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

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik

to Vettim89,

Your contributions to this thread have been less than stellar...

I am crushed, no, devastated by your assessment of my postings

I find it amusing that you question the possiblity of the President being "bloodthirsty" and yet your tagline is:
"Kill Japs, Kill more Japs" - Adm. William F. Halsey I suppose it's okay for Admirals but not Presidents?

Halsey's comments were part of a campaign to raise morale and refocus the Allied efforts on Guadalcanal. While they may sound insensitive to our 21st Century ears, they were merely stating the obvious task before the Allies at the time. Killing one's enemy is merely the essence of war. I think you could imply racism in Halsey's remarks especially if you study some of the other quotes accredited to him. Then again, considering the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March, many people felt the same way about the Japanese race. I am not saying the Japanese were inheritantly evil just that a superficial study of their actions supported the prevalent attitudes. The Japanese leadership chose to start a war of aggression. They and unfortunately the Japanese people only reaped the whirlwind they set in motion against them

IF HOSTILITIES CANNOT REPEAT NOT BE AVOIDED THE UNITED STATES
DESIRES THAT JAPAN COMMIT THE FIRST OVERT ACT

That was sent several times to all commands. What do you suppose that means? If every other piece of conspiracy theory lore is wrong except that message, which is indisputable, it means the POTUS desired that SOME American base or ship SOMEwhere be attacked first.

No it does not. It means the President was resigned to the fact that war with Japan was likely inevitable. If that were indeed true, it was his desire and largely the desires of the American people that US forces did not fire the first shot. Considering what was already in play by the morning of 7 December 1941 (PH, PI, Malaya, etc), it is historically a ridiculous position. Nonetheless, at the time, it was considered to be a national policy that the USA would not be the aggressor. This order is nothing more than the explicit expression of that policy to all commands

Do you suppose the POTUS believed that the first Japanese overt act would be to drop leaflets somewhere saying "Yankee go Home!?" How many American deaths do you think the POTUS would have accepted for the first overt act he desired? How many resulting American deaths until he's a monster with an evil plan, as you say? Probably not 1. 100? Perhaps the crews of two U.S. cruisers he wanted to send to provoke the Japanese. Now we're getting close to 1000. We are halfway to Pearl.

[Action D from McCollum's Eight Action Plan - "Popup Cruises" FDR - "I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing. I don't mind losing one or two cruisers, but do not take a chance on losing five or six."] Does someone become a monster somewhere between two and five cruisers?

Other parts of the message advising necessary cautions should be taken is nonsensical. If the President orders you to take one on the chin, you take one on the chin.

First of all, which TF that was at sea on 7 December 1941 do you consider to be a "pop-up cruiser" TF. The one escorting troops to the SoPac? The one near Johnson Island? Houston? Boise? None of these TF's were acting provocatively in any way, shape, or form There were not violating Japanese sovereignty nor were they anywhere near Japan proper nor any of her territories. Quote McCollum's memo all you want but there is not a single USN ship that you can even remotely make the case was acting in a way consistent with McColum's recommendation. Second even if there were such aggressively deployed TF's say around the Marshalls or Formosa, how does putting them in such a position COMPEL the Japanese to attack them? (assuming that they did not violate territorial boundaries). Are bank's responsible for armed roberies because they have money in them?

I don't know what you think or know about a President's cabinet and administration, but don't you suppose that after being in office for 13 years, FDR wouldn't have men around him that supported him and his views? You must have a really rose-colored view of the world.

No, the opposite. I believe politics is the dirtiest, most ruthless business there is. It is filled with people whose ambition will lead them to step on, over, or through any one who stands in there way. As such, if FDR tried to pull off what you propose, some one would have eventually got wind of it and used it to bring him down. FDR was by no means universally loved then nor now. You talk about FDR and his inner circle pulling this off. The problem is that to accomplish this nefarious deed dozens if not hundreds of people would have to be involved.

As for heroes... as they say, the winners write the history books. General Sherman (a la March to the Sea fame) is considered by many to be a hero. He even got a tank named after him. But to many, he was a real ba$tardo that followed the orders of a President to conduct a campaign of terror against a defenseless populace (which went against centuries of acceptable behavior during wartime. Read: Total War) by raping and pillaging, burning homes leaving thousands to die from exposure, and killing prior confederate soldiers, some invalids, just because they were on the other side, on his way to the beach.

How about Joe Rochefort? Do you consider him a hero? Per Stinnett, in a post-war assessment of the attack Rochefort said "It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country." Is that bloodthirsty? Cold hearted? Unifying the country. That sounds like what FDR wanted to do to get into the war. Golly gee.

