Lets talk about conspiracies - Pearl Harbor

[wdolson]

The US drew up a lot of war plans and gave them different colors:

Red - war with the UK
Black - Germany
Emerald - Ireland
Green - Mexico
Crimson - Canada
India - ruby
Australia - Scarlet
New Zealand - Garnet

etc.

Some were considered highly remote, even when they were initially drawn up, but the war planners wanted to map out every contingency. Orange had a better chance of happening, but it was just one plan among many.

Bill

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

AND what if these carriers would have been spotted in time, would the US intervene? Would there be any war declaration anyway. What was the Japanese plan B in case the task force got discovered? I mean certainly the US would have increased the presence of patrols around Pearl Harbor to prevent the Japanese trying to come close again if this first attempt would have failed. So what would have happened if the carriers got discovered?

Lets discuss.

It's important to note several things about Pearl Harbor: the Japanese did not fully expect the attack to be a surprise. They anticipated the possibility of facing an alerted enemy. They figured to lose two carriers. In that regard, they were surprised themselves. There's always been speculation that had the US battleship fleet received adequate warning that getting underway and out into deep water might have resulted in a greater loss of life had the Japanese found them. The shallow depth of Pearl Harbor ensured many ships would fight again.

Equally importantly is that most of the conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor display a lot of ex post facto knowledge. The idea, for example, that FDR would sacrifice what were later seen as outdated warships (second-generation battleships and older destroyers). At the time, carrier operations were entirely new, and very few nations had mastered them. Not even the Japanese conceded the seas to carriers...the plan for Midway six months later called for the coup de grace to be delivered not by Nagumo's carriers, but by Yamamoto's powerful battleship division, led by the Yamato. If a war was going to be fought, the planners of 1941 expected it to be fought by those second-generation battleships lined up at Pearl Harbor, with the carriers in a supporting role.

There's also the point that tethering the battleships at Hawaii without torpedo nets was not as stupid as it sounded. The torpedoes the Japanese used in the attack were new and highly secret. The potency of Japanese torpedoes came as a shock to the US throughout the first months of the war.

And if Pearl Harbor is the subject of so many conspiracy theories, then the Battle of Savo Island, on August 8/9, 1942, should be even more controversial. Four Allied cruisers sunk, 1,000 bluejackets drowned, with no damage inflicted on the Japanese in return. That was nine months into the war, and the US Navy still was operating with a complacent mindset nine months after "The Day of Infamy." You see the same comedy of errors, missed intelligence and luck as at Pearl Harbor, but you never hear conspiracy theories on how the Japanese got the drop on the USN in the midst of an important counteroffensive.

The bottom line to me on Pearl Harbor is that the Americans underestimated the Japanese in 1941 as diminutive yellow men in buck teeth and spectacles who bowed a lot and made cheap imitation goods. In the racial environment of the 1940s the idea of an Asian people striking the USN in a safe port thousands of miles from the expected area of conflict was inconceivable. It took many months for that mindset to dissipate, which is why a lot of the conspiracy theories which popped up right after the attack inferred German planning or even outright participation in the attack.

I do feel that General Short and Admiral Kimmel got a harsher deal from Washington than they deserved. MacArthur lost all of his planes in the Philippines the following day, and became a hero. Short and Kimmel were not colorful characters or brilliant leaders, but they were unfairly treated when compared with MacArthur and Brereton. Their talents -- and Kimmel's were pretty considerable -- should not have been left to waste. As Prange wrote, "There was enough blame to go around at Pearl Harbor."

[Wuffer]

"The modern development of aircraft has demonstrated conclusively that the backbone of the Navy today is the aircraft carrier. The carrier, with destroyers, cruisers and submarines grouped around it[,] is the spearhead of all modern naval task forces."[5]
Trussell, C.P. (19 June 1940). in : "8 1⁄2 Billion is Voted for 1,500 Warships". New York Times. Retrieved 9 August 2012.

citated in: wikepedia, "two-ocean navy act", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act

"The Act authorized the procurement of:[1][4]

18 aircraft carriers
2 Iowa-class battleships
5 Montana-class battleships
6 Alaska-class cruisers
27 cruisers
115 destroyers
43 submarines
15,000 aircraft
The conversion of 100,000 tons of auxiliary ships
$50 million for patrol, escort and other vessels
$150 million for essential equipment and facilities
$65 million for the manufacture of ordnance material or munitions
$35 million for the expansion of facilities

On June 17, a few days after German troops conquered France, Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark requested four billion dollars from Congress to increase the size of the American combat fleet by 70% by adding 257 ships amounting to 1,325,000 tons.[4]"

I hope this article has correct facts.

