VIDEO: Students Struggle to name a single just war the U.S fought

Ahead of Veterans’ Day, Eduardo Neret traveled to Howard University to ask students if there has been any U.S. war that was justified.

Most students said no war was justified, including WWII.




https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13977

Simple wow.

Not even the American war of independence?

Some said the Civil war, but WW2 many did not think was justified in fighting the Nazi's of the Japanese?

Seriously?

I would love to know what history they are actually being taught?

As are they not aware that Nazi Germany declared War on the US and the Japanese attacked the US?

phil wrote:Not even the American war of independence?

There's an argument to be made that the British were right.

phil wrote:WW2 many did not think was justified in fighting the Nazi's of the Japanese?

Throughout the 1930's, until December 7, 1942, Congress had passed four Neutrality Acts, forbidding the US from entering "Europe's War".

phil wrote:As are they not aware that Nazi Germany declared War on the US and the Japanese attacked the US?

Yes, Hitler declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, according to the terms of the Rome Accord, or Axis pact.  There's an argument to be made that the US provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.

phildidge wrote:Ahead of Veterans’ Day, Eduardo Neret traveled to Howard University to ask students if there has been any U.S. war that was justified.

Most students said no war was justified, including WWII.




https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13977

Simple wow.

Not even the American war of independence?

Some said the Civil war, but WW2 many did not think was justified in fighting the Nazi's of the Japanese?

Seriously?

I would love to know what history they are actually being taught?

As are they not aware that Nazi Germany declared War on the US and the Japanese attacked the US?

They are taught to be "woke".

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:As are they not aware that Nazi Germany declared War on the US and the Japanese attacked the US?

Yes, Hitler declared war on the US on December 11, 1942, according to the terms of the Rome Accord, or Axis pact.  There's an argument to be made that the US provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.

These is zero evidence that the US provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl harbour

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:Ahead of Veterans’ Day, Eduardo Neret traveled to Howard University to ask students if there has been any U.S. war that was justified.

Most students said no war was justified, including WWII.




https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13977

Simple wow.

Not even the American war of independence?

Some said the Civil war, but WW2 many did not think was justified in fighting the Nazi's of the Japanese?

Seriously?

I would love to know what history they are actually being taught?

As are they not aware that Nazi Germany declared War on the US and the Japanese attacked the US?

They are taught to be "woke".  

Exactly and again this really shows up the bias in what they are being taught

As they are basically saying no war in self defense is justfiable

There is nothing new in this  level of ingrained and insipid ignorance among the average 'young Americans'  --  they have been misled and fed misinformation for decades...
(No need tl look any further than the regular line of garbage we get from Maddog in here --  just like his idiotic non-comments above there..).

No need to visit university campuses, either --  it starts in their primary schools with students being told that the USA fought alone in Vietnam, for the express purpose of stopping communists from taking over the world and destroying the capitalist system..

My brother was over in Maryland in the early 1980s, where even back then the US education system was teaching their kids that the US went in there alone, unawares that 19 other allied countries had a military presence alongside the Yanks and South Vietnamese.

Well before the current "woke"/"illiberal"/"Marxist" hysteria beatups by those far-right stirrers looking to boost Trump's reelection chances..

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, Hitler declared war on the US on December 11, 1942, according to the terms of the Rome Accord, or Axis pact.  There's an argument to be made that the US provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.

These is zero evidence that the US provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl harbour

The US had broken the Japanese codes. Why, in an oceanic war where the capital ships were to be aircraft carriers, was the entire carrier fleet forbidden by Washington to enter Pearl Harbor on the weekend of December 6-7, 1941? It was their home port.

Very suspicious. I only say there is an argument to be made: The US had just moved the entire Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawai'i, in a move that could only be seen as highly belligerent and preparatory for war.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

These is zero evidence that the US provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl harbour

The US had broken the Japanese codes.  Why, in an oceanic war where the capital ships were to be aircraft carriers, was the entire carrier fleet forbidden by Washington to enter Pearl Harbor on the weekend of December 6-7, 1941?  It was their home port.

Very suspicious.  I only say there is an argument to be made: The US had just moved the entire Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawai'i, in a move that could only be seen as highly belligerent and preparatory for war.

Yet more revisionist history. There is no documentation that the aircraft carriers were forbidden from entering Pearl Habour

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/c/carrier-locations.html

So I fail see any suspicion, being that its a complete load of bollocks

The Us were also unaware of a pending attack on Pearl Harbour. Some japanese ciphers had been broken but many had not been and many reports were not even passed onto Roosevelt. No codes broken spoke of an attack on pearl harbour, another complete myth

The US also were getting transcrips of U_boat movements and instead of placing them in harms way which would have swayed public opinion to declare war. Roosevelt did everything to avert this happening

They even offered to supply oil to the japanese if they withdrew from South Indochina

The japanese already had plans to attack the US. Which was 1946. What excelerated these plans was German sucess and Hitler puhsing the japanese to attack the US

So on every front your claims are fake news and bollocks

Oh I would add at the time Aircraft carriers were not classifed as capital ships before Pearl Harbour, but as fleet scouting elements. It was Battleships for the time that were seen as capital ships in the US Navy plans. So even on that count you got this part of history also wrong

phildidge wrote:Oh I would add at the time Aircraft carriers were not classifed as capital ships before Pearl Harbour, but as fleet scouting elements. It was Battleships for the time that were seen as capital ships in the US Navy plans. So even on that count you got this part of history also wrong

So? Aircraft carriers were the major weapon in an oceanic war, expected to dominate the largest ocean in the world.

After the Battle of Taranto, on the night of 11–12 November 1940, the British proved the superiority of the aircraft carrier. The attack struck the battle fleet of the Regia Marina at anchor in the harbor of Taranto, using aerial torpedoes. The success of this attack initiated the ascendancy of naval aviation over the big guns of battleships.

Opinions moved quickly. Some say the Japanese modeled the attack on Pearl Harbor after Taranto. The US Navy knew the value of the aircraft carrier, and proved it by sinking four Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway, June 2-7, 1942. After that, Japan was lost.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:Oh I would add at the time Aircraft carriers were not classifed as capital ships before Pearl Harbour, but as fleet scouting elements. It was Battleships for the time that were seen as capital ships in the US Navy plans. So even on that count you got this part of history also wrong

So?  Aircraft carriers were the major weapon in an oceanic war, expected to dominate the largest ocean in the world.

After the Battle of Taranto, on the night of 11–12 November 1940, the British proved the superiority of the aircraft carrier.  The attack struck the battle fleet of the Regia Marina at anchor in the harbor of Taranto, using aerial torpedoes. The success of this attack initiated the ascendancy of naval aviation over the big guns of battleships.

