Well yes and no.  Nobody knew the critical role (at the time, of course we know now) that aircraft carriers would play in the war.  It was only during the war that the aircraft carrier was seen in its true role.  To say otherwise is incorrect and a product of sixty years looking back.  Look at the Japanese ships, they were VERY light on AA in the beginning of the war and later strapped AA guns on everywhere they could.  People seem to let “facts” get in the way of what was and what is.  The NAVY deemed that Battleships were “the” ship and were not going to change that viewpoint easily.  It took a war and some true innovators to do that.  We are always preparing for the last war, not the future wars.  

As an example of what I am saying the Air Force will clutch on to their fighter pilots way beyond their optimal performance because the Air Force WANTS them.  If you could design a pilotless aircraft that was as powerful and more maneuverable than one with a pilot you would have a long way to go to sell it to the Air Force because the Air Force wants the sexy, rugged fighter pilot image.

Whether you believe all I have just stated or not you help me prove my point when you mention the Battleship was the flagship of the day.  IT was the flagship because it was thought to be THE weapon.  Nobody wanted to lose what we lost at Pearl Harbor.



Again, it was not [I]proven crucial[/I] until well into the war.



OK captain know-it-all what was the fourth?  There were [b]3[/b] carriers the in Pacific Fleet at the time.  TheUSS Saratoga (CV 3), just out of overhaul, was moored at San Diego. USS Lexington (CV 2) was at sea about 425 miles southeast of Midway (To the WEST of Hawaii and closer to Japan!) toward which she was headed to deliver a Marine Scout Bombing Squadron. The USS Enterprise (CV 6) was also at sea, about 200 miles  [B]WEST[/B] of Pearl Harbor, trying hard to return from Wake Island where she had delivered a Marine Fighter Squadron to Pearl Harbor.

If there was some conspiracy why would you put your careers closer to Japan, alone and in harm’s way?  Were the Japanese in on this conspiracy as well?  Please Invictus let me know!  I also would like to hear about that 4th ghost carrier because that just may open my eyes to this vast conspiracy!

Well thanks for the post Invictus.  I thought you just posted other people’s articles and abandoned them so as to take the credit without the risk.

-Velveeta

Facts for Velveeta:

Directly from [i]Pearl Harbor, Mother of All Conspiracies[/i] by Mark Emmerson Willey, pages 99 and 100.

[b]General H.H. “Hap” Arnold, Chief of Staff of the Army Air Corps, was sent to Hamilton Field, California, arriving from Washington only one hour before, for the specific task of timing the send-off of thirteen B-17s to Oahu to arrive at exactly 8.00 A.M., the identical time of the Japanese orders for the attack to start. In the face of the men he knew he was sending to death, he cracked and lamely warned them “War is imminent. You may run into war during your flight.” Major Truman H. Landon asked him the natural question, “If we are going into a war, why don’t we have machine guns?” They were not allowed ammunition and the machine guns were packed in Cosmoline. There were three points to the act of sending the B-17s: (1) the Honolulu music radio station KGMB was turned on all night, at cost to the Army, which signaled all on the islands that American planes were coming in and gave the Japanese a homing signal (2) it was an attempt to confuse the radar controllers which, in fact, it did (3) it caused additional damage to the heavy bomber fleet. That bombers would fly on a Sunday was unusual, that they would arrive exactly at 8:00 A.M. which was the exact scheduled time for the attack sent in radio orders on November 23 is highly suspicious, but that the Chief-of-Staff of the Army Air Corps was sent from Washington to time their departure is an impossible coincidence.[/b] (148)

148-Pearl Harbor The Verdict of History, by Gordon Prange, 1986, p. 476

One will note my complete ignoring of drivel posted previously by velveeta, Not sure why or what his problem is, sure this will in no way change his mind or opinion, personally my whole point in this matter was only to provide what I felt to be a very well written and referenced text on the subject.

