|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2001 : 20:34:35
|
I am quite a history nut. I have a particular interest in WWII. While reading a recent issue of 'American Heritage' (April 2001), I came across an article that stated that Congress had tacked on to a defense bill approved in October, an amendment to restore both the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor to full rank (they had been demoted and forced to resign after the attack). The amendment has these actual words "were not provided necessary and critical intellegence... that would have alerted them to prepare for the attack". THese words lend official sanction to the bizarre conspiracy theory that Roosevelt set up the men and ships at Pearl Harbor for destruction so that he could get his wish of a war. There has also been a recent book regarding this nonsence.
Link to commentary regarding the book;
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Greer061301/greer061301.html
This theory has been around a while but only seems to come into vogue periodically. The last time I remember any talk about it was sometime back in the 80's.
I can't understand how human beings with any intellegence at all could believe that a President would knowingly allow the deaths of so many servicemen and the destruction of a good portion of the Pacific fleet. There was no sure victory for the US after Pearl Harbor. The way that the US industry and civilians mobilized so quickly and efficiently, and the rate at which military supplies including ships were built was amazing and could not have been forseen in 1941. I find it an insult to those who fought (my father was in the 4th Marine Division in the Pacific) that conspiracy mongers would have us belive that they fought and died for some odd personal obsession of FDR's.
Greg.
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 06:07:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This theory has been around a while but only seems to come into vogue periodically. The last time I remember any talk about it was sometime back in the 80's.
Unfortunately, this subject has been alive and well on the Internet for quite some time. Do a search, and you'll find numerous sites dedicated to "exposing the truth" of the Pearl Harbor attack.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 06:08:00 [Permalink]
|
Agreed, Greg. I am a military history buff myself, so I am more aware than most about these conspiracy theories, though I'll admit I haven't studied them in depth.
This idea strikes me as one of those things that simply doesn't pass the prelim test. If Roosevelt had known of the strike (he and the military were concerned about the possibility but believed the Philippines to be a more likely target), he could have alerted the military and STILL have gotten the public on his side without sacrificing the fleet.
Sort of like the moonhoax problem: too many people would have had to keep quiet for too long. Roosevelt could not have magically known by himself; his military would have had to have informed HIM. Then the military, including all the cryptographers, analysts, etc., would have to have remained silent prior to the attack and through all the years since then.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 07:38:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Agreed, Greg. I am a military history buff myself, so I am more aware than most about these conspiracy theories, though I'll admit I haven't studied them in depth.
This idea strikes me as one of those things that simply doesn't pass the prelim test. If Roosevelt had known of the strike (he and the military were concerned about the possibility but believed the Philippines to be a more likely target), he could have alerted the military and STILL have gotten the public on his side without sacrificing the fleet.
Sort of like the moonhoax problem: too many people would have had to keep quiet for too long. Roosevelt could not have magically known by himself; his military would have had to have informed HIM. Then the military, including all the cryptographers, analysts, etc., would have to have remained silent prior to the attack and through all the years since then.
My kids still love me.
Garette,
One major problem with the "Roosevelt let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor" conspiracy is that Roosevelt was an old Navy man. (Served as Secratary of the Navy before becoming President. Did so after due to the experience.) The dominant thinking of the period was that the aircraft carriers of the day were thought of as auxilliary support ships for formations centered around the battleship. The aircraft carriers would not be the ships he would choose to save.
The idea that Roosevelt saved the aircraft carriers due to their offensive punch is post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious reasoning. The US was forced to rely on the aircraft carrier in the second world war due to the complete destruction and damaging of the Pacific battleship fleet. Evidence of this can be attributed to the transfer of battleships from the Atlantic fleet to the Pacific fleet and the high priority given to building battleships already slated. (BB61-BB64 (Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin) Iowa class were given the highest priority followed by destroyers, aircraft carriers, and submarines. The aircraft carriers were later increased in priority over destroyers and later Iowa class battleships BB65-BB66 (Illinois and Kentucky). The last two battleships not completed and scrapped/sold.) There were a number of clerical errors and enemy action which prevented the message reaching Pearl Harbor in time to alert them to an attack. (The enemy action being the jamming of phone lines by Japanese citizens on the island. Clerical errors being the warning sent via telegram (phone lines are full) not being given an urgent marking and not sent until later in the day.)
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 08:05:51 [Permalink]
|
Val, you obviously know more of the specifics than I do, but I agree, particularly on the bit about carriers not being given the importance they received after the fact.
