View Full Version : All the wars the US has ever fought debunked.
RogerinTPA
03-11-14, 15:37
An interesting video purporting that every US war has been a false flag.
100 Years of War Lies DEBUNKED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZNXt_u7Cr0
That video, while have some basic merit in overall premise, takes as many liberties with "the facts" as the justifications for war which they seek to debunk. As an example, we all know we were reading Japanese traffic prior to Dec. 7 and we all know FDR desperately wanted in the war but the Japanese transmissions which included the declaration of war were delivered late as were our intercepts of those transmissions.
We of course knew war was coming, we suspected Japanese diplomats were not dealing with us from a sincere desire to avoid the war but nobody anticipated the Japanese would have the audacity to hit Pearl Harbor nor did we believe it could be done successfully.
That said, a lot of wars are predicated on bullshit and there is perhaps no worse example than the Persian Gulf war where Saddam complained about Kuwait laterally drilling across the border. When the UN and the US failed to mediate the dispute (because Kuwait was selling everyone cheap oil - some of it from Iraq) Saddam even asked the US what their position on the issue was a US representative (and I forget her name) stated the US is not interested in Arab to Arab disputes and was only concerned that stability is maintained in the region.
Saddam took that to me he had a green light but had to keep things running smooth. You simply can't say things like that to somebody like Hussein.
Business_Casual
03-11-14, 16:49
We of course knew war was coming, we suspected Japanese diplomats were not dealing with us from a sincere desire to avoid the war but nobody anticipated the Japanese would have the audacity to hit Pearl Harbor nor did we believe it could be done successfully.
I think there is a lot of scholarship that says that perspective is no longer historical fact.
bc
Moose-Knuckle
03-11-14, 16:55
Two time MOH recipient Major General Smedley Butler took that position and toured the country (prior to radio/TV) to warn the American people of just such a thing.
Eurodriver
03-11-14, 17:05
That said, a lot of wars are predicated on bullshit and there is perhaps no worse example than the Persian Gulf war where Saddam complained about Kuwait laterally drilling across the border. When the UN and the US failed to mediate the dispute (because Kuwait was selling everyone cheap oil - some of it from Iraq) Saddam even asked the US what their position on the issue was a US representative (and I forget her name) stated the US is not interested in Arab to Arab disputes and was only concerned that stability is maintained in the region.
I was pretty shocked when I found out what was going on. Growing up, you always thought since we fought Iraq, they must be the bad guys. Once I learned all the facts, I literally felt bad for Iraq.
I think there is a lot of scholarship that says that perspective is no longer historical fact.
bc
Absolutely correct. According to many sources Roosevelt intentionally lured them into attacking the U.S.
I think there is a lot of scholarship that says that perspective is no longer historical fact.
bc
I don't know what that could possibly be based on. First no Japanese transmission mentioned the attack on Pearl Harbor so nothing we decoded could have given us any indication. We didn't need anything to tell us war was coming. We had lots of warning including the famous "Japanese sub sunk" incident that happened prior to the attack.
We expected the Japanese to attack Guam, the Philippines, etc. We didn't fully appreciate the threat of carrier planes, it had only been done once in Italy which is where the Japanese got the inspiration. At the time the harbor was considered too shallow for plane launched torpedoes to be effective and we had no knowledge of the Japanese solution to the problem.
Certainly we knew Pearl Harbor could be threatened, but we anticipated that threat to come in the form of sabotage. I'm not aware of any "evidence" that anyone could now produce that could change the historical perspective. Perhaps you could fill me in.
Absolutely correct. According to many sources Roosevelt intentionally lured them into attacking the U.S.
Painting them into a corner where their options are limited and giving incentive to attack the US vs. knowing that Pearl Harbor would be attacked by carrier planes are two very different things.
Attacking US forces in the Philippines would have been all that would have been necessary to bring us into the war. That is what FDR and most others expected.
I was pretty shocked when I found out what was going on. Growing up, you always thought since we fought Iraq, they must be the bad guys. Once I learned all the facts, I literally felt bad for Iraq.
Even worse, not that Saddam was any kind of good guy, but we basically ****ed over our only ally in the region who maintained a secular Arab state. Saddam was simply as good as it gets over there. Granted he was getting US support because he was fighting Iran, but we really did sell him out over cheap oil.
Reagan spent years cultivating that relationship with Iraq and Bush 41 ****ed it all up. We could have simply taken the money we gave to countries that actually sponsor terrorist attacks against the US and used it to buy oil from Iraq (which would cost more than oil from Kuwait) and help his economy recover from their decade long war with Iran.
The only thing worse was Bush 43 going in there and completely destabilizing the Iraqi government rather than simply remove Saddam and his senior leadership (now that they were openly hostile to the US and a threat). We could have removed Saddam and key leaders but left the same government in power with a military that could protect the country and tried once again to cultivate a new relationship with Iraq. We certainly didn't make oil any cheaper with that move.
