Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The part about the "they knew there was going to be an attack" theory that I can never fathom is why they would have to act like they didn't know for the ploy to be effective, regardless of where they thought the ball was going to drop. 

One explanation would be that they didn't know 'specifically' where/when an attack would take place but that it was likely. Like i said, i don't think Roosevelt knew specifically that PH was going to be attacked, hence I don't buy into the Pearl Harbor betrayed conspiracy theory. I havn't read the book which generates so much angst on Internet boards. I do at least give benefit of the doubt on speculations on matters of Higher policy and the actions and movements of forces that were implemented prior to the suprise attack. Did Roosevelt consider PH as a target when he made the decision to move the Fleet to PH? What was going through his head? etc etc. I know at least one Fleet Admrial IIRC was against the move on strictly military premises.....the Fleet was about as safe and secure as it could be on the West Coast. It is far more likely that an attack, if expected would occur closer to Japan given there 'was' a serious underestimation of the [potential] enemy's military power. I do wonder sometimes. In the end though it may have just come down to mistakes and errors of judgement as Chez alluded too.

Nik, one thing that hasn't been discussed on this thread so far, but which might lend support to your point and points others are making, is the situation with Halsey and the Enterprise. Supposedly the Enterprise and Lexington were sent from Pearl Harbor to deliver planes to Wake and Midway, with the Enterprise supposedly scheduled to return to Pearl on Dec 6. Weather delayed the Enterprise so that it was in the waters off Pearl in time to get involved in the air battle on Dec 7. However, upon leaving Pearl, and before the actual attack, Halsey issued "Battle Order No. 1". He told his team that they were to be on a war footing. I don't have ready access to the full quote attributed to him, but supposedly he said they might encounter Japanese naval vessels and were to assume that they were unfriendly and so his plan was to shoot first and ask questions later. Halsey, for whatever reason, had an awareness of the possibility of a hostile encounter and apparently felt he was justified in engaging in combat without further orders from above. The fact that he was due back on Dec 6th might indicate that nobody knew for certain Pearl would be attacked on Dec 7th, but his order to his team would seem to indicate that higher authorities authorized him to engage Japanese forces who if encountered would be there for the purposes of making an attack. Do we have reason to believe that Halsey didn't instruct his team this way? If he did, do we have reason to believe he was acting completely on his own initiative? Was he a rogue? Is it perhaps the case that the Enterprise and/or Lexington were to be the pickets that made first contact with a potential attacking force? Prange, in At Dawn We Slept refers to Halsey's instructions to the Enterprise, but I don't think Prange adequately discusses it (cf. p. 420). Any thoughts on this?

[Marty A]

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Lastly, it could also be argued that the war FDR really wanted was with Germany in the first place. While picking a fight with the Japanese might get you a fight with Germany, but it wasn't the most secure choice in the world. And it could have really backfired as an excuse to get in the war if Hitler had been smart and not declared war on the US so soon. Without Germany's declaration of war on the US, the US public might have resisted getting seriously involved in Europe for quite a while (even though it probably would have happened eventually). '

Us had diplomatic codes that much is certain. if japan say to hitler support in war as some says they did then fdr would know that japanese attack anywhere would bring germany in. warning pearl at 4am would have alerted japanese embassy and they could have sent message to japan. again not saying they knew but just being devils helper.

[witpqs]

IIRC Japan was surprised when Germany declared war on the US, as Germany had been surprised to learn of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think claims about collusion before-hand are just conspiracy-theory speculations. Plenty of them out there!

[anarchyintheuk]

PH had already received a war warning. Halsey's battle order isn't anything out of the ordinary and wouldn't have contained shoot on sight order. Those would have been given verbally, if they were. He probably had tacit approval from Kimmel.


http://www.cv6.org/1941/btlord1/btlord1.htm

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

PH had already received a war warning. Halsey's battle order isn't anything out of the ordinary and wouldn't have contained shoot on sight order. Those would have been given verbally, if they were. He probably had tacit approval from Kimmel.


http://www.cv6.org/1941/btlord1/btlord1.htm

Prange elaborates but according to his footnote he is basing his information on the book Admiral Halsey's Story. Prange specifically mentions instructions (apparently verbal) to "regard any submarine seen as hostile and sink it" and "shoot down any plane seen in the air that was not known to be one of our own." (p. 420 from At Dawn We Slept). This has always intrigued me and it does seem to indicate an awarness of the possibility of an enemy fleet in the area. Now I wish I had the Halsey book to see the whole thing.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

