Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Tomcat
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:35 am
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Tomcat »

ORIGINAL: Marty A

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

We're not talking about 1 history, we're talking about all historians, including yours, agreeing that the planes were destroyed on the ground. When MacArthur was asked by his subordinate for permission to attack the Japanese planes on Formosa he refused. This was several hours before the Japanese attacked the Philippines, and it was in defiance of the standing war plan to attack Formosa immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities. You keep using examples to illustrate a lack of CAP, so how can you also argue that he did anything useful? The facts that historians agree on seem to indicate that he refused permission to bomb Formosa, he did not take that action himself, he and his subordinates failed to organize proper CAP and search operations, he failed to adequately protect the planes on the ground, and the US air forces were destroyed in about 2 days. Even if it were true that "all" US planes were in the air "immediately", isn't that rather stupid? Planes do run out of fuel and unless you have strong reason to beleive that they are airborne when the attack is coming this is a big mistake, even if it is true, and I haven't seen any historian that believes it is true. I don't accept a Google search as legitimate scholarship. Anybody can put anything on the internet and much of it is simply rubbish.

The sky is what color in your world? i say planes destroyed on ground. you say i said not? i never read anything where mac ordered no attack. state source please. if all planes were not in air in morning if attack had come you would say that not having them in air was stupid also no? i read in books long ago that planes in air at dawn not on internet. i do 1 quick google search that took 5 seconds to say what i saw years ago. maybe you should do research before you talk. who are your history writers that say no planes flew in am of dec 8? i would like to read this because i never have. i do more looking since you write and i still see nothing on no attack order. and i certainly not defend mac. but then us holdout at bataan last longer than it should so maybe did some things right. imagine how long they could hold if they were ready.

There seems to be a real breakdown in communication here. The original argument is whether or not MacArthur took action to prevent the US planes from being destroyed on the ground. You seem to agree that many or most of the US planes were destroyed on the ground. So I guess the question is A) what did MacArthur do (as opposed to his subordinates); and B) what is the meaning of "nothing" - does it mean "no steps" or "ineffective steps". While Wikipedia is not known to be a reliable source of information, for the purposes of ending this discussion which has become heated and useless, let me just paste in a section of Wikipedia from Battle of the Philippines and hope it makes everybody happy.

Far East Air Force controversy
After news reached the Philippines that an attack on Pearl Harbor was in progress at around 03:00 a.m. on December 7, 1941,[23] FEAF interceptors had already conducted an air search for incoming aircraft reported shortly after midnight, but these had been Japanese scout planes reporting weather conditions.[24]

At 05:00 a.m. FEAF commander Gen. Brereton reported to USAFFE headquarters where he attempted to see MacArthur without success. He recommended to MacArthur's chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Richard Sutherland, that FEAF launch bombing missions against Formosa in accordance with Rainbow 5 war plan directives that Japanese territory from which an attack was likely to come be attacked. Authorization was withheld, but shortly afterward, in response to a telegram from General George C. Marshall instructing MacArthur to implement Rainbow 5, Brereton was ordered to have a strike in readiness for later approval.[25]

Through a series of disputed discussions and decisions, authorization for the first raid was not approved until 11:00 a.m. local time for an attack just before sunset, with a followup raid at dawn the next day. In the meantime Japanese plans to bomb FEAF's main bases was delayed by fog at its Formosa bases, so that only a small scale mission attacked targets in the northern tip of Luzon. At 08:00 a.m. Brereton received a telephone call from General Henry H. Arnold warning him not to allow his aircraft to be attacked while still on the ground. FEAF launched fighter patrols and all of its bombers on Luzon between 08:00 and 09:00 a.m. as a precautionary move. However several confusing and false reports of air attacks culminated in an all-clear being announced at 11:00, at which time the bombers were ordered to land and prepare for the afternoon raid on Formosa. The squadron of defending P-40 fighters patrolling the area also landed at Clark Field to refuel.

