Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory?

[Russ]

Great thoughts going on in this thread.

I will agree that the USA thought that the Japanese would in no way attack Pearl due to logistics. they thought, wrongly, that a force could not sustain itself as it crossed the vast pacific w/o being found or supplied properly. A little Arrogance as I mentioned?

The logical choice in thinking was for the Japanese to head South Southwest to get the valuable Oil that she needed so badly. and they did, as well!!

As my English Football friends say "fair play to the Japanese" for taking such a risk. Could one imagine the consequences to the Japanese navy if the USA Carriers had been in the right place at the right time and launched an attack on the Japanese carriers? would Midway have happened 7 months sooner than it did?

[Tiornu]

There wasn't a lot of arrogance in the American underestimation of IJN capability. Remember, many of the Japanese themselves didn't think they could pull off such a raid.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Nagumo didn´t believe it would work.

[Danelov]

A detail is certain, a man was perfectly informed about the attack ,vía a double agent of the Abwehr and the British MI 6 by August 1941.Had this man informed FDR or other competent US Autorithy?

I dont know, but certain is, this man was really "out of range" and nobody in the US sphere of power can risk conflicts with him in the WWII and many years after.Goverments and president changes but the man was always there , "untouchable" to his last day of live.

J.Edward Hoover

[tommy303]

I presume you mean J. Edgar Hoover.

[RF]

Coming back to the original premise, if it were the case that a US President deliberately allowed his country to be attacked, involving substantial losses of material and human lives, in full prior knowledge of that attack - then he would be in clear breach of his Oath of Office, namely to protect and defend the Constituition of the United States. The minimum that would happen to such a President is Impeachment from that office by Congress. To date no President has been impeached, FDR would not have betrayed his Oath of Office.

Note that we have had rumours of a similar nature over the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre, again they are rubbish.

[Tiornu]

Rubbish, absolutely. That's why the assertions against FDR rely on unsupported inferences and outright misinformation.
Two Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Impeachment is the attempt to remove the President from office, whether successful or not.

[Danelov]

No, I think FDR was not involved in this type of conspiration or something like this.The man was too honest and with a great sens of the moral and humanism.Enough to see that in his discurss to the Congress after the 07-12-41 ;his indignation and his voice full of emotion is too genuine.
And the relations were quite good with the Allieds when he was in the charge of the presidence. He was a good catalysator between Stalin and Churchill, and with the first one he had a very good rapport and vice-versa. Unlucky he had death too early and his sucessor ,had not continued his line and he had the great negative responsability of be the creator of the "Cold War":Harry Truman.
The most part of the compromisses signed by FRD in Yalta were not valable for him, and he had forced Stalin and the Soviet Union to reconsider this position againts USA. Ended the time of peace and friendly relations between the two nations; in a couple of months he had destroyed the great work of FDR in all this difficult war years.
He had utilised the Atomic bomb not to economise the live of thousand of soldiers in the invasion of Japan like is presented by the propaganda , but to shown to Stalin who had the power and to mantain the Soviets in a position defensive.Results , the next day after Hiroshima ,Stalin ordered to Russian scientifics to obtain the Russian bomb the more fast possible(1949)without limits in money and resources. The Soviet Union had needed in this time all this energy to rebuild the country after the inmense destruction done by the Nazis ,and not another preparation for a new eventuell war.
He had utilised also the bomb a Hiroshima two day before the fixed dated of the Entry in war of Soviet Union againts Japan, to avoid the Soviets participation ,but there he had failed.The Soviet ocupation force in Japan signed by FRD was also death words by Truman; the reparations payment conditions by Germany fixed also in Yalta ,were also death words for Truman. Soviet Union can only received payments of the eastern side.

The terrible of that was the utilisation of all this thousand of civil death japaneses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shown in wich hand is the power of the world.
Japan were ready to sign the capitulation , delegations,including Prince Konoye were send to Moscow or via neutral nations to make the contact definitive ; only condition : the respect of the live of the Emperor and all that by the end of May 1945.The tentatives were continued between May and early August.
But Truman was inflexible in his point and the bombs were dropped.

Hipotetically, if the bombers were ready in Jan 1945 for example ,can Truman ordered the same over Germany?

