RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor

RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

Phanatikk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 5:07:37 PM)
Golly gee, if it's from someone on Amazon, it must be true.... On the otherhand, Stinnett could be talking out of his you know what, or maybe not. He's not my cousin, I don't get royalties, and he may or may not be heavy. It's an interesting book. I've never heard/seen a credible refutation of it. Many of the documents have only come to light since some "noted historians" wrote their books. And who is surprised that government officials and/or cryptoanalysts would engage in CYA or defer for security reasons. A lot of it's still highly classified. For Warspite1: A loss of sovereignty would occur for the Japanese if they allowed the U.S. to determine Japanese policy for a war in China, which the U.S. wasn't involved in and should have no say in. Again, it was simply FDR trying to provoke the Japanese. For those questioning my motives or patriotism, I served in the navy for 8 years. I was a Cryptologic Technician. [;)] Cheers

anarchyintheuk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 5:10:44 PM)
One other point. Please remember that your opinion that certain legislation was unconstitutional does not make it so only a federal court decision does. Lend Lease was never declared by a federal court to be unconstitutional.

Phanatikk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 5:15:48 PM)
A federal court presided over by a Federal Judge, appointed by... FDR? Again, I'm not a lawyer but, I did learn that Lend Lease was illegal. Local/State/Federal/International? Who cares now? And I'm referring to war material, not biscuits.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 5:22:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phanatik 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. This statement is categorically wrong. Neurals may sell, or not sell, munitions to anyone they please. Specifically, the US has, from its founding, when a neutral, sold munitions to nations with the ability to come and pick them up. This case was higly apparent in WWI, when the Austo-Hungarian empire protested our policy of supplying England and France. The official reply from the Secretary of State (here http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usmunitions_lansing.htm) details occasions (the Boer War in particular) when the A-H empire itself traded with belligerents when a neutral. It laments that the A-H empire fails to possess sufficient naval forces to venture across the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming Royal Navy patrols (The "War is a B***h" premise), but states that's not the USA's problem. If A-H ships could have made NYC, the USA would have allowed private arms manufacturers to load them up. The logic of this position is in this quote by the Secretary: "But in addition to the question of principle there is a practical and substantial reason why the Government of the United States has from the foundation of the republic advocated and practiced unrestricted trade in arms and military supplies. It has never been the policy of this country to maintain in times of peace a large military establishment or stores of arms and ammunition sufficient to repel invasion by a well equipped and powerful enemy. It has desired to remain at peace with all nations and to avoid any appearance of menacing such peace by the threat of its armies and navies. In consequence of this standing policy, the United States would, in the event of an attack by a foreign Power, be at the outset of the war seriously, if not fatally, embarrassed by the lack of arms and ammunition and by the means to produce them in sufficient quantities to supply the requirements of national defence. The United States has always depended upon the right and power to purchase arms and ammunition from neutral nations in case of foreign attack. This right, which it claims for itself, it cannot deny to others." Your contnetion that the supplying of belligerents while a neutral was illegal is false. To state it was unconstitutional is laughable. I'm not a lawyer either, but I can google. Give it a try.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 5:36:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phanatik Again, I'm not a lawyer but, I did learn that Lend Lease was illegal. Local/State/Federal/International? Who cares now? And I'm referring to war material, not biscuits. You stated that Lend Lease was unconstitutional. Are you backing off that? Perhaps you are mis-remembering a small, of-interest-only-to-constitutional-scholars kerfluffle wherein FDR himself, in perhaps the only time in US history where the flow went down rather than up the chain, declared to the the Attorney General that a VERY small provision of the LL Act inserted by Congress interfered with his executive authority, and thus was an unconstitutional intrusion on executive branch powers by the legislative branch of the federal governemnt. Many citizens are under the mistaken impression that only the Supreme Court may declare something unconstitutional. In fact, all three branches have a duty to do so when they believe it to be the case. However, only the Supreme Court has the final say. But a president who, for example, finds the Congress pass, over his veto, a bill removing him as Commander in Chief would be under no constitutional obligation to execute that law pending final opinion of the Court. In fact, he would violate his oath of office to do so. The Lend-Lease Act "unconstitutional" flap is highly technical, but if you're interested, an article originally appearing in the Harvard Law Review fully analyzing it is found at: http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/articles/a-presidential-legal-opinion/ The Lend-Lease Act itself was fine, legaly and constitutionally.

