Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 4:19:22 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I think the whole problem is alien lizard people posing as humans with some clever make-up.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 151
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 6:00:54 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Yes, this it a good point. To think that three political systems so divergent as that of the US, Japan and Germany could have co-existed for any length of time is not realistic. The US with it's own economic priorities just could not survive the ascendancy of Japan and Germany. War with both powers was just simply inevitable, and to suggest that the US would have backed away from continued successes by the Axis is just foolish. We could not have stood the economic burden much less the social and political. The fall of the UK would have actually accelerated conflict with Hitler regardless of what Japan did. The conflict might have lasted 20 years for the US instead of 4 but there could only have been one power standing when it was over. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

There is another paradigm that informs this decision. The US spent multi-millions supporting the Western Allies.

A ways ago, wars were won and the cost was paid from reparations by the losers. As wars became more national, the costs grew to where nothing but ultimate victory would pay for the effort. Back in War-I, nobody would make peace because of the cost. Both sides wanted peace, but neither side could pay for it, if it didn’t involve reparations.

Ok, so here we are in 1940, and the same financial constraints obtain. What ‘cha gonna do? Spend the money and support your allies; and put yourself into a financial hole, or what?
Ciao. JWE


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 152
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 6:25:14 PM   
desicat

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
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.

I have been trying to figure out what you found offensive in my comment and it may be possible you misunderstood my intent.

The nature of the North Korean threat and military deployment is such that if hostilities break out the city of Seoul would sustain heavy damage and many civilians and military detachments within artillery range of the DMZ would become casualties. This does not take into account DPRK Possible nuclear warhead possibilities.

I do not think having US military forces deployed to the DMZ as a "tripwire" should be considered as "mass murder" for the political establishment in charge in the case of the outbreak of hostilities.

Consider the actual Korean War. I do not consider Eisenhower guilty of "mass murder" for his policy of holding the 38th parallel and not using US naval and amphibious superiority to flank the line and liberate all of Korea. The survivors of Pork Chop Hill and Old Baldy may disagree, but strategic decisions take priority over tactical ones.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 153
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 6:57:51 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, this it a good point. To think that three political systems so divergent as that of the US, Japan and Germany could have co-existed for any length of time is not realistic. The US with it's own economic priorities just could not survive the ascendancy of Japan and Germany. War with both powers was just simply inevitable, and to suggest that the US would have backed away from continued successes by the Axis is just foolish. We could not have stood the economic burden much less the social and political. The fall of the UK would have actually accelerated conflict with Hitler regardless of what Japan did. The conflict might have lasted 20 years for the US instead of 4 but there could only have been one power standing when it was over. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

warspite1

This was a point I made earlier. FDR was not a warmonger for putting pressure on Japan to quit China (even though his economic policies were likely to lead to that) nor was he a warmonger for realising the danger of Nazi Germany.

He was simply prescient in understanding that the US had two choices: fight now with European Allies - or fight later against a much stronger, victorious Germany.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 154
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 9:44:18 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think the whole problem is alien lizard people posing as humans with some clever make-up.


Did you just accuse me of being clever? I will not stand for it. Sitting is less tiring.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 155
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 9:57:51 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat


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.

I have been trying to figure out what you found offensive in my comment and it may be possible you misunderstood my intent.

The nature of the North Korean threat and military deployment is such that if hostilities break out the city of Seoul would sustain heavy damage and many civilians and military detachments within artillery range of the DMZ would become casualties. This does not take into account DPRK Possible nuclear warhead possibilities.

I do not think having US military forces deployed to the DMZ as a "tripwire" should be considered as "mass murder" for the political establishment in charge in the case of the outbreak of hostilities.

Consider the actual Korean War. I do not consider Eisenhower guilty of "mass murder" for his policy of holding the 38th parallel and not using US naval and amphibious superiority to flank the line and liberate all of Korea. The survivors of Pork Chop Hill and Old Baldy may disagree, but strategic decisions take priority over tactical ones.