Mike

P.S. - [b]Quoted:

But here's my take. Pearl was SACRIFICED by FDR to get American into WW2 to save Communism from Nationalist Socialism.[/b]

I do believe GM is correct w/ this statement and alot of book listed above supports this position.

No  no no, mrwilson. That statement by me is "ludicrous." The great Rikwriter said so.

Not that he says why. Or gives any contrary evidence. He just assures us that it is. Which is ENUF proof for me. I mean, if Rik said it, it MUST be so.

[rolleyes]

Yeah, so 2 weeks prior thae US Army Air Force commanders and the IJN commanders got together to synchronize the Pearl Harbor bomber and attackers........... Why don't you say that the Japanese didn't actually attack Pearl Harbor, it was American palnes with meatballs painted on them.

The aircraft was a weapon with great anti-shipping potential. But the potential was not proven in war. Warships are designed to be pounded on and survive, by other warships. The idea that a 6 ton plane with 500 lb bombs could sink a 25,000 ton warship was seen as a goof ball idea. Yes Mitchell bombed a WWI warship, and the Navy brass promptly said that a manned warship with AA crews and damage control parties would have very little to fear from an air attack.

Aircraft carriers were basically in existence as a result of a treaty goof up. After WWI all the major poweres were prohibited from building new capital ships. The treaty was due to expire and the US, Britian, and Japan started building new battlecruiser hulls. The treaty was extended (Washington Naval Treaty 1935 ????) All the battlecruiser hulls were sonverted to aircraft carriers. The USN, IJN, and Royal Navy flat tops all were SUPPPOSED to be battlecruisers.

Prior to this the US had some converted ships that were used as experimental air power proving grounds. In the firest exercise that an aircraft carrier participated in in Panama, the aircraft carrier seperated itself from the res fo the fleet an disapeared. It laid low for almost the entire war game. The last day it launched 1 strike of 35 (IIRC) planes against land based targets. the attack was judged succesful..........and lucky.

No, but I do have a degree in history.



Umm, Mark, YOU didn't produce any evidence either.  I don't HAVE to produce any to refute you until you produce some to support your position.  



No, on the contrary, it sounds as if YOU are the one who has too much emotionally invested in your little fantasy alternative history.
And Mark, how can I "address the substance of the argument" when you offer NO EVIDENCE???
You made an assertion...you didn't back it up with anything but your statement.  
You don't seem to grasp the idea that it's up to the person making the unlikely assertion to provide evidence to support it.

Pearl Harbor is a shallow water port, prior to the attack the USN didn't think torpedoes could be used inside Pearl Harbor. The British had used shallow water torpedoes against the Italians in a port..........

The USN needed something like 75' deep water to airdrop torpedoes, Pearl Harbor is appx 20' deep.

The USN underestimated the power of carrier based aricraft.

The USN was also more concerned that if there was an attack it would come at other places.

Yes the USN knew about midget subs, but I'm not sure they were sure who had launched them, and what there purpose was. I think some felt they were trying to land scouts to set up sabotage networks and possibly prepare for an invasion force.

Yes the USN knew the IJN was cruising about, but since the Japanese had invaded China, Korea, Vietnam etc., they had ships at war all over the place.....

Directly from [i]Pearl Harbor, Mother of All Conspiracies[/i] by Mark Emmerson Willey, page 26

[b]13 June, 1941 – A couple days after Admiral Kimmel had come to Washington to complain about the lack of protection at Pearl Harbor, CNO Stark sent him a letter denying Hawaii torpedo nets which read in part: “A minimum depth of 75 feet may be assumed necessary to successfully drop torpedoes from planes.” This was a knowingly false statement. [b]Taranto Harbor was 42 feet deep and had been successfully attacked six months before. Stark falsely stated in this latter that the Taranto torpedos were dropped in 13-15 fathoms of water (a fathom is 6 feet, so 78 to 90 feet). Stark had received a British report in April on experiments they did with wings which found that when dropped from planes they required no greater depth than their normal run. We quote from the Secretary of the Navy’s Fourth Endorsement to the Record of Proceedings of the Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry (pages 5-12):[/b]
      [i]”The records of the Navy Department indicate that in April, 1941, there was circulated in the Department an Intelligence report which described the demonstration of an aerial torpedo in England. It appears from this report that the torpedo described was equipped with special wings, and that it required no greater depth of water for it’s successful launching than the depth at which it made it’s normal run.”
      “It further appears from the records of the Navy Department that the British reported aircraft torpedo attacks in which torpedoes were successfully launched in 42 feet of water.”
      “Finally there is evidence in the record to indicate that nearly a year prior to the attack, the feasibility and even probability of an airplane torpedo attack was contemplated.”[/i]

