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 ...
Wilkie ran against Roosevelt in 1940. By the time the 1944 election rolled around he was dead. So unless he was clairvoyant I don't see how he could have used Pearl Harbor against Roosevelt.
Allegedly, Manilla was made ready to appear to be an invasion staging area four months prior to Pearl Harbor. They were attacked within days after Pearl Harbor
read, “Bataan Uncensored” by Col. E.B.Miller
He was the commander of a tank battalion from Minnesota. They became the first POW’s captured and the last released in what many of them called “Being bait”
Old WW1 tanks with no ammo and other useless things that could not be used otherwise were also part of the bait,
A sad and bitter story but very good read.
I heard it was an inside job. Those planes were fakes, painted to look like Japanese planes. And the pilots were the grandfathers of those 11 fake hijackers from 9-11-2001.
/SARC
Sorry, I’m gonna treat this one like I treat the 9/11 Troofers. I’m no fan of FDR’s, but I just can’t buy this.
I’ve read variations of this for years, and have an open mind on anything. Sorry, but it smacks of trutherism.
I’m not sure why FDR would want to enter the war at all unless he somehow thought it would forward his agenda. In fact he specifically promised that we’d stay out of war. Of course after the war started FDR was rewarded with even more control of Gov.
It was in 1943 that he raised the issue among GOP leadership. He was preparing to run in the primaries.
Don’t forget that Reagan was the Anti-Christ.
If he knew they were going to attack Pearl Harbor he would have boosted defense at the base and prayed the Japanese were not successful. Just releasing the intell to the public would have gotten us into the war if FDR wanted. An actual successful attack would have knocked us out of the war before we ever got started.
The original attack plan was to knock out the Oil Depot, the sub pens, the navy repair yard and of course the carriers. The Japanese briefly debated having an invasion force land after the initial attack and holding onto Hawaii. Ultimately they decided against that aspect of the attack. However, anyone considering what would happen with a Japanese attack on Pearl would have to consider this possibility: the complete loss of Hawaii as a base of operation. You are then trying to run a Pacific campaign from California. The Japanese failed to blow up the massive oil depot even though they had designed and armed many of their aircraftr with weapons designed to do just that. The repair yard and sub pens were for the most part untouched.
Bingo !
I agree w/ you completely. IMO, FDR was itchin’ to get the US involved in WWII so he could help his good friend Uncle Joe fight the Nazis. The Germans might have been able to defeat the Russians had it not been for the US.
Well, I have often read these charges, and I’m not sure if it’s true or not. There is certainly some evidence that it might be.
It seems likely that, if he did it, Roosevelt miscalculated how badly Japan could damage our fleet in the attack and in the early part of the war.
Why would he do it? 1. Power. For the next five years the government said “Don’t you know there’s a war on,” and pretty much treated people like pawns. 2. Economic recovery. There was a theory that a war would pull us out of the depression. 3. Uncle Joe Stalin. Roosevelt was VERY biased in favor of Stalin and Communism, and Stalin said he needed some help against Hitler. 4. The usual reasons: defend France and England, defeat Hitler, and so on.
It is generally agreed that Roosevelt did provoke Japan. The last straw was when he acted to cut off their supplies of oil, when Japan was trying to industrialize and modernize.
To say that Roosevelt could have done this doesn’t meant that it wasn’t necessarily the right thing. Defeating Hitler was good. Helping the Soviet Union was bad. So you can argue about that.
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.
I agree that FDR wanted to enter the war, and needed a reason that would independently bring along the American public, but I don’t think that included allowing Pearl Harbor.
Like 9-11, there were rumblings about attacks but that is standard before major military engagements.
For example, during that very time, there was sufficient information of an impending German attack on (1) France and (2) Russia. Both times the Germans succeeded brilliantly? Did Chamberlain and Stalin deliberately allow these to happen?
No. What is does validate is that “warnings” and “alerts” are part of standard chatter, and possibly part of standard disinformation, prior to invasion or attack.
About the best we can do is grieve that no one in intelligence put 2 and 2 together more quickly, to avert Pearl Harbor, or 9-11.
That’s another reason why FDR didn’t know. If he had, then he would have let the attack take place but would have had the military at least on alert. FDR was not an American-hating treasonous b-stard like so many American leftists today.
Also, if he wanted to enter the European war, why would he encourage an attack by Japan? If he was trying to create a Gulf of Tonkin incident it might better have been to send an American troopship to England with “observers” and let a German U-boat sink it. Losing a few hundred lives and a single ship is something a nefarious President might do; losing an entire fleet, having a harbor destroyed, and losing 3,000 lives is NOT something any rational person would do.
[Except perhaps Stalin, who sacrificed his entire professional officers corp in the name of the revolution. This is long considered the reason why he was so unable to stop Hitler.]
Why? America would be just as outraged it the report noted how “lucky” we were that our fleet was out on exercise to the EAST of Hawaii at the time, and then we wouldn’t have had so many dead military.
SO even if I could believe that the highest levels of government would deliberately sacrifice soldiers to get us into war, I don’t believe they would do so when it wasn’t necessary.
Just as a side thought, why do we seem to remember the attack at Pearl Harbor( a true act of terrorism) and yet the true terrorist attack on our mainland is just a passing thought and some words in passing( I’m speaking in reference to the media’s attention).
What was the "deliberate misrepresentation" that got us into the Gulf war? Did Saddam not really invade Kuwait after all?
And what was the "deliberate misrepresentation" that got us into the Vietnam war?
And what other wars did we get into because of "deliberate misrepresentation"? The War of 1812? The civil war? The revolutionary war? Grenada? Bosnia? Kosovo? (Well, yes, Kosovo -- there was no significant genocide taking place).
Think you’re overreaching here. FDR was a neo-socialist but wasn’t a Commie red. Both he and Churchill would’ve loved to see the only outcome of the Nazi menace be an invasion of the USSR ... there is zero evidence that Roosevelt was more friendly with Stalin. At that time, Stalin had no friends. He’d just murdered 30 million of his own people during the 1930s and this was widely known. FDR was just another enlightened Westerner who believed in high taxes and good paternalistic Government — exactly what Western Europe is today and became immediately after WWII.
It was called the Tripartite pact. Perhaps the only time Hitler abided by a treaty
Numerous German generals were baffled by Hitler's declaration of war on the US. One wrote that they figured his grandchildren’s generation would be the ones that took out the United States.
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.