I think, no, a rotund no...

The reasons , you can reflexioned about that.

A good point in the Truman historial , he had fired MacArthur after this last had recommended to make a atomic bombardement over China in 1950 in the Korea War to stop "the yellow hordes".

But, in 1950 the Soviet Union had also the bomb , and in three years more also the H bomb.

The line of the history could be very different if FDR was alive in the time of the capitulation of Japan.
The history can judge all this mens...

[Karl Heidenreich]

Danelov:

Unlucky he had death too early and his sucessor ,had not continued his line and he had the great negative responsability of be the creator of the "Cold War":Harry Truman.

In that respect I agree 100%. FDR was a leader that the US was never able to replace. The Cold War was the theatre of mediocre presidents like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (I never understand how he got to be a naval officer), being the two "better" ones Ike and Reagan.
Maybe a FDR in office by 1945-1947 would have prevented the Cold War and all the evils that, even today, are present in our society.

Danelov:

Japan were ready to sign the capitulation , delegations,including Prince Konoye were send to Moscow or via neutral nations to make the contact definitive ; only condition : the respect of the live of the Emperor and all that by the end of May 1945.The tentatives were continued between May and early August.

I´m not that sure about it. A lot´s been said about that particular fact in new "revisionist" researchs. It´s true that many in the Japanese goverment were seeking a "dignified peace" with US but, as far as historical recolection stands, many other groups prevented the peace and used their warmonging speeches to arise the politicians and the people against the signature of any peace with the US. It´s also true about the Soviet effort to bring a peace signed at "Moscow" because that would help the position of the commies in Asia. But, even the Japanese, were not all convinced about Stalin´s intentions (a person that trusts in Uncle Joe must be really stupid). Returning to the "peace-seeking" Japanese I can tell you about an uncle of mine that was a Marine in Saipan and he heard the Japanese officers and civil authorities with loud-speakers asking the population to throw themselves to the sea before been taken by "bloodthirsty" US marines. Nope, the Japanese were not seeking peace as we, Westerners, understand. About the throwing of the bomb, well, that´s other story but, again, my uncle was very gratefull with General Grooves because his (and another half million US GIs and 2-3 million Japanese´s) life was spared. Of two evils: the lesser.

Danelov:

A good point in the Truman historial , he had fired MacArthur after this last had recommended to make a atomic bombardement over China in 1950 in the Korea War to stop "the yellow hordes".

But, in 1950 the Soviet Union had also the bomb , and in three years more also the H bomb.

I always regard Truman´s low goverment quality with a special and unique low: firing Old Mac. Maybe Old Mac wasn´t the one to threat the Chinese commies wih a nuclear strike (idea very much liked by Curtis Le May), but it wasn´t that crazy. It was Truman the one that weakened the US Army to a point that it could stand strong only in one place at a time (Fulda Gap in Germany which was the place NATO was expecting the commies to attack in any moment. And Uncle Joe had enough tank and infantry divisions there to justify NATO concern) and, so, the land forces in Korea were not capable of re-engage in offensive operations against some 300,000 chinese soldiers that crossed the frontier in "friendship with the korean people." So Old Mac´s idea of "winning" the war (not bringing a stand still that even today threaten global security) was to kick the Chinese in their butt and negociate under favorable circumstances. And, if the bomb was used against the Japanese to end the World War it was not that crazy to use it again to stop cold a new World War. Anyway, Old Mac commited insubordination and was fired by a WWI reserve artillery captain from Missouri that probably once singed "Old Duggout Doug".


Danelov:

The Soviet Union had needed in this time all this energy to rebuild the country after the inmense destruction done by the Nazis ,and not another preparation for a new eventuell war.

That could be true if a the Soviet Union was under the goverment of any other but Joe Stalin. That butcher (and far superior genocide than all the nazis put together with Gengis Khan) was only expecting a moment of weakness to roll his Tank Armies until the gas runs dry. His crimes are not as famous as those of Hitler because:
1. He was an ally.
2. He won
3. He target no jews as the nazis did
4. There were commie propaganda agents everywhere in the planet.
So, expecting that he acted as a civilized leader and care for his people (ask the civilians of Stalingrad about Joe´s caring mercy) is like expecting a junkie not to touch a drug left at his reach. Nonsense!