Opinions moved quickly.  Some say the Japanese modeled the attack on Pearl Harbor after Taranto.  The US Navy knew the value of the aircraft carrier, and proved it by sinking four Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway, June 2-7, 1942.  After that, Japan was lost.

Aircraft Carriers became the major weapon, hence you are speaking in hindsight. Again at the time Aircraft Carriers were not see as capital ships like Battleships. Its why the US had so few of them compared to Battleships. It was not until 1942 that they were reclasssed as Capital ships.

Which renders your whole argument redundent on the aircraft carriers. So going off a British Attck that was successful. Does not mean the US suddenlly went. "Wow lets make ours capital ships or start building them in ernest." If they had, many would have been in production, before 1942

Not only that at least one was headfing towards Peral harbour. Easily refuting your claim they were not allowed to go to Peral harbour. You see its easy to dispell myths, when they are as seen based on falsehoods from the start

I believe at least 2 Carriers had not long left Pearl Harbour on a "shakedown" voyage a few days before the Japs attacked ?

phil wrote:Aircraft Carriers became the major weapon, hence you are speaking in hindsight. Again at the time Aircraft Carriers were not see as capital ships like Battleships. Its why the US had so few of them compared to Battleships. It was not until 1942 that they were reclasssed as Capital ships.

Carriers were superior to battleships, as proven by the Battle of Taranto. Indeed, after the hulls of a couple of battleships had been laid, they were refitted with carrier decks because carriers were more desirable. This happened with the Japanese battlecarrier Ise and the Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano.

nicko wrote:I believe at least 2 Carriers had not long left Pearl Harbour on a "shakedown" voyage a few days before the Japs attacked ?

The entire carrier fleet was out on maneuvers the week before, and they were ordered not to reenter Pearl at the close of maneuvers, as had been planned. No reason given.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Aircraft Carriers became the major weapon, hence you are speaking in hindsight. Again at the time Aircraft Carriers were not see as capital ships like Battleships. Its why the US had so few of them compared to Battleships. It was not until 1942 that they were reclasssed as Capital ships.

Carriers were superior to battleships, as proven by the Battle of Taranto.  Indeed, after the hulls of a couple of battleships had been laid, they were refitted with carrier decks because carriers were more desirable.  This happened with the Japanese battlecarrier Ise and the Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano.

And again not to the US where they classed as capital shipsa until 1942. How many more times do I need to repeat this?

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I believe at least 2 Carriers had not long left Pearl Harbour on a "shakedown" voyage a few days before the Japs attacked ?

The entire carrier fleet was out on maneuvers the week before, and they were ordered not to reenter Pearl at the close of maneuvers, as had been planned.  No reason given.

On 7 December 1941, the three Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga(CV-3).

Enterprise: On 28 November 1941, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel sent TF-8, consisting of Enterprise, the heavy cruisers Northampton(CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers under Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., to ferry 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats of Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 211 to Wake Island. Upon completion of the mission on 4 December, TF-8 set course to return to Pearl Harbor. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found TF-8 about 215 miles west of Oahu.

Lexington: On 5 December 1941, TF-12, formed around Lexington, under the command of Rear Admiral John H. Newton, sailed from Pearl to ferry 18 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators of Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 231 to Midway Island. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found Lexington, heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers about 500 miles southeast of Midway. The outbreak of hostilities resulted in cancellation of the mission and VMSB-231 was retained on board [they would ultimately fly to Midway from Hickam Field on 21 December].

Saratoga: The Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor.

Yorktown (CV-5), Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), were in the Atlantic Fleet; Hornet (CV-, commissioned in late October 1941, had yet to carry out her shakedown. Yorktown would be the first Atlantic Fleet carrier to be transferred to the Pacific, sailing on 16 December 1941.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/c/carrier-locations.html


Stop lying Quill

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Carriers were superior to battleships, as proven by the Battle of Taranto.  Indeed, after the hulls of a couple of battleships had been laid, they were refitted with carrier decks because carriers were more desirable.  This happened with the Japanese battlecarrier Ise and the Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano.

And again not to the US where they classed as capital shipsa until 1942. How many more times do I need to repeat this?

It's a silly point.  You are arguing definitions, I'm talking about reality.  What carriers brought to sea battles were aircraft.  Aircraft were known to be superior weapons since WWI.  The carrier's aircraft gave them warning of enemy forces, and their generally high speed enabled them to avoid direct combat, in favor of air battles.

After Taranto the superiority of aircraft carriers was confirmed. That much was well known by December, 1941.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

And again not to the US where they classed as capital shipsa until 1942. How many more times do I need to repeat this?

It's a silly point.  You are arguing definitions, I'm talking about reality.  What carriers brought to sea battles were aircraft.  Aircraft were known to be superior weapons since WWI.  The carrier's aircraft gave them warning of enemy forces, and their generally high speed enabled them to avoid direct combat, in favor of air battles.

After Taranto the superiority of aircraft carriers was confirmed.

Well for one i have shown you are very clueless on the history and how aircraft carriers were defined in the US before Pearl harbour. as seen sthey were not seen as capital ship. Aircraft carriers were classified as fleet scouting element. Your first arguments is based on them being capital ships and thus protecting them. So if they are not capital ships at the time and battleships were and more a priority. Your argument makes no sense at all. based omn the known history for the time.

If your view was correct on capiral ships. It would have been all battleships out on missions and the carriers in port at Pearl harbour. The point you claryingly miss. The reality is one Carrier group was already heading back to Pearl harbour after its mission to deliever aircraft.

So we all know how aircraft carriers came to be superior, but at the time they were not seen this way by the US. Hence your whole argument is utterly sunk on this bases. As if they were seen as fleet scouting element. They were seen as more expendable than Battleships in 1941.

This only changed in 1942 and then a massive building programme was only introduced then after pearl Harbour and not before

So going off Taranto is utterly irrelevant, being as the US did not consider US carriers capital ships even after this attack and not until after Peral Harbour.

All you could charge the US navy with at this time is not taking more note of the successful attack of Taranto

phil wrote:Well for one i have shown you are very clueless on the history and how aircraft carriers were defined in the US before Pearl harbour. as seen sthey were not seen as capital ship.

It's not about definitions, didge.  Admirals in war colleges do not argue over dictionaries.  They are at the cutting edge of effective weaponry.  They assign dictionaries to ensigns and lieutenants.