[b]However the timing of Stark’s letter immediately after Kimmel had been in Washington June 9 suggests that Admiral Kimmel had asked in person for torpedo nets and Stark had promised to look into it. The critical point is that torpedo nets were denied Hawaii on the basis of lies, just after the U.S. had been put on emergency war footing. This is proof that Stark (read FDR) wanted the Japanese to do maximum damage to the fleet since torpedoes were considered one of the two greatest threats[/b]. 31

31-PHH is the Pearl Harbor Attack Joint Congressional Hearing Record of 1946 in 40 volumes: see PHH:5:2266

FYI,
Mike

Here's the "evidence" I've presented to date. Anecdotal, yes, but evidence no less

OLY says:[b]The USN needed something like 75' deep water to airdrop torpedoes, Pearl Harbor is appx 20' deep.[/b]

How can this be?, does not a battleship draw in excess of 40' of water? I suspect the ship-channels and port areas were considerably deeper than 20', otherwise there would have only been a harbor full of PT boats.

Mike

P.S.- See above post for Taranto Harbor torpedoeing by British in 42' of water.

Wow, Mark, you are really saying you don't know the difference between EVIDENCE and ASSERTION???
You STATE that these things are true, you don't show any EVIDENCE that they are true.  Yes, the replacement of command was made, but you show no evidence of this nefarious intent you suppose.  Your suspicions don't even qualify as ANECDOTAL evidence, Mark, they are simply baseless assertions.
Show a statement by the commanders who were replaced saying "we were told this was because the US didn't want Pearl Harbor defended against attack from the Japanese" and THAT would be anecdotal evidence.  Show a written communique from someone in the Roosevelt government saying it was not in the best interest of their foreign policy for Pearl to be adequately defended and that would be SUBSTANTIAL evidence.
Do you understand the definition of "evidence" yet?  

Rik -

My statements re: Kimmel and Short are documented historical fact. They are NEITHER anecdotal nor are they assertion. They are FACT. You know what "facts" are, right?

The statements I made re: Hitler, and the progression of the war are common knowledge.

having provided that info, I proceeded to give my "take" on HOW to INTERPRET those facts.

In comparison, you, our resident mook with a degree in history, have given NO facts, NO historical references, NO dates, NO references to any of the major players, NO quotes, NO documents, NOT even any anecdotal evidence. NOTHING. Other than you assurance that I am wrong.


You asked...



If i had that, I would never have had to say "Here's my "take" on Pearl Harbor.

So, I guess in your world, if it ain't written down on paper, it never happened??? Like FDR was gonna tell the former Pearl commander he was being replaced so Japan could get a free shot at Pearl, dragging America into WW2, in order to save Stalin from Hitler. Do you need that signed by FDR, or would just an oral quote from Admiral Kimmel saying he was FDR's patsy be sufficient???

I've tried to avoid the charachterization thing, but that is simply a STUPID request to make, when I've said from the beginning this was my "take" on Pearl.