How does Rochefort's comments have any relation to FDR's intent. Pure guessing on my part here but I will go out on a limb and say I bet the two men never even met. Yes it was a rather cold and insensitive remark regarding the lives that were lost. That said, it in no way implies intent or any other support for your theory

Cheers!

Believe what you will. I can say for sure that taking quotes out of contenxt, bending facts to fit into your theory, and demeaning other posters will not convince any one on this board. In case you haven't noticed it, the people here are pretty knowledgable, educated, and logical. Only sound reasoning supported by irrefutable facts will have any sway around here.

[Phanatikk]

We'll never know what the public would have thought, but we almost did. Hoover got wind of some of this and was going to beat FDR upside the head with it during the '44 election. He was taken aside and asked to forego doing so during wartime, for the country don't ya know.

Gee whiz, Terminius. You know me so well! And, you've done such a whiz bang job at refuting my questions about PH. I'm now a follower of FDR. I repent my transgressions of intellectual curiousity. I will crawl back to my hole and ponder how my (fleeting) questions about PH could have possibly interfered with your life to such an extent that you felt compelled to psychoanalyze me from afar. You're wrong of course, but that's just my old self saying so.

Zepplin, your question about what did FDR gain from the U.S. being attacked is curious. Why, he got America into the European War, of course. But, that's just my old self talking out of my hole again. Gee, it's dark down here. After all, everyone knows that Hitler declared on the U.S. The Japanese attack had NOTHING to do with that. How could it?

<writing 100x on paper, to quell those pesky stray free thoughts with mind numbing repetition>
FDR wasn't a progressive, who thought the ends justified the means.
FDR wasn't eager to get the U.S. into the European War.
FDR didn't extend the Depression into the Great Depression by the New Deal.
FDR didn't try to stack the Supreme Court in order to more easily get his way.
FDR wasn't willing to sacrifice SOME American lives SOMEWHERE, including those two cruisers, to get America into the European War.
Everyone that disagrees with me is automatically correct. In fact, I should keep my questions to my self.
When Whisper tells me that I wasn't a CT for 8 years, I should believe him. MY DD214 would be so much easier to read if I weren't in this hole.
...

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Yes we know now the fact now that Hitler declared war on the U.S. But did Roosevelt knew this also for sure ? Hell yes, maybe he gambled for it and hoped for it to happen maybe thats the reason for the aggressive stance against German subarines and all that. But pulling this off to get into a war in europe is even more ridiculous (sp?)

Get for a moment, just a moment in Roosevelts wheelchair without hindsight and then ya realy think ya can pull this all off without geting caught ? Or even wanting it to happen this way ?

Ok ill give you that one, there is indeed a minimal chance it was like you said. Realy, it aint impossible but very unlikely. One need hard proof to claim something like this like one needs hard proof to say the pyramids where constructed by aliens (yeah even more unlikely but NOT impossible per se)

How about Hiroito geting tired with Japan and he pulled this war of to turn Japan into a democracy and an industrial powerhouse ? Not impossible but how are the odds for this ? But hey it happened that way and maybe he knew it ? o.o

[Phanatikk]

to Vettim89 from the Old Me:

I notice people like to bring up the Rape of Nanking. Certainly a disgrace.

But, how would it compare to, say, Carpet Fire Bombing of women and children to break the morale of a populace, such as occurred in Germany and Japan?

Now, before someone says the Old Me would be against the dropping of the atomic bombs, the Old Me would say, do it! They started the war, it saved American lives. But we are making a moral comparison here, not talking about military expediency.

The Old Me would say if you know nothing about McCollum's Eight Action Plan, then perhaps you shouldn't try to refute me vis a vis that. FDR certainly expected the Japanese to attack, he pushed them to it. But still, someone would have to die during the First Overt Act, and probably not alone. The Old Me says that that says something about FDR. The Word is Unify.

Both the Old Me and the New Me liked Halsey. He raised his flag in the The Big E, certainly the finest ship in the U.S. Navy during the War. Too bad the piddling amount of $ to save her could not be raised.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik

We'll never know what the public would have thought, but we almost did. Hoover got wind of some of this and was going to beat FDR upside the head with it during the '44 election. He was taken aside and asked to forego doing so during wartime, for the country don't ya know.

So you're saying he was going to go deep, very deep into the gutter with conspiracy theory BS and someone took him aside and told him to act like an adult.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Hun this wasnt a Kabinetts war. Everyone behaved like assholes in the end but the allies didnt started it that way.And the western allies where surely the lesser assholes. Even if they dropped the A-bomb for da lulz.