At 11:20 a.m., the radar post at Iba Field detected the incoming raid while it was still 130 miles out. It alerted FEAF headquarters and the command post at Clark Field, a warning which apparently reached only the pursuit group commander, with no further action taken to safeguard the air forces.[25]

When the Japanese pilots of the 11th Air Fleet attacked Clark Field at 12:30 p.m., they caught two squadrons of B-17s dispersed on the ground and its squadron of P-40 interceptors just preparing to taxi. The first wave of twenty-seven Japanese twin-engine bombers achieved complete tactical surprise, striking the P-40s as they taxied. A second bomber attack was supported by Zero fighters strafing the field that destroyed 12 of the 17 American heavy bombers present and seriously damaged three others.[26] Only three P-40s managed to take off. A simultaneous attack on the auxiliary field at Iba to the northwest was also successful: all but two of the 3rd Pursuit Squadron's P-40s, short on fuel, were destroyed in combat or from lack of gasoline when the attack caught them in their landing pattern. The Far East Air Force lost fully half its planes in the first attack, and was all but destroyed over the next few days.

No formal investigation took place regarding this failure as occurred in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. After the war Brereton and Sutherland in effect blamed each other for FEAF being surprised on the ground, and MacArthur released a statement claiming that he had no knowledge of any recommendation to attack Formosa with B-17s.

User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7403
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Q-Ball »

I personally think MacArther was direlict in this case, but a more interesting question for me was why he didn't make a decision.

He was a smart man and loved his country, and certainly didn't want to see his airforce destroyed so easily. Far from it. So why the indecision? Lack of information, wrong information, shock, what?

A factor we can't assess is the Dec 7th shock; on Dec 8th, you are in a war and ready for it, on Dec 7th it is there yet foggy, unclear, vague...........tough to understand that shock, and what someone could be thinking in those few fatal hours.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

ORIGINAL: Marty A
ORIGINAL: Tomcat


Well, you seem to disagree with every historian I've read. I wasn't there so I can't say from firsthand experience, but it is hard for me to believe that so many historians got it wrong. Of the historians I've read the one most critical of MacArthur (Alan Schom in The Eagle and the Rising Sun) seems to paint a very strong picture of his negligence and culpability. While some planes were airborne, there seems to be a consensus that most were destroyed on the ground. Even in your scenario you'd have to argue for an incorrect usage of the planes if they were all caught on the ground refueling. Besides, Formosa being clouded over does not explain the lack of proper CAP over air bases in the Philippines.

Really? maybe you need new history because i did quick google and first thing i see is this:
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/philip42.htm

The war warning of December 6 had put US Army General Douglas MacArthur into action. When Pearl was being bombed, his planes were in the air, his shore defense were manned, and he thought the first attack would come his way, as the war plans expected. Unfortunately for MacArthur and the War Department, the Japanese had written their own war plans that called for the attack on the Philippines in late morning. The Americans and Filipinos were stunned when the attack came as the planes were on the ground and refueling. Most of the US Army Air Corps was destroyed on the ground. Bombers hit Cavite Navy Yard very hard, and the bleeding of the US Asiatic Fleet began.

i google this: wwii phil air dec 8

We're not talking about 1 history, we're talking about all historians, including yours, agreeing that the planes were destroyed on the ground. When MacArthur was asked by his subordinate for permission to attack the Japanese planes on Formosa he refused. This was several hours before the Japanese attacked the Philippines, and it was in defiance of the standing war plan to attack Formosa immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities. You keep using examples to illustrate a lack of CAP, so how can you also argue that he did anything useful? The facts that historians agree on seem to indicate that he refused permission to bomb Formosa, he did not take that action himself, he and his subordinates failed to organize proper CAP and search operations, he failed to adequately protect the planes on the ground, and the US air forces were destroyed in about 2 days. Even if it were true that "all" US planes were in the air "immediately", isn't that rather stupid? Planes do run out of fuel and unless you have strong reason to beleive that they are airborne when the attack is coming this is a big mistake, even if it is true, and I haven't seen any historian that believes it is true. I don't accept a Google search as legitimate scholarship. Anybody can put anything on the internet and much of it is simply rubbish.

Scattershooting:

FEAF lost about 50% of its bombers and 40% of its fighters on the first day. The 2 squadrons of B-17s at Clark and 2 fighter squadrons were hit on the ground (the ones at Clark and Iba). Had those been up, IJN/IJA losses may have been higher but I don't think FEAF losses would have been that much lower. Assuming the 2 fighter squadrons would have been in position to intercept they would have suffered losses from the 50-60 escorts sent w/ the raid. Whatever those 2 B-17 squadrons at Clark would have done going in unescorted to attack airfields in Formosa would have been better than being lost on the ground but they probably wouldn't have come through unscathed.

MacArthur never refused a direct request from Bremerton to attack because one was never made. As CoS Sutherland was go between for MacArther and Bremerton. What he told either side in the morning isn't clear. When MacArthur and Bremerton did talk by phone they agreed to wait for the results of the recon mission being prepped for Formosa and attack later in the day. The recon mission had not started prior to the Japanese attack.