But the fact you cannot dispute is that REGARDLESS as to whether there was a conspiracy to accomplish that, the net effect was that America was drawn into WW2, a war we did NOT want to get into, and Moscow WAS saved from Hitler because the allies gave Hitler a second front to defend. THAT is without dispute, EXCEPT for people like you who INSIST the sun sets in the East.

mr_Wilson,

You call these facts?  Just because they are in some book does not make it a fact.  Can you PROVE that General Arnold was sending the bombers in for the reason of aiding a Japanese attack?  Just because he talks of war, does that PROVE that he knew about the Peral Harbor attack, or more likely that they would be seeing combat elsewhere in the Pacific soon? He is stating it as a FACT that the bombers were being sent to:


1.)Give the Japanese a homing signal.
2.) Attempt to confuse the radar controllers.
3.) Cause additional damage to the heavy bomber fleet.  


OK, so the Japanese [I]needed[/I] a homing signal?  What did they do call up and ask for it?

What is the PROOF that this was to confuse the radar controllers?  How is that a fact?

If the purpose was to enter the war why is it important to cause additional damage to the heavy bomber fleet?  What purpose does this serve?

Just because something is highly suspicious does not make it dubious or underhanded. The US was preparing for war and shifting resources but none of that means that the US sacrificed Pearl Harbor or even knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor beforehand.





If you are besmirching a man’s character I think it is the least I can do to ask for facts.  Again what you have provided is not facts.  There is no proof that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  

You may sway my opinion but you will need facts to do so, not some half-baked conclusions and opinions parading as facts.  

-Velveeta

Ya know, if you are gonna attack someones ability to handle terms and definitions, you might wanna have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Check out this link....

[url]www.du.edu/~kroark/perevidence.htm[/url]

Seems my use of the term "anecdotal evidence" (i.e. an anecdote) was quite acceptabl. Alternatively, you mights call what I gave "logical evidence."

And you'd definitely call your post flatulatory evidence. [}:D]

Mr_Wilson,

In a copy of a June of 1941 communication to the commandants of naval districts from the Chief of Naval Operations the following points were addressed:  
 
1. * * * Commandants were requested to consider the employment of, and  
to make recommendations concerning, antitorpedo baffles especially for  
the protection of large and valuable units of the fleet in their  
respective harbors and especially at the major fleet bases. In paragraph  
3 were itemized certain limitations to consider in the use of A/T  
baffles among which the following was stated:  

A minimum depth of water of 75 feet may be assumed necessary to  
successfully drop torpedoes from planes. About two hundred yards of  
torpedo run is necessary before the exploding device is armed, but this  
may be altered.  

2. Recent developments have shown that United States and British  
torpedoes may be dropped from planes at heights of as much as three  
hundred feet, and in some cases make initial dives of considerably less  
than 75 feet, and make excellent runs. Hence, it may be stated that it  
cannot be assumed that any capital ship or other valuable vessel is safe  
when at anchor from this type of attack if surrounded by water at a  
sufficient run to arm the torpedo.  

3. While no minimum depth of water in which naval vessels may be  
anchored can arbitrarily be assumed as providing safety from torpedo-
plane attack, it may be assumed that depth of water will be one of the  
factors considered by any attacking force, and an attack launched in  
relatively deep water (10 fathoms [16a] or more) is much more likely.  

4. As a matter of information the torpedoes launched by the British at  
Taranto were, in general, in thirteen to fifteen fathoms of water,  
although several torpedoes may have been launched in eleven or twelve  
fathoms.


I have taken this information from the official investigation in 1946 and was this was issued MONTHS prior to the attack.  

-Velveeta

FAKE CHEESE (Velvetta),
1)The Japanese homed in on an AM radio signal.
2)The only radar up and running was the one being tuned and tested by two PFC's on their own time.
3)Confusion between the expected unarmed bombers and the Japanese attack flights could not possibly have been timed.

So it is uncommon for Commanders to be moved around?  How do they get there in the first place?  Why do it six months before?  Why not 2 months before?



 


Why not?  Do you know the reason he was replaced? Do YOU know how long he was there?  





Actually Germany is the Fatherland.






Again it is the FATHERLAND, please if you are going to play intellectual on the Internet at least have a grasp of the subject.  Taking back territory was an excuse for the war, not the reason for the war.  