[Phanatikk]

to Wit:
The Old Me is confused. Everyone knows, especially us conspiracy theorists, that conspiracy theories were invented after the McCarthy "era." (McCarthy was right, there WERE communists in the government, but who cares about that? As a side note, FDR was also warned that he had communists in his government, but they were his friends, so he didn't care either.) How could Hoover have had ANY conspiracy theory, deep or otherwise, to taunt FDR with? Surely everyone was on board with the Plan? All PH contrary opinions are recent inventions. What could Hoover, who lived through it, who was the head of the CIA (I believe) possibly know?

Cheers

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah, these "theories" always hinge on the same impossible premises: that governments aren't massively incompetent and that people can keep secrets. They can not.

Either way, you guys hopefully realize that you can't reason with types like "Phanatik". If he's not engaged, he will eventually disappear back into his little hole, thinking he's won. Who cares about that anyway?

Ironically i was in a used bookstore yesterday looking for an old fiction book and happened to quick browse the history section as is mein habit. What did i see but "THE BOOK THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED"

almost picked it up. [:)]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Ironically i was in a used bookstore yesterday looking for an old fiction book and happened to quick browse the history section as is mein habit. What did i see but "THE BOOK THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED"

almost picked it up. [:)]

I have a copy. It’s actually fairly well written in the narrative. A bit hyperbolic, but plausible if the facts and construction are correct. Unfortunately, as most reviewers demonstrate rather cogently (I think Philip Jacobsen’s review for the USN Crypto Vets Assoc may be on-line, for those unwilling to pore over academic critique), they are mainly misinterpretations, misrepresentations and fabrications.

Nevertheless, a rousing good read. The nonsense, in conjunction with the critique of the nonsense, actually gives you a pretty good idea of what was happening (and what wasn’t happening) in context.

Go ahead and pick it up - so long as it's cheap - have some fun.

[AW1Steve]

Then you can do with it like I did with my copy, put it next to the Da vinchi code and the Von Danikan books! [:D]

[witpqs]

@Phanatik

The very concept of conspiracy theories was invented? Maybe there was a conspiracy to keep the inventors from patenting it, lest they get rich! [;)]

McCarthy, et al? Yes, there was a legitimate problem. That is almost always forgotten amid the criticism of how they went about their activities, which was a great problem in itself, hence the very necessary and legitimate criticism.

Hoover is pretty much the opposite of a reliable, truthful source. And you want me to infer that he must have known something horrible, rather than having actual evidence of that something.

When you are willing to believe that a lack of evidence is basically proof positive, you'll believe anything. I require actual proof.

[vettim89]

Over the course of the last century we have been faced with events that the simple truth about them is hard to accept. It is very hard for many to accept that a single mad man could take out one of our most beloved presidents (speaking only about Kennedy's popularity here). It is hard wrap one's brain around the fact that a handful of religiouos zealots could perpetrate the largest terrorist attack in history. And it is hard to believe that the US military, intelligence agencies, and command authority could be so inept in the days and hours prior to 7 December 1941.

In light of this, we frequently see alternative explanations put forth. Within hours of 9/11 there were people posting a variety of conspiracy theories. The momentum behind this was so great that Popular Science devoted an entire issue to debunking most of those myths. Of late, those that propose alternative explanations (read "conspiracy theories) have taken to calling themselves "Truthers".

Having encountered some 9/11 Truthers, I have seen some patterns:

* All traditional sources of information whether they be historians, media, government records, etc cannot be trusted as they are part of the problem

* A large amount of the infromation that is used to support their theories is anecdotal. This information is often "compartmentalized" in a way that only the truthers have access to it. Invariably, the truthers claim that documents exist to support there claims but are they are not available to the general public.

* Those on the inside of the Truthers organization are the only ones that can be trusted

* Those on the outside of the Truthers organization are either part the conspiracy or mindless sheep following the path of least resistance

* The conclusions of the Truther's are so obvious to them. If you cannot see the truth, its because you only see what you want to see

Now the real truth about PH. The outrage was generated by FDR and others was to cover up their incompetance. The military leadership was pretty much sure that the Japanese were going to war. They had just so convinced themselves that it was going to start in or around teh South China Sea that they failed to put US forces in Hawaii on proper alert. They blew it on so many ways. The Japanese had to be protryed as evil, conniving, and dishonorable to cover up the US military's ineptness

[BrucePowers]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Then you can do with it like I did with my copy, put it next to the Da vinchi code and the Von Danikan books! [:D]

At least the DaVinchi Code calls itself a novel[:D]

[ChickenOfTheSea]

Much of this conspiracy theory rides on the McCollum memo of 1940. The main recommendations in this memo were:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire

Under the circumstances, what competent American president would not strongly consider every one of these recommended actions. When viewed from a pre-Pearl Harbor view it is completely sensible and absolutely reasonable course of action.