Business_Casual
03-11-14, 17:27
I don't know what that could possibly be based on.
Books written by historians. But arguing on the Internet is a waste of time, so I guess we have to just disagree.
Doc Safari
03-11-14, 17:28
I was pretty shocked when I found out what was going on. Growing up, you always thought since we fought Iraq, they must be the bad guys. Once I learned all the facts, I literally felt bad for Iraq.
Even if our premise for the Gulf War was flawed, I have no sympathy for Saddam's regime. Any dicator that puts people alive into plastic shredders deserves his place in Hell. May he and his sons and all involved roast for all eternity.
I can't watch videos on my computer, so I can't view the clip in the first post, but one thing has always bothered me.
I'm not in any way negating the sacrifices made by our troops and other Allied troops on the Western front in World War II, but "WE" did not win World War II in Europe. "WE" helped the Russians win World War II. They sacrificied way more in order to defeat the Nazis, and we in the West helped them do it. I sincerely believe that without the Russians being in the fight, Hitler would have kept launching attacks at Britain until it fell and the US would have had to sacrifice a lot more to win the war. Hitler might have even had time to get the A-Bomb first and attach it to V2 rockets. Those rockets might very well have rained down on US cities.
Painting them into a corner where their options are limited and giving incentive to attack the US vs. knowing that Pearl Harbor would be attacked by carrier planes are two very different things.
Absolutely true, they are different. Sometimes, when you bait a hook, you catch a bigger fish than you intended.
FDR issued an ultimatum to Japan to get out of China, or else. When Japan ignored the warning, Roosevelt cut off all US exports to Japan of crude oil, aviation gas, scrap iron and other strategic commodities on which Japanese industry depended. At the time, the US produced over 50% of the world’s oil supply. Japan produced no oil and imported all of its strategic materials and much of its food.
Attacking US forces in the Philippines would have been all that would have been necessary to bring us into the war. That is what FDR and most others expected.
Freedom Betrayed (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0076QSNW8/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=lewrockwell&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B0076QSNW8&adid=1MDS9JFNAYK018W6Q7ZQ&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2F2013%2F12%2Fpatrick-j-buchanan%2Fdid-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor%2F%3Fpreview%3Dtrue%26preview_id%3D466503%26preview_nonce%3D257ad926fe) contradicts your assertion. I think you'd find this article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/12/laurence-m-vance/a-president-who-will-live-in-infamy/) by Laurence M. Vance to hold a lot of valuable information concerning the lead up to Pearl Harbor.
I don't think I can add much more than I have so this'll probably be my last post on the subject… I hope you enjoy the article.
Eurodriver
03-11-14, 18:04
Even if our premise for the Gulf War was flawed, I have no sympathy for Saddam's regime. Any dicator that puts people alive into plastic shredders deserves his place in Hell. May he and his sons and all involved roast for all eternity.
I knew this was going to be brought up (along with the use of chemical weapons against the kurds)
I didn't say I felt bad for Saddam Hussein. I said I felt bad for Iraq. The Iraqi people and most of the military/gov't were not mudering psychopaths.
Similar to Russia in the 1930s, if we simply removed Saddam and his ilk from power, Iraq would have been a pretty decent place (and saved 5500 American lives)
We of course knew war was coming, we suspected Japanese diplomats were not dealing with us from a sincere desire to avoid the war but nobody anticipated the Japanese would have the audacity to hit Pearl Harbor nor did we believe it could be done successfully.
Ha. If not on purpose - total, complete executable incompetence - at the highest level.
Ha. If not on purpose - total, complete executable incompetence - at the highest level.
Why do you say it showed incompetence? In which way?
Two time MOH recipient Major General Smedley Butler took that position and toured the country (prior to radio/TV) to warn the American people of just such a thing.
He conveniently came to the conclusion following his patron father (a senator I believe) passed away and John A Lejeune was selected as Commandant over him.
RogerinTPA
03-11-14, 19:02
I knew this was going to be brought up (along with the use of chemical weapons against the kurds)
I didn't say I felt bad for Saddam Hussein. I said I felt bad for Iraq. The Iraqi people and most of the military/gov't were not mudering psychopaths.
Similar to Russia in the 1930s, if we simply removed Saddam and his ilk from power, Iraq would have been a pretty decent place (and saved 5500 American lives)
Agreed, since we killed them by the metric shit load in the second Gulf War. I don't think anyone has shed a tear for Saddam or the top tier guys taken out, but the people didn't need to suffer, not to that degree. If we would have been allowed to take him out the first time around, Iraq would have been a different place, another world in fact. The US needed a strong man for stability purposes, so we left him intact and let the Kurds gets slaughtered while we watched. The second war was sold on pure fantasy, simply because he was selling oil in Euros and not USDs, so we cook up some BS about WMD, then took him out. We were all stunned by the hold/remain in place orders, and was in complete shock that we didn't go march on Baghdad to remove him. My father said that I or my son would be back in Iraq fighting within 10-20 years. Afraid he was right.