PH had already received a war warning. Halsey's battle order isn't anything out of the ordinary and wouldn't have contained shoot on sight order. Those would have been given verbally, if they were. He probably had tacit approval from Kimmel.


http://www.cv6.org/1941/btlord1/btlord1.htm

Prange elaborates but according to his footnote he is basing his information on the book Admiral Halsey's Story. Prange specifically mentions instructions (apparently verbal) to "regard any submarine seen as hostile and sink it" and "shoot down any plane seen in the air that was not known to be one of our own." (p. 420 from At Dawn We Slept). This has always intrigued me and it does seem to indicate an awarness of the possibility of an enemy fleet in the area. Now I wish I had the Halsey book to see the whole thing.

interesting (if this is an exact quote) that Bull didn't make the same friendly/hostile distinction between subs that he did with airplanes...but, then again, he was a winged aviator (i think he got them in his 50's, and barely at that)...i think this was just "Bull being Bull"...i mean, he was the one who left the "world wondering" where TF 34 was when he went on his wild goose chase later in the war...

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The idea that Roosevelt or his advisers, definitively knew about a specific Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, is garbage, pure and simple.

That America as a whole was not as vigilant about a surprise attack as we should have been given certain clues is certainly true, but not because information was beleived but intentionally buried. This happened for any number of reasons that At Dawn We Slept does a pretty good job of laying out.

Anyone who believes that kind of conspiracy theory clap-trap probably believes the CIA killed Kennedy, or any number of ridiculous revisionist historical crap that's come down the pike. If it wasn't for Ben Affleck, maybe Oliver Stone would have produced a Pearl Harbor movie where the CIA arranged the whole thing to get us in the war.

So far I haven't seen anybody on this thread say that there was a conspiracy surrounding Pearl Harbor, and so far I haven't seen anybody say that Roosevelt "definitively knew" about the attack on Dec. 7th, so I guess we are safe from "garbage" on this thread, although one of the points of At Dawn We Slept was to argue against the various people who believed such "garbage". By the way, the book does indicate that the US knew of "plans" by the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, which is not the same as the US knowing about action on a specific date. I guess this is an emotional topic for people and we sometimes let our emotions overrule our reason. Take the Kennedy assasination for example. Your statement that anybody who believes it was a conspiracy is "revisionist" indicts a US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee. Whether or not you or I agree with them, The US House of Representatives commissioned their own study of the assassination which concluded there was a conspiracy. My point here is that you are much too quick to ridicule people who you disagree with, and you don't make yourself sound very reasonable in doing so.

United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
Main article: United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
Fifteen years after the Warren Commission issued its report, a congressional committee named the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reviewed the Warren Commission report and the underlying FBI report on which the Commission heavily relied. The Committee criticized the performance of both the Warren Commission and the FBI for failing to investigate whether other people conspired with Oswald to murder President Kennedy.[87] The Committee Report concluded that:

"[T]he FBI's investigation of whether there had been a conspiracy in President Kennedy's assassination was seriously flawed. The conspiracy aspects of the investigation were characterized by a limited approach and an inadequate application and use of available resource." (footnote 12)

The Committee found the Warren Commission's investigation equally flawed: "[T]he subject that should have received the Commission's most probing analysis — whether Oswald acted in concert with or on behalf of unidentified co-conspirators the Commission's performance, in the view of the committee, was in fact flawed." (footnote 13)

The Committee believed another primary cause of the Warren Commission's failure to adequately probe and analyze whether or not Oswald acted alone arose out of the lack of cooperation by the CIA. Finally, the Committee found that the Warren Commission inadequately investigated for a conspiracy because of: "[T]ime pressures and the desire of national leaders to allay public fears of a conspiracy."

The committee concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed him. The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory but concluded that it occurred at a time during the assassination that differed from what the Warren Commission had theorized. Their theory, based primarily on Dictabelt evidence, was that President Kennedy was assassinated probably as a result of a conspiracy. They proposed that four shots had been fired during the assassination; Oswald fired the first, second, and fourth bullets, and that (based on the acoustic evidence) there was a high probability that an unnamed second assassin fired the third bullet, but missed, from President Kennedy's right front, from a location concealed behind the grassy knoll picket fence.