Just finished a couple of books a while back on this topic that shed some light on it; it's hard to explain to a non-military person how technology can outstrip knowledge. (As an aside, which is a danger with this subject since I find it interesting, I watched "Gettysburg" a month or so ago with some friends without military experience. Upon watching the confederate soldiers line up in the fields only to be mown down, they asked "Why are they doing it that way?" Hard to explain that it was because that was what they knew; they had not fully realized that weaponry had changed).
I can't remember the book titles (and I'm sober--go figure), but I think one was "Carrier Wars", tracing the development of the carrier to its use up until just prior to the Persian Gulf.
Anyway, good thoughts. Thanks.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 09:34:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Val, you obviously know more of the specifics than I do, but I agree, particularly on the bit about carriers not being given the importance they received after the fact.
Just finished a couple of books a while back on this topic that shed some light on it; it's hard to explain to a non-military person how technology can outstrip knowledge. (As an aside, which is a danger with this subject since I find it interesting, I watched "Gettysburg" a month or so ago with some friends without military experience. Upon watching the confederate soldiers line up in the fields only to be mown down, they asked "Why are they doing it that way?" Hard to explain that it was because that was what they knew; they had not fully realized that weaponry had changed).
I can't remember the book titles (and I'm sober--go figure), but I think one was "Carrier Wars", tracing the development of the carrier to its use up until just prior to the Persian Gulf.
Anyway, good thoughts. Thanks.
My kids still love me.
I'm a bit of a history nut when it comes to the second world war Pacific theater. The information I got comes from the book "Iowa Class Battleships". I can't recall the author at the present moment but the book was printed during the Reagan administration. In reference to the Pearl harbor conspiracy, the book debunked it in a few sentances.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 09:53:36 [Permalink]
|
Cool, then for no other reason than I find it interesting (and, Greg, if we're hijacking your thread just tell us to bug off--or better yet, join in), give me your thoughts on a purely hypothetical. I've had the beginnings of this discussion on another board.
Assume no US involvement in the war and that Japan wishes to aid Germany's effort. How do they best do that?
1. Head for the Middle East (either through or around India).
2. Head for the USSR's backdoor through China.
3. Something else.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 10:24:53 [Permalink]
|
This is one of the oldest anti-government conspiracy theories. According to The American Nation by John Garraty, it originated during the war among supporters of the cashiered commanders, Admiral Kimmel and General Short. These people represented the isolationist right-wing of the time, and were rabidly anti-Roosevelt. As we see in link posted by Greg, they are still at it.
The "theory" doesn't make sense at any level. The conspiracist notion that Roosevelt withheld a warning to get the US involved in the war is breathtakingly irrational, so much so that the sanity or honesty of anyone promoting it must be in serious doubt. Alerting the fleet would not have prevented the Japanese attack. The US would have gotten involved in the war whether it opened with a victory or a defeat.
A clearcut victory by an alert fleet is not a foregone conclusion in any case. Its carriers were outnumbered 3 to 1 and most US commanders of the time seriously underestimated Japanese capability. The US fleet might have saved itself, but damage and casualties would still have been very high.
The conspiracy theory assumes that Roosevelt knew in advance exactly what would happen. For instance, he could not have known that the Pacific Fleet would not spot the oncoming Japanese fleet on its own. Conspiracists might argue that he prevented it, but this requires an intricately coordinated level of treason within the Fleet itself, impossible to micro-manage from Washington in any case, and certainly impossible without Short and Kimmel being involved.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 12:07:05 [Permalink]
|
I don't buy the conspiracy theory for one instant, but ONE thing about the Pearl Harbor debacle has always nagged me. U.S. intelligence knew that the deadline for the Japanese response was 1:00 PM Eastern time. They also knew that it would have been 2:00 AM in the Philippines and 8:00 AM in Hawaii. Although everyone assumed that the Philippines was the intended target, no one made the connection that a dawn attack was the preferred military tactic? I know, I know, wishful thinking.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 13:37:44 [Permalink]
|
I need to catch up here.
quote:
Sort of like the moonhoax problem: too many people would have had to keep quiet for too long. Roosevelt could not have magically known by himself; his military would have had to have informed HIM. Then the military, including all the cryptographers, analysts, etc., would have to have remained silent prior to the attack and through all the years since then.
