance as a rookie and say to himself, "How could I possibly have been that incredibly stupid and sloppy back then during my first test in battle".

Robert E. Lee's first rookie campaign in West Virginia was a total disaster.

General R. E. Lee's Northwest Virginia Campaign

Chester Nimitz was court-martialed for running his first command, the USS Decatur (DD-5), aground when was was an Ensign and a rookie CO.

That did not make Robert E. Lee a conspirator to hand over West Virginia to the Federals and that did not make Nimitz a saboteur. That simply made Robert E. Lee and Nimitz rookie commanders that fell embarrassingly flat on their faces the first time that they were tested as rookies in their new roles.

Remember, at the time Kimmel and Short were crucified for their failure to heed the "war warning" sent them. But a careful examination of the "warning" along with their actions shows they did exactly what was expected of them.

In other words, the rookie brass in Washington screwed up and the rookies Kimmel and Short did exactly as they were ordered to do without taking it to the next level as truly experienced commanders would have done.

In 1941, every American flag officer in the War Department was a rookie flag officer as far as war was concerned.

They got much better as the war went on or, as was the case with some of them like Kimmel and Short, were crucified for public relations reasons.

Life ain't fair.

For all we know, if Kimmel had been given a second chance (like MacArthur was given a second chance after he was caught flat footed in the Philippines even after the warning of Pearl Harbor) we might today have the USS Kimmel (CVN-68) named after the greatest naval hero since Horatio Nelson.