As CinC of the Philipines MacArthur bears ultimate responsibility for the defeat of his airforce on day 1. However, there's a reason for the existence of subordinate commanders, things like arranging cap coverage. No idea what was considered 'standard' cap procedure for the US air force prior to WW2, nor if the fighter commander for the Phillipines was following it.

I don't know what "failing to protect the planes on the ground" means.

It would be interesting to see what the fighter commander's plans were. I've never seen his testimony (assuming he survived). He probably knew that the Japanese would launch close to daylight, the distance from the bases in Formosa and the approximate speed of the aircraft so he had to have a pretty good guess as to the time of an attack on Clark, et al. The fog that delayed the Japanese attack from Formosa may have upset his calculations. In any event the same fog that delayed the Japanese launch would have prevented any accurate bombing until after the Japanese had flown.
rockmedic109
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by rockmedic109 »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I personally think MacArther was direlict in this case, but a more interesting question for me was why he didn't make a decision.

He was a smart man and loved his country, and certainly didn't want to see his airforce destroyed so easily. Far from it. So why the indecision? Lack of information, wrong information, shock, what?

A factor we can't assess is the Dec 7th shock; on Dec 8th, you are in a war and ready for it, on Dec 7th it is there yet foggy, unclear, vague...........tough to understand that shock, and what someone could be thinking in those few fatal hours.
I have oftened wondered the same thing {why didn't MacA make an attack}. The reasoning I come up with {with no physical evidence to back it up} is that he is still trying to figure out what is going on. He does not want to order an attack that will start a war if the report of an attack at Pearl Harbor {not considered likely at the time} turns out ot be false.

Another thought is whether the attack on on Formosa would have produced results that would have changed the outcome any. I doubt it. Not acting may have caused the allied air power in the philippines to be rendered impotent far earlier but the end result would have been the same. The Japanese simply had them outnumbered and the Philippines were in no position to be resupplied.
User avatar
Tomcat
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:35 am
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by 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.
User avatar
rhohltjr
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by rhohltjr »

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

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, ......


I think Roosevelt was trying to find a way to get us into the war. Hence ordering Admiral Hart to use his personal sailboat with an installed WWI pop gun, Filipino crew and station itself in front of the SRA invasion force to act as a Japanese shooting target(what else could it have been).

But Roosevelt knowing in advance of PH attack. Nope. No way.
My e-troops don't unload OVER THE BEACH anymore, see:
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
User avatar
Tomcat
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:35 am
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Tomcat »

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

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, ......


I think Roosevelt was trying to find a way to get us into the war. Hence ordering Admiral Hart to use his personal sailboat with an installed WWI pop gun, Filipino crew and station itself in front of the SRA invasion force to act as a Japanese shooting target(what else could it have been).

But Roosevelt knowing in advance of PH attack. Nope. No way.

So you do believe it was a conspiracy![8|] I guess that we got some garbage on this thread after all[;)]
User avatar
Panther Bait
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Panther Bait »

While I am no fan of MacArthur, when evaluating the actions taken by the US Asiatic forces on Dec 8th (i.e. Dec 7 in Hawaii), we should also factor in that communications in 1941 were alot less robust than the they are now.  No satellite communications, no real time video links, etc.  Radio communications over long distances were such that messages were typically short. I'll admit that I haven't seen the text of the communication between Gens. Marshall and MacArthur, but I'll bet it was short and somewhat ambiguous.  Something like "US forces under attack.  Initiate Rainbow 5." and not "Attack Formosa ASAP with 2 squadrons of B-17s and 2 squadrons of P-40s while also maintaining at least 12 P-40s over local area against a Japanese attack".  I wouldn't be surprised that the details on the situation at PH itself were sketchy at best in the PI that morning.
 
So try not to 20/20 hindsight the man to death, he made plenty of mistakes in the war that he should have had 20/20 foresight about as it is.
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard
Marty A
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:48 am

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Marty A »

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

There seems to be a real breakdown in communication here. The original argument is whether or not MacArthur took action to prevent the US planes from being destroyed on the ground.