The major differences between this "theory" and the moon hoaxes;
1. Even if the moon hoax were true, no one would have been killed or hurt.
2. Even if the moon hoax were true, US military capability would not have been compromised.
3. To the best of my knowlege, no one in the US government or NASA lends any support to the idea of a moon landing hoax.
4. To the best of my knowlege, no member of Congress has ever attached an amendment to any bill with language suggesting that US astronauts didn't land on the moon.
It appears that you are all in agreement with me that this conspiracy theory is absurd at many levels to even a casually interested person. The problem is that I am starting to hear this discussed in casual conversation again.
quote:
Assume no US involvement in the war and that Japan wishes to aid Germany's effort. How do they best do that?
1. Head for the Middle East (either through or around India).
2. Head for the USSR's backdoor through China.
3. Something else.
Garrette,
With the luxury of historical hindsight, I would pick #2. More as to my aruments about these issues later when I have some time.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 14:04:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Cool, then for no other reason than I find it interesting (and, Greg, if we're hijacking your thread just tell us to bug off--or better yet, join in), give me your thoughts on a purely hypothetical. I've had the beginnings of this discussion on another board.
Assume no US involvement in the war and that Japan wishes to aid Germany's effort. How do they best do that?
1. Head for the Middle East (either through or around India).
2. Head for the USSR's backdoor through China.
3. Something else.
My kids still love me.
OK. Japan has very little interest in helping Germany. All they want is China. They let Russia and England pound on Germany a while. Then, since Japan is starved for petroleum, they attack the middle east by way of Afganistan (no need to attack a British colony yet, now is there.) thus securing resources they desperately need. (One of the reasons Japan gives for declaring war on the US.) Later, they can sieze the Kamkatcha penisula and Siberia. (Also Kazakistan (sp) which is rich in oil.) The real way (back then) to neurtalize the Russian threat is to seize the resources that it needs to wage war and starve them out. The U-Boat threat is sufficient to keep Russia starving for resources.
Just my take on it.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 16:50:37 [Permalink]
|
U.S. intelligence knew that the deadline for the Japanese response was
1:00 PM Eastern time. They also knew that it would have been 2:00 AM in the Philippines and 8:00 AM in Hawaii. Although everyone assumed that the Philippines was the intended target, no one made the connection that a dawn attack was the preferred military tactic? I know, I know, wishful thinking.
What seems like a million years ago I was attached to the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pacific. I did spend a few months at Pearl. The ONI building is not in sight of the Arizona. But every morning when you walk to work you must pass the low retaining wall that keeps the lawn off the sidewalk. The wall was riddled with holes, from machine gun slugs, that have never been patched. Just in case you felt you could slack off in Hawaii.
Before WWII the ONI had people in Japan who had let us know that the entire Japanese fleet had sailed. There were also American "fishing boats" in the Western Pacific that were to alert us when the fleet passed. When none of them saw the fleet the ONI knew that they were headed north. The thoughts of where they were going included Alaska, Washington State to San Francisco and, maybe, Hawaii. They figured that the Philippines were being "jumped over" to be attacked after we were hit, so that we couldn't support them. If they had been headed for the West Coast and it's California oil fields it still would have been three days (Dec 10) before they could have arrived. The 1:00PM deadline you mention was thought to be a day or two early (not an hour late) as it was against Japanese "morality" to have a sneak attack.
A sea attack and amphibious landing was their usual method of operating, not an air attack.
Our planes in Pearl (and San Diego, Alameda and Seattle) were kept bunched together because there were large groups of recent immigrants from Japan in these areas that Intelligence showed were still loyal to Japan. We suspected that they had (as they had done in Korea) moved these people in ahead of time for use in a rear action.
Today we are still apologizing to these folks. But we will never know what would have happened if the Japanese army had landed in Los Angles.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2001 : 06:20:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But we will never know what would have happened if the Japanese army had landed in Los Angles.
Slater,
It appears that Japan had only the motivation to neutralize US sea power and had no interest in US territory. The plan was to cripple the Pacific Fleet, then while the US took significant time rebuilding, create a defensive circle of islands equipped with air fields to deter attack. The Japanese military was realistic in knowing that this defence would not indefinitely repel an eventual US counterattack. Japan was banking on making any such war so long and costly that the US would be forced to sue for peace. US involvement in the Pacific appears to me to have been caused by the fact that the two nations grossly underestemated each other.
quote:
OK. Japan has very little interest in helping Germany. All they want is China.
Valiant,
I think that you're missing Garrette's point. His question was purely hypothetical.
quote:
Assume no US involvement in the war and that Japan wishes to aid Germany's effort. How do they best do that?