I do not disagree with this, but what does it REALLY have to do with whether FDR had prior knowledge and may have even assisted in the attack on Pearl Harbor?





If you are a National Socialist this is what he was doing, but frankly Russia was not a communist state and Germany was not a socialist state.  These were just reasons, he wanted an empire.  (And do I have to tell you again that it is the FATHERLAND?)





You gloss over this like it was nothing.  Germany declared war on the US and added to its two front war by this action.  

-Velveeta

[b]4. As a matter of information the torpedoes launched by the British at
Taranto were, in general, in thirteen to fifteen fathoms of water,
although several torpedoes may have been launched in eleven or twelve
fathoms.


I have taken this information from the official investigation in 1946 and was this was issued MONTHS prior to the attack.

-Velveeta[/b]


This was a LIE and I will post it again, check the date here:
Directly from Pearl Harbor, Mother of All Conspiracies by Mark Emmerson Willey, page 26

13 June, 1941 – A couple days after Admiral Kimmel had come to Washington to complain about the lack of protection at Pearl Harbor, CNO Stark sent him a letter denying Hawaii torpedo nets which read in part: “A minimum depth of 75 feet may be assumed necessary to successfully drop torpedoes from planes.” [b]This was a knowingly false statement[/b]. Taranto Harbor was 42 feet deep and had been successfully attacked six months before. Stark falsely stated in this latter that the Taranto torpedos were dropped in 13-15 fathoms of water (a fathom is 6 feet, so 78 to 90 feet). Stark had received a British report in April on experiments they did with wings which found that when dropped from planes they required no greater depth than their normal run. We quote from the Secretary of the Navy’s Fourth Endorsement to the Record of Proceedings of the Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry (pages 5-12):
”The records of the Navy Department indicate that in [b]April, 1941[/b], there was circulated in the Department an Intelligence report which described the demonstration of an aerial torpedo in England. It appears from this report that the torpedo described was equipped with special wings, and that it required no greater depth of water for it’s successful launching than the depth at which it made it’s normal run.”
“It further appears from the records of the Navy Department that the British reported aircraft torpedo attacks in which torpedoes were successfully launched in 42 feet of water[/b].”
“Finally there is evidence in the record to indicate that nearly a year prior to the attack, the feasibility and even probability of an airplane torpedo attack was contemplated.”

You are quoting what I've already posted, except you've twisted the facts:
Why don't you just buy the book , then you can argue with the author of the book

Mike

Directly from Pearl Harbor, Mother of All Conspiracies by Mark Emmerson Willey, page 14

[b]7 May 1940 – FDR ordered the fleet, which had been on exercises at Hawaii since April 10, permanently transferred from the West Coast to it’s exposed position in Hawaii and ordered the fleet to remain stationed at Pearl Harbor over complaints by it’s commander Admiral Richardson that there was inadequate protection from air attack and no protection from torpedo attack. Richardson called Pearl Harbor a “god-damn mousetrap.” Richardson felt so strongly that he twice disobeyed orders to berth his fleet there and he raised the issue personally with FDR in October. He was soon replaced[/b]. 4

4-date [I]Pearl Harbor Attack Joint Congressional Hearing Record[/I] of 1946: see PHH:32:77. ‘mousetrap,’ [I]The Week Before Pearl Harbor[/I] by A.A.Hoehling, 1963, p.38; Richardson disobeyed orders – “The Truth About Pearl Harbor”, by John T. Flynn, pamphlet, NY, 1944

[b]Continued on page 15: The fishy nature of the transfer of the the Fleet to Hawaii is indicated by the fact that Admiral Richardson was ordered to announce that the transfer to Hawaii was at his request. He was ordered to announce “I have requested permission to remain in Hawaiian waters to accomplish some things I wanted to do while here.” FDR did not want his fingerprints on this transfer[/b]. 3

3-[I]Infamy, Pearl Harbor and it’s Aftermath[/I], by John Toland, NY:Doubleday 1982, p. 250.