Maybe so. i think reasonable to anticipate attack at dawn in philippine islands. i think anyone reasonable would agree. japanese planes can approach undetected as no early warning system in place. mac maybe fault here but does not matter on dec 8. attack come in morning expect and many bases to cover. can not defend many bases on ground. have to be in air to time react. again not unreasonable for all to be in air. looking back easy to say should have stayed half on ground. at time suspect better to have all in air. i would not say this was bad move. as turned out it was but if attack at morning maybe everyone say brilliant!
User avatar
Tomcat
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:35 am
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Tomcat »

Just for the record, quoting from page 856 of the paperback edition of At Dawn We Slept, in an appendix called Revisonists Revisited, the various studies and positions about Pearl Harbor are being discussed and "A surprising number of naval personnel interviewed for this study fell into the Roosevelt-planned-it category". While the authors of the appendix conclude "we have not discovered one document or one word of sworn testimony that substantiates the revisionist position on Roosevelt and Pearl harbor", it does appear that even some of our senior naval personnel believed in "garbage".
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by 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'.
User avatar
Tomcat
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:35 am
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Tomcat »

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'.
Well, I suspected Congress was run by crazies, and I suspected that our our Secretary of State ("Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" Hilary) was a crazy, but you're going to ruin my faith when you tell me I can't trust some of our senior military people either[X(] I guess it's the end of the age of innocence for me[;)]
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

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'.
Well, I suspected Congress was run by crazies, and I suspected that our our Secretary of State ("Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" Hilary) was a crazy, but you're going to ruin my faith when you tell me I can't trust some of our senior military people either[X(] I guess it's the end of the age of innocence for me[;)]

[:D]
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6084
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Brady »

Its a great book, dry though.
Image


SCW Beta Support Team

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
User avatar
rhohltjr
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by rhohltjr »

ORIGINAL: Tomcat
ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

But Roosevelt knowing in advance of PH attack. Nope. No way.

So you do believe it was a conspiracy![8|] I guess that we got some garbage on this thread after all[;)]

Pearl Harbor Conspiracy? No.
Attempt to get us into WW2 via a sailboat sacrifice? Perhaps.
Is that a conspiracy?
My e-troops don't unload OVER THE BEACH anymore, see:
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
User avatar
Tomcat
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:35 am
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Tomcat »

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

ORIGINAL: Tomcat
ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

But Roosevelt knowing in advance of PH attack. Nope. No way.

So you do believe it was a conspiracy![8|] I guess that we got some garbage on this thread after all[;)]

Pearl Harbor Conspiracy? No.
Attempt to get us into WW2 via a sailboat sacrifice? Perhaps.
Is that a conspiracy?
For some strange reason there's something in the water in our country lately where a lot of people, maybe not you, but a lot of people, do a knee-jerk reaction and roll their eyes and say "anybody who believes in conspriacies is a crazy". However, if I take that kind of statement at face value I'd have to conclude that maybe they were, well, crazy. History and common sense should lead "reasonable" people to conclude that sometimes there is a conspiracy, while common sense and a bit of judgment also tell us that sometimes there's just some over-active imaginations. Would any reasonable person assert that Benedict Arnold was not involved in a conspiracy (given the evidence and his statements)? How about Watergate (especially given the evidence and some confessions). How about the various attempts to kill Hitler? Even 9/11 was part of a conspiracy unless you want to believe that those airplanes flew into the two World Trade Towers and the Pentagon by accident.

But, I don't believe that all of the people on this forum who get sarcastic about conspiracies are as "crazy" and unreasonable as they sound, so I give them the benefit of the doubt and translate what they say into something like "If I believe it then it must be historical fact and reasonable people agree, but if I don't believe it then it must be a conspiracy that only crazies believe".

With respect to Pearl Harbor, the first "crazy" that I ever heard say that FDR knew was a Pentagon type (colonel) who was responsible for writing a portion of the official history of one of the branches of service. Since I knew him personally I'm inclined to think he was a lot saner and more reasonable than any of the people on this forum who claim that point of view is "crazy" simply because they disagree with it, whether or not his take on it is in fact correct or not. Prange has his point of view, and he wrote his book with the intention to articulate his point of view. He may be right, and he may be wrong. I've heard other historians who disagree with him. I'm not inclined to call everybody crazy who disagrees with Prange, just because they disagree, regardless of what the truth turns out to be. I know I sometimes get sloppy with my language, and sometimes I resort to hyperbole, and sometimes I even slip into saying things out of exasperation, but I'm trying not to. I think that most of the people on this forum have good things to contribute and I hope we all do what we can do encourage, rather than discourage, intelligent dialog.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Canoerebel »

Your example is flawed.  In the cases of Arnold, Watergate, and the efforts to assassinate Hitler, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Arnold had gone over to the British, the Watergate break-in occurred, and some Germans wanted to do away with Hitler.
 