The decision-makers could see for themselves what a formidable weapon the aircraft was.  Hell, you had to steer a battleship in order to aim its guns.  Aircraft could go directly to the target, drop bombs, sink ships, and be home for lunch.

Hence, to the admirals, aircraft carriers were the superior ship.  An idiot could see that. Ask yourself, if aircraft carriers were so negligible, as you argue, why did Japanese Admiral Nagumo attack Pearl Harbor with only aircraft carriers, an no battleships?

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Well for one i have shown you are very clueless on the history and how aircraft carriers were defined in the US before Pearl harbour. as seen sthey were not seen as capital ship.

It's not about definitions, didge.  Admirals in war colleges do not argue over dictionaries.  They are at the cutting edge of effective weaponry.  They assign dictionaries to ensigns and lieutenants.

The decision-makers could see for themselves what a formidable weapon the aircraft was.  Hell, you had to steer a battleship in order to aim its guns.  Aircraft could go directly to the target, drop bombs, sink ships, and be home for lunch.

Hence, to the admirals, aircraft carriers were the superior ship.  An idiot could see that.

It is about how you made a view on what you thought were capital ships at a time, when they never were in the US.
Look back at your argument which is based off aircraft carriers being capital ships
You make this argument in hindsight after events

So because they came to dominate naval warfare. You take a poor approach and become paranoid in regards to this believing the US should have protected them. Even worse you lie over them not being allowed into Peral harbour. Which i have disproven

So you claim the views of admirals. Which saw them and were involved in naval planning in 1941. That you claim, saw them as capital ships pre peral harbour?

You are simple spoouting bullshit, because you know your argument was sunk the moment you made the view on capital ships. Even more how again they were not seen as capital ship until after Pearl harbour.

So in 1941, to the US Navy planners they were not the superior ship. All you could argue off is some Admirals not being listened to on their views of aircraft carriers. Which you have failed to even show evidence for in 1941. Even that would be irrelevant being as it would be those who were the navy planners

Your whole argument hinged on two lies, easily debunked

phil wrote:It is about how you made a view on what you thought were capital ships at a time, when they never were in the US.

Semantic argument. Substitute the term 'paramount' ships, or 'first-class' ships, or 'most-formidable' ships, or any word you want that means they were the prime ships in the fleet.

Battleships are artillery platforms. Aircraft carriers are mobile airports. With the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, in was obvious to all that war would be conducted by air travel and/or combat.

nicko wrote:I believe at least 2 Carriers had not long left Pearl Harbour on a "shakedown" voyage a few days before the Japs attacked ?

The U.S. Pacific Fleet had three carriers at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack:

U.S.S Lexington was at sea with Task Force 12, ferrying aircraft to Midway Island.
U.S.S. Enterprise was at sea and planned a return to Pearl Harbor on the evening of Dec. 7th.
U.S.S Saratoga was in San Diego to embark her air group, which was training onshore.

The U.S.S. Yorktown would join the Pacific Fleet soon afterward, but at the time she was birthed at a dock at Norfolk, VA.

All seemingly legitimate reasons to be gone...but gone, nonetheless. It all might easily have been pre-arranged by the War Department in Washington.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:It is about how you made a view on what you thought were capital ships at a time, when they never were in the US.

Semantic argument.  Substitute the term 'paramount' ships, or 'first-class' ships, or 'most-formidable' ships, or any word you want that means they were the prime ships in the fleet.

Battleships are artillery platforms.  Aircraft carriers are mobile airports.  With the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, in was obvious to all that war would be conducted by air travel and/or combat.

Its you coming up with the fringe argument based on no evidence but your views of carriers, not shared by the US Navy at the time

Even worse you lied twice here in regards to the aircraft carriers.

Even worse you have replied to Nicko with two different answers now, after I again corrected you lol

You claimed they were on maneuvers, when two had actual tasks

Its easy to expose someone lying, then when shown facts. Then twisting these to fit his fringe argument

Busted

Where were the carriers and why did they disappear on that strategic weekend?  Tasks are maneuvers.  They all had excuses as to why; they all were not there on that weekend.

Coincidence? A good investigator doesn't believe in coincidences.  If you were going to disappear, wouldn't you concoct excuses?  It's called cover your ass.  You've got no answers, and you sure don't understand political messaging. To have no answer, is to admit it.

That's the strongest evidence that Pearl Harbor was provoked.  I only said that a case could be made.  But, you've got no answers, and that counts a great deal.

Original Quill wrote:Where were the carriers and why did they disappear on that strategic weekend?  Tasks are maneuvers.  They all had excuses as to why; they all were not there on that weekend.

Coincidence?  A good investigator doesn't believe in coincidences.  If you were going to disappear, wouldn't you concoct excuses?  It's called cover your ass.  You've got no answers, and you sure don't understand political messaging.  To have no answer, is to admit it.

That's the strongest evidence that Pearl Harbor was provoked.  I only said that a case could be made.  But, you've got no answers, and that counts a great deal.

1) See yet more delusions. The carriers all had specific tasks, Two of them important ones delivering military aircraft to islands. Hence that is not maneuvers and shows you have no comprehension of what that means. So that is not excuses, as again that is you looking in hindsight and again with a flawed understanding of naval policy for the time. Which the US naval planners never valued the aircraft carriers as capital ships before the attack on Pearl harbour. So again you invoke fringe view points again not understanding the historical reality of the time

2) Again the next point is flawed from failing to understand the first. So there is no Coincidence and why historians easily dismiss the poor fringe claims made by people like yourself on Pearl harbour, as they are not backed by any evidence

3) You provided no evidence that Peral Harbour was provoked and it even fails to understand Roosevelt for the time. Who was aiding the British and Soviets with resources. Being that the German ciphers of U_boat movements were known to him. He did everything to have us ships avoid their routes. If he wanted to enter the war. Why did he avoid them, when he could have easily allowed convoys to fall into the path of german U-boats creating similar outrage, which led to the US entering the first world war. You see on every level your views do not fit any rational reality and ignore all the evidence.

phil wrote:So again you invoke fringe view points again not understanding the historical reality of the time

You are missing the point, didge. If you wanted to keep the carriers out of the action, wouldn't you have somewhere else that they had to go?

For example, if your mother wants you to attend a boring garden party with her old biddy friends, don't you tell her you have to work late? Or, you have somewhere else to go? You make up something.

It's the same thing with things on a geopolitical level. You pretend the carriers have other places to be, or other missions.

phil wrote:So there is no Coincidence and why historians easily dismiss the poor fringe claims made by people like yourself on Pearl harbour, as they are not backed by any evidence

Where were the carriers? That's an important evidentiary point in itself.

phil wrote:You provided no evidence that Peral Harbour was provoked and it even fails to understand Roosevelt for the time.