I'm not in any way negating the sacrifices made by our troops and other Allied troops on the Western front in World War II, but "WE" did not win World War II in Europe. "WE" helped the Russians win World War II. They sacrificied way more in order to defeat the Nazis, and we in the West helped them do it. I sincerely believe that without the Russians being in the fight, Hitler would have kept launching attacks at Britain until it fell and the US would have had to sacrifice a lot more to win the war. Hitler might have even had time to get the A-Bomb first and attach it to V2 rockets. Those rockets might very well have rained down on US cities.
You make the false assumption that Hitler even wanted a war with the west.
As far as Saddam's shredder; propaganda.
Cagemonkey
03-11-14, 19:15
Even worse, not that Saddam was any kind of good guy, but we basically ****ed over our only ally in the region who maintained a secular Arab state. Saddam was simply as good as it gets over there. Granted he was getting US support because he was fighting Iran, but we really did sell him out over cheap oil.
Reagan spent years cultivating that relationship with Iraq and Bush 41 ****ed it all up. We could have simply taken the money we gave to countries that actually sponsor terrorist attacks against the US and used it to buy oil from Iraq (which would cost more than oil from Kuwait) and help his economy recover from their decade long war with Iran.
The only thing worse was Bush 43 going in there and completely destabilizing the Iraqi government rather than simply remove Saddam and his senior leadership (now that they were openly hostile to the US and a threat). We could have removed Saddam and key leaders but left the same government in power with a military that could protect the country and tried once again to cultivate a new relationship with Iraq. We certainly didn't make oil any cheaper with that move.Its all about the PetroDollar and holding our end of the deal with our Saudi partners. Bush 41 with his CIA credentials knew what he was doing all along. In the short term, things don't make sense. You have to look at the long term picture.
Moose-Knuckle
03-11-14, 19:25
He conveniently came to the conclusion following his patron father (a senator I believe) passed away and John A Lejeune was selected as Commandant over him.
Actually he came to that conclusion after Senator Prescott Bush (the grandfather of George W. and the father of George H.), the heads of Chase Bank, GM, Goodyear, Standard Oil, and DuPont approched him with a proposition to overthrow FDR via a coup d'état.
Why do you say it showed incompetence? In which way?
1. Most Naval officers agree defense of Pearl was inadequate. Plenty of info there - use your Google-Fu.
What does it say if one were to invest their reputation/career along the same defensive posture? If (as a Staff Officer) you were unaware of the global relationships/foreign/defense affairs at that time (and/or obeyed questionable orders), and would allow Pearl to be in it's defensive situation Dec. 7, 1941, I'd consider that incompetence at best, treason at worst.
Some choose honor and duty, apparently, in 1941 an later in 2012...
a. "commander Admiral Richardson that there was inadequate protection from air attack and no protection from torpedo attack. Richardson felt so strongly that he twice disobeyed orders to berth his fleet there and he raised the issue personally with FDR in October and he was soon after replaced. His successor, Admiral Kimmel, also brought up the same issues with FDR in June 1941."
b. General Ham at Benghazi strike any notes?
2. Death trap of base for entry/exit. Port of LA or SD much more defensible from a land base/distance stance.
3. Plenty of info out there to the incompetence. A competent person would expect an attack after you literally cut off the life line of Japan. If I'm Japanese, this could equate to an act of war. An intentional act meant to provoke war - some say. Not to mention our hypocritical support of the Euros (i.e UK/Frogs) who whined at us to support their imperlalistic claims to (for instance) Indochina/Viet Nam and Indoniesa (all due to bills due from WWI).
Cagemonkey
03-11-14, 19:37
An interesting video purporting that every US war has been a false flag.
100 Years of War Lies DEBUNKED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZNXt_u7Cr0Spot on report from James Corbett. False Flag ops come in all variations. Rarely are they going to be simple Black/White affairs. Sometimes the best Lies are not based on what is said, but what is Not said.
RogerinTPA
03-11-14, 19:52
Even if our premise for the Gulf War was flawed, I have no sympathy for Saddam's regime. Any dicator that puts people alive into plastic shredders deserves his place in Hell. May he and his sons and all involved roast for all eternity.
I can't watch videos on my computer, so I can't view the clip in the first post, but one thing has always bothered me.
I'm not in any way negating the sacrifices made by our troops and other Allied troops on the Western front in World War II, but "WE" did not win World War II in Europe. "WE" helped the Russians win World War II. They sacrificied way more in order to defeat the Nazis, and we in the West helped them do it. I sincerely believe that without the Russians being in the fight, Hitler would have kept launching attacks at Britain until it fell and the US would have had to sacrifice a lot more to win the war. Hitler might have even had time to get the A-Bomb first and attach it to V2 rockets. Those rockets might very well have rained down on US cities.
