Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
I have seen a couple of calls to shut it down. Opinions?

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

For me the weakest link in the Pearl Harbor conspiracy is, yes it got us into a war, but with the wrong enemy. It was the United Kingdom that FDR wanted to come to the aid of, and Nazi Germany he wished to fight and in many ways was already fighting in the North Atlantic. However, to the the eternal bewilderment of world history, Hitler, although he was under no treaty obligation to do so (as if treaties mattered to Hitler anyway) declares war on the United States a few days later.

Therein lies the rub. Under the terms of the Axis Tripartite pact, the parties were required to come to the assistance of each other ONLY if being attacked. Germany had no obligation, moral OR legal to come to the aid of their ally by declaring war on the US. That's what makes it so inexplicable.

After all, why borrow a new enemy (and a great big one) when you haven't even beaten the enemies you already have? Why toss a new weight into the scales, one with the world's largest industrial base by a considerable margin? Why ask for trouble? More to the point, why solve President Roosevelt's political problems for him? FDR saw Nazi Germany, not Imperial Japan, as the gravest threat to democracy, but even this wiliest of U.S. politicians knew it was going to be difficult to get an American public outraged by the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor into a war against Germany.

You could argue that the last thing Roosevelt needed was a war in the Pacific. The administration had been unwilling to go to war over China and mistakenly believed that it could deter or retard a Japanese advance into Southeast Asia via the retention of powerful naval forces in Hawaii, the imposition economic sanctions, and the deployment of long-range bombers to the Philippines. It presumed realism and rationality on the part of the Japanese and failed to understand that sanctions it imposed upon Japan in the summer of 1941 were tantamount to an act of war.

I've yet to see a conspiracy theory that explains Hitler's inexplicable and rash decision that not only took his own high command by surprise, but got FDR out from over a political barrel. It's not like the sort of decision you could just automatically depend on from a man, who up to that point had been strenuously avoiding war with the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
If he had left them there a bit longer, the UK would have been in trouble, though probably not knocked out of the war.

quote:


"Well we all know that the american population was against any intervention into the war..."

quote:

1. How can I be a sailor? You ever seen a canoe with a sail? (Large Slow Target might have, come to think of it....)

quote:



By
W. D ONEIL "Will O'Neil" (Falls Church, VA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (Paperback)
This has become the most successful of Pearl Harbor revisionist books, in part no doubt because Mr. Stinnett (a former newspaper photographer before he hit it big with his book) has promoted it so enthusiastically. Many people have been very favorably impressed by it, as legions of reviews here attest. Many others have been critical, but Mr. Stinnett has been indefatigable in responding to criticism.

His view is that then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, along with many other key people, conspired to deprive the military commanders in Oahu (Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commanding the Pacific Fleet, together with Lieut. General Walter C. Short, commanding the Army ground and air forces in the Hawaiian Islands) of highly specific warnings regarding the Japanese Kido Butai or First Air Fleet and its approach to Hawaii. Specifically, he contends that the Japanese transmitted a number of messages which were intercepted and decrypted by various agencies, which on presidential orders buried the information. He identifies at least eight senior naval officers (most of whom went on to distinguish themselves in World War II) as having betrayed their nation and service in this fashion.

Mr. Stinnett's understanding of the technical aspects of communications intelligence and codebreaking has been challenged as gravely faulty by a number of people. Mr. Stinnett invariably responds very vigorously in tones which impress many. If one examines these responses closely, however, they seem always to involve one or more of the following techniques: (1) Insistent reiteration of claims already decisively disproven, with no new information to buttress them, (2) A "Strawman" response in which Mr. Stinnett misstates the criticism so that he can denounce it, (3) A claim of superior knowledge, which he attributes to sources which he will not identify clearly or which cannot be checked.

While I am a former naval officer, my own professional knowledge of the details of communications intelligence is limited (although much greater than that of Mr. Stinnett). I have queried a number of officers and civilians who have devoted entire careers to the subject, however. Few of them have thought it worth their while to spend time reading the book, but among those who have I have heard nothing but scorn for what they regard as Mr. Stinnett's unfounded pretensions to knowledge of the subject. Many of his claims are entirely nonsensical in technical terms, according to them.