Per definition warmongers do not sell wars, but they advocate and promote them, and sometimes they had very good reasons for this. If FDR was a warmonger, he was at least not alone, as a) half Asia und nearly complete Europe was allready conquered/ruled by deadly lunatic dictators and b) " On June 18, after less than an hour of debate, the House of Representatives by a 316–0 vote authorized $8.55 billion for a naval expansion program, giving emphasis to aircraft."
Rise and fall of great nations are nearly allways connected to their leadership.

But please don't confuse stupidity/lack of attention/naive sitereps etc. with conspiracy. No one could expect the Japanese to be such fools, really?

Some very careful thoughts:
1. The US were surprised, but (thx god!) not completely unprepared.
2. It was the last chance for the Japanese (see above).
3. It was the first chance for the US trying to stop the murdering - you simply need real world power for an ultimatum.
4. At least Berlin was completely surprised - nobody at OKH could find PH on a map.
5. Without the PH attack, the national shock and Hitler's following declaration of war only three days later, probably much more Americans would have died: The three biggest threads were Germany, Germany and Germany.

[Wuffer]

and btw, real warmongering needs adaquate propaganda - do you think 'The Great Dictator' was successful in this aspect?

.-)

[pontiouspilot]

pls read John Toland's Infamy, which I take to be the Bible on this point, and then come back and ask for the debate! Amongst the well read there seems no conspiracy theory.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Btw how can you be a warmongerer and a good man?

That depends.

Do you consider Churchill a "good man"?

[;)]

[Canoerebel]

The author of the original post might be surprised at the fervor with which his propopsed topic was dismissed. He might wonder why. He might wonder if those of us who disagreed with him are close-minded. That isn't the case. Let me explain.

The dismissal isn't because the subject isn't of interest. It's because the subject has been considered and studied exhaustively. There is no credible evidence that Roosevelt "wanted" the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor so that we could join the war effort. There is abundant, overwhelming evidence ("beyond a reasonable doubt") that he did not. Many of us have been through this excercise before (including multiple times in the WitP forums over the years) and are persauded that the issue has been settled after thorough and careful examination by many credible historians.

Occasionally people pop up and want to re-open the issue. Usually, they preface by taking this position: "I've seen some arguments that Roosevelt knew" and I'd like to discuss it. When the response is "already discussed and settled," the reaction is often: "Well, you must be close minded. Please prove to me that he wasn't involved in a conspiracy." This kind of approach to history drives historians and reasonable people nuts.

In the study of controversial, "outlying" views of history, the approach isn't to assume that the outlier is true and to demand that others prove it isn't. The reasonable approach is that it's up to you - the proponent of the outlier - to prove that evidence supports the absurd, the unlikely, the "outlying."

What if you offered this for discussion: "Abraham Lincoln was a female." Hopefully you wouldn't accept that as true and expect others to prove that he was a male. You'd understand that you carried the burden of proof since you were offering an unlikely, bizarre proposition.

If you were an unreasonable sort, you'd take offense when others replied: "Come on. He was a male. There's no evidence that he was a female." You'd reply: "You're not open minded. You've fallen for the party line and failed to fairly and thoroughly sift through history. In all the existing letters we have - hundreds and hundreds - not a single person wrote that they absolutely KNEW that Lincoln was a male. There's not a single document in which an eyewitness viewed his anatomy and said he was a male. His kindly nature and eloquent words suggest he was uncommonly sensitive. Mathematicus DaVinci Organelle, a professor of Sexual History at the Providence School of Proctology said, in 1911, that Lincoln exhibited many tendencies of a female. In total, there's reason to believe Lincoln might have been a female."

The rest of us would pull out our hair in frustration or peremptorily dismiss your thoughts from consideration at this point.

Matters of history are often up for discussion, interpretation and study. But certain things are beyond dispute because they are so well established. To dispute settled matters and, in so doing, to actually besmirth the reputations of historical people, can be pretty darn offensive.

[Symon]

Sorry to Canoerebel for responding to his post. It was just the last one in the thread.

Canoerebel is an historian and editor/publisher of an historical magazine. As such, he is bound by factual matters, of historical significance. That is his paradigm.

Mine is different. Fat, smelly, pimply faced, 12 year-olds, that can’t get a date no matter how much money they offer, just ain’t in it, so they have to play the tin foil hat card and make pronunciamento about conspiracies, in order to validate their pathetic existence.

This is a forum dealing with the Pacific War. Take your fat, smelly, conspiracy crap, shove it up your brown spot, and go away. JWE

[Big B]

From a different tangent - what difference does it really make?