More non evidence for folks with their heads in the sand. And for those who want to have more non-facts to twist.

Mike

Don't go setting up a straw man. I never said it was "uncommon." I said it was INTERESTING that the Commander who was preparing for Dec. 7 EXACTLY the way it happened WAS REPLACED by a Commander who thought the main threat to Pearl was a couple thousand hawaii-based Japanese peasants (no offense to the Japanese peasants out there)

What makes it MORE interesting is that this all happened SIX MONTHS before Dec. 7

Then i said I don't beleive that was coincidental.

The fact that such a possibility is too horrible to even imagine DOES NOT mean we should not consider it.

A nation that could slaughter 59,000 of its best and brightest less than 30 years later is CERTAINLY capable of sacrificing Pearl for the "greater good" as possibly the United Nations or some other global organization might have imagined it.





I call it the "Motherland" cuz Hitler was one screwed up "mother%$#@*&."

[:D]

And if you knew what reading comprehension was, you would have seen that I never questioned that Kimmel and Short took over.



Nope.  And I don't have to unless and until YOU present facts that say you're right...which you have not done.

No, you'd call your post neither.  Anecdotal evidence is when you relate something that happened to you or someone else that proves your point.  You did not do this.  You related a documented historical event and then you ASSERTED, with NO EVIDENCE, anecdotal or otherwise, that this even meant that the FDR administration wanted to leave Pearl Harbor defenseless.  You can blow all the smoke you want, but in the end, that's all you have: smoke. No evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.

He didn't have to.  You set it up for him.



Yet you offer no evidence that it was not, just your baseless assertions.

Talk about "comprehension problems."

See my post to Velveeta just above yours that explains the [size=4]significance [/size=4] of Kimmel replacing the Commander who was preparing for a massive japanese fighter attack on Pearl, EXACTLY the way it happened.

Lemme put it in terms that you might be able to grasp. Assume the police pulled all their officers and cars out of the LA area JUST hours before the Rodney King verdict was announced. Would you consider that possible "evidence of a conspiracy" or would you just dismiss it because "nobody put the order in writing, stating their intended purpose was to cause a massive riot." ?????

THAT is what we call logical / anecdotal evidence as to a conspiracy.

If you are in fact a journalist / columnist, you may want to brush up on your ability to sniff out possible conspiracies. You could be the next Jerkraldo.

When ya make it to the "big time" remember the little people like me who made you what you are.

[}:D]

Yes, do...perhaps we can figure out what yours is.



No, Mark, it doesn't EXPLAIN the significance of it, it ASSUMES there WAS any significance.  You never offer any proof that it was anything but a normal beurocratic shuffling.  

I guess Rik is gonna require a signed order by FDR that STATES that Kimmel was sent to replace the Commander that was preparing for a Japanese attack EXACTLY the way it happened, so as to leave Pearl vulnerable, resulting in a devastating blow to the pacific fleet, thereby enraging the American public, and drawing America into a  war whose stated purpose was to preserve world communism. Yup. All spelled out that way and signed by FDR. THAT will convince ole Rik.

Otherwise, unless FDR signed JUST such an order, it is IMPOSSIBLE that that is what happended.

I mean, America would NEVER send its soldiers into a Far Eastern country, frequently guarding ammo dumps unarmed, not allwoing our soldiers to pursue the enemy above a certain longitudinal line, losing lives taking territory that just HOURS later they would walk away from, resulting in , oh, say, 59,000 or so deaths fo Americas best and brightest.

I mean, Kennedy never signed a document stating it was AMericas goal to slaughter 59,000 of its own, so in really never happened. And that silly Black Wall in D.C. is just a fairy tale.