Charbroiled -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 5:54:37 PM)
IMO, if FDR did know of the impending PH attack and allowed it to happen to draw the US into the war in Eurpoe, then he was a Genius and what he did was a great thing. It was a must for the US to become involved in the World Conflict. If they hadn't , England and Russia might not exist as we know it today. Also, if WW2 hadn't taken place, we probably would be at the technological level of the 1970's....which means we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Phanatikk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 6:07:45 PM)
I'm quite willing to defer on legal matters to those more knowledgeable on such, and withdraw my statement. If someone more knowledgeable with access to all the documentation with no axe to grind presents a more formal refutation that proves that the smoke which started Dec. 7th is only smoke and no fire, I'd be happy with that as well. Until then, I reserve the right to say "hum..."

Canoerebel -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 6:09:11 PM)
No, if he permitted it to happen he was evil beyond belief. But he didn't know and hypothetical statements that he did and what-ifs and wild-eyed conspiracy theories do a grave injustice to the memories of honorable people. Let me put this another way. As a trial lawyer with more than 20 years experience, were I picking a jury for a case in which the facts and the law were decidedly against my client, I would gladly seek and welcome on my jury anybody who touts the "Roosevelt knew" mantra. If I had a great case in which the facts and the law supported my client, I would strike such people as quickly as possible.

USSAmerica -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 6:15:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phanatik I'm quite willing to defer on legal matters to those more knowledgeable on such, and withdraw my statement. If someone more knowledgeable with access to all the documentation with no axe to grind presents a more formal refutation that proves that the smoke which started Dec. 7th is only smoke and no fire, I'd be happy with that as well. Until then, I reserve the right to say "hum..." You can say "hum..." all you like, and you can express "that in your opinion, xxx happened", but you cannot start from smoke and then state "that means there is fire." That is flawed logic. Opinions are wonderful things, and sharing them on these forums enriches us all, but express them as opinions and not facts if you want them to be accepted. [8D]

AW1Steve -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 6:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phanatik I'm quite willing to defer on legal matters to those more knowledgeable on such, and withdraw my statement. If someone more knowledgeable with access to all the documentation with no axe to grind presents a more formal refutation that proves that the smoke which started Dec. 7th is only smoke and no fire, I'd be happy with that as well. Until then, I reserve the right to say "hum..." That's quite nice of you! Basically it's equivalent to saying "I'm quite willing to belive the accused is guilty till proven innocent. All you have to do is prove his innoccence to my satisfaction". That's up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?" in the fair question category. [:D]

