|
anarchyintheuk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 5:03:03 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phanatik
In a previous post you stated that Short had been ordered to place his forces on sabatoge alert. Short ordered it himself. Marshall later stated in testimony before one of the congressional committes that this was his opportunity to set Short straight about priorities (training vs. alert status) and he failed to take it. If you're going to say PH was a conspiracy at least get the facts right.
You also stated that the British and Dutch broke the IJN codes. They didn't and they weren't reading IJN traffic unless we gave it to them.
Show me what the "Vacate Sea" order is and when it was put into effect.
The two cvs sent out of PH were sent on missions to reinforce Wake and Midway w/ additional aircraft that didn't have the transfer range to make it. No one knew what vessels were more useful at the time.
quote:
Nog,
- The U.S. was a NEUTRAL country, arming one side of the conflict. - illegal- If not unconstitutional, against U.S. codes or international law. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v., but I know it's illegal.
It was done during WW1, check the sales made to the Entente vs. the Central Powers. Wasn't illegal then, wasn't illegal in 1939-41. Show me a Federal Court decision that states trading w/ a belligerent is unconstitutional. If not unconstitutional what law does it violate?
quote:
- There are archival documents referring to other documents, that have been removed from the archives and never replaced. there are archived documents that refer to collected japanese radio traffic documents that would implicate an attack, that actually say that they were removed due to their explosive nature. A lack of access is not a lack of evidence .
A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence.
quote:
- When the japanese merchant fleet is recalled to japan for conversion to troop carriers, and then those troop carriers are reported as moving to positions to attack U.S. possessions, a la the P.I., and Wake, Tarawa, etc, then YES, it's evidence the Japanese are going to attack the U.S.
The ships sighted prior to 12/7 were moving towards Malaya, where they did indeed land. No Japanese ships were sighted moving towards PI, Wake, Tarawa or PH.
-quote:
I don't know if you know anything about radio traffic collection and analysis, but individual radio operators and their equipment can be identified by their "style" and their "sound" which can't be duplicated. The radio operators were NOT left in Japan as a decoy. If japan had operators in Japan pretending to be KB operators, they would not have fooled anyone. KB operators, the callsigns for the ships, and their equipment were tracked crossing the northern pacific. The civilians were particularly bad, as they were chatty. The navy referred to them as "Gunzoku." the signals collection documents are in U.S. archives. Go get a FOIA and find out. The only detail is that the government claims they weren't decoded until after the attack due to the volume. but there is also evidence this isn't true. And yes, japanese sub signals traffic IS important when it's tracked to Hawaiian waters, even if that were all there was.
It was a lack of radio traffic that allowed KB to escape detection and location, not decoy operators in their home base. KB was under strict radio silence, going so far as to lock the transmitter keys. I believe their officer's testimony over another's testimony who was not there. Rochefort informed Kimmel prior to the attack that intel had lost track of KB.
quote:
- As I said about Germany declaring on the U.S., Hitler did FDR a favor. I said I believed he was compelled. Then again, I don't intend to parse "attack," which could possibly mean declared war upon. And I really doubt the Japanese signed the pact because they were concerned England or France was going to attack them in the Pacific. Japan's only real enemy in the Pac was the U.S.
Hitler did not have to declare war under the terms of the Tripartite pact. He was only obliged if Japan had been attacked by a power not contemplated under the terms of the pact (i.e. the US).
quote:
- Yes, I have read a few historical accounts, thanks. I know about the abortive attack on Formosa. Uh, why wasn't MacArthur cashiered for screwing up so badly? Kimmel/Short at least had the excuse of being completely surprised. And, yes, I know he was liked in the P.I.
He was the only dog in the fight after the initial attacks. It doesn't inspire confidence in the populace for a President/CinC to cashier an entire theatre's command staff after day one, especially when has he was involved in their selection.
quote:
- The historical information was included to show FDR's intent and motives.
Some quotes for you:
from Stimson's diary "The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition."
"In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this, so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."
Letting the other side get the first shot in is valued for world and public opinion. This isn't unusual. Stimson is not Roosevelt. Nor does Stimson state that firing the first shot means allowing a successful surprise attack on the strongest US military installation in the world.
quote:
FDR and some of his staff actually dicussed the morality of the U.S. president allowing an attack on U.S. servicemen, but decided the Big Picture would permit it.
Where/when is the reference from? I would imagine the original context concerned escorting convoys (a task that neutrals had engaged in before). What is the Big Picture?
quote:
Look up Morimura's (Yoshikawa) espionage activities at Pearl before the attack, including the Bomb Plot and the All clear messages.
Morimura's activities have nothing to do with Roosevelt. I've heard of the bomb plot messages, what are the all clear messages. What do they have to do w/ Roosevelt?
quote:
There is a lot more evidence to implicate FDR to some extent. I provided the info from my original post off the top of my head while reading the thread because someone offhandedly poo-poo'd any possiblility of foreknowledge. At some point, it comes down to the "If it looks like a Duck Theory."
[/quote}
Imo it fits more accurately under the "Throw enough #### at a wall and you end up covering it"' theory.
The local commanders had sufficient information (including a 'war warning', how that was missinetpreted is beyond me) to enable them to put up a more effective resistance than shown. That's why they were canned. It happens in war. Barbarossa, Kasserine, Bulge, Tet, Bar Lev line and many others show that intelligence failures are far from rare and don't depend on a conspiracy for them to occur.
To sum up, if you believe that Roosevelt, the War Department or the Navy Department deliberately withheld useful information from local commanders in order to allow Japan a successful suprise attack upon US installations in order to get us into a war that qualifies you for the 'tin hat' brigade.
|
|
|
|