[/sarcasm]

Edit fixed spelling

There you go, Mark...NOW we are getting to the roots of your comprehension problem.  YOU actually seem to think that Kennedy got us into VietNam with the proffessed goal of getting ~50,000 Americans killed and losing the war.
That's equally as ludicrous as the idea that FDR wanted Pearl Harbor attacked.
What was much more likely responsible for both debacles was simple beaurocratic incompetence. There is no reason to make ridiculous, fantastic assumptions about grand and arcance conspiracies, particularly when such things are very very vulnerable to exposure.
Have you ever heard of Ocaam's Razor?  It's a logical tool, and I very very heartily reccommend you look into logic sometime.  It might be a refreshing change for you.

Which is EXACTLY what I've been saying ALL ALONG.

I said "Here's my take. 'I said "I'm not inclined to beleive that is coincidental."

You just happen to see one of my posts and IMMEDIATELY go into "Seek and Destroy" mode. Even tho now at long last you have stated EXACTLY what I've said all along.

I NEVER said I had "proof." That is just YOU moving the goal posts. I said its anecdotal evidence.

Here's an honest question Rik -

IF it were ever proven that you were wrong, would you ever just apologize for the misunderstanding and let it go??? Or would you keep flailing away, attempting to justify yourself????

Cuz I have [size=6]NEVER [/size=6] seen you do that . All I've ever seen is the flailing. And as smart as you are, I can assume you'll concede that you can't be right about EVERYTHING.

I never made such a satement, or ever implied it. That's called 'setting up a straw man."

Further proof you  know neither the rules of evidence, nor the rules of logical argumentation.

I'm done with you on this thread Rik.

Feel free to post any more of your crap, but I'm done with you.

RikWriter says: [b]Show a statement by the commanders who were replaced saying "we were told this was because the US didn't want Pearl Harbor defended against attack from the Japanese" and THAT would be anecdotal evidence. Show a written communique from someone in the Roosevelt government saying it was not in the best interest of their foreign policy for Pearl to be adequately defended and that would be SUBSTANTIAL evidence.
Do you understand the definition of "evidence" yet?[/b]

You are right G-man to throw in the towel debating these yahoos, as the above suggests they will only believe any of it when they find FDR's signature on a communique that's states that was his intent.

I posted above what transpired [i]according to the book I'm reading with the transfering of Richardson w/ Kimmel[/i]. Did you notice how RW ignored my post. Hell I wasn't born in 1941 I can only glean the truth of the matter by attempting to read all of the relevant material and, as stated earlier, I posted a suggestion that [b]Pearl Harbor, Mother of All Conspiracies[/b] was a good book on the subject.
 There's no way I can go into all that is pointed out in this book, buy read it, decide for yourselves whether or not Mr. Willey has gotten his facts straight, and stop bashing those whom only transgression is that they have pointed out that what they were taught in History class appears, in light of information released during the Clinton administration, to be false.

Mike

[:K]

I notice how you ignored my post.  WHY was it relevant?  Commanders move on all the time.  They move up, move out or in some cases move down.  

It is in no way devious or beyond business as usual.  But it is stated in such a way to seem like that.

BTW…  “Have you stopped beating your wife?”



So you plan on reading ALL the relevant material?  This includes the entire official inquiry?  After you have read all of the material would be a great time to draw conclusions, not after reading some crackpots book.  How do you know if it is a good book on the subject or not if it is your primary source of information?  And just because you are ¾’s a way through a book does not make you an expert.  I am a WWII history buff with a major interest in the European theatre but I know enough to debunk the obvious flaws in the Pearl Harbor conspiracies.  Maybe you should admit that you do not know everything about Pearl Harbor and move on.



Well what were you taught in history class that was false? I would really like to know that.  Anyone who is serious on ANY subject should seek knowledge beyond what school has provided for you anyway.  I think I would start with well-recognized sources than move to the crackpot theories first though.  

-Velveeta

I addressed that. I assume you saw my post???

Lemme pose you the same question I posed another.....

Assume the LA police removed all their officers and crusiers from the Watts region of LA just HOURS before the rodney King verdict was announced. Would you consider that possible evidence of a conpiracy??? Or just coincidence???