View it in the context of the times. Put yourself in Roosevelt's shoes. Congress had just passed four (4) Neutrality Acts in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor. The Axis powers had just signed the Rome (mutual aid) Accord. It was a time of great tension.

What would it mean, for example, if today we simply entered and occupied the Baltic states as a measure to check Russian expansion? Well, in comparison, that's what we did in 1940 when we moved our Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor. It announced that the United States Navy was there to interfere with Japan's designs on Asia and the Pacific region.

In effect, it said: Come get a piece of me, tough guy! Predictably, that's just what the Japanese did. And that's how the US got into WWII.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:So again you invoke fringe view points again not understanding the historical reality of the time

You are missing the point, didge.  If you wanted to keep the carriers out of the action, wouldn't you have somewhere else that they had to go?

For example, if your mother wants you to attend a boring garden party with her old biddy friends, don't you tell her you have to work late?  Or, you have somewhere else to go?  You make up something.

It's the same thing with things on a geopolitical level.  You pretend the carriers have other places to be, or other missions.

I am not missing any point and you clearly have not studyed all the history here

That is why you went off poor based incorrect hindsight fringe points.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:So there is no Coincidence and why historians easily dismiss the poor fringe claims made by people like yourself on Pearl harbour, as they are not backed by any evidence

Where were the carriers?  That's an important evidentiary point in itself.

No its not when you start off an flawed understanding of US Navy policies

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:You provided no evidence that Peral Harbour was provoked and it even fails to understand Roosevelt for the time.

View it in the context of the times.  Put yourself in Roosevelt's shoes.  Congress had just passed four (4) Neutrality Acts in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor.  The Axis powers had just signed the Rome (mutual aid) Accord.  It was a time of great tension.

Hyperbole to now claim actions today when again failing to understand Navy and presidential policy for the time

No matter how many times you regurgitate the same flawed incorrect points

They hold no validity but are simple fringe view points

Again if ever there was a chance for roosevelt to get the US in the war. he could have done so, by using the German U-boat ciphers and deliberately placing US ships in harms way and yet he never did.

Alss on the very day of the attack on Pearl harbour, Japanese diplomats were meeting US officials to talk about the US providing oil, if they withdrew from South Indochina

More importantly the japanese already had in place a view to attack the US by 1946. This was accelerated due to german success by this point in WW2. Its likely if they had of waited a couple of weeks and seen Germany defeated at the gates of Moscow and in North Africa. Its more likely the japanese would have postponed the attack altogether.

Totally irrelevant points.

One, the German U-boat attacks on American shipping were on-going, and it wasn't enough to stop Congress from passing the final Neutrality Act, following Germany’s occupation of Czechoslovakia, in March of 1939.  This was an emphatic message that America wanted nothing to do with Europe's war. Roosevelt could not have used those U-boat attacks to enter the war.

Two, the gun was cocked and aimed at Japan in the summer of 1940, when the Pacific Fleet was moved to Pearl, long before the sham peace efforts of Japanese envoys.  In fact, those envoys were engaging in peace talks as a result of the movement of the Pacific Fleet to Pearl.

But, alas, it wasn't a genuine peace effort.  It was a fraud, engaged in by the Japanese to buy time for the attack.  So, that point, too, is irrelevant.

The bouncing ball to keep your eye on, is the real developments in geopolitical power: Where were the guns, and at whom were they aimed?  The Pacific was to be a carrier war, and the US kept the carriers out of harms way in December 1941.

(BTW, it wasn't just Roosevelt; it was Roosevelt and Churchill that cooked up this scheme--essentially to get America into Europe's war).

Original Quill wrote:Totally irrelevant points.

One, the German U-boat attacks on American shipping were on-going, and it wasn't enough to stop Congress from passing the final Neutrality Act, following Germany’s occupation of Czechoslovakia, in March of 1939.  This was an emphatic message that America wanted nothing to do with Europe's war.

Two, the gun was cocked and aimed at Japan in the summer of 1940, when the Pacific Fleet was moved to Pearl, long before the sham peace efforts of Japanese envoys.  In fact, those envoys were engaging in peace talks as a result of the movement of the Pacific Fleet to Pearl.

1) The ciphers had not been broken in 1939 and German U-boat success dramatically increased against British shipping. Again many US shops were saved by the actions of Roosevelt. So quill is incorrect and getting timeframes all fucked up. Historically inaccurate by Quill again.

2) It was a show of power, which again was in 1940. There was no talks until the Japanese  seized southern French Indo-China in July 1941, Roosevelt responded by freezing Japanese assets. At this time the Japanese were reliant on US oil. So the two incidents have nothing to do with each other and yet another glaring error by Quill on the history for this time. The had nothing to with the movement of the Pacific fleet by US stopping oil to the Japanese.

FDR AND PEARL HARBOR

Almost as soon as the attacks occurred, conspiracy theorists began claiming that President Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the assault on Pearl Harbor. Others have claimed he tricked the Japanese into starting a war with the United States as a “back door” way to go to war with Japan’s ally, Nazi Germany. However, after nearly 65 years, no document or credible witness has been discovered that prove either claim. Most scholars view Pearl Harbor as the consequence of missed clues, intelligence errors, and overconfidence.

The causes behind the Japanese attack are complex and date back to the 1930s, when Japan undertook a military/colonial expansion in China—culminating in a full-scale invasion in 1937. America opposed this expansion and used a variety of methods to try to deter Japan. During the late 1930s, FDR began providing limited support to the Chinese government.

In 1940, Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet to the naval base at Pearl Harbor as a show of American power. He also attempted to address growing tensions with Japan through diplomacy. When Japan seized southern French Indo-China in July 1941, Roosevelt responded by freezing Japanese assets in the United States and ending sales of oil to Japan. Japan’s military depended upon American oil. Japan then had to decide between settling the crisis through diplomacy or by striking deep into Southeast Asia to acquire alternative sources of oil, an action that was certain to meet American opposition.

Japan chose to continue its diplomatic talks with the United States while at the same time secretly preparing for a coordinated assault throughout the Pacific. Japan’s leaders hoped that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would destroy American resolve and cripple the American navy for at least six months, giving Japan time to consolidate its new empire.

The documents contained in this selection are from the collections of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum and are intended to reflect the many sides of this issue.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/pdfs/pearlharbor.pdf

Documents on the link

I rest my case and no more needed to be said. This is about the sixth time i have had this debate with Quill and every single time his knowledge of this event. Gets worse everytime

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Totally irrelevant points.