Inasmuch as Mr. Stinnett has gone to such trouble to throw sand over his tracks (and in the eyes of critics), it is best for those who are curious to read for themselves what his critics have said. Several good reviews of his book are available on the Web, including the following. All originally appeared in print:

-- A review by David Kahn, all but universally regarded as the world's foremost authority on the history of codes and ciphers (see his Web site at [...]) , appeared in New York Review of Books for 2 Nov 2000. It is available on the Web, but only to subscribers or by a payment of a $3 fee, at
[...]. Available without charge, however, is an exchange between Messrs. Stinnett and Kahn which illustrates the pattern of interaction between this author and those who criticize his work:
[...]

-- Another review, this by Philip H. Jacobsen, a retired Navy cryptologic officer who served in World War II as an intercept and direction finder operator as well as an analyst of Japanese naval and naval air communications." It has been made available (with some added comments) on the Web site of the U.S. Naval Cryptologic Veterans Association at
[...]. Lieut. Commander Jacobsen has published several related articles providing much additional interesting information. Of these, "Pearl Harbor: Who Deceived Whom?" is available at
[...], while "Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? No!: The Story of the U. S. Navy's Efforts on JN-25B" is at
[...]

-- An article by Stephen Budiansky on "Closing the Book on Pearl Harbor," summarizing newly-unearthed material and relating it to what is known about the attack. It is available at either of two places:
[...]
or
[...]
Mr. Budiansky is a writer with a mathematics background who has made a deep study of codebreaking. His Web site is [...]

"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead," Benjamin Franklin warned. He knew nothing of modern electronic communications but he would certainly have scoffed at Mr. Stinnett's vast conspiracy, involving nine named individuals (all dead and unable to speak for themselves, of course) and requiring the more-or-less active support of dozens more, high and low. What could have bound men to it in the first place, and convinced them all to carry the secret to their graves? There simply is no plausible explanation. None of the officers were among President Roosevelt's friends or political supporters. Their oath of loyalty was to the office of the president, acting in his lawful capacity, not to the person of a man asking them to support him in treason against the nation and betrayal of the Navy. This could only have worked if every one of these men was totally different in character from the thousands of senior naval officers I have known and worked with over the past four decades and more. I simply cannot believe it, and so cannot believe Mr. Stinnett's work.

It's a nasty business, this traducing the memories of dead patriots on the very thinnest of excuses and misleading new generations so as to make them ever more cynical and suspicious. To what end? Profit? Mad obsession? Hatred of our country and its institutions?

William D. O'Neil
Captain, USNR (Ret.)

quote:


ABSTRACT

Recent attempts to resuscitate well-worn conspiracy theories concerning the Pearl Harbor attack are based on selective reading of documentary evidence and ignore conclusive, recently declassified materials which show that JN-25 and other Japanese naval codes were not being read by U. S. Navy codebreakers prior to the Japanese attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Coming late to the party, recent events at the place I live have kept me from the forum.

Just a few comments:

I knew just from reading the subject line on the main forum which turn the topic would take...

First phrase of the OP after the introductory remarks confirmed my fears:

quote:


"Well we all know that the american population was against any intervention into the war..."

Well, most of us know that pre-war Gallup polls show that in the summer of 1941, the US was NOT strongly isolationist. The isolationists were just a minority with a loud voice. See http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

Interviewing Date 8/21-26/41

Survey #245-K Question #13

Should the United States take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan?

Yes................................ 70%

No................................ 18

No opinion......................... 12


But I do not want to bother revisionists with too many facts - in their mind, such data has been "fabricated" anyway!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

On the question why Germany declared war on the US: Part of the rationale was that Germany expected war with the US, given the situation in the North Atlantic - and according to German foreign minister Ribbentrop, "a great power [i.e. Germany] does not permit any power to make war on it. It declares war itself."

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Well, most of us know that pre-war Gallup polls show that in the summer of 1941, the US was NOT strongly isolationist. The isolationists were just a minority with a loud voice. See http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From LST
Conspiracy thesis can be quite entertaining. I have run across a thesis claiming that a Dutch (!) destroyer operating in the North Pacific sighted KB on the way to PH and radioed a warning that was ignored at PH. Of course no name of the ship was given, no explanation what business a Dutch destroyer had up there or how the DD got there, given the limited range of DDs in general and Dutch DDs available at the time of PH in particular. Good laugh!

I believe I have a book (Fiction) that has a Dutch Submarine that fits this story. Then Churchill sent an "agent" to dispose of the boat & crew. Same guy was involved with the assassination of either Giraud or the guy that shot Giraud!!!