It is beyond question that the US knew war was imminent, had recently issued war warnings, was tracking the movement of Japanese fleets (except apparently the KB), was rushing everything they could to the Philippines...

So other than the reputations of a handful of top players, what changes if they really knew about PH?

Is that the only thing at steak? Reputations of a handful of leaders? It certainly won't change anything that happened....

At this distant point in time I honestly fail to grasp the emotional aspect of the question. Will the world change if it was now presumed that FDR and a couple of others knew....maybe we'd have to issue new dimes?

Personally, I think they look as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo...but, you know - whatever.

My 2c....and that doesn't matter either [:D]
B

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
"Abraham Lincoln was a female."

Everybody knows this is an absurdity not worthy of additional consideration.

But did you know that Jefferson Davis was a cross-dresser? I heard that he had women's dresses in his home. The only reasonable explanation is that he wore them from time to time.

Also, 'tis a pity about Stonewall Jackson's proclivities. But we needn't discuss these in polite company.

[Canoerebel]

[X(]

Chickenboy may be on to something. When Jefferson Davis was apprehended by federal troops near Irwinville, Georgia, in May 1865, he was wearing a ragalan. At least that's what he claimed. There are other reports that he was wearing a woman's shawl. Some even said that he was fully outfitted in a woman's clothing.

[X(]

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Also, 'tis a pity about Stonewall Jackson's proclivities. But we needn't discuss these in polite company.

Lemons. And Jane Corbin. And on 17 March, 1863, she died of a fever. In front of all his men, the man who rarely displayed emotion in public broke down, sobbing uncontrollably.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
[X(]
Chickenboy may be on to something. When Jefferson Davis was apprehended by federal troops near Irwinville, Georgia, in May 1865, he was wearing a ragalan. At least that's what he claimed. There are other reports that he was wearing a woman's shawl. Some even said that he was fully outfitted in a woman's clothing.
[X(]

Dude !! You are editor/publisher of a period magazine. You know what women were wearing and you know Jeff wasn't wearing 'womens' clothing. There was womens "outer wear" that Jeff may have worn. A 'raglan' perhaps, and maybe a shawl, but not a full dress womans outfit. Ciao , JWE

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Also, 'tis a pity about Stonewall Jackson's proclivities. But we needn't discuss these in polite company.

Lemons. And Jane Corbin. And on 17 March, 1863, she died of a fever. In front of all his men, the man who rarely displayed emotion in public broke down, sobbing uncontrollably.

In USS Stonewall Jackson's wardroom, on the top of the heart-shaped "coffee table" in the forward part of the compartment away from the main dining table, there was a tile mosaic glued firmly to the steel surface of the table. It showed his saber, his gloves, crossed, and a small pile of lemons. The lore was it was commissioned by his great-great-granddaughter, the boat's sponsor. It really didn't fit with the rest of the room.

At some point a CRES table cover had been built and laminated with Formica, and then a naugahyde cover sewn to go over that for everyday use. The mosaic slept unseen. Pretty much only the cooks and officers knew it was there, and as such it was a great "gotcha" question on submarine quals. Really about the only one the cooks had to use on the nukes who tormented them on the back-aft walkthroughs for the cooks' required signatures.

[DeZanic]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

AND what if these carriers would have been spotted in time, would the US intervene? Would there be any war declaration anyway. What was the Japanese plan B in case the task force got discovered? I mean certainly the US would have increased the presence of patrols around Pearl Harbor to prevent the Japanese trying to come close again if this first attempt would have failed. So what would have happened if the carriers got discovered?

Lets discuss.

It's important to note several things about Pearl Harbor: the Japanese did not fully expect the attack to be a surprise. They anticipated the possibility of facing an alerted enemy. They figured to lose two carriers. In that regard, they were surprised themselves. There's always been speculation that had the US battleship fleet received adequate warning that getting underway and out into deep water might have resulted in a greater loss of life had the Japanese found them. The shallow depth of Pearl Harbor ensured many ships would fight again.

Equally importantly is that most of the conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor display a lot of ex post facto knowledge. The idea, for example, that FDR would sacrifice what were later seen as outdated warships (second-generation battleships and older destroyers). At the time, carrier operations were entirely new, and very few nations had mastered them. Not even the Japanese conceded the seas to carriers...the plan for Midway six months later called for the coup de grace to be delivered not by Nagumo's carriers, but by Yamamoto's powerful battleship division, led by the Yamato. If a war was going to be fought, the planners of 1941 expected it to be fought by those second-generation battleships lined up at Pearl Harbor, with the carriers in a supporting role.