Many years after the House Select Committee on Assassinations issued its report, the attorney G. Robert Blakey for the House Select Committee on Assassinations issued a statement to the news media calling into question the honesty of the CIA in its dealings with the Committee and the accuracy of the information given to it.

Surely if you've taken the time to research the findings of the HSCA you know they were prepared to issue a report that Oswald acted alone, and had even prepared a draft of the report with that position? You must also realize they only changed that to the second shot bit when they got last minute acoustic evidence? You must also realize that evidence was not properly researched and has since been throughly debunked? All of the cedible evidence points to a lone assasin. Oswald was a total loser and failure at everything he attempted save the one thing we're discussing. Putting him in the middle of a conspiracy elevates him far beyond anything he was capable of accomplishing.

Claiming a conspiracy in the Kennedy assasination is revisionist thinking. V Bugliosi got it right, time for all of of us to start "Reclaiming History"

[Jonathan Pollard]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I would say it's unsurprising. Look at any conspiracy issue . . . JFK, moon landing, 9/11, etc., the percentage of aluminum foil types is always 'surprising'.

It depends on who is supposed to have done the conspiring.

We need not look at Operation Northwoods, the Lavon Affair, or the other false flags of suppressed history. In 1999, a conspiracy of terror and control was deployed upon the Russian people to consolidate the transfer of power to Vladimir Putin, who was facing his first election, and to provide the pretext to invade Chechnya.

Four apartment complexes had been bombed and 300 killed. Putin promised to "liquidate all terrorists." He proclaimed Russia was facing a war between "good" and "evil." "It’s our boys," said Putin, fanning war fever and hysteria, "against terrorists" belonging to an "international Islamic conspiracy."

Residents in the city of Ryazan discovered a huge bomb in their basement and called the local police. Initially, federal authorities claimed terrorists had been thwarted, but when the perpetrators were apprehended shortly thereafter by Ryazan police, and found to be agents of Russia's security service FSB, the story changed: it was now claimed to have been an "exercise," and the sack of explosive hexogen was said to have contained nothing but "sugar." In 2002, an incurious Duma voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the bombing campaign.

The war in Chechnya is on-going. 10% of the Chechen population is dead. Thousands of Russian conscript soldiers are dead.

Disbelief, a documentary regarding the bombings and the revelation of state guilt, may be viewed here.

It's interesting to note how Western pundits who would likely dismiss as nonsense the mere suggestion of US government conspiracy have no problem at all assessing the Russian apartment bombings as state terror. David Satter, a fellow of the Hoover Institution and the Hudson Institute and former Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times of London, wrote "The Shadow of Ryazan" with funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation, an abbreviated version of which was published by The National Review.

It's funny how easily the generalized dismissals of conspiracy, such as how it meets a "psychological need," or that "something so big couldn't be kept a secret," vanish into one's political blind spots. That is, to the opinion makers, conspiracy can be the most reasonable explanation of events, so long as it's over there, and it's something they do. Satter finds the FSB guilty of waging a false-flag terror campaign against the Russian people and pronounces the Putin regime illegitimate, but don't expect him to be characterized as an "aluminum foil type" for it.

[Jonathan Pollard]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat
Many years after the House Select Committee on Assassinations issued its report, the attorney G. Robert Blakey for the House Select Committee on Assassinations issued a statement to the news media calling into question the honesty of the CIA in its dealings with the Committee and the accuracy of the information given to it.

Even our friends at FOX NEWS believed the CIA had "good" reason to be dishonest in its dealings with the Committee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvdS-1dcVxw

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: Caltone

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The idea that Roosevelt or his advisers, definitively knew about a specific Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, is garbage, pure and simple.

That America as a whole was not as vigilant about a surprise attack as we should have been given certain clues is certainly true, but not because information was beleived but intentionally buried. This happened for any number of reasons that At Dawn We Slept does a pretty good job of laying out.

Anyone who believes that kind of conspiracy theory clap-trap probably believes the CIA killed Kennedy, or any number of ridiculous revisionist historical crap that's come down the pike. If it wasn't for Ben Affleck, maybe Oliver Stone would have produced a Pearl Harbor movie where the CIA arranged the whole thing to get us in the war.