I"ll dig into the archives

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

Warspite, I'm not arguing that FDR knew PH was going to be attacked on the morning of Dec 7, 1941. I can easily look up citations where US Navy leadership was strongly against deploying the fleet forward at PH. I can also find numerous papers that state that FDR's economic policies forced the fragile Japanese political establishment into a war footing.

I can also state that US forces stationed in South Korea after the Korean War were basically a trip wire - were/are the subsequent Presidents potential mass murders for basically placing them in an untenable situation in case of a North Korean attack?

I agree with you that someone just looking into the Pacific War historical era can ask the question, just like historians have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

One thing I don't understand about the "Did FDR know" PH conspiracy is why he would have opted for a massacre at the base, rather than just a simple attack. It would seem to me that a "last minute" warning in the early AM PH time would have gotten the ships buttoned up, planes ready, torpedo nets (assuming PH had them for BB row) etc. in time to have a hot reception waiting. If he was worried about ships being sunk at sea versus in the harbor, make the warning late enough to prevent a fleet sortie in time.

I bet a significantly less-successful sneak attack would have served just as well to rile up the country as the massacre that really happened. And then you'd have a fleet to do something about it a lot quicker.

Of course, I am sure the conspiracy theorist has answers to all those.

Mike

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I am totally convinced by DeZanic. He is an original thinker.
At last, someone who breaks the shackles of the official educational system and frees his mind from the burden of reality. Someone so open-minded that his brain fell out.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

Warspite, I'm not arguing that FDR knew PH was going to be attacked on the morning of Dec 7, 1941. I can easily look up citations where US Navy leadership was strongly against deploying the fleet forward at PH. I can also find numerous papers that state that FDR's economic policies forced the fragile Japanese political establishment into a war footing.

I can also state that US forces stationed in South Korea after the Korean War were basically a trip wire - were/are the subsequent Presidents potential mass murders for basically placing them in an untenable situation in case of a North Korean attack?

I agree with you that someone just looking into the Pacific War historical era can ask the question, just like historians have.

desicat, you do realize that we are still at war with the DPRK? How does defending yourself by having troops dig trenches equal mass murder? Can we dispose of this fellow? He's a troll, and that's pretty definitive coming from me. I for one don't need to hear any more opinions from this fellow, furthermore science as well as nature itself doesn't care about your opinions. Please don't give us a link to any website which takes you seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think this thread has evolved into a great example of why we're in the Forum. Those Polls cited above are excellent material for a WWII buff. After reading them and examining the sources, I want to use them in my pre-Pearl Harbor lecture. Those are fantastic pearls of history that reveal the conflicted nature of the nation. NICE!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Well, most of us know that pre-war Gallup polls show that in the summer of 1941, the US was NOT strongly isolationist. The isolationists were just a minority with a loud voice. See http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

I think that is the most informative group of statistics that I have seen. And it shows well, the dichotomy of thought in the US, at the time.

Nobody, in their right mind, wants to go to war. The US didn’t have to go through the Somme, but the casualty lists from Aisne-Marne, Oise-Aisne, Ypres, St Mihiel, Meuse-Argonne, were enough to get some serious attention. War seriously sucks. Your husband, father, brother, son, nephew, niece, fiancé, friend, are going to die.

So what is unusual in the national desire to avoid another war? Nothing. But then again, we ain’t stupid. We know right from wrong and usually (back then) come down on the side of truth, light and righteousness.

So we knew who the pissants were. We may not have wanted to fight them just then, but we knew who they were, oh, yes, we knew. Maybe not today, or not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of their miserable, stinking lives.

We did not want war, but we did not want the a$$holes to win either. That much is clear. So we were skating on the thin ice between two imperatives. Sooner or later, we would have had to crack the ice on one side or the other, and earlier or later, makes no real difference all things considered.

We were on a tipping point, and it wouldn’t have taken much to move the lever. Japan did it with PH; just witness the outrage; but sooner or later, somebody was gonna do a nasty and get us pissed-off. Then, all bets are off.

[ed] to answer the OT about conspiracies, I can only refer one to when one is sailing away. You little conspiracy weenies have a clue when you see this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat
If you don't agree with the OP or think his question was unworthy of comment then don't comment. The guy may have just been looking for more information as he was new to the forum/historical Period.