There's also the point that tethering the battleships at Hawaii without torpedo nets was not as stupid as it sounded. The torpedoes the Japanese used in the attack were new and highly secret. The potency of Japanese torpedoes came as a shock to the US throughout the first months of the war.

And if Pearl Harbor is the subject of so many conspiracy theories, then the Battle of Savo Island, on August 8/9, 1942, should be even more controversial. Four Allied cruisers sunk, 1,000 bluejackets drowned, with no damage inflicted on the Japanese in return. That was nine months into the war, and the US Navy still was operating with a complacent mindset nine months after "The Day of Infamy." You see the same comedy of errors, missed intelligence and luck as at Pearl Harbor, but you never hear conspiracy theories on how the Japanese got the drop on the USN in the midst of an important counteroffensive.

The bottom line to me on Pearl Harbor is that the Americans underestimated the Japanese in 1941 as diminutive yellow men in buck teeth and spectacles who bowed a lot and made cheap imitation goods. In the racial environment of the 1940s the idea of an Asian people striking the USN in a safe port thousands of miles from the expected area of conflict was inconceivable. It took many months for that mindset to dissipate, which is why a lot of the conspiracy theories which popped up right after the attack inferred German planning or even outright participation in the attack.

I do feel that General Short and Admiral Kimmel got a harsher deal from Washington than they deserved. MacArthur lost all of his planes in the Philippines the following day, and became a hero. Short and Kimmel were not colorful characters or brilliant leaders, but they were unfairly treated when compared with MacArthur and Brereton. Their talents -- and Kimmel's were pretty considerable -- should not have been left to waste. As Prange wrote, "There was enough blame to go around at Pearl Harbor."

Wow I am suprised what you learn in school is not objective in your history books. I bet you dont even discuss alternative reasons for this attack and just push on with the official version without even criticizing or discussing it. Just like accepting it. That is intersting how your school system teaches your children not to make their own conclusions and stick with the mainstream. Anyway..

I am aware of many of the facts but some cannot be concluded for sure. I am an academic person that reads and estimates all the facts objectively. I am fully neutral and I dont accuse neither the US or Japan for the escalation of WWII. Fully neutral.

What put this this theory into my head was after reason George C. Marshalls diary pages published on the net by the archives. Remarkable is a comment in October 1941 where its said something like if the US are to go to war against Japan it would be better to let the Japanese make the first move.

And by the way how do I remove posts in this thread not having anything to do with the topic?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: DeZanic


And by the way how do I remove posts in this thread not having anything to do with the topic?

You can't. You don't own the thread.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

AND what if these carriers would have been spotted in time, would the US intervene? Would there be any war declaration anyway. What was the Japanese plan B in case the task force got discovered? I mean certainly the US would have increased the presence of patrols around Pearl Harbor to prevent the Japanese trying to come close again if this first attempt would have failed. So what would have happened if the carriers got discovered?

Lets discuss.

It's important to note several things about Pearl Harbor: the Japanese did not fully expect the attack to be a surprise. They anticipated the possibility of facing an alerted enemy. They figured to lose two carriers. In that regard, they were surprised themselves. There's always been speculation that had the US battleship fleet received adequate warning that getting underway and out into deep water might have resulted in a greater loss of life had the Japanese found them. The shallow depth of Pearl Harbor ensured many ships would fight again.

Equally importantly is that most of the conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor display a lot of ex post facto knowledge. The idea, for example, that FDR would sacrifice what were later seen as outdated warships (second-generation battleships and older destroyers). At the time, carrier operations were entirely new, and very few nations had mastered them. Not even the Japanese conceded the seas to carriers...the plan for Midway six months later called for the coup de grace to be delivered not by Nagumo's carriers, but by Yamamoto's powerful battleship division, led by the Yamato. If a war was going to be fought, the planners of 1941 expected it to be fought by those second-generation battleships lined up at Pearl Harbor, with the carriers in a supporting role.

There's also the point that tethering the battleships at Hawaii without torpedo nets was not as stupid as it sounded. The torpedoes the Japanese used in the attack were new and highly secret. The potency of Japanese torpedoes came as a shock to the US throughout the first months of the war.

And if Pearl Harbor is the subject of so many conspiracy theories, then the Battle of Savo Island, on August 8/9, 1942, should be even more controversial. Four Allied cruisers sunk, 1,000 bluejackets drowned, with no damage inflicted on the Japanese in return. That was nine months into the war, and the US Navy still was operating with a complacent mindset nine months after "The Day of Infamy." You see the same comedy of errors, missed intelligence and luck as at Pearl Harbor, but you never hear conspiracy theories on how the Japanese got the drop on the USN in the midst of an important counteroffensive.