So far I haven't seen anybody on this thread say that there was a conspiracy surrounding Pearl Harbor, and so far I haven't seen anybody say that Roosevelt "definitively knew" about the attack on Dec. 7th, so I guess we are safe from "garbage" on this thread, although one of the points of At Dawn We Slept was to argue against the various people who believed such "garbage". By the way, the book does indicate that the US knew of "plans" by the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, which is not the same as the US knowing about action on a specific date. I guess this is an emotional topic for people and we sometimes let our emotions overrule our reason. Take the Kennedy assasination for example. Your statement that anybody who believes it was a conspiracy is "revisionist" indicts a US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee. Whether or not you or I agree with them, The US House of Representatives commissioned their own study of the assassination which concluded there was a conspiracy. My point here is that you are much too quick to ridicule people who you disagree with, and you don't make yourself sound very reasonable in doing so.

United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
Main article: United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
Fifteen years after the Warren Commission issued its report, a congressional committee named the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reviewed the Warren Commission report and the underlying FBI report on which the Commission heavily relied. The Committee criticized the performance of both the Warren Commission and the FBI for failing to investigate whether other people conspired with Oswald to murder President Kennedy.[87] The Committee Report concluded that:

"[T]he FBI's investigation of whether there had been a conspiracy in President Kennedy's assassination was seriously flawed. The conspiracy aspects of the investigation were characterized by a limited approach and an inadequate application and use of available resource." (footnote 12)

The Committee found the Warren Commission's investigation equally flawed: "[T]he subject that should have received the Commission's most probing analysis — whether Oswald acted in concert with or on behalf of unidentified co-conspirators the Commission's performance, in the view of the committee, was in fact flawed." (footnote 13)

The Committee believed another primary cause of the Warren Commission's failure to adequately probe and analyze whether or not Oswald acted alone arose out of the lack of cooperation by the CIA. Finally, the Committee found that the Warren Commission inadequately investigated for a conspiracy because of: "[T]ime pressures and the desire of national leaders to allay public fears of a conspiracy."

The committee concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed him. The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory but concluded that it occurred at a time during the assassination that differed from what the Warren Commission had theorized. Their theory, based primarily on Dictabelt evidence, was that President Kennedy was assassinated probably as a result of a conspiracy. They proposed that four shots had been fired during the assassination; Oswald fired the first, second, and fourth bullets, and that (based on the acoustic evidence) there was a high probability that an unnamed second assassin fired the third bullet, but missed, from President Kennedy's right front, from a location concealed behind the grassy knoll picket fence.

Many years after the House Select Committee on Assassinations issued its report, the attorney G. Robert Blakey for the House Select Committee on Assassinations issued a statement to the news media calling into question the honesty of the CIA in its dealings with the Committee and the accuracy of the information given to it.

Surely if you've taken the time to research the findings of the HSCA you know they were prepared to issue a report that Oswald acted alone, and had even prepared a draft of the report with that position? You must also realize they only changed that to the second shot bit when they got last minute acoustic evidence? You must also realize that evidence was not properly researched and has since been throughly debunked? All of the cedible evidence points to a lone assasin. Oswald was a total loser and failure at everything he attempted save the one thing we're discussing. Putting him in the middle of a conspiracy elevates him far beyond anything he was capable of accomplishing.

Claiming a conspiracy in the Kennedy assasination is revisionist thinking. V Bugliosi got it right, time for all of of us to start "Reclaiming History"

I didn't write the report, and I didn't make their conclusions, they did. The point I was making, which you seemed to have missed, is that not everybody that fails to accept the official opinion on something is a crazy (unless you have reason to believe that all of the individuals involved in that effort were, in fact crazy). What you have illustrated beautifully is that people jump to conclusions and let their emotions do their thinking. You assume something that I did not say or even imply or even believe. So what's your take, were the people involved in the HSCA just a bunch of crazies? Were they also acting on emotion and jumping to conclusions? I guess it's a shame if we have so many irresponsible people running our government.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