One, the German U-boat attacks on American shipping were on-going, and it wasn't enough to stop Congress from passing the final Neutrality Act, following Germany’s occupation of Czechoslovakia, in March of 1939.  This was an emphatic message that America wanted nothing to do with Europe's war.

Two, the gun was cocked and aimed at Japan in the summer of 1940, when the Pacific Fleet was moved to Pearl, long before the sham peace efforts of Japanese envoys.  In fact, those envoys were engaging in peace talks as a result of the movement of the Pacific Fleet to Pearl.

1) The ciphers had not been broken in 1939 and German U-boat success dramatically increased against British shipping. Again many US shops were saved by the actions of Roosevelt. So quill is incorrect and getting timeframes all fucked up. Historically inaccurate by Quill again

We can argue the ciphers at another time (it had it's effect only in 1943, when the US started its push on U-boats). But what difference does it make? Only Congress can declare a war, and Congress was busy drafting Neutrality Acts.

phil wrote:2) It was a show of power, which again was in 1940. There was no talks until the Japanese  seized southern French Indo-China in July 1941, Roosevelt responded by freezing Japanese assets. At this time the Japanese were reliant on US oil. So the two incidents have nothing connecteed and yet another glaring error by Quill on the history for this time. It had nothing to with the movement of the Pacific fleet by US stopping oil to the Japanese

So what? The Roosevelt and Churchill were doing everything they could to provoke Japan to attack it (US). They wanted to trigger America's involvement in WWII through the Rome Accord, forcing Hitler to declare war on America. It was all about getting around the Neutrality Acts. I'm sure embargo's and freezing of assets were coupled with moving the Fleet to Pearl. Anything to piss Japan off.

Original Quill wrote:

So what?  The Roosevelt and Churchill were doing everything they could to provoke Japan to attack it (US).  They wanted to trigger America's involvement in WWII through the Rome Accord, forcing Hitler to declare war on America.  It was all about getting around the Neutrality Acts.  I'm sure embargo's and freezing of assets were coupled with moving the Fleet to Pearl.  Anything to piss Japan off.

Bullshit alert


"FDR AND PEARL HARBOR"

Almost as soon as the attacks occurred, conspiracy theorists began claiming that President Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the assault on Pearl Harbor. Others have claimed he tricked the Japanese into starting a war with the United States as a “back door” way to go to war with Japan’s ally, Nazi Germany. However, after nearly 65 years, no document or credible witness has been discovered that prove either claim. Most scholars view Pearl Harbor as the consequence of missed clues, intelligence errors, and overconfidence.

The causes behind the Japanese attack are complex and date back to the 1930s, when Japan undertook a military/colonial expansion in China—culminating in a full-scale invasion in 1937. America opposed this expansion and used a variety of methods to try to deter Japan. During the late 1930s, FDR began providing limited support to the Chinese government.

In 1940, Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet to the naval base at Pearl Harbor as a show of American power. He also attempted to address growing tensions with Japan through diplomacy. When Japan seized southern French Indo-China in July 1941, Roosevelt responded by freezing Japanese assets in the United States and ending sales of oil to Japan. Japan’s military depended upon American oil. Japan then had to decide between settling the crisis through diplomacy or by striking deep into Southeast Asia to acquire alternative sources of oil, an action that was certain to meet American opposition.

Japan chose to continue its diplomatic talks with the United States while at the same time secretly preparing for a coordinated assault throughout the Pacific. Japan’s leaders hoped that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would destroy American resolve and cripple the American navy for at least six months, giving Japan time to consolidate its new empire.

The documents contained in this selection are from the collections of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum and are intended to reflect the many sides of this issue.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/pdfs/pearlharbor.pdf

Documents on the link

I rest my case and no more needed to be said. This is about the sixth time i have had this debate with Quill and every single time his knowledge of this event. Gets worse everytime

phil wrote:Almost as soon as the attacks occurred, conspiracy theorists began claiming that President Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the assault on Pearl Harbor.

It is true. Where were the carriers? Who told them to cut and run? It's as plain as the nose on your face, or are you missing that too?

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Almost as soon as the attacks occurred, conspiracy theorists began claiming that President Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the assault on Pearl Harbor.

It is true.  Where were the carriers?  Who told them to cut and run?  It's as plain as the nose on your face, or are you missing that too?  

And we are back to quill regurgitating his flawed failed arguments lol



The debate is over, Quill can post as much crap as he likes. Its still going to be historically inaccurate

What's wrong with you Quill ? you never used to be such a Pillock !

nicko wrote:What's wrong with you Quill ? you never used to be such a Pillock !

Yes, I used to be such a easy going guy.  But lately I have no tolerance for nonsense.  

Frankly, I only said that a good argument could be made that, but for Pearl Harbor, America would not have entered Europe's war.  Up until December 1941, it was literally against the law for the US to enter Europe's war.  Consider that.

Roosevelt and Churchill had to find some way to (1) overturn the Neutrality Acts; and (2) declare a war.  You weren't going to get that with harsh or colorful language.  They had to have a big event, or pound sand.  

Interesting article from UKTV:

UKTV wrote:ARGUMENT 1: THE US KNEW

The popular myth of Pearl Harbor goes like this. In 1941, the United States was keeping well out of World War Two, and basically minding its own business, when Japan mounted a shocking surprise attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor. Thousands died, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared it a "date which will live in infamy", and America was reluctantly forced to enter the war.

But the real story isn't as simple as that. The United States was by no means a neutral observer of WW2. Roosevelt was already working as a firm ally of Britain against the Nazis, pushing through legislation that allowed his ostensibly neutral nation to supply the British with munitions and other war materials.

On top of that, the Roosevelt administration had taken a firm stance against Japanese aggression in the Far East, and had essentially waged a form of economic war by placing strict trade embargoes on Japan.

Roosevelt knew war was inevitable, and that - given the scale of the evil being unleashed by the Axis powers - war was necessary. As US Rear Admiral Frank E. Beatty recounted, "it was the desire of President Roosevelt [...] that we get into the war, as the Allies could not win without us." A reason, or pretext, was needed to join the global battle against fascism. That pretext was Pearl Harbor.

Early in 1941, in an episode straight out of something from spy fiction, a US embassy staffer in Tokyo was standing in line at a bank when he was approached by the Peruvian envoy to Japan, who told him he had it on good authority an attack on Pearl Harbor was being planned. The staffer passed the warning onto his superiors at the US. Later, a spy code-named "Tricycle" also passed on information about an attack on Pearl Harbor.