It makes our involvement a farce, since you will also find that a certain New York Bank laundered money for the Nazi's during WWII. The theme of bankers funding both sides of wars, is a recurring one.
Books written by historians. But arguing on the Internet is a waste of time, so I guess we have to just disagree.
I'm not arguing, I'm just not understanding how anyone could come to those conclusions. As I ended my last post....Perhaps you could fill me in.
Ha. If not on purpose - total, complete executable incompetence - at the highest level.
I don't think you appreciate how fully unprepared for war we were as a county in 1941, how much America didn't want money spent on any "European war" and how much we were still struggling with the Depression despite FDR programs. Ironically it was wartime production that finally got us out of the economic hole.
I don't think you appreciate how fully unprepared for war we were as a county in 1941, how much America didn't want money spent on any "European war" and how much we were still struggling with the Depression despite FDR programs. Ironically it was wartime production that finally got us out of the economic hole.
First I appreciate your knowledge of history... However, here is my take:
1. I do appreciate how under prepared we were. Soldiers drilling with wooden rifles ( our local HS Flag squad would school them in profeciency - ha) and tank crews drilling with plywood cutouts. I fully get it. How much bank was made off that intentional unpreperdness?
2. Agreed the average American was VERY much the isolationist after WWI (most people were still living the horror of actual combat or familial stress only 20 year-ish later). However, there is much difference between those "every-day Americans" and those American investment bankers and industrialists who financed Germany's armament (see Prescott Bush's financial involvement). Meanwhile, FDR was a major hawk.
Unfortunately, FDR threw all in on the Socialist Keynesian plan and subsequently furthered to tank our economy. Realizing, in advance, (as all intelligent Socialists should, but many do not) that this shxt don't quite produce, he needed, like others to rely upon a "war bump" to the boost the economy. As a result of Pearl/our-entry-to-WWII, the GDP doubled and about deleted FDR's failed Keynesian "New Deal" debt and almost erased unemployment.
Oh man did some oligarchs (err - Carpetbaggers) benefit -(oh the memories of how the Northern industrialists benefited from the almost total destruction of the South during the War of No. Aggression).
Geez, thank goodness the Japenese attacked us right when they did!
BTW - It is not at ALL ironic that this got us out of the Great Depression. FDR was drooling over it to save his failed Socialist ass.
Business_Casual
03-11-14, 21:21
how much we were still struggling with the Depression despite FDR programs.
Again, read some history - it was due to FDR's programs that the Depression lingered.
bc
Again, read some history - it was due to FDR's programs that the Depression lingered.
bc
I was being condescending of FDR programs but I could see how you might misread it and take it at face value. I've actually read a lot of history.
But I have a couple things I'm interested in seeing addressed.
1. How anyone could have known the target would be Pearl Harbor since the Japanese never mentioned the attack on any of their transmissions that we were decoding.
2. How anyone could have known the Japanese solved the "shallow water" problem for plane launched torpedoes at Pearl Harbor.
Again, FDR knew war was imminent and he definitely wanted in despite campaign promises to the contrary. I just have never seen any evidence for the "sacrifice at Pearl" conspiracy. I think even if we got President Willkie in 1940, if we continued to embargo oil, scrap metal and other raw material to Japan to try and limit their aggression in China we still would have gotten hit at Pearl.
We also need to remember it was Hitler declaring war on the United States on December 11th that brought us into the European war. Congress gave FDR a declaration of war on Japan ONLY (Dec. 8th). The US declaration of war on Germany came hours later on the same day Dec. 11th in response to Hitler's declaration of war. Of course we had been in an undeclared war with Germany for several years with the merchant marines fighting German U boats trying to get Lend-Lease supplies to England.
Moose-Knuckle
03-12-14, 03:21
The Military Channel had a great WWII documentary series entitled Secret War. This series was all about the cloak and dagger side of the war. One particular episode (Season 1 Episode 4) was titled The Real 007. During the war Ian Fleming (arthur of the James Bond novels) was a British Naval Intelligence Officer. He based the character of James Bond on Dušan Popov, a Yugoslavian double agent working for MI6 during the war. Agent Popov met with the FBI in August of 1941 to warn them of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor . . . the rest as they say is history. Popov had obtained a Nazi document containing a micro-dot (new spy tech of the day) detailing the attack. J. Edgar Hoover had Popov thrown out of the country and was threated with imprisonment.
There is a book called Day of Deceit that also shines a lot of light on the matter.
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394611909&sr=1-1&keywords=day+of+deceit
This site as a very interesting time-line of events.