noguaranteeofsanity -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 6:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xj900uk Agreed. Everyone expected war by around March-April '42 along traditional 'european' lines (which is what MacArthur had been told to expect by Washington, he reckoned by then the PI defence forece would just about be properly trained up and equipped OK so that the islands could defend themselves without too much aid/support from the mainland) although US Naval Intelligence had not discounted the idea of a surprise sneak attack by the IJN before an official declaration of war. However everyone thought it owuld be in the Phillipines. The idea of the KB just sailing into Hawaiian waters completely undetected and launching a massive devestating carrier strike just didn't enter the minds or imagination of the US politicians or planners. How the US air force in the PI came to be caught on the ground and on the open several hours after the attack on PH (and had been forearmed and warned to expect an attack at any time) is a very interesting issue, one which MacArthur managed to extricate himself from with some difficulty but is still worthy of debate even today... Agree as well, the US had after all given Japan an ultimatum and they were either going to accept or have to go to war. What they were expecting was the possibility of War Plan Orange and not Pearl Harbour. While I have to admit I am personally no fan of MacArthur and certainly don't think he deserved the Medal of Honour for the defense of the Phillipines, despite my rebuttal above. But that is mostly based on his view/opinion of Australian troops during the Kokoda campaign and well, MacArthur being the way he was. Although then again Blamey really was just as bad in that sense, but now we are getting off-topic. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Phanatik - 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: ORIGINAL: Phanatik A federal court presided over by a Federal Judge, appointed by... FDR? Again, I'm not a lawyer but, I did learn that Lend Lease was illegal. Local/State/Federal/International? Who cares now? And I'm referring to war material, not biscuits. I very much doubt it is illegal, because the US has been doing that for a very long time. South Korea, South Vietnam, Kuwait, Israel and even Iraq during the war with Iran, are just a few more examples. About the only time I can think of when it was considered illegal, was when Oliver North traded with the Contras, but that was something entirely different. Edit: Seems some more well-informed minds had already answered this above, before I got the chance to post.

Phanatikk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 6:34:49 PM)
AW1Steve, Despite all of the legal talk, this is not a court of law, so jurisprudence is not in vogue. I can believe that FDR (who was a progressive and believed that the ends justified the means) has blood on his hands, without being fair to FDR in the least. Look at it this way - Short and Kimmel may have been hung out to dry for something that FDR was responsible for. So, they are guilty until proven innocent? It was "fair" for them to possibly have taken one for the team, because YES, in the long run, it was better for the U.S. to be in the war rather than not? 1. FDR wants in the war. 2. ? 3. Profit Cheers

AW1Steve -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 7:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phanatik AW1Steve, Despite all of the legal talk, this is not a court of law, so jurisprudence is not in vogue. I can believe that FDR (who was a progressive and believed that the ends justified the means) has blood on his hands, without being fair to FDR in the least. Look at it this way - Short and Kimmel may have been hung out to dry for something that FDR was responsible for. So, they are guilty until proven innocent? It was "fair" for them to possibly have taken one for the team, because YES, in the long run, it was better for the U.S. to be in the war rather than not? 1. FDR wants in the war. 2. ? 3. Profit Cheers The charge against Short and Kimmel was that they did not do everything within their power or ability to safeguard their commands. They were found guilty. FDR was never tried, as the US Congress , which investigated , didn't find sufficient evidence to charge him. (Let alone impeach him). ALL POLITICAL leaders , in time of war, have blood on their hands. The only question is , was it murder or justifiable homicide? FDR had plenty of opportunity to go to war from 1937 (The USS Panay) onward. You have no proof,no evidence, lots of speculation, innuendo,and a whole boatload of ridiculous statements which are being made strictly for the purpose of causing agitation,controversy and all around bad feelings. "For the good of the order" , I ask you to PLEASE return to the basic question . If you really believe your theory, then I urge you to research the subject,gather your evidence, and either by yourself, or by joining with like minded individuals and publish your case. I for one would be more then willing to buy the book and consider your words. But not here , under the conditions and constraints of this forum. It simply doesn't belong. [:)]

Nikademus -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 7:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk 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? US arms manufacturers made a killing during WWI before entry into that conflict. They'd have been happy to fill orders to the Central Powers except that there was the not so small problem of the UK's war zone blockade. [:D] Germany challenged the legality of that which was fair at the time (in an eye for an eye fashion). During WWII they could also challenge the legality of FDR's "neutrality patrol" and the virtual undeclared shooting war against military german vessels. Lend-Lease and trade? Don't see a legal issue here. Its a pisser (to Hitler).....but not illegal.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 7:37:00 PM)
Kimmel and Short were responsible for their commands. They failed in their duty to them in numerous ways and were found to have failed them in both their court martials and numerous congressional hearings. Bloch always seems to escape lightly. Regarding: quote: 1. FDR wants in the war. 2. ? 3. Profit Assuming 'profit' = FDR gets in the war, I think the ? = Japan attacked PH. You think the ? = Roosevelt, War Dept., Navy Dept. and/or State Dept. conspired to deny vital information to local commanders in order to ensure a successful surprise attack against PH. You're entitled your opinion but all of the conspiracy issues that I can think of were either shot down or explained to my satisfaction a long time ago, that probably won't change. I imagine your opinion won't as well. Odd footnote, I think the last person that brought up the revisionist PH view in a previous thread was also connected to the USN.

