How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of hindsight?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

Thats not how the Japanese saw it.

[vettim89]

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.

Why do journals have editorial boards? Why are articles "peer reviewed" prior to being published?

It is not to reject nor accept findings, conclusions, or even hypotheses. It is to verify the investigator used solid technique. What that means depends on the type of investigation. In hard science it has to do with controling variables, proper sample size, proper statistical analyses, and other easily defined criteria. History is harder but some of the same principles apply. Peer reviewed does not mean that authors position will be universally accpted but instead that it was found that proper technique was folowed in gathering the information.

Anybody can say anything. It may indeed be impossible for a variety of reasons to tell the veracity of any statement. However, we can examine how the person making the statement came to their conclusions. That is what peer reviewed means. That is why some sources are considered to be more valid than others.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

Thats not how the Japanese saw it.

Warspite1

Er...obviously not [&:]

The fact that they saw it differently and CHOSE war does not mean that FDR was complicit in the deaths of circa 2,400 US civilians and service personnel as is being alleged.

[Phanatikk]

For Vettim89: If I was meanspirited in any of my responses, please point them out to me and I will apologize. I rather thought I was being polite, even when I was labelled anti-U.S. and unpatriotic.

For someone else who mentioned Prange: Yes, his book is sitting by my bed as well. I have the 60th anniversary edition. I note he died in 1980 I believe, so I don't know if he ever got to view/include the declassified documents that Pres. Carter made available for his book.

Cheers

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


The fact that they saw it differently and CHOSE war does not mean that FDR was complicit in the deaths of circa 2,400 US civilians and service personnel as is being alleged.

nope....but i should have picked up the book at the used bookstore. [:D] The piss and vinegar that the mere mention of the book makes just makes me wonder sometimes. Deja-vu for me. (back on warships1.com) The outrage the book generated there make this thread seem like Barney meets Teletubbies.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
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.
....

You are supposed to be a lawyer, so perhaps you should think like one. Private is private. Heck, I have private files that no one can ever access, for forever. Once private files open they are public and open for all. Suggest a teensy bit more modern analysis of 17 and 35 USC.

Aw, hell. Who cares anyway. I mean je ne sais quoi is just an aftershave, yeah?

[Historiker]

I mean je ne sais quoi is just an aftershave, yeah?

I guess you'll have to prepare yourself better for Tahiti, my friend [;)]

[Historiker]

We have an author in Germany, who has "proven" that the medieval never existed and are just an invention of some creative bastards.
His book is in the 18th or 19th issue...

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I mean je ne sais quoi is just an aftershave, yeah?

I guess you'll have to prepare yourself better for Tahiti, my friend [;)]

Ah, Torsten, my friend; you truly understand, don't you? I knew you would get it.

btw, it's not Tahiti. It is in French Polynesia, but it's in lles Marquises. Way far even from Taiohae, down around between Mohotani and Fatu Hiva.

[Thayne]

I would like to point out that there is a distinction between performing a set of actions while suspecting or even knowing that it will have a particular outcome, and performing those actions with the intention that they have that outcome.

A parent pulls his car out in front of a run-away truck to save his children who are playing down the street. He knows that he will be severely injured or killed. Yet, this is not the same as saying that he performed the action with the intention of being seriously injured or killed.

With respect to FDR and WWII, there is a great deal of evidence that the Roosevelt administration knew or strongly suspected that its conduct would lead to a war with Japan. (Not necessarily with Germany.) If it did lead to war, it was necessary that Japan fire the first shot. That is to say, it must be obvious that Japan made the choice for war to exist, not Washington.

However, to say that FDR strongly suspected that Japan would choose war is not the same that he performed those actions with the intention of going to war. If Japan would have withdrawn from China, then there would have been no war. Japan selected the option, not FDR.

This alone is as solid a fact as one can find in history.

Japan selected the war option.

Perhaps, given its character, it could not choose anything else. Yet, this simply iterates the quality of the Japanese character at the time - that it could not choose the better option.

One could say that, given the Japanese character, it could not choose anything but the invasion of China or the rape of Nanking. However, this too would merely reveal the nature of the Japanese national character. It would not, in any way, justify the conclusion that China is morally responsible for being attacked, or that the people in Nanking were culpable for its rape. Or that FDR is morally culpable for the Japanese attack.

[witpqs]

Well put, Thayne.

[Whisper]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik
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

As any civilian can easily find out, there is no such MOS as a cryptologic technician. Cryptologic is an adverbial phrase used, inter alia, on the internet by the cryptology fraternity as a activity description. Probably where you got it from.

There are way too many people on these threads that have real cryptographic experience for you to make that pathetic little claim fly.

[Phanatikk]

To Whisper,
Perhaps you should spend more time minding your beaches and not pronouncing on something YOU obviously know nothing about, civilian or not.

First of all, I believe MOS is an army term. I said I was in the Navy. But if I recall correctly, since you asked, I think the Army designation was 92Golf, maybe 97Golf, for a Navy CT. That could be the Marine classification. It has been 17 years since I was in.
Second, if you google cryptologic technician, you can get to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptologic_technician
Which gives you:
Cryptologic Technician (CT) is a United States Navy enlisted rating or job specialty. The CT community performs a wide range of tasks in support of the national intelligence effort, with an emphasis on cryptology and signal intelligence related products.

