Posted on 12/07/2011 6:00:35 PM PST by presidio9
Everybody knows it was the Jooze!
German Jooze, to be exact!
Or maybe the Germans if you watch Animal House.
Especially people who might be writing their "Das Tagespost" contributions in German if FDR had somehow prevented Japan's sneak attack.
Now I'm defending FDR on FR? What a world, what a world...
The USS Enterprise left Pearl Harbor 11/28/41 with a load of aircraft for the Wake Island garrison. It was returning to Pearl on 12/7/41. The USS Lexington departed Pearl with a load of aircraft to reinforce the Midway garrison on 12/5/41. The third aircraft carrier in the Pacific was the USS Saratoga, which had just completed maintenance work in Bremerton, Washington and was in transit to San Diego, where it picked additional aircraft earmarked for the Wake Island garrison.
So there were only two carriers near Hawaii on 12/7/41 and both were being used in aircraft deliveries, not sneaking out of Pearl to keep them safe.
The other four American carriers were in the Atlantic.
USS Lexington was close enough to the Japanese strike force so that it might conceivably on a longshot have spotted or been spotted by the Japanese, but neither force was launching recon patrols. The Lexington's deck was full of Marine aircraft that could fly off, but whose flight crews were not trained to land on carriers. The Japanese weren't flying recon because they were trying to sneak up on Pearl Harbor, and any American warship or merchantmen spotting and reporting a Japanese aircraft in the middle of nowhere would have tipped their hand.
And if hypothetically FDR had had foreknowledge, why wouldn't he have moved the battleships out of harm's way as well? Attacks on the U.S. airbases on Hawaii would have been sufficient to get the U.S. into the war. The actual losses among the battleships were not made public until years after the Pearl harbor attack.
Based on the above facts any idea that FDR had the carriers moved out of harm's way doesn't hold water.
1. He is actually a very bright guy with a wealth of historical and cultural knowledge.
2. He is quite the controversialist.
3. He is a very traditional and very faithful Roman Catholic (he attends the same Mass I do every Sunday).
4. I had one daughter attend a once a week class in American History with Dr. Fleming. I attended as well and felt free to pepper him with disagreements particularly as to developments after 1880 or so. He was a reasonably good sport about my vigorous disagreements before his students.
5. He is a major paleoconservative figure and ruins the Rockford Institute. As a conservative of the New Right, I disagree with him on matters of foreign policy and some domestic issues as well. I have never doubted the sincerity of his beliefs or that he is a principled fellow.
6. His objections to Lincoln's conduct of the War Between the States are well thought out and ought to be given consideration by conservatives generally.
7. Dr. Fleming's political views would be rather unpopular on FR other than among the Paulistinians but he certainly has the courage of his convictions. He probably despises Obozo but his reasons differ from those of many other conservatives.
Though I have given him plenty of reason not to like me personally, he never fails to have a kind word for me at Church and so he may be said to refuse to allow differences to affect the relationship between gentlemen. That is a rare quality nowadays and ought to be encouraged.
I found this snippet in Mr. Fleming's article quite accurately reflects his article:
"I simply do not know."
Do yourself a favor and just ask yourself this question.
Would you allow the teeth of your fleet to be sunk in order to enter a war?
Remember, the U.S. had not yet embraced carrier doctrine at this point. Most American Naval commanders still prescribed to the doctrine of Alfred Mahan and would be what we call now “battleship admirals”. The same could be said for former assistant secretary of the Navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Only the temporary loss of these battle wagons caused the shift in American doctrine toward carrier centric strategy. This shift was so dramatic that it still exists to this day.
According to your response, Mr. Fleming does seem like a thoughtful person. I am, however, somewhat dismayed at the direction of his doubts as to whom is to blame for the attack on Pearl Harbor. As learned as he seems, it appears that he should well know where the blame lies.
We didn’t think they had the navy to hit Hawaii. At least not like they did.
The plan was to fight a sea battle, and maybe reinforce the island once an attack was spotted (hard to do). But an air attack was not even factored in.
“Many books talk about the fact that having sanctions against Japan was seen as risking war.”
Bravo. I can’t believe it took 40 posts before someone mentioned the oil embargo against Japan as a cause for the attack. It was US support of the nationalist Chinese that finally convinced Japen that something had to be done. Remember, their main attack was to the south and the oil fields od Sumatra. Pearl Harbor was simply a spoiling attack.
“Many books talk about the fact that having sanctions against Japan was seen as risking war.”
Bravo. I can’t believe it took 40 posts before someone mentioned the oil embargo against Japan as a cause for the attack. It was US support of the nationalist Chinese that finally convinced Japen that something had to be done. Remember, their main attack was to the south and the oil fields of Sumatra. Pearl Harbor was simply a spoiling attack.
“Ironically, FDR had the Philippines reinforced...”
My mother’s uncle was part of a New Mexico artillery guard unit sent to the Phillipines as part of that reinforcement. He saw many of his friends die on the march and more die in the prison camp. The death march tormented him throughout his life. May he rest in peace.
It is because no one really wants to admit that the war started before Pearl Harbor. We took a side (the right one in my opinion) by stopping the flow of oil to Japan.
Japan had few options left. Their culture would not let them stop, so they felt they had to attack.
Tojo had ordered Yamamoto to design the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto obeyed the order to design the attack but counseled against the attack based on his personal knowledge of Americans gained by attending and graduating American institutions of higher learning.
Thx for the info, all the history shows I have seen never mentioned the whereabouts of the carriers, only that they weren’t there at the time of the attack.
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.