Even more damning is a written account by Henry L. Stimson, the US Secretary of War, who described how Roosevelt pondered "how we should manoeuvre [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

That's right: the US president literally discussed provoking Japan into a first strike. There was even an official document detailing a plan along these lines. Known as the McCollum memo, it was written a year before Pearl Harbor and outlined a strategy for dealing with the problem of Japanese expansion, and included the shocking statement: "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."

When you consider the sheer weight of circumstantial evidence - the specific warnings about the attack, the pro-war political imperative of Roosevelt, and the planning that went into the imminent war against the Axis - it seems far more likely than not that the US allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to take place.

Good job he helped , The USA was next on Hitlers list !

Original Quill wrote:Interesting article from UKTV:

UKTV wrote:ARGUMENT 1: THE US KNEW

The popular myth of Pearl Harbor goes like this. In 1941, the United States was keeping well out of World War Two, and basically minding its own business, when Japan mounted a shocking surprise attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor. Thousands died, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared it a "date which will live in infamy", and America was reluctantly forced to enter the war.

But the real story isn't as simple as that. The United States was by no means a neutral observer of WW2. Roosevelt was already working as a firm ally of Britain against the Nazis, pushing through legislation that allowed his ostensibly neutral nation to supply the British with munitions and other war materials.

On top of that, the Roosevelt administration had taken a firm stance against Japanese aggression in the Far East, and had essentially waged a form of economic war by placing strict trade embargoes on Japan.

Roosevelt knew war was inevitable, and that - given the scale of the evil being unleashed by the Axis powers - war was necessary. As US Rear Admiral Frank E. Beatty recounted, "it was the desire of President Roosevelt [...] that we get into the war, as the Allies could not win without us." A reason, or pretext, was needed to join the global battle against fascism. That pretext was Pearl Harbor.

Early in 1941, in an episode straight out of something from spy fiction, a US embassy staffer in Tokyo was standing in line at a bank when he was approached by the Peruvian envoy to Japan, who told him he had it on good authority an attack on Pearl Harbor was being planned. The staffer passed the warning onto his superiors at the US. Later, a spy code-named "Tricycle" also passed on information about an attack on Pearl Harbor.

Even more damning is a written account by Henry L. Stimson, the US Secretary of War, who described how Roosevelt pondered "how we should manoeuvre [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

That's right: the US president literally discussed provoking Japan into a first strike. There was even an official document detailing a plan along these lines. Known as the McCollum memo, it was written a year before Pearl Harbor and outlined a strategy for dealing with the problem of Japanese expansion, and included the shocking statement: "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."

When you consider the sheer weight of circumstantial evidence - the specific warnings about the attack, the pro-war political imperative of Roosevelt, and the planning that went into the imminent war against the Axis - it seems far more likely than not that the US allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to take place.

From the same link, which is odd that quill never put up the link

I wonder why?



This is why Quill is dishonest and a poor teacher. As all he gave was one side here and not both arguments. With the second resoundly destroying the first

ARGUMENT 2: IT WAS A SURPRISE ATTACK
There are two giant problems with the pro-advance-knowledge argument. First, it's all circumstantial evidence, none of which would stand up in a court of law. Second, all of this circumstantial evidence can be decisively refuted or explained.

Take the issue of the McCollum memo, the "smoking gun" of Pearl Harbor by conspiracy theorists. Eugene Jarecki, author of The American Way of War, puts it best: "No single memo by a mid-level functionary should be given too large a role in the shaping of a president's policy." Indeed, there's no evidence the memo was even seen by Roosevelt.

Plus, conspiracy theorists fail to understand that, in the words of military historian Dr Conrad Crane, "the McCollum proposal itself was designed to prevent war, not provoke it. A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan. There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document's intent was not to ensure that event happened."

Wreckage of the USS Arizona visible above the water line in Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, with the

It should also be said that there were plenty of other competing plans and strategies flying around at the time. In 1941, a certain senior official named Brigadier Leonard T. Gerow stated, "one of our present major objectives [is] the avoidance of war with Japan". Clearly nobody told him about the vast sinister conspiracy to trick the public into supporting just such a war.

As for the apparent warnings of an attack in Hawaii... well, we're talking about the opening year of World War Two, a time of rumours and uncertainty, when all kinds of intelligence was flying back and forth. What's more likely - that some warnings were fumbled and ignored, or that President Roosevelt orchestrated a vast, sprawling conspiracy to let thousands of Americans perish in a fiery onslaught?

Yes, Roosevelt was pro-war. And yes, he regarded the Axis powers as an existential threat to democratic civilisation. But we enter the realm of paranoid fantasy if we think that he or his senior advisors believed sacrificing a major naval base was the best way to join the Allies.

If they were not surprised by the news from Pearl Harbor, then that group of elderly men were putting on a performance which would have excited the admiration of any experienced actor

The legendary crusading journalist Edward R. Murrow saw first-hand how stunned the top officials were by the attack. "If they were not surprised by the news from Pearl Harbor, then that group of elderly men were putting on a performance which would have excited the admiration of any experienced actor," he reported. "There was amazement and anger written large on most of the faces."

And with good reason. They may have known SOMETHING was coming, but they did not foresee an attack as audacious and bloody as the one on Pearl Harbor.

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/blogs/article/pearl-harbor/

nicko wrote:Good job he helped , The USA was next on Hitlers list !

What that excerpt doesn't say is, it was Roosevelt's and Churchill's plan.  Churchill spent a large part of 1941 living in the White House, and even had a war room set up in the third floor.  The two spent hours brewing plans.

Churchill knew Europe was lost if the US were not brought in.  The US was already financing the war with the Lend-Lease supplies sent to the allies.  But the US also had the man power that Britain lacked.  With Congress dead-set against intervention, some plan had to be cooked up.

It was really ingenious, suckering in the Japanese, and thereby invoking the Axis Pact (Rome Accord), manipulating Hitler to declare war on the US, rather than the other way round.

What they could not predict, however, was how unprepared the US forces would be.  Sunday mornings were a time of leisure for many U.S. military personnel at Pearl Harbor. Many were either still asleep, in mess halls eating breakfast, or getting ready for church on the morning of December 7, 1941. They were completely unaware that an attack was imminent.

Washington thought Pearl defenses would protect the base.  The Base CO, Admiral Husband Kimmel, was sacked.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Good job he helped , The USA was next on Hitlers list !

What that excerpt doesn't say is, it was Roosevelt's and Churchill's plan.  Churchill spent a large part of 1941 living in the White House, and even had a war room set up in the third floor.  The two spent hours brewing plans.