Most CT personnel are required to obtain and maintain security clearances. Due to the highly classified work environment, it is not always possible to share resources with other commands. Almost every detail surrounding the CT world from administration to operations to repair requires dedicated technicians with appropriate security clearances (this accounts for the many branches of the CT rating, i.e. CTA, CTI, CTM, CTN, CTR, CTT). The contribution of an individual CT will depend upon the branch or career area.

Members of the CT community enjoy a wide range of career and training options. Once trained, a CT might serve ashore, afloat or in a airborne capacity. (It is rare, but some have earned all three, i.e. dolphins, wings and swords over the course of a career.) A CT can expect overseas assignments of lengthy duration.

So, pathetically speaking, it appears you qualify. Great job analyzing someone you've never met, nor know anything about. You qualify to be On The Internet. Your button saying so is in the mail.

Cheers

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
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.
....

You are supposed to be a lawyer, so perhaps you should think like one. Private is private. Heck, I have private files that no one can ever access, for forever. Once private files open they are public and open for all. Suggest a teensy bit more modern analysis of 17 and 35 USC.

Aw, hell. Who cares anyway. I mean je ne sais quoi is just an aftershave, yeah?

Well, I'm not a lawyer. I make sure to say that as acting like one without a license is a crime.

Second, the FDR files released/opened/bought are, from the news descriptions I've seen, a mix of stuff saved by FDR's secretaries. Some is official correspondence, some official incoming correspondence (like the letter from Mussolini), and some highly personal, private stuff unrelated to the presidency. In the 1930s and 40s there was far less official archiving than has been the case since. Presidential libraries (palaces) are a recent phenom.

I only mentioned the files in repsonse to your statement about a lack of new documents.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Whisper

ORIGINAL: Phanatik
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

As any civilian can easily find out, there is no such MOS as a cryptologic technician. Cryptologic is an adverbial phrase used, inter alia, on the internet by the cryptology fraternity as a activity description. Probably where you got it from.

There are way too many people on these threads that have real cryptographic experience for you to make that pathetic little claim fly.

FWIW, the USN doesn't use MOS codes.

Edit: I should have read one more.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik

For Vettim89: If I was meanspirited in any of my responses, please point them out to me and I will apologize. I rather thought I was being polite, even when I was labelled anti-U.S. and unpatriotic.

For someone else who mentioned Prange: Yes, his book is sitting by my bed as well. I have the 60th anniversary edition. I note he died in 1980 I believe, so I don't know if he ever got to view/include the declassified documents that Pres. Carter made available for his book.

Cheers

I think you may have mistook "anti-US" as meaning unpatriotic. For you, as an American citizen, the two terms would be synonomous. However, in the context that not every one who posts in this Forum is from the USA or even North America, the term Anti-US has a very different meaning.

Now that said, have you considered what your original post truly stated? Am I understanding it correctly that it is your position the the President of the United States had perfect foreknowledge of the Japanese plan to attack PH which included the approach route, time of attack, egress route, and other specific details of the plan. Once armed with this knowledge he explicitly ordered the US forces in the Pacific to change their dispositions to give the Japanese attack the greatest chance of success. He then further took all measures he could to assure that US forces on Oahu were in the worst possible state at the time of the attack. All this led to the deaths of over 2100 US servicemen and injuries to thousands more.

In the process of accomplishing all this the POTUS was able to coopt every person involved in this plan so that no one with knowledge of the president's actions ever had an attack of conscience and stepped forward. Is it your position that FDR was so filled with blood lust that he could sacrifice thousands of American lives to further his cause? Is it your position that this monster of human being was able to completely surround himself with like minded people such that every one willingly went along with this evil plan? Is it your further contention that almost every author who has studied this matter since WWII failed to unearth any evidence of this conspiracy?

Have your really considered what crimes you are accusing so many Americans of committing? Some of the people that you are accusing of being complicit in this are considered by many to be heroes.

I realize there are those that find this sort of revisionists history to be an interesting intellectual exercise. This is certainly not the first time I have heard such a theory put forth. I for one have a serious problem with denigrating the service and good names of so many Americans without a single peice of irrefutable evidence for your case.

edit: fixed my homonym error - conscience not conscious

[JWE]

Wow, I haven't had this much fun reading a thread in ages. I've been chuckling so much, I got boogers on my upper lip [:D] So whaddaya think Moose? Was Fearless Leader a twitchy conspirator, or just clueless?

[Canoerebel]

I've been following this thread today with interest and especially appreciated two of Vettim's posts. He does a good job of laying out the absurdity of these beliefs.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Wow, I haven't had this much fun reading a thread in ages. I've been chuckling so much, I got boogers on my upper lip [:D] So whaddaya think Moose? Was Fearless Leader a twitchy conspirator, or just clueless?

Moose: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a conspiracy theory out of my hat!
Squirrel: Not again
Moose: (pulls rabid porcupine from hat) Oops! Wrong hat!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Wow, I haven't had this much fun reading a thread in ages. I've been chuckling so much, I got boogers on my upper lip [:D] So whaddaya think Moose? Was Fearless Leader a twitchy conspirator, or just clueless?

Fearless Leader was always off-stage, as commies avoid the lime-light. He had Natasha do his talking for him. (Boris was occupied with his Naploleon Complex.)

FDR, OTOH, was a master politician, a great wartime leader, and had a very nice granddaughter.