In recent years I have worked with a number of Chinese scientists. Many of them hold a strange view of American intelligence and the CIA in particular. They believe that world events are intricately planned by the CIA and everything happens exactly as planned. The possibility that human beings make mistakes of omission or commission leading to unintended consequences doesn't factor in. Much of history is people screwing up, but for some reason many people cannot accept that.

[Phanatikk]

In the interest of full disclosure, I believe there is only a slight chance FDR knew that PH was going to be attacked. As I said early on in this thread, I put out some lingering questions about the attack because someone claimed there was NO chance of it having occurred any other way. History is replete with mistakes, blunders, and coverups. There are few absolutes.

I do believe that FDR deliberatly provoked the Japanese to get them to attack.
I do believe that FDR knew the Japanese would attack somewhere, and that Americans would die, but it was in the greater interest for the U.S. to be in the war.
I do believe that the PH attack was most likely a surprise, despite several visionaries predicting it. Western opinion regarding Japanese abilities begged for a disaster.

Cheers

[Phanatikk]

"Much of history is people screwing up..."

What he said.

[AW1Steve]

Never accept malice as the answer where incompetence is possible. Incompetence is ALWAYS much more common (and likely) than malice. Malice requires work, incompetence just needs an opportunity![:)]

[witpqs]

vettim89:

Add that "truthers" (of any theory) also toss around blatant falsehoods like pollen on the wind. Show that one is false, and they toss out two more. It's like wack-a-mole, hydra style.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Never accept malice as the answer where incompetence is possible. Incompetence is ALWAYS much more common (and likely) than malice. Malice requires work, incompetence just needs an opportunity![:)]

Agree with you wholeheartedly, Steve. In situations like this, the first cut is always Occam's razor.

I am quite intrigued by Chicken o' the Sea's comments on the Chinese view of things. Factual interpretation is always internalized. And its analytical parameters are conceptually/culturally/linguistically based. Very much like the blind men describing the elephant. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote a sci-fi book about a race of aliens that evolved a class of beings whose sole purpose was to translate/mediate thoughts, attitudes, postures, etc .. between and among principals, thereby bridging conceptual gaps that lead to conflict through misunderstanding. Woof!

There are many words that resonate strongly in one language, that have absolutely no analog in another. Messages that initiate as 'soft' may well be received as 'adamant' because of simple linguistic/cultural misunderstanding at either the origination or reception end. I think Chicken o' the Sea's comments are fundamental to our understanding of not only the war, but also the environment of a portion of the world that we know only through sushi bars and Chinese take out.

Chicken o' the Sea, you be da man.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Never accept malice as the answer where incompetence is possible. Incompetence is ALWAYS much more common (and likely) than malice. Malice requires work, incompetence just needs an opportunity![:)]

Agree with you wholeheartedly, Steve. In situations like this, the first cut is always Occam's razor.

I am quite intrigued by Chicken o' the Sea's comments on the Chinese view of things. Factual interpretation is always internalized. And its analytical parameters are conceptually/culturally/linguistically based. Very much like the blind men describing the elephant. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote a sci-fi book about a race of aliens that evolved a class of beings whose sole purpose was to translate/mediate thoughts, attitudes, postures, etc .. between and among principals, thereby bridging conceptual gaps that lead to conflict through misunderstanding. Woof!

There are many words that resonate strongly in one language, that have absolutely no analog in another. Messages that initiate as 'soft' may well be received as 'adamant' because of simple linguistic/cultural misunderstanding at either the origination or reception end. I think Chicken o' the Sea's comments are fundamental to our understanding of not only the war, but also the environment of a portion of the world that we know only through sushi bars and Chinese take out.

Chicken o' the Sea, you be da man.

Unless you've worked in the tourist industry in Seattle or DC , or lived & worked on Guam (where a US island has a population of slightly more than 250,000.....has that many Japanese tourist a month,half that number of Koreans, and almost every single guest worker (H2) is Chinese! Then you learn every nasty name for Haloes in every Asian language very quickly![:D] Gaijin (barbarians) is probably the nicest! [:D]