JWE -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 7:37:53 PM)
The vast majority of professional historians, who have access to more documentation than you could possibly imagine, have provided formal, and peer reviewed, refutations in professional journals too numerous to mention. Facts are generally not at issue. Facts are either verifiable as fact, or dismissed as apocrypha. What is at issue is interpretation of fact. Interpretation is a personal exercise, and has a great deal to do with whatever particular axe the author is looking to grind. History is not a science, it is a social study, with emphasis on the ‘study’. No one knows the ‘truth’, because there is no ‘truth’. There is only process and the interactions of process between and among thousands of participants with varying, disjoint, and often conflicting/opposing communication paths. To suggest that anyone was in position to control events presumes a degree of prescience and omniscience that is outside the human experience. There is also no such thing as “recently unclassified documents, available to a few”. This is a peculiar world view propounded by those who watch and believe Hollywood spy movies. I worked, for many years, for what one might call the intelligence community, and that belief is the purest bull$hit. Mr Stinnett didn’t see anything that wasn’t available to everyone else, and long before Mr Stinnett could have accessed them. Mr Stinnett (and others) are grinding their own particular axes for their own particular purposes (as does everyone else). Anyone, however, who presents interpretive conclusions as somehow “factual” deserves all the rockets they get up their butt. (btw and fyi, it should be cryptographic. Cryptologic is a non sequitor.)

anarchyintheuk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 7:38:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk 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? US arms manufacturers made a killing during WWI before entry into that conflict. They'd have been happy to fill orders to the Central Powers except that there was the not so small problem of the UK's war zone blockade. [:D] Germany challenged the legality of that which was fair at the time (in an eye for an eye fashion). During WWII they could also challenge the legality of FDR's "neutrality patrol" and the virtual undeclared shooting war against military german vessels. Lend-Lease and trade? Don't see a legal issue here. Its a pisser (to Hitler).....but not illegal. The US did sell to that UBoat that made it accross in 1916 or so. Don't remember what they bought.

Nikademus -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 7:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE There is also no such thing as “recently unclassified documents, available to a few”. This is a peculiar world view propounded by those who watch and believe Hollywood spy movies. I worked, for many years, for what one might call the intelligence community, and that belief is the purest bull$hit. Mr Stinnett didn’t see anything that wasn’t available to everyone else, and long before Mr Stinnett could have accessed them. If only there had been Wiki-leaks.......

Terminus -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 7:49:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk 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? US arms manufacturers made a killing during WWI before entry into that conflict. They'd have been happy to fill orders to the Central Powers except that there was the not so small problem of the UK's war zone blockade. [:D] Germany challenged the legality of that which was fair at the time (in an eye for an eye fashion). During WWII they could also challenge the legality of FDR's "neutrality patrol" and the virtual undeclared shooting war against military german vessels. Lend-Lease and trade? Don't see a legal issue here. Its a pisser (to Hitler).....but not illegal. The US did sell to that UBoat that made it accross in 1916 or so. Don't remember what they bought. Mostly strategic metals, if I remember correctly. Interesting story, the cruise of the Deutschland...