Nik, one thing that hasn't been discussed on this thread so far, but which might lend support to your point and points others are making, is the situation with Halsey and the Enterprise. Supposedly the Enterprise and Lexington were sent from Pearl Harbor to deliver planes to Wake and Midway, with the Enterprise supposedly scheduled to return to Pearl on Dec 6. Weather delayed the Enterprise so that it was in the waters off Pearl in time to get involved in the air battle on Dec 7. However, upon leaving Pearl, and before the actual attack, Halsey issued "Battle Order No. 1". He told his team that they were to be on a war footing. I don't have ready access to the full quote attributed to him, but supposedly he said they might encounter Japanese naval vessels and were to assume that they were unfriendly and so his plan was to shoot first and ask questions later. Halsey, for whatever reason, had an awareness of the possibility of a hostile encounter and apparently felt he was justified in engaging in combat without further orders from above. The fact that he was due back on Dec 6th might indicate that nobody knew for certain Pearl would be attacked on Dec 7th, but his order to his team would seem to indicate that higher authorities authorized him to engage Japanese forces who if encountered would be there for the purposes of making an attack. Do we have reason to believe that Halsey didn't instruct his team this way? If he did, do we have reason to believe he was acting completely on his own initiative? Was he a rogue? Is it perhaps the case that the Enterprise and/or Lexington were to be the pickets that made first contact with a potential attacking force? Prange, in At Dawn We Slept refers to Halsey's instructions to the Enterprise, but I don't think Prange adequately discusses it (cf. p. 420). Any thoughts on this?

Hi Tomcat,

My inclination is that this was more a case of Halsey chomping at the bit and not much more. Granted, it is an intriguing notion though. He was also prone to making grandiose declarations so he may have just been taking the war warning and gearing himself (and his men up) with the tough talk...ready made for the papers. Despite this, Halsey remained sensitive to how his actions might be interpreted by the higher ups. I recall the incident at Leyte after he thought Nimitz had censored him publically for his having ran off half cocked to engage Ozawa's decoy force. He thought it was the end of the world and would have sunk into gloom and doom if not for the support of his staff. Would he have attacked any Japanese forces he met? Maybe...its really hard to say. A war warning is one thing......being the person to pull the trigger and start a war is another.

Certainly it did represent an antsiness and sense of anticipation within USN circles. You could feel something was in the air. In that sense it does support contentions about setting the pieces in place to achieve a desired goal.

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: Marty A


Us had diplomatic codes that much is certain. if japan say to hitler support in war as some says they did then fdr would know that japanese attack anywhere would bring germany in. warning pearl at 4am would have alerted japanese embassy and they could have sent message to japan. again not saying they knew but just being devils helper.

From what I have read, Germany coming into the war if Japan attacked the US was not a given, at least not right away. If the US pre-empted and attacked Japan, then Germany would have been obligated to declare war by the Japan-Germany mutual defense clauses.

And I don't think a war alert to Pearl at 4 am (or just about any time that night) could have been transferred to the KB fast enough to call off the strike. And I am doubtful that they would have called the strike off anyways. IIRC, total surprise was desired, but not deemed essential to carry out the attack (at least as long as the Fleet was still in PH). A 4am warning is too late to get the Fleet out of port, but with the defenses pre-manned and CAP ready to go, the damage to the Fleet is probably a lot less severe and the damage to the First Air Fleet is probably a whole lot worse (first strike probably taking more damage than the second strike did).

And just as important, the B-17s and other non-fighter LBA are most likely at least off the ground when the strikes come in. Maybe the bases still get shot up, but the bombers are still available. Even better if the warning comes early enough to at least harass the KB with LB naval strikes (probably wouldn't hit anything based on the B-17s war record, but maybe they get lucky).

[Panther Bait]

I wouldn't be surprised that Halsey would have attacked enemy subs if they were spotted provocatively close to his ships. The ASW patrols around Pearl attacked one of the midget subs close to the entrance to Pearl before the attack planes had been sighted, so there must have been some sort of orders issued about dealing with subs that were being aggressive. Shooting down any unidentified planes might have been a little extreme though.

Mike

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

Nik, one thing that hasn't been discussed on this thread so far, but which might lend support to your point and points others are making, is the situation with Halsey and the Enterprise. Supposedly the Enterprise and Lexington were sent from Pearl Harbor to deliver planes to Wake and Midway, with the Enterprise supposedly scheduled to return to Pearl on Dec 6. Weather delayed the Enterprise so that it was in the waters off Pearl in time to get involved in the air battle on Dec 7. However, upon leaving Pearl, and before the actual attack, Halsey issued "Battle Order No. 1". He told his team that they were to be on a war footing. I don't have ready access to the full quote attributed to him, but supposedly he said they might encounter Japanese naval vessels and were to assume that they were unfriendly and so his plan was to shoot first and ask questions later. Halsey, for whatever reason, had an awareness of the possibility of a hostile encounter and apparently felt he was justified in engaging in combat without further orders from above. The fact that he was due back on Dec 6th might indicate that nobody knew for certain Pearl would be attacked on Dec 7th, but his order to his team would seem to indicate that higher authorities authorized him to engage Japanese forces who if encountered would be there for the purposes of making an attack. Do we have reason to believe that Halsey didn't instruct his team this way? If he did, do we have reason to believe he was acting completely on his own initiative? Was he a rogue? Is it perhaps the case that the Enterprise and/or Lexington were to be the pickets that made first contact with a potential attacking force? Prange, in At Dawn We Slept refers to Halsey's instructions to the Enterprise, but I don't think Prange adequately discusses it (cf. p. 420). Any thoughts on this?