•1940 - FDR ordered the fleet transferred from the West Coast to its exposed position in Hawaii and ordered the fleet remain stationed at Pearl Harbor over complaints by its commander Admiral Richardson that there was inadequate protection from air attack and no protection from torpedo attack. Richardson felt so strongly that he twice disobeyed orders to berth his fleet there and he raised the issue personally with FDR in October and he was soon after replaced. His successor, Admiral Kimmel, also brought up the same issues with FDR in June 1941.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
It's late and I cannot find a link right now, but there was another WWII documentary on the Military Channel I remember watching where they talked about and showed proof that the Japanese, Americans, and British met prior to WWII and discussed sea power. They established early on that the carrier would be the future of naval warfare. Guess what wasn't at Pearl. They knew they needed them to win the war and could sacrifice the battleships in order to gain public support for the war.
Actually he came to that conclusion after Senator Prescott Bush (the grandfather of George W. and the father of George H.), the heads of Chase Bank, GM, Goodyear, Standard Oil, and DuPont approched him with a proposition to overthrow FDR via a coup d'état.
He started speaking about things of the nature soon after retiring well before that allegedly happen
But I have a couple things I'm interested in seeing addressed.
1. How anyone could have known the target would be Pearl Harbor since the Japanese never mentioned the attack on any of their transmissions that we were decoding.
2. How anyone could have known the Japanese solved the "shallow water" problem for plane launched torpedoes at Pearl Harbor.
There were reports coming in of the Japanese fleet practicing at Ariake Bay, which apparantly resembled Pearl Harbor. I can't find the link, it may have been a TV show, where Japenese pilots were interviewed and commented something to the effect of "we had practiced so much for the attack on Pearl Harbor, we could have successfully carried out the attack blind folded".
The link Moose provided above is a very detailed and informative account. From there:
"10 July 1941 - US Military Attache Smith-Hutton at Tokyo reported Japanese Navy secretly practicing aircraft torpedo attacks against capital ships in Ariake Bay. The bay closely resembles Pearl Harbor."
Ariake Bay (Sea)
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/1000/1303/STS090-739-79.jpg
Pearl Harbor
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608020988111226689&pid=1.7
From here: http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/pearl%20harbour%20japan2.htm
On 24 September 1941, a message from Japanese Naval Intelligence headquarters in Tokyo to the Japanese consul general in Honolulu was deciphered. It requested the exact locations of all US Navy ships in Pearl Harbor. Such detailed information would only be required if the Japanese were planning an attack on the ships at their moorings. In November, another message was intercepted ordering more drills involving attacks on capital ships at anchor in preparation to 'ambush and completely destroy the US enemy.' The only American fleet within reach was at Pearl Harbor.
More interesting reading here - yet to fully explore all links though.
http://www.opsecnews.com/pearl-harbor-the-sacrificial-checkmate/
First I appreciate your knowledge of history... However, here is my take:
1. I do appreciate how under prepared we were. Soldiers drilling with wooden rifles ( our local HS Flag squad would school them in profeciency - ha) and tank crews drilling with plywood cutouts. I fully get it. How much bank was made off that intentional unpreperdness?
2. Agreed the average American was VERY much the isolationist after WWI (most people were still living the horror of actual combat or familial stress only 20 year-ish later). However, there is much difference between those "every-day Americans" and those American investment bankers and industrialists who financed Germany's armament (see Prescott Bush's financial involvement). Meanwhile, FDR was a major hawk.
Unfortunately, FDR threw all in on the Socialist Keynesian plan and subsequently furthered to tank our economy. Realizing, in advance, (as all intelligent Socialists should, but many do not) that this shxt don't quite produce, he needed, like others to rely upon a "war bump" to the boost the economy. As a result of Pearl/our-entry-to-WWII, the GDP doubled and about deleted FDR's failed Keynesian "New Deal" debt and almost erased unemployment.
Oh man did some oligarchs (err - Carpetbaggers) benefit -(oh the memories of how the Northern industrialists benefited from the almost total destruction of the South during the War of No. Aggression).
Geez, thank goodness the Japenese attacked us right when they did!
BTW - It is not at ALL ironic that this got us out of the Great Depression. FDR was drooling over it to save his failed Socialist ass.
So you hate capitalists and socialists?
So you hate capitalists and socialists?
Socialists/Communists - yes I hate them.
Capitalists who manipulate conflict and subsequent slaughter for profit - yes I hate them too. Don't you?
There were reports coming in of the Japanese fleet practicing at Ariake Bay, which apparantly resembled Pearl Harbor. I can't find the link, it may have been a TV show, where Japenese pilots were interviewed and commented something to the effect of "we had practiced so much for the attack on Pearl Harbor, we could have successfully carried out the attack blind folded".
The link Moose provided above is a very detailed and informative account. From there:
"10 July 1941 - US Military Attache Smith-Hutton at Tokyo reported Japanese Navy secretly practicing aircraft torpedo attacks against capital ships in Ariake Bay. The bay closely resembles Pearl Harbor."