Phanatikk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 7:50:47 PM)
JWE, As to documentation, and who can see what, per Stinnett Pres. Carter declassified a number of documents pertaining to this topic, which previous scholars(?) would not have had access to, including some PH commissions. I don't know if Pres. Carter ever watched any spy movies. BTW & FYI I have a ton of old paperwork, some awards, and such that would disagree with you RE: Cryptologic. But thanks for correcting me about what I spent 8 years doing. I'll inform the Navy they've got it wrong. You can google it, but everyone knows you can't trust the internet. I didn't type this. I wasn't here. Cheers

LoBaron -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 8:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE The vast majority of professional historians, who have access to more documentation than you could possibly imagine, have provided formal, and peer reviewed, refutations in professional journals too numerous to mention. Facts are generally not at issue. Facts are either verifiable as fact, or dismissed as apocrypha. What is at issue is interpretation of fact. Interpretation is a personal exercise, and has a great deal to do with whatever particular axe the author is looking to grind. History is not a science, it is a social study, with emphasis on the ‘study’. No one knows the ‘truth’, because there is no ‘truth’. There is only process and the interactions of process between and among thousands of participants with varying, disjoint, and often conflicting/opposing communication paths. To suggest that anyone was in position to control events presumes a degree of prescience and omniscience that is outside the human experience. There is also no such thing as “recently unclassified documents, available to a few”. This is a peculiar world view propounded by those who watch and believe Hollywood spy movies. I worked, for many years, for what one might call the intelligence community, and that belief is the purest bull$hit. Mr Stinnett didn’t see anything that wasn’t available to everyone else, and long before Mr Stinnett could have accessed them. Mr Stinnett (and others) are grinding their own particular axes for their own particular purposes (as does everyone else). Anyone, however, who presents interpretive conclusions as somehow “factual” deserves all the rockets they get up their butt. (btw and fyi, it should be cryptographic. Cryptologic is a non sequitor.) Great summary. [:)] Although admittedly that should be obvious to most who stopped taking Erich van Däniken wannabes for full when they reached the age of 12...

Terminus -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 8:11:52 PM)
Phanatik, when one says "I rest my case" as you did several posts ago, one is supposed to stop talking.

Phanatikk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 8:24:15 PM)
If my wife can change her mind, so can I.

Nikademus -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 8:25:24 PM)
some day i have to read that book. It gets slammed so much.

JWE -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 8:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: JWE There is also no such thing as “recently unclassified documents, available to a few”. This is a peculiar world view propounded by those who watch and believe Hollywood spy movies. I worked, for many years, for what one might call the intelligence community, and that belief is the purest bull$hit. Mr Stinnett didn’t see anything that wasn’t available to everyone else, and long before Mr Stinnett could have accessed them. If only there had been Wiki-leaks....... Yeah, well duh, Nik. Wiki-leaks can get some of the same raw feed that the intelligence community gets. They put their own spin (interpretation) on it and grind some axes. Their existence, alone, says there's no "ultra secret, hidden commitee" crap going on. Government must speak to whole of the demos. Detail and specificity must suffer. This allows localized axe grinders to make what they will of specific actions. Urinating on detail is fun and gets headlines, but misses the main point. Fact might be fun, and worth the 5 minutes of fame, but it has to be internalized within the context.

vettim89 -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 8:51:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phanatik A federal court presided over by a Federal Judge, appointed by... FDR? First, let me say that there is plenty of information out there that could be used to support the claim that the Short/Kimmel should have known that the PH attack was coming. Some of that material has been around since 1941 and some of it has been unearthed only recently. The problem is that after the fact, it is easy to piece the fragments of intel together and see that the signs were there. That is an unfair and inaccurate way to view the circumstances surrounding the PH disaster. Everybody's a genious when using hindsight. Second, you are using some of the classic techniques that are common to almost every conspiracy theory. 1. Discredit those agencies directly responsible for monitoring or investigating the event in question as being "in on it". Your above comment is an example of that 2. Take partial truths and distort them or take them out of context to support your argument. You argument about Lend-Lease being unconsitutional is an example of that maneuver 3. Claim that there are documents out there that prove your point even though you nor anyone else can produce these documents. Your posts are littered with such claims 4. Take on an air of superiority/arrogance that only you and those that believe like you are "enlightened" unlike the rest of us gullible, naive fools 5. Challenge others to prove your position false instead of proving your point true. Telling others to file a FOIA petition when you could do so yourself. Personally when I saw this post, I was hoping it would be ignored because I saw this coming. I will probably be reprimanded for making this too personal so if you don't see me for a few weeks, oh well. You will find that this forum is filled with incredibly insightful, knowledgable and courteous people who enjoy open debate. Quite frankly, I don't think it is appropriate to disregard and belittle other's opinions just because they disagree with you