I was probably tippling a bit. I see that there are other possible interpretations of what you said. It's just that I get annoyed with isolationists who accuse FDR of starting anything especially considering his foresight of globalization which has advanced far beyond what he was immediately dealing with. Today it's only too clear that what is done in one part of the world may have rapid and substantial consequences in any other part of the world.

On another note, If I was him and I knew (likely more than he actually knew) about what was happening to the Jews in Europe, I would have done whatever was necessary to stop it, and my conscience would be clear if it was necessary to not be transparent about it, as Presidents are never transparent unless they're really f***ing up. That was true then and it's still true today.


< Message edited by geofflambert -- 1/10/2015 10:58:25 PM >

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 156
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 10:05:59 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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.


I believe I asked people to be polite. There is no need to attack someone personally for having differing ideas. The idea that FDR knew is an old idea that has been kicked around by many over the years.

The facts point to it being rather unlikely that he knew, but no smoking gun evidence that he did or didn't know does not exist. Or at least has never been made public. When there is some kind of conspiracy, often people who were involved will confess to it many years later. In some cases to clear their consciences in their last years. I am not aware of this happening with Pearl Harbor and the FDR administration and/or people near the top of the US military at the time.

I don't personally believe FDR knew, but I'm open to kicking around some ideas. Maybe I'll learn something?

Our entire civilization can thank those who thought differently for most of the biggest advances in technology, science, and general thought. Like they say about art, 99% of it is junk. 99% of ideas are junk too. But if you don't let the junk exist, there will be no Beethovens, no Einsteins, no Wegeners, no Xerox PARC.

Weak ideas won't stand up to counter arguments. There is no need to take down the person with the idea too.

Bill



_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Olorin)
Post #: 157
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 10:22:17 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline 		hands clapping without a smile, tho I came close myself, I guess.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 158
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 10:23:37 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat
I have been trying to figure out what you found offensive in my comment and it may be possible you misunderstood my intent.

The nature of the North Korean threat and military deployment is such that if hostilities break out the city of Seoul would sustain heavy damage and many civilians and military detachments within artillery range of the DMZ would become casualties. This does not take into account DPRK Possible nuclear warhead possibilities.

I do not think having US military forces deployed to the DMZ as a "tripwire" should be considered as "mass murder" for the political establishment in charge in the case of the outbreak of hostilities.

Consider the actual Korean War. I do not consider Eisenhower guilty of "mass murder" for his policy of holding the 38th parallel and not using US naval and amphibious superiority to flank the line and liberate all of Korea. The survivors of Pork Chop Hill and Old Baldy may disagree, but strategic decisions take priority over tactical ones.


Putting troops somewhere where they would be the first casualties in a war is actually one way for a strong military power to keep the peace. It's a promise to any would be aggressors that if they harm the strong military power's troops, their war will get very large very fast. The US did the same thing around Shanghai and the lower Yangtze River after the Japanese took the Chinese parts of the city. The US Marines and Navy had a contingent there that promised Japan that if they were too aggressive around Shanghai, they risked the US coming into the war in China against them.

The USS Panay incident in 1937 when a US gunboat on the Yangtze was attacked by the Japanese almost started the Pacific War 4 years earlier than it did.

American troops in South Korea make the North Koreans hesitate from attacking the South because they can't do it without attacking US troops and drawing the US into the war. The strategy has worked for nearly 60 years.

It's a strategy of putting a relative few troops potentially in harm's way to prevent a major war that would put a lot of troops in harms way. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it works at least for a while.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 159
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/10/2015 10:50:44 PM   
Nami Koshino


Posts: 100
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Salem, Oregon
Status: offline 		I think this theory persists because many in this nation still feel that it was simply impossible for the United States to be completely and utterly fooled. For some bizarre reason, we find it more comforting to think that someone in a position of power in our nation was the clever traitor and helped our enemies to gain an advantage. Surly, no foreigner could match an American for imagination, ingenuity and cleverness. In that sense the “FDR knew” theory is very comforting. It essentially absolves everyone except the nefarious Roosevelt and his diabolical cronies; it implies that everyone else, and all their procedures, decisions, organizations and attitudes, were impeccable. If only a better man had been in charge, this fairy tale goes, the yellow horde wouldn’t have succeeded.