In the case of Pearl Harbor, all the credible evidence proves that neither Roosevelt nor any other American had foreknowledge of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Anybody who suggest otherwise is the person who says Benedict Arnold was an alien, Watergate didn't happen, and that Hitler was actually killed in 1943 and the war was carried on by a zany group of Italians who had infiltrated the German high command.
 
 
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by bklooste »

nless I am confusing this with other books I've read one of the author's goals was to argue that Roosevelt had no advanced knowledge of the attack, and he calls everyone a "revisonist" for arguing that Roosevelt did know. On the other hand, both my wife and I have taken history courses where the professors discussed it as a matter of fact that Roosevelt did know about the attack in advance. I suppose the debate will go on forever but there are two separable questions 1) did Roosevelt (and his key advisors, both civilian and military) have reason to believe that the Japanese were planning for an attack on Pearl Harbor - the answer to that is unequivocably yes; 2) did Roosevelt (or other key US leaders) know that the Japanese actually would attack Pearl Harbor - the answer to that is unclear. Kelly Turner, for one, said the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor. A related question is whether the US leaders believed the Japanese would attack the US somewhere, - and the answer to that is unequivocably yes. Did the US leaders expect an attack on or about December 7th - based on alerts issued by the US, and intel they possessed - unequivocably yes. Did Short and Kimmel know the attack would be at Pearl Harbor - not clear.

1) The US had plans to invade Japan also since the 20s that doesnt mean anything.
2) It was a tactical option some US generals/planners would have considered esp after the Italian fleet went to the bottom of the harbour. If the logistics made it possible of which the Japanese were doubtful. There is no possibility of them knowing of an attack around December 7th at Pearl since only a handfull of Japanese knew and their were no signalss though it was possible they knew of an attack on the PI.

Honestly with all these revisionist theories it comes down to human beings being cold cruel , all knowing and calculating when in reality its more lazy ,bumbling and have a narrow role. Every leader does what is best for his people ( and especially the sailors in the boats look at the fly overs in Cuba) if Roosevelt knew then Kimmel would have known. This is a garbage line.

What is valid is to ask why did the US not consider aggressive action as a reponse to the oil embargo did they think Japan would sumbit . Was it over confidence in American power and it not being a rational choice ? I think this is the most likely hence the analysts theories were never passed to the President as most analysts only deal with Rational choices which Japans attack was not.
The logical step for Japan was an attack on Russia and sieze there oil im sure the US analysts would have had a plan for that one around October 41.
Underdog Fanboy
User avatar
Tomcat
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:35 am
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Tomcat »

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Honestly with all these revisionist theories it comes down to human beings being cold cruel , all knowing and calculating when in reality its more lazy ,bumbling and have a narrow role. Every leader does what is best for his people ( and especially the sailors in the boats look at the fly overs in Cuba)....

I think you hit the nail on the head here...in the long run (as opposed to the short run), what is "best for his people"? The crux of the arguments about FDR, Germany, and Japan, is that FDR believed that we would have to fight them sooner or later so we should do so when it was most to our advantage, not theirs. Actually, those who argue that Roosevelt "knew" about PH, and who argue that he tried to "goad" Germany to war with the US, think he was more intelligent than those who argue that everything was the result of incompetence and mistakes. Anyway, this thread sparked enough emotion for now, and the question about the book was answered, so Ill leave it with a parting thought, "What would FDR's uncle Teddy Roosevelt have thought about FDR and the Japanese?"

By the way, what's your opinion of A Man Called Intrepid? Have you read it?
User avatar
Tomcat
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:35 am
Location: Dallas

RE: Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

Post by Tomcat »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Your example is flawed.  In the cases of Arnold, Watergate, and the efforts to assassinate Hitler, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Arnold had gone over to the British, the Watergate break-in occurred, and some Germans wanted to do away with Hitler.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, all the credible evidence proves that neither Roosevelt nor any other American had foreknowledge of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Anybody who suggest otherwise is the person who says Benedict Arnold was an alien, Watergate didn't happen, and that Hitler was actually killed in 1943 and the war was carried on by a zany group of Italians who had infiltrated the German high command.


You've just done an excellent job of illustrating my prior point. "If I believe it then it must be historical fact and reasonable people agree, but if I don't believe it then it must be a conspiracy that only crazies believe". Thanks!
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”