Churchill knew Europe was lost if the US were not brought in.  The US was already financing the war with the Lend-Lease supplies sent to the allies.  But the US also had the man power that Britain lacked.  With Congress dead-set against intervention, some plan had to be cooked up.

It was really ingenious, suckering in the Japanese, and thereby invoking the Axis Pact (Rome Accord), manipulating Hitler to declare war on the US, rather than the other way round.

What they could not predict, however, was how unprepared the US forces would be.  Sunday mornings were a time of leisure for many U.S. military personnel at Pearl Harbor. Many were either still asleep, in mess halls eating breakfast, or getting ready for church on the morning of December 7, 1941. They were completely unaware that an attack was imminent.

Washington thought Pearl defenses would protect the base.  The Base CO, Admiral Husband Kimmel, was sacked.

From the same link, which is odd that quill never put up the link

I wonder why?



This is why Quill is dishonest and a poor teacher. As all he gave was one side here and not both arguments. With the second resoundly destroying the first

ARGUMENT 2: IT WAS A SURPRISE ATTACK
There are two giant problems with the pro-advance-knowledge argument. First, it's all circumstantial evidence, none of which would stand up in a court of law. Second, all of this circumstantial evidence can be decisively refuted or explained.

Take the issue of the McCollum memo, the "smoking gun" of Pearl Harbor by conspiracy theorists. Eugene Jarecki, author of The American Way of War, puts it best: "No single memo by a mid-level functionary should be given too large a role in the shaping of a president's policy." Indeed, there's no evidence the memo was even seen by Roosevelt.

Plus, conspiracy theorists fail to understand that, in the words of military historian Dr Conrad Crane, "the McCollum proposal itself was designed to prevent war, not provoke it. A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan. There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document's intent was not to ensure that event happened."

Wreckage of the USS Arizona visible above the water line in Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, with the

It should also be said that there were plenty of other competing plans and strategies flying around at the time. In 1941, a certain senior official named Brigadier Leonard T. Gerow stated, "one of our present major objectives [is] the avoidance of war with Japan". Clearly nobody told him about the vast sinister conspiracy to trick the public into supporting just such a war.

As for the apparent warnings of an attack in Hawaii... well, we're talking about the opening year of World War Two, a time of rumours and uncertainty, when all kinds of intelligence was flying back and forth. What's more likely - that some warnings were fumbled and ignored, or that President Roosevelt orchestrated a vast, sprawling conspiracy to let thousands of Americans perish in a fiery onslaught?

Yes, Roosevelt was pro-war. And yes, he regarded the Axis powers as an existential threat to democratic civilisation. But we enter the realm of paranoid fantasy if we think that he or his senior advisors believed sacrificing a major naval base was the best way to join the Allies.

If they were not surprised by the news from Pearl Harbor, then that group of elderly men were putting on a performance which would have excited the admiration of any experienced actor

The legendary crusading journalist Edward R. Murrow saw first-hand how stunned the top officials were by the attack. "If they were not surprised by the news from Pearl Harbor, then that group of elderly men were putting on a performance which would have excited the admiration of any experienced actor," he reported. "There was amazement and anger written large on most of the faces."

And with good reason. They may have known SOMETHING was coming, but they did not foresee an attack as audacious and bloody as the one on Pearl Harbor.

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/blogs/article/pearl-harbor/

Did Churchill know of the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor-but do nothing so as to draw the United States into the war?”Opium for the People”

On the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the History Channel, whose programs vary between solid history and opium for the people, ran a BBC-produced documentary claiming that President Roosevelt knew all about the surprise attack and allowed it to happen to get the United States into the war. The program, as Arthur Balfour might have said, contained much that is trite and much that it true, but what was true was trite, and what was not trite was not true.

That “Betrayal at Pearl Harbor” should not be taken seriously is manifestly evident. Examples of why it shouldn’t begin with its interview of Robert Ogg, which approaches dishonesty. The producers fail to inform the audience that Mr. Ogg is the infamous “Seaman Z” immortalized by John Toland, an early conspiracy theorist who wrote that Pearl Harbor was plotted by Franklin Roosevelt.


“Seaman Z,” whose story has had a disconcerting habit of changing over the years, claimed he heard “queer signals” which could have been the missing Japanese aircraft carriers. But he could only have been hearing the carriers if the carriers were broadcasting.

The Japanese themselves claim their fleet (Kido Butai) never sent a single message. They say they dismantled the telegraph sending devices so a message could not be sent. After the war, the Strategic Bombing Survey found the Japanese military’s own after-action report, which credits the success of the attack to the fact that secrecy was maintained.

Among the reasons why secrecy was maintained, radio silence comes first. How could it be, for example, that Seaman Z in San Francisco picked up signals from the Japanese fleet but Hawaii, much closer and lying between California and the fleet, never heard it?

The producers of “Betrayal” also interviewed Eric Nave, a British cryptologist who worked on the Japanese JN-25 naval code. Nave, with the late James Rusbridger, wrote Betrayal at Pearl Harbor, a book claiming Churchill hid what he knew about the attack from Roosevelt. The producers might have mentioned that Nave left Singapore in February 1940, had no further involvement with JN-25, and could not have known of the Japanese change to the JN-25B code in December 1940-and the resulting lack of anyone’s ability to read the code after that date. There are a couple of scenes with Pacific Fleet cryptologist Joe Rochefort, the hero of Midway, who is said to have read JN-25B intercepts. But they fail to mention Rochefort’s claims that he was reading only five to twenty percent of any message in JN-25B prior to Midway and could not have been reading more before then.

The “Winds Code,” which is supposed to have been an attack signal disguised in a Japanese weather report, surfaces again in the History Channel presentation. I have yet to hear an explanation of how the “Winds Code” told anybody anything about Pearl Harbor. Once again Ralph Briggs is dragged out as evidence that the Americans intercepted this message. How Briggs, in Cheltenham, Maryland, heard the coded weather report and no one else did has never been explained; it was supposed to be, after all, a regular mid-day, Japanese time, CB radio broadcast. Nor does the History Channel explain either why the Japanese sent it, since the failure in communications that would have necessitated the “Winds Code” did not occur.

Tucked into the “Betrayal” piece is one Joe Lieb’s claim that Secretary of State Cordell Hull told him of the coming attack and named Pearl Harbor as the target. The trouble here is that Mr. Lieb and Mr. Hull were the only ones present at their alleged conversation, and Mr. Lieb did not see fit to tell anyone of this conversation until after Mr. Hull died. Thus there is no way independently to verify his claim.