FDR would have prevented all this things being he alive and helped by Churchill (he wouldn´t be kicked out of office in the first place if FDR was alive).

Best regards.

[Danelov]

Certainly Stalin is a personnage sinister,darkest,negative,etc in the history of the humanity.
But analizing after all this years the fates, he was manipuled by the West powers ,Allied send trucks ,planes,tanks,etc and Stalin put in his side the lives of millons of soldiers breaking the German Warmachine and he has very near of win the war alone againts the Germans.Actually he had make a great part of the work of the USA and England, giving the blood of the millons of Soviets soldiers deaths for that and his petitions of open a second front from 1941 were finally realised partially in Sicilly and finaly in Normandie.

Churchill is very clear in this point in his Memories.

Was really a very indignous marchandage , war material for human
lives.And that was really not so bad for many anticomunist in the world.


Battles like Stalingrad , Kursk ,Don were catastrofic for the Germans and from this middle of 1943 the advance of the red Army toward the west was continuos.

The point , the continuos advanced of the Red Army in 1944 were a theme of great preocupation specially for Churchill; nothing was more horrendous for him to see something like the Red Army tanks in parade at the Champs Elysee at Paris.
From this point he start to change and his correspondace with "Joe" change in atmosphere, Nothing more "Dear friend of arms" ," Great Marshall Stalin","My dear friend" ,etc.

Also the author of the petition of the entry in war of the Soviets againts the Japanese come from Roosevelt and was fixed allround of two months after the German capitulation.

I dont know , I am not communist or something like that but I read and investigate all type of informations ;"Super- Imperialist ,"Super Comunist","Super Japanese",etc , for have the most possible complete global view of the theme, taking outside all type of information clearly defined as propagandist.

And about the theme "Invading Rusen" ; must be taking that with precaution.
The Soviet(I utilise this word to entry in the context of this time)were not for nature invaders ; if you look the history of the URSS from the Revolution to the year 1939 , there were not invasions or attacks maked by the URSS ; exception was Finland and he had also his explanation.
If you want we can speaking about that but can be longuer and maybe out of topic. But Iam open for that.
The point the Soviets were under menace from 1917 to 1941 , first by White Russian , then by merceneries armies armed by England, Germans,USA,Poland,etc , then latter by the Japanese .The country was always with a hand near of the gun , under continued menace ,plenty concient of his impopularity in some countries of the west and of course trying the expand the message of the Comunism International.

Caution I speak of the Stalin years , not of 1956 ,1968,Afghanistan,etc.

The message of Hitler in Mein Kamp about the Slaves,and vital land space for the gross Deutschland was well known by the Soviet leaders in the 30´s.And the definition of the future enemy was clear for the Soviets but the Army was not prepared ,specially after the terrible purgues of 1937 and than come this infamous pacte of the Devil with Hitler in August 1939 ,certainly one of the most indignous pacts of the XX century and a enorme schock for the comunist of all world.

Well in few words ,Stalin had several oportunities to invade and ocupe lands between 1944 and 1945 , Roumania , Bulgaria ,Hungary,Finland , Austria,all Germany ; nobody can oposse him in this pre-atomic time.But the men, same with all his horror negative historial in his personality, had word and all compromiss signed in Teheran,Yalta,etc were acomplished by him.

We cannot the same of the Allieds in this point.

A crucial point for Stalin,apart the second front, was the payment by Germany and others of the war damages. FRD had gived guarantees about that and also assigned credits from USA to URSS for reconstruction.

And all that was annuled and go to the scrap wit Truman.Easy to imagine the reaction of Stalin about that and If we added still the bomb(He was vagaly informed in Postdam about a powerfull bomb but nothing more),the menace from the URSS was always there, but now under another name.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I found this, is very short and enlightning:

Number of victims
Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range as high as 60 million.[11][11] But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, hard evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available, and such estimates became more difficult to sustain. For example, the archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation[citation needed] or other causes in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

Debate continues however[12], since some historians believe the archival figures are unreliable.[12] Also, it is generally agreed that the data are incomplete, since some categories of victim were carelessly recorded by the Soviets - such as the victims of ethnic deportations, or of German population transfer in the aftermath of WWII.