That arrogance was certainly the case before the entry of the United States into WWII. Throw in a side order of racism and you have a much clearer view as to how our government, particularly the military and state department intelligence services, could have underestimated the capabilities of our potential enemies.

Poor communications, an inefficient intelligence gathering and dissemination system, poor rules of engagement and a totally inadequate command structure is what caused the Pearl Harbor disaster. It was not a conspiracy. It was simply a nation and a government operating on inadequate information making assumptions that were not valid about an enemy who was more capable than we had anticipated.

This level of arrogance persisted well after Pearl Harbor even when we were on a war footing. The 1942 Savo Island debacle. The surprise 1944 German offensive in the Ardennes. The 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam. It happens in other nations as well. Israel was stunned by the extent of the 1973 Arab offensive just six years after humiliating them in the 1967 war. The UK was caught unawares by the Argentine descent of the Falklands. And Stalin's excuses for ignoring what was coming his way seem incredible in retrospect if not for his well-known pathological distrust of even his inner circle.

The 9-11 attack was a classic replay of the failure of our government to act responsibly. Just as I am sure that FDR hating conspiracy nuts will continue on their ignorant path, there will be those from the Bush hating side of the coin who will see conspiracies in that man. In the end, the failures are quite clear and easy to analyze. However, we as a nation will always be unwilling to face the reality that others who hate us, may be willing and able to strike at us in ways that we did not anticipate. This insures that similar tragedies as Pearl Harbor will occur again. That is the real conspiracy.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 160
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/11/2015 8:07:49 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Good post. As you said many - if not all - conspiracy theories have in common that the explanation the conspiracy theory offers is more comforting - or less frightening.

Something similar is true for natural science. The Theory of Evolution and ID/Creationism are overused but perfect examples for this phenomenon.


_____________________________


(in reply to Nami Koshino)
Post #: 161
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/11/2015 11:08:55 AM   
urtel


Posts: 125
Joined: 9/6/2013
Status: offline
Same way ppl argue against conspiracy theory by recalling events from past we can recall some other events who pushing incidents to get into war, like fill passenger ship with ammunition and send it into submarine infested waters, or have be attacked by your planes and call that enemy attack, or some small shooting over unimportant bridge, or fantasy WMD etc..
But never in history anyone was push to war by destroying huge part of his own forces to create cause belly, that is simply wrong...
Imagine i want to get into bar fight with you and i want to look u are start it and in process of that i cut mine right hand, that is crazy, with what will now i fight?

but second part of OP question is much more interesant to me and that is "what if" Japan fleet is discover on way...
now we can divide this in 3 situations:

1. early discovery on first 1/3 of journey(they stil not get order for attack at this point)
- i think fleet will just pretend it is on traning mission and go back, then try it some other time but with very small chance to get same surprise...

2. middle discovery, now this is most tricky let as say fleet is discover by submarine 2 days before geting into launch position
- this is tricky and i will like you option what will they do and if that is press attack what will be results?

3. late discovery, couple of hours up to half day befre geting to position
- i think in this position they will for sure press attack and i think result will be pretty much same, hours will pass before spotting get to right place and confirmations will be asked before general alarm will be sound and nothing will be done in mean time... KB will get to launch position, actually it can even go worse imagine many pilots driving in Jeep's or just siting into planes when attack happened that will kill good number of them, on other side AA fire will probably be better, i m pretty sure no big ship will have time to get out of harbour and if it get it will be easy target...

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 162
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/11/2015 11:22:52 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Good post. As you said many - if not all - conspiracy theories have in common that the explanation the conspiracy theory offers is more comforting - or less frightening.

Something similar is true for natural science. The Theory of Evolution and ID/Creationism are overused but perfect examples for this phenomenon.



Can we please avoid religious opinions.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 163
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/11/2015 1:08:13 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Absolutely Bill. Although it was not my intent to voice a religious opinion and I would argue that my post does neither, I do see your point.