Hi Tomcat,

My inclination is that this was more a case of Halsey chomping at the bit and not much more. Granted, it is an intriguing notion though. He was also prone to making grandiose declarations so he may have just been taking the war warning and gearing himself (and his men up) with the tough talk...ready made for the papers. Despite this, Halsey remained sensitive to how his actions might be interpreted by the higher ups. I recall the incident at Leyte after he thought Nimitz had censored him publically for his having ran off half cocked to engage Ozawa's decoy force. He thought it was the end of the world and would have sunk into gloom and doom if not for the support of his staff. Would he have attacked any Japanese forces he met? Maybe...its really hard to say. A war warning is one thing......being the person to pull the trigger and start a war is another.

Certainly it did represent an antsiness and sense of anticipation within USN circles. You could feel something was in the air. In that sense it does support contentions about setting the pieces in place to achieve a desired goal.

Nik, thanks for your insights. One thing I've learned from this long thread is that what I learned in history class wasn't necessarily so. I was taught that FDR did know, and until someone had given me At Dawn We Slept as a gift I had personally never encountered a historian that said otherwise. I guess I lived a "sheltered" life. Since the guy that taught me the "FDR knew" position was someone I looked up to and respected I've been a ltitle defensive on his behalf. My own military experience (Vietnam, JAGC) also taught me official verdicts are not always truthful verdicts, so I tend to take them with a grain of salt. Even in civilian life cases get overturned as new evidence comes to light, so I guess I'm not surprised when people re-examine things. Again, thanks for your patient and helpful insights.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat
I was taught that FDR did know.

Just curious, Tomcat. What school system were you attending when that "fact" was taught?

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tomcat
I was taught that FDR did know.

Just curious, Tomcat. What school system were you attending when that "fact" was taught?

I was an Army brat but it was a public high school that was not on the base. Half the students were "brats", and half from civilian parents, but the guy that taught the class was a retired Pentagon historian (colonel). That would have been in the 1963-1964 timeframe. Most recently my wife took a US history class at U of Texas at Arlington where she was taught the same thing, so that would have been about 8 or 9 years ago.

[CaptDave]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Anyone who believes that kind of conspiracy theory clap-trap probably believes the CIA killed Kennedy, or any number of ridiculous revisionist historical crap that's come down the pike. If it wasn't for Ben Affleck, maybe Oliver Stone would have produced a Pearl Harbor movie where the CIA arranged the whole thing to get us in the war.

What's really scary is the number of people who would believe it. The CIA didn't even exist at that time (Truman created it, and he later said it was one of the biggest mistakes he ever made; its original function was simply to be a funnel point for information coming form multiple sources, kind of like whatever was proposed in the last year or two, but not the spy organization it has become).

(My source, BTW, is "Plain Speaking," Truman's oral biography by Merle Miller, pp 391-2.)

[Canoerebel]

The CIA was created just after World War II - the new name for the Office of Strategic Services that was formed early in the War to deal with intelligence, counterintelligence, etc. The first commander of the OSS was William Donovan, a Medal of Honor recipient from World War I. So, just for the record, the CIA did exist at the time Kennedy was assassinated.

My father served in the OSS and I have known others who served in the OSS and CIA - good, honorable people without exception and patriotic Americans all. Naturally, there are bad apples in the bunch as there are wont to be in any group and organization, but I personally am thankful for the CIA and would have proudly served in it had the opportunity arisen.

[witpqs]

He meant the CIA did not exist at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack (although some people believe it arranged the attack to get the US in the war).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
(although some people believe it arranged the attack to get the US in the war).

Some people also believe that whatever "intelligent life" there is in the Universe has nothing better to do with it's time than visit trailer parks and probe the rectums of borderline mental defectives... [8|][:'(][:D]