anarchyintheuk -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 8:53:06 PM)
Read it. It's kinda like reading Mosier. You know its wrong but it's thought/anger provoking. Read it side by side w/ Prange.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 9:00:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE There is also no such thing as “recently unclassified documents, available to a few”. This is a peculiar world view propounded by those who watch and believe Hollywood spy movies. I worked, for many years, for what one might call the intelligence community, and that belief is the purest bull$hit. Mr Stinnett didn’t see anything that wasn’t available to everyone else, and long before Mr Stinnett could have accessed them. There was a news report last week that a new trove of privately-held FDR documents HAS just been released to researchers. The article I read in my local paper said that Doris Kearns Goodwin, one of the preeminent FDR historians, had not seen them and was rubbing her hands to get a look. This is one report of the release: http://chicagopressrelease.com/entertainment/national-archives-reveals-newly-donated-fdr-papers-ap Quote: "WASHINGTON – A handwritten letter from fascist Italian dictator Benito Mussolini congratulating President Franklin D. Roosevelt on his inauguration, and a note from a woman who had a brief affair with Roosevelt were shown to the public for the first time Wednesday at the National Archives. The 5,000 documents and gifts collected by Roosevelt’s secretaries include a note from Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd, who had an affair with Roosevelt that forever changed his marriage to Eleanor Roosevelt when she discovered the infidelity in 1918. Rutherfurd wrote Roosevelt’s personal secretary, Grace Tully, a week before his death in 1945 to arrange a visit with a portrait painter and photographer. The “Unfinished Portrait” was in progress when he collapsed and died. The meetings with Rutherfurd were kept secret from Eleanor Roosevelt until after her husband’s death, and the letter is evidence Tully was involved in communications between Rutherfurd and Roosevelt. The 14 boxes of items had been sealed with duct tape for years, and were considered the last great privately-held collection of papers for Roosevelt’s presidential library in Hyde Park, N.Y."

warspite1 -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 9:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phanatik For Warspite1: A loss of sovereignty would occur for the Japanese if they allowed the U.S. to determine Japanese policy for a war in China, which the U.S. wasn't involved in and should have no say in. Again, it was simply FDR trying to provoke the Japanese. Warspite1 Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory - well according to Wki anyway [;)] China was never for the Japanese to rule over - it was for the Chinese. FDR was perfectly within his rights to "provoke" the Japanese into getting the hell out of there. He tried to do it peacefully, but Japan would not take the hint. The US action did not mean Japan had to choose war, but having done so, when she had another, perfectly peaceful option she could have pursued, was ultimately her problem - or more accurately, that of her people.

witpqs -> RE: The Truth about Pearl Harbor (8/3/2010 9:22:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity So the lack of available evidence ... is evidence ...? FYI, this is a standard line of reasoning included in various wacky conspiracy theories. [sm=character0229.gif] This is a Sec Level 5 response. [sm=character0229.gif] [sm=character0229.gif] This is a Sec Level 5 response. [sm=character0229.gif] [sm=character0229.gif] For members of the Double-Secret Committee only. [sm=character0229.gif] [sm=character0229.gif] For members of the Double-Secret Committee only. [sm=character0229.gif] [sm=character0229.gif] All others avert your eyes. [sm=character0229.gif] [sm=character0229.gif] All others avert your eyes. [sm=character0229.gif]

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.609375