The bottom line to me on Pearl Harbor is that the Americans underestimated the Japanese in 1941 as diminutive yellow men in buck teeth and spectacles who bowed a lot and made cheap imitation goods. In the racial environment of the 1940s the idea of an Asian people striking the USN in a safe port thousands of miles from the expected area of conflict was inconceivable. It took many months for that mindset to dissipate, which is why a lot of the conspiracy theories which popped up right after the attack inferred German planning or even outright participation in the attack.

I do feel that General Short and Admiral Kimmel got a harsher deal from Washington than they deserved. MacArthur lost all of his planes in the Philippines the following day, and became a hero. Short and Kimmel were not colorful characters or brilliant leaders, but they were unfairly treated when compared with MacArthur and Brereton. Their talents -- and Kimmel's were pretty considerable -- should not have been left to waste. As Prange wrote, "There was enough blame to go around at Pearl Harbor."

Wow I am suprised what you learn in school is not objective in your history books. I bet you dont even discuss alternative reasons for this attack and just push on with the official version without even criticizing or discussing it. Just like accepting it. That is intersting how your school system teaches your children not to make their own conclusions and stick with the mainstream. Anyway..

I am aware of many of the facts but some cannot be concluded for sure. I am an academic person that reads and estimates all the facts objectively. I am fully neutral and I dont accuse neither the US or Japan for the escalation of WWII. Fully neutral.

What put this this theory into my head was after reason George C. Marshalls diary pages published on the net by the archives. Remarkable is a comment in October 1941 where its said something like if the US are to go to war against Japan it would be better to let the Japanese make the first move.

And by the way how do I remove posts in this thread not having anything to do with the topic?

Nice try there, but you failed miserably to establish your neutrality.

If you were truly neutral you wouldn't be responding with the typically condescending attitude of an academic attempting to revile those who assert your premise is flawed.

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: DeZanic



Wow I am suprised what you learn in school is not objective in your history books. I bet you dont even discuss alternative reasons for this attack and just push on with the official version without even criticizing or discussing it. Just like accepting it. That is intersting how your school system teaches your children not to make their own conclusions and stick with the mainstream.

Anyway..

I am aware of many of the facts but some cannot be concluded for sure. I am an academic person that reads and estimates all the facts objectively. I am fully neutral and I dont accuse neither the US or Japan for the escalation of WWII. Fully neutral.

What put this this theory into my head was after reason George C. Marshalls diary pages published on the net by the archives. Remarkable is a comment in October 1941 where its said something like if the US are to go to war against Japan it would be better to let the Japanese make the first move.

And by the way how do I remove posts in this thread not having anything to do with the topic?

At least I was aware it was six carriers in the Kido Butai, not four. So much for academia.

And I think Marshall was correct about letting the enemy make the first move if one had to be made. it sure worked for Lincoln at Fort Sumter.

Must be that women's intuition. [:D]

[btd64]

From what I have read and heard over the years, IF the US knew the japanese were of of PH, there wasn't much they could do. If they sortied the BB's to attack the KB, with of without the 2 CV's in the area, they would of taken large losses in men and machines. Much higher than just letting them get bombed in PH. There's a lot more to it. This is from a special I saw on Discover or military channel a few years back. My $.02....GP

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Sorry to Canoerebel for responding to his post. It was just the last one in the thread.

Canoerebel is an historian and editor/publisher of an historical magazine. As such, he is bound by factual matters, of historical significance. That is his paradigm.

Mine is different. Fat, smelly, pimply faced, 12 year-olds, that can’t get a date no matter how much money they offer, just ain’t in it, so they have to play the tin foil hat card and make pronunciamento about conspiracies, in order to validate their pathetic existence.

This is a forum dealing with the Pacific War. Take your fat, smelly, conspiracy crap, shove it up your brown spot, and go away. JWE

warspite1

Mmmm, your post raises some serious questions.

Why do peeps you disagree with have to be fat, smelly, pimply faced and 12-years old? This is the second thread you've made that same accusation in.

Also why is a 12-year old offering money to get girls on a date?

I mean, don't get me wrong, post no. 7 put the guy firmly in the tosser category, but fat? smelly? suffering from acne? (come to think of it were you describing me?) There is no evidence of that.

Anyways.... so DeZanic you've slagged off the British, sorry british, for being boring and the US school system for the way it teaches its children. So which exciting, well educated country do you hail from?