Ariake Bay (Sea)
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/1000/1303/STS090-739-79.jpg
Pearl Harbor
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608020988111226689&pid=1.7
From here: http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/pearl%20harbour%20japan2.htm
On 24 September 1941, a message from Japanese Naval Intelligence headquarters in Tokyo to the Japanese consul general in Honolulu was deciphered. It requested the exact locations of all US Navy ships in Pearl Harbor. Such detailed information would only be required if the Japanese were planning an attack on the ships at their moorings. In November, another message was intercepted ordering more drills involving attacks on capital ships at anchor in preparation to 'ambush and completely destroy the US enemy.' The only American fleet within reach was at Pearl Harbor.
More interesting reading here - yet to fully explore all links though.
http://www.opsecnews.com/pearl-harbor-the-sacrificial-checkmate/
OK, it's a big red flag. But given the woeful state of our intelligence part of the government in 1941 do you really think that got flagged as a credible warning against an attack at Pearl Harbor that made it all the way up the chain of command and then was deliberately suppressed in order to permit it to happen? Moreover, our intelligence also told us torpedoes couldn't run in the shallow waters at Pearl.
The fleet at Pearl was our Queen on the chessboard, and even I don't think FDR was stupid enough to take that gamble. Some point to the significance of the "three missing carriers" that were not at port that day. But it isn't quite the conspiracy many make it out to be, we knew war was coming somewhere and those carriers were deployed accordingly.
But with the losses at Pearl Marines were successfully isolated on Guadalcanal when the Japanese fleet drove off the landing and supply forces. If we had a few more battleships to spare that might never have happened.
I have very little good to say about FDR but I don't think he knew about Pearl and let it happen. There were other ways into the war that were going to happen and the fleet was simply too valuable.
Books written by historians. But arguing on the Internet is a waste of time, so I guess we have to just disagree.
Please provide a few titles.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-2.htm
That's a lot of eggs in one vulnerable basket.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-2.htm
That's a lot of eggs in one vulnerable basket.
Ever see Norfolk? San Diego? Any large military base? Lots of eggs in baskets.
BoringGuy45
03-12-14, 12:55
Our involvement in WWII was inevitable. Regardless of whether or not it could have been avoided at the time we did get involved, we would have fought Germany and Japan at some point. To imply that WWII was nothing more than a needless conflict where U.S. servicemen died for nothing more than a few men's greed is preposterous. The fact is, the Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese Imperialists were bad dudes, and powerful bad dudes at that. They wanted the world, and everything in it. They wouldn't have been content to live and let live with us. Had we not entered the war:
1) Western Europe would likely have been conquered; Britain would have fallen. Then, most of the Nazi forces would have been able to concentrate on the Eastern front.
2) Japan, not having to fight us, would have been able to then invade the Soviet Union from the East.
3) They would have cut off all trade and materials being sent to Russia by us. Stalin's government would have fallen.
4) We had oil, good soil, an endless supply of deep water ports, clean water, a host of other natural resources, and some of the best manufacturing capabilities and facilities in the world. The Axis would have built even more massive armies, exterminated all they deemed enemies, and would have eventually come for us.
Ever see Norfolk? San Diego? Any large military base? Lots of eggs in baskets.
Key word was "vulnerable" in my earlier post. Are you implying Norfolk and San Diego/LA at that time were as vulnerable as Pearl 1941?
Moose-Knuckle
03-12-14, 14:58
He started speaking about things of the nature soon after retiring well before that allegedly happen
Nothing allegedly about "The Business Plot". The Special Committee on Un-American Activities (aka the McCormack-Dickstein Committee) acknowledge the existence of the plot yet no charges were brought against Bush or his bed buddies. Being a member of Skull & Bones has its perks.
They found some of his allegations did occur, but never was more than talk between opponents of FDR
Ever see Norfolk? San Diego? Any large military base? Lots of eggs in baskets.
Not to mention the fact that we still use Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam as the HQ for the Pacific Fleet.
A great book about the historical lead-up to Japan's position is The Pacific War 1941-1945 by John Costello. That die was cast 20 years before Pearl Harbor, and there is evidence that Roosevelt knew that the US policies would, eventually, force Japan's hand (oil embargo, the neutrality acts, etc). Not to mention that Japan often misread US intentions. Before Pearl Harbor Japan just wanted what they thought was theirs in China and some of the islands, to be left alone, and have a seat at the Big Boy's table. Even with the military build-up Japan did not want war with the US and hoped that the US would negotiate...they believed negotiations could work right up to the Hull Note.
Not to mention the fact that we still use Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam as the HQ for the Pacific Fleet.
Different time, different ability of force protection and projection. Apples-to-oranges.
1941
- Ability to defend and adequately defend + project force from the mainland in defense of Pearl = low
- Conventional surface ships, diesel-elec. subs, prop-driven aircraft, no satelites, no nukes, etc.
- Significant Asian "close support" would have been the Philippines via above noted forces.
2014
- " = pretty damn good
- nuclear aircraft battle groups, almost definite air jet superiority, nuclear subs, tactical and ICBM based nukes, stealth bombers capable of near global flight, sateliites, GPS, etc.