Sorry for that.



_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 164
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/11/2015 5:52:34 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Original, Lecivius:

"Not I, and I agree 100% with the revered Canoe man. Tin foil hats belong in the Distant Worlds forum"

End Quote

I like my Tin foil hat...<grin>

Tin Foiler Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 165
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/23/2015 7:39:58 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

6) Battleships in port are quite vulnerable to a carrier raid. HMS Illustrious with 21 bi-plane torpedo bombers did this to the Italian Fleet at Taranto 13 months earlier, sinking one BB and crippling two others (The Japanese Navy took note of this).


A fairly good analysis, but this point is questionable. The USN was aware of the Taranto raid, but did not believe that it could be duplicated at Pearl Harbor because the depth of the water was too shallow. Any air-dropped torpedo was supposed to impact the bottom instead of running to its target. (Unfortunately for the USN, the Japanese were aware of the water depth, and specially modified their torpedoes with wooden fins.) In a similar vein, air-dropped bombs were not supposed to be able to pierce battleship deck armor; in the early days of WWII Churchill pushed to up-armor the "R" class battleships so they could ignore Stukas. (Happily, the Admiralty had more important things to do with their shipyard capacity.) The 800 Kg bomb was a nasty surprise.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 166
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/23/2015 9:45:58 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

The 800 Kg bomb was a nasty surprise.


It apparently was a nasty surprise to the IJN as well. Of the 10 hits at Pearl Harbor, 6 detonated at a low order of detonation and essentially caused only minor damage. Exactly 1 functioned as hoped for (spectacularly on the USS Arizona); but completely obscuring the relatively poor performance of this weapon system.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 167
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/23/2015 9:46:51 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

The 800 Kg bomb was a nasty surprise.


It apparently was a nasty surprise to the IJN as well. Of the 10 hits at Pearl Harbor, 6 detonated at a low order of detonation and essentially caused only minor damage. Exactly 1 functioned as hoped for (spectacularly on the USS Arizona); but its one success completely obscured the relatively poor performance of this weapon system.


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 168
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/23/2015 11:34:13 PM   
tigercub


Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline 		Stalin was told that the Germans were going to attack and did nil....funny that! (same as US thinking head in the sand stuff?)

The Tripartite Pact, also known as the Berlin Pact, was an agreement between Germany, Italy and Japan (Axis) signed in Berlin on 27 September 1940 by, respectively, Adolf Hitler, Galeazzo Ciano and Saburô Kurusu

Germany going to war in June 1941 must have made it more likely Japan would attack?

The idea that FDR knew (unlikely) is an old idea that has been kicked Around.(but the US military should have known better)


Tiger

< Message edited by tigercub -- 1/24/2015 12:51:39 AM >

_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 169
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/24/2015 4:20:01 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Stalin was told that the Germans were going to attack and did nil....funny that! (same as US thinking head in the sand stuff?)

The Tripartite Pact, also known as the Berlin Pact, was an agreement between Germany, Italy and Japan (Axis) signed in Berlin on 27 September 1940 by, respectively, Adolf Hitler, Galeazzo Ciano and Saburô Kurusu

Germany going to war in June 1941 must have made it more likely Japan would attack?

The idea that FDR knew (unlikely) is an old idea that has been kicked Around.(but the US military should have known better)


Tiger


To be fair Stalin had no reason to believe Richard Sorge until he had some sort of track record. After the intelligence in June proved to be true, Stalin was more ready to believe Sorge when he told the Russians that the Japanese were going to war with Britain and the US.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 170
RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor - 1/24/2015 10:38:58 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

To be fair Stalin had no reason to believe Richard Sorge until he had some sort of track record. After the intelligence in June proved to be true, Stalin was more ready to believe Sorge when he told the Russians that the Japanese were going to war with Britain and the US.

Bill

True.

But this was not the only indications and reports about the imminent German attack that Stalin got, and he decided to ignore them all, when the cost to ignore them where high, and the cost to increase the threat level was low.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 171
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.094