This is a reasonable question and may have indeed happened if Japan and Germany had better coordinated their policies. There were many British and French colonies in the region that Japan wanted.
The fact is when Japan attacked Manchuria in 1933, the Soviets initiated a massive military build-up along the China-Soviet border to deter any threat. This, along with Germany's subsequent expansionist actions, forced Stalin into signing a non-agression pact with Hitler in August 1939. In April 1941, Japan signed a five year non-agression pact with the Soviet Union. When Germany attaacked the Soviet Union a couple of months later, massive troop units were returning from the Chinese border. These additional troops and equipment were what eventually stopped the German army's advance and held them at bay until the US and Britain got their act together and opened a western front.
It seems to me that if the Soviets were forced into fighting a two-front war, they would have either lost outright or been forced to cede large territories. Without US involvement (a big if), Britain would have then have been forced to sue for peace and Japan would have been free to expand it's empire.
I'm unsure about the agreement between Japan and the Axis Powers and therfore don't know as to whether Japan was require under the agreement to attack the US when Germany attacked the Soviet Union. It's well known that Hitler was concerned about US involvement in the European war.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2001 : 23:41:46 [Permalink]
|
One thing I have been thinking of was what would have happened had Hitler not attacked the Soviet Union.
Would he have been able to take over England?
If at the same time the Japanesse didn't attack Pearl Harbour it would have kept the US out of the war.
With those two events the Axis powers may have been able to win the war.
If the Axis had Britian and China then they would be free to rebuild. Germany and Japan could have gone after the Soviet Union. Then rebuild and go after the US.
By then Germany would probably have made an A-bomb.
Glad that didn't happen.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2001 : 12:49:53 [Permalink]
|
The Japanese did in fact attack the Soviet Union, in Manchuria, near the Khalkin-Gol River, in May 1939. The exact location of the border was in dispute, and the Japanese command in Manchuria decided to move troops up to where they thought it should be.
They got whomped. They brought in reinforcements and tried again two months later and got whomped again, being pushed back to where the Russians thought the border belonged. They didn't have enough air power in the area and their armor was inferior both in quality and in doctrine to that of the Red Army.
The Soviet commander was a fellow named Zhukov, of whom more was heard later.
The Japanese subsequently put their plans for pushing the Soviets out of the area on the back burner- and never had the chance to try again.
A case can be made that the Japanese actually lost the war at Pearl Harbor. Their strategy, at least as understood by the cooler-headed professionals in their military, was to inflict enough damage on U.S. naval power and to seize enough territory in the Pacific that the U.S. would be deterred from fighting a long war, which the Japanese knew they couldn't win, and instead negotiate a settlement favorable to Japan's ambition to join the Colonial Powers Club. Their reason for advancing so far into the Central Pacific was not only to create a defensive perimeter so far from Japan that the U.S would be discouraged from trying to fight that far across the ocean, but also to seize territories which could be used as bargaining chips- giving back islands which didn't figure in their economic needs in return for U.S. sanction of Japanese dominance in the "Southern Resources Area"- Indochina, modern Indonesia, the Phillipines and Borneo.
At Pearl Harbor, they failed to inflict a truly crippling blow. Not only did they miss out on attacking the carriers, but they concentrated on sinking battleships, leaving many cruisers and destroyers which went into the fast carrier task forces which were so sucessful later in the war.
They didn't even try to destroy the tank farm containing some 5.5 million barrels of fuel oil- had they done that significant naval operations out of Pearl Harbor would have been crippled for months, and they also failed to destroy machine shops and repair facilities. Repair and salvage operations were underway at Pearl before the Japanese planes had made it back to their carriers. In addition, they lost 29 pilots, which was significant to a navy which only graduated 100 pilots every year and never succeeded in cranking up its training the way the United States did.
Finally, by screwing up their timing so that the attack had begun before their final ultimatum had been delivered, they made their strategy of forcing a negotiated settlement impossible. After the sneak attack, not even a President of FDR's stature could have obtained public or Congessional approval of any settlement other than the surrender of Japan.
Boris Karloff died for your sins. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2001 : 08:10:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant,
I think that you're missing Garrette's point. His question was purely hypothetical.
Greg.
Greg,
I didn't miss Garette's point. Even back then, Japan had no interest in helping Germany. Therefore, an attack into the middle east to get petroleum supplies would be rational.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