- Significant Asian "close support" way more developed: Guam, Okinawa, Philippians, etc. + expanded Pacific battle groups.
Different time, different ability of force protection and projection. Apples-to-oranges.
That actually also applies to pre 1941 and post 1941. The only time something like that had ever been done before was by the British at Taranto in 1940 and very few people noticed the implication. Prior to December 1941 the Japanese attack that people could imagine would be sabotage, which we were taking steps to prevent and a Japanese fleet steaming in to go battleship to battleship with the American fleet and everyone found that very unlikely and would have given us more than enough warning.
This is yet another reason the "deliberate sacrifice of Pearl" conspiracy has problems. Very few people, least of all FDR, could even imagine the concept of carrier based planes pulling off such an effective attack on a Naval fleet in port.
As an example of "nobody imagined it could be done" we need look no further than the Doolittle raid. Everyone who sees a conspiracy at Pearl Harbor is looking at the event for a post attack perspective. To suggest we could imagine such an attack and the President let it happen is a lot like people saying everyone knew Al Quida would hijack commercial airliners and use them as weapons to attack the WTC on 9-11 and the President let it happen so he could invade Iraq.
2. Agreed the average American was VERY much the isolationist after WWI (most people were still living the horror of actual combat or familial stress only 20 year-ish later). However, there is much difference between those "every-day Americans" and those American investment bankers and industrialists who financed Germany's armament (see Prescott Bush's financial involvement). Meanwhile, FDR was a major hawk.
My comment above. For frame of reference. Here ya go:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Our involvement in WWII was inevitable. Regardless of whether or not it could have been avoided at the time we did get involved, we would have fought Germany and Japan at some point. To imply that WWII was nothing more than a needless conflict where U.S. servicemen died for nothing more than a few men's greed is preposterous. The fact is, the Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese Imperialists were bad dudes, and powerful bad dudes at that. They wanted the world, and everything in it. They wouldn't have been content to live and let live with us.
In response to your post:
- No disagreement that these guys were major piece of shxt murdering a-holes. World domination - for sure. Needed to be stopped, damn tootin'!
- Preposterous? That would infer you have a 100% certainty of that you speak. I never implied or explicitly stated such non-sense that US GI's died for nothing. I stated there are those that manipulate and use others for their benefit. Read the above Bush link. Heard of the pre-WWII Nazi "Keppler Circle"? You invest with a douche and don't expect bad-ness. Right... You should understand your country-men will need to face that evil you propped up. That is evil. Who contributed and helped to create this perfect storm? If you are not familar, investigate further.
Nazi Keppler Circle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keppler
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_09.htm
Socialists/Communists - yes I hate them.
Capitalists who manipulate conflict and subsequent slaughter for profit - yes I hate them too. Don't you?
- Yep, still hatin' on these POS. Think its new? Think it doesn't happen? Well.
That actually also applies to pre 1941 and post 1941. The only time something like that had ever been done before was by the British at Taranto in 1940 and very few people noticed the implication. Prior to December 1941 the Japanese attack that people could imagine would be sabotage, which we were taking steps to prevent and a Japanese fleet steaming in to go battleship to battleship with the American fleet and everyone found that very unlikely and would have given us more than enough warning.
This is yet another reason the "deliberate sacrifice of Pearl" conspiracy has problems. Very few people, least of all FDR, could even imagine the concept of carrier based planes pulling off such an effective attack on a Naval fleet in port.
As an example of "nobody imagined it could be done" we need look no further than the Doolittle raid. Everyone who sees a conspiracy at Pearl Harbor is looking at the event for a post attack perspective. To suggest we could imagine such an attack and the President let it happen is a lot like people saying everyone knew Al Quida would hijack commercial airliners and use them as weapons to attack the WTC on 9-11 and the President let it happen so he could invade Iraq.
Black Swan. I see your perpective - good comment about ship-to-ship early-mid 1900 warfare btw.
A question please ? Based upon what you would surmise in 1941...
Would you have put the Pacific Fleet at Pearl in 1941 or based at, say, San Diego or LA?``
Black Swan. I see your perpective - good comment about ship-to-ship early-mid 1900 warfare btw.
A question please ? Based upon what you would surmise in 1941...
Would you have put the Pacific Fleet at Pearl in 1941 or based at, say, San Diego or LA?``
Given the very real possibility that we may have to go withdraw troops from places like the Philippines in a damn hurry I'd have things about as far out to the perimeter as I thought I could get away with. Sadly the attack at Pearl meant we didn't have rescue ships for a lot of guys in places like Bataan.
I'd have the fleet at Pearl. The difference between sending a fleet from there vs. San Diego when guys are fighting to the last man was a huge consideration. This is what we expected, for the Japanese to hit all over the Pacific and then we planned on using our Pacific fleet as the counter punch to teach those Japs a lesson once and for all.