Thus, while some archival researchers have posited the number of victims of Stalin's repressions to be no more than about 4 million in total [13][14][15], others believe the number to be considerably higher. Russian writer Vadim Erlikman[13], for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

These numbers are by no means the full story of deaths attributable to the regime however, since at least another 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine must be added.[16][14][15] But again historians differ, this time as to whether or not the famine victims were purposive killings - as part of the campaign of repression against kulaks - or whether they were simply unintended victims of the struggle over forced collectivization.

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a probable figure of somewhere between 15 to 20 million. Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims. Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest[16], meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million. Others, however, continue to maintain that their earlier much higher estimates are correct.[17]

Best regards.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Anyway, let´s talk ships again...

[Danelov]

Yes, really true ,enough with this theme. Back to the wondefull world of the ships and sea.

[dfrighini]

'Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory?' this is certainly an interesting thread, and one because of conspiracies nature that's argued and argued and never concluded. I believe there is certain a large amount of circumstantial but no way of knowing for certain, or certainly not until we are all long dead. It took near 150 years for the darker secretes of the American Civil War to emerge, and so along with JFK I don't think anyone is going to be concluding answers anytime soon.

I'm interested in looking at the bigger picture, so I'm not going to talk about Pearl Harbor directly, this has already been done by others more qualified. What I find interesting is the operation of the US government, being a so called 'democracy', the US government needs a reason, justification, for a prolonged war. This ties in with mass media semiotics, mass media in any country through control of the press being a form of propaganda (just look at FDR's fire side chats). I think Karl Heidenreich makes a very valid point quoting Carl Von Clauswitz, especially the last point (number 3) that the people must support the war effort, as already mentioned in this thread victory is not always defined on the battlefield, but rather by public opinion post event.

So if we look at US history and the bigger picture we start to see a pattern emerging... as follows

1) February 15th 1898 the USS Maine is destroyed by an explosion in Havana Harbor (Spain), to this day the cause of the explosion is disputed, however this is a large body of evidence that the ship suffered an internal explosion (magazine) rather than Spanish military action, a number of battleships have destroyed themselves this way. This makes sense as Spain could never win a war again America, just look at the difference between the two navies and I simply don't believe the Spanish are stupid enough to declare a war they can not win. Perhaps America is an aggressor, and imperial power, some might find this thought hard to stomach. What is certain is a jingoistic American press whipped up public support for a war again Spain, revenge for the Maine etc. and the rest is history. America gained its first unofficial colonial possessions.

2) WW1 and the Lusitania, certainly opinions surrounding the event was stage managed and controlled, providing public support for a war in Europe. The public will never understand arguments about military or naval warfare, i.e. is RM Lusitania was carrying a military cargo etc. To be honest it really does not matter as these arguments, no matter how correct are after the point, basically the event was used for political gain.

3) Pearl Harbor, certain the loss of a couple of old battleship of WW1 vintage is no great loss the the US, arguable the Japanese did the US a favor. What is important is the US carriers were not in Pearl at the time of the attack, they were at see conducting an exercise, interesting. Both Japanese and Americans corrector realised interwar that the carrier was a war winning weapon in the Pacific.

4) 11th September & the WTC attack, this is already an number of advance conspiracy theories about this event, either stating the US conducted the bombing themselves or that the US government new something about the forthcoming attack (more believable). Yet again what is certain is Carl Von Clauswitz theories about war.

So four wars and four common factors.

A quick note before anyone mentions it should be the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963, the US did not try to engineer anything here because no one can afford a nuclear war, M.A.D doctrine, this applies to both the USA & the USSR.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Oberwarrior,

Also we must acknowledge the afinity, during WWII, of FDR and his close colaborators to help out the Soviet Union from the nazi menace. Last year, when reading a book about the "political incorrect" history of the US many issues point out about FDR need to get into the war to help up Uncle Joe. Not a Consipary Theory supporter myself I do believe that the Pearl attack was very welcome by FDR.

Best regards,