An even more preposterous notion presented by the film is that General Marshall (who of course was also in on the plot) went horseback riding on a Sunday morning in order to be “unavailable” for questioners concerned about Japan’s next move, thus assuring the success of the Japanese air raid. Really! “Betrayal at Pearl Harbor’s” case against General Marshall hinges on this, and the fact that he sent an alert warning to Pearl Harbor without sufficient priority. Surely it is easier to consider the latter act one of bureaucratic incompetence rather than a purposeful plot to delay an attack warning? If Pearl was being set up, why send a warning at all? To cover himself? But the warning was kept secret for fifty years!

Geostrategy and codebreaking take up a great deal of the film, which uses them to document accusations of prior knowledge of the coming attack by American authorities. The producers begin by alleging that the United States knew the Japanese attack force was in the Kurile Islands. If it did, then the U.S. had to expect an attack either in Alaska, Hawaii, the west coast or Panama. Of these possible targets, the film says, the only one that made any sense was Hawaii.

But the documentary oversimplifies: having its fleet in the Kuriles did not reduce Japan’s choices of where to attack. Admiral Yamamoto needed to bring the fleet together for an attack in the most secure place possible, regardless of direction. The “southern strategy,” which eventually won out, required the Japanese Navy to neutralize the Philippines (then a U.S. territory), which crossed its sea lanes. This required Yamamoto to go after the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. That the Japanese had trouble making up their minds (Japanese Army-Navy politics was at work here too) served them, in the sense that it helped disguise their eventual choice. The “northern strategy” (attacking Alaska) was also seen as a distinct possibility to Westerners. As late as 15 October 1941 Roosevelt wrote Churchill, “I think they [the Japanese] are headed north.” (See Kimball’s Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence.)

Clearly the Japanese had a variety of strategic choices in the months prior to Pearl Harbor. The key to their “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” was China, and that was their major concern throughout. Indeed, while the West may have focused primarily on the Japanese during the Pacific war, the Japanese continued to focus more on China. Even at the war’s end, the Japanese had 1.9 million men and nearly 10,000 aircraft there. It made little sense to Japan to defeat the U.S. if that meant giving up China.

“Betrayal at Pearl Harbor” is very wise after the fact. The imminence of war, it tells us, should have been clear to American planners. Japan’s JN-25B code had been broken. The orders to sail the Japanese Fleet from the Kuriles to a rendezvous point in mid-Pacific were transmitted. The Dutch claimed to have intercepted them, so presumably the British and the Americans should have been able to do the same.

Certainly the imminence of war in the Pacific was obvious to any reasonably intelligent person at the time, but the Pacific did not get thee attention it deserved. To understand why, we must put ourselves in the shoes of leaders at that time-not laboratory analysts of the present. And at that time, the British were up to their eyeballs with Germans and the Americans were fighting an undeclared war with the German Navy in the North Atlantic. Hindsight, of course, is always 20-20. But on whatever the British and Americans “should have been able to do,” let me quote a direct source.

Duane Whitlock, unlike Mr. Nave, was there, on Corregidor, working on the Japanese codes. “I can attest from first-hand experience that as of 1 December 1941 the recovery of JN-25B had not progressed to the point that it was productive of any appreciable intelligence,” stated Whitlock-“not even enough to be pieced together by traffic analysis….It simply was not within the realm of our combined cryptologic capability to produce a usable decrypt at that particular juncture.”

In the early 1990s the U.S. Navy transferred all its cryptologic archives from Crane, Indiana to the National Archives in Washington. This includes 26,581 JN-25 intercepts from 1 September to 7 December. All of these are available for public review. Frederick Parker, who studied 2413 of these intercepts, argues in the film that had they been read at the time, they would have provided clear evidence of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor.

Rusbridger and Nave, in their book, claim they were read, but offer no evidence.

Well, here is the evidence: The 2413 pre-Pearl Harbor intercepts had been decrypted by Navy cryptologists after the war while they were waiting to be mustered out of the service. While Parker makes a strong circumstantial case that the attack would have been discovered had these messages been read, cryptologists at that time would not have been looking just at the 2413 intercepts; they would have been looking at all 26,581. Would they have been able to discern the relevant information from all that noise?

I could go on: the “bomb plot,” the Popov questionnaire, Hull’s “ultimatum” to Japan, etc., all old news, misleadingly presented. Readers may recall that Nave and Rusbridger tried to turn all this around a few years back (just in time to cash in on the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, actually) by claiming it wasn’t Roosevelt after all, it was Winston Churchill who hid the knowledge of the attack in order to draw the United States into the war.

As Professor Warren Kimball wrote: “It seems to me that to brand Churchill and/or Roosevelt as conspirators requires that they be seen as evil geniuses. But for them to allow the U.S. Fleet to be clobbered means they were stupid. That doesn’t compute.”

Allow me to vent for a moment. The reason why this kind of nonsense passes for history is that standards for evidence have virtually disappeared. Not all evidence is equal and there is an obligation to weigh evidence against some reasonable standard. The standard is not exactly rocket science; remnant evidence is better than tradition-creating evidence; corroborated testimony is better than uncorroborated testimony; forensic evidence is better than hearsay.

Our inability to be skeptical, to think critically, to ask questions, to compare and contrast, leads to the perpetuation of one urban legend after another, be it Churchill and Coventry, Churchill and the Lusitania, Churchill (or Roosevelt) and Pearl Harbor, etc., etc., etc. Hard thinking, critical analysis, and skepticism are the only ways to challenge this rubbish. I sometimes despair. Vent off.


https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/myths/pearl-harbor-attack/

Oh dear....

This is the biggest argument against Quills crackpot claims. The very fact when the US joined the war it was the western Theater that became the priority and not the Pacific. If Both Roosevelt and Churchill conspired to get the US into the war on the British side. Then it would make far more sense for them to have Germany provoked into attacking US forces, navy etc.

phildidge wrote:This is the biggest argument against Quills crackpot claims. The very fact when the US joined the war it was the western Theater that became the priority and not the Pacific. If Both Roosevelt and Churchill conspired to get the US into the war on the British side. Then it would make far more sense for them to have Germany provoked into attacking US forces, navy etc.

I agree, the European war was the primary concern. But, indeed, Germany was provoked into declaring war on the US. On December 11, 1941, Germany was called upon to honor it's commitment to declare war on anyone warring with their partner, Japan. So, he did so.

For four days Churchill and Roosevelt held their breath, wondering whether Hitler would follow the Axis pact. After all, Japan started it, and for that reason Hitler hesitated for 96 hours. Hitler no doubt knew that he had been hornswoggled, but he went through with it nonetheless.