It's a good thing Midway went down like it did. It might have been a real long, even shittier war. It's also a shame that the guys at the radar station who offered an early warning weren't taken seriously. If we could have had AA up and running and fighters in the air Pearl might have gone very differently.
sandman99and9
03-12-14, 22:16
Given the very real possibility that we may have to go withdraw troops from places like the Philippines in a damn hurry I'd have things about as far out to the perimeter as I thought I could get away with. Sadly the attack at Pearl meant we didn't have rescue ships for a lot of guys in places like Bataan.
I'd have the fleet at Pearl. The difference between sending a fleet from there vs. San Diego when guys are fighting to the last man was a huge consideration. This is what we expected, for the Japanese to hit all over the Pacific and then we planned on using our Pacific fleet as the counter punch to teach those Japs a lesson once and for all.
It's a good thing Midway went down like it did. It might have been a real long, even shittier war. It's also a shame that the guys at the radar station who offered an early warning weren't taken seriously. If we could have had AA up and running and fighters in the air Pearl might have gone very differently.
Even with the warning I don't think it would have made much difference. The Japanese Zero fighters flying escort would have made short work of our planes. At the time of the attack they had better planes and far more experienced combat pilots than our peacetime Army Air-corp did. The P-40 was inferior to the Zero in almost every aspect except in a dive. In the hands of some very experienced pilots (Flying Tigers) they could fight the Zero's effectively but we were sadly lacking those experienced pilots at Pearl harbor that Sunday. I think the best thing we could have done was to get the battleships under way and moving to make them a much more difficult target to hit.
Thankfully the carriers were not in port that morning or it could have been a much longer and bloodier war in the pacific. It was also very fortunate that the Japanese did not fly that last wave to hit the dry docks and support areas of Pearl harbor.
S.M.
SeriousStudent
03-12-14, 22:20
... It was also very fortunate that the Japanese did not fly that last wave to hit the dry docks and support areas of Pearl harbor.
S.M.
This. If they had hit the POL storage in Hawaii, it would have been much harder for us, just as you say.
Even with the warning I don't think it would have made much difference. The Japanese Zero fighters flying escort would have made short work of our planes. At the time of the attack they had better planes and far more experienced combat pilots than our peacetime Army Air-corp did. The P-40 was inferior to the Zero in almost every aspect except in a dive. In the hands of some very experienced pilots (Flying Tigers) they could fight the Zero's effectively but we were sadly lacking those experienced pilots at Pearl harbor that Sunday. I think the best thing we could have done was to get the battleships under way and moving to make them a much more difficult target to hit.
Thankfully the carriers were not in port that morning or it could have been a much longer and bloodier war in the pacific. It was also very fortunate that the Japanese did not fly that last wave to hit the dry docks and support areas of Pearl harbor.
S.M.
True. Even with the Tigers they had to fly "hit and runs" against the Japanese and had a standing "no dogfight" rule. But I'd still rather have a couple squadrons of P-40s in the air than the handful that eventually got up.
Absolutely agree about the carriers being absent and Nagumo deciding to cancel the last wave. If they flew that third wave they could have conceivably landed troops and occupied the main islands. I don't think Nagumo fully understood how caught off guard we really were and was probably expecting a retaliatory strike from our unaccounted for carriers at any moment.
Would have been a very different war if we indeed had them nearby undetected and we got a Midway outcome on Dec. 7. Of course things could have also gone the other way.
Given the very real possibility that we may have to go withdraw troops from places like the Philippines in a damn hurry I'd have things about as far out to the perimeter as I thought I could get away with. Sadly the attack at Pearl meant we didn't have rescue ships for a lot of guys in places like Bataan.
I'd have the fleet at Pearl. The difference between sending a fleet from there vs. San Diego when guys are fighting to the last man was a huge consideration. This is what we expected, for the Japanese to hit all over the Pacific and then we planned on using our Pacific fleet as the counter punch to teach those Japs a lesson once and for all.
It's a good thing Midway went down like it did. It might have been a real long, even shittier war. It's also a shame that the guys at the radar station who offered an early warning weren't taken seriously. If we could have had AA up and running and fighters in the air Pearl might have gone very differently.
Combined American-Filipino forces didn't surrender till early April 1942.
Roughy 19 days transit time from San Diego to Manila. Versus roughly 13 days from Honolulu. (Using this calculator http://www.searates.com/reference/portdistance/).
Combined American-Filipino forces didn't surrender till early April 1942.
Roughy 19 days transit time from San Diego to Manila. Versus roughly 13 days from Honolulu. (Using this calculator http://www.searates.com/reference/portdistance/).
Again, we didn't know when the Filipino thing was going to jump off exactly. Plus we had every expectation of meeting the Japanese fleet at some point en route. I wonder if launching from Pearl gave us more options in terms of multiple routes and things of that nature. Keeping in mind that such forces generally don't move in straight "predicable" lines.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.