OK, now assume FDR, six months before Dec. 7, removed the ONE Commander who foresaw a Pearl attack, EXACTLY the way it happened, and was preparing for it, replacing him with a Boob who thought the primary threat to Pearl was from a horde of unarmed Japanese island dwellers. Would you consider that possible evidence of a conspiracy???

Its not PROOF of anything. We have NEVER said it is. But doesn't it bear looking into, or at least more than the casual dismissal you are giving it???

Yes, and when I said the idea was ridiculous, your IMMEDIATE reaction was "You call my idea ridiculous but you don't present any evidence!"
Well Mark, why should *I* have to present evidence that your ideas are ridiculous if YOU don't have to present evidence to support them?
It amazes me that you are incapable of understanding this.

Really?  Then this statement: "I mean, America would NEVER send its soldiers into a Far Eastern country, frequently guarding ammo dumps unarmed, not allwoing our soldiers to pursue the enemy above a certain longitudinal line, losing lives taking territory that just HOURS later they would walk away from, resulting in , oh, say, 59,000 or so deaths fo Americas best and brightest.

I mean, Kennedy never signed a document stating it was AMericas goal to slaughter 59,000 of its own, so in really never happened. And that silly Black Wall in D.C. is just a fairy tale.

[/sarcasm]"

does NOT mean that you think the US government set this up to occur?  Then what the hell DOES it mean, Mark?
If it doesn't mean that, then you phrased it poorly.

Heh. I've heard THAT from you before.  You've never kept that promise before, I don't expect you to now either.

Velveeta says:[b]BTW… “Have you stopped beating your wife?”[/b]

I'm separated for over a year now and there was never any spousal abuse involved, so what does this comment have to do w/ anything in this thread?

[b]So you plan on reading ALL the relevant material? This includes the entire official inquiry?[/b]

Nope only excerpts

[b]After you have read all of the material would be a great time to draw conclusions, not after reading some crackpots book.[/b]

You already called Winston Churchill a crackpot, we know where you stand on authors.

[b]How do you know if it is a good book on the subject or not if it is your primary source of information?[/b]

I've listed three books already which are related to this topic, it's not my primary source, just one of the best ones I've read on the subject.

[b] And just because you are ¾’s a way through a book does not make you an expert. I am a WWII history buff with a major interest in the European theatre but I know enough to debunk the obvious flaws in the Pearl Harbor conspiracies. Maybe you should admit that you do not know everything about Pearl Harbor and move on.[/b]

I like history also and there a many books in my library on WWII subjects, perhaps it's you who should move on.

[b]Well what were you taught in history class that was false? I would really like to know that. Anyone who is serious on ANY subject should seek knowledge beyond what school has provided for you anyway. I think I would start with well-recognized sources than move to the crackpot theories first though.[/b]

Here's something I wasn't taught:
[b]in Volume 3, [i]The Grand Alliance[/i], by Winston Churchill, pages 602-603.... That Pres. Roosevelt and his top advisors "knew the full  and immediate purpose of their enemy.” ……. He made 7 points: (1)That FDR did not give proper warning to the Hawaiian Commanders, (see Congressional Inquiry published in 1946), (2) that Churchill would not pass judgement on what FDR did at Pearl Harbor (3) that his and FDR’s greatest fear was that Japan would not attack the U.S. (4) that Pearl Harbor was worth the price (5) that FDR knew “the full and immediate” plans of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor (6) that FDR welcomed the attack and (7) that the Japanese were innocent.[/I]

PLEASE NOTE I DID NOT SAY THIS, THIS IS FROM [I]The Grand Alliance[/I] by Churchill.

I'm pretty much fed up w/ your insults and will let my posts stand for themselves. The truth is out there for those who choose to find it.

Mike

garandman out.

Alright, think about this for a second, anytime there is a gas pipeline expolosion, an airliner that crashes due to mechinical failure or any other "big boo-boo", if you examine the examine the event you will find there are a series of minor events leading up to it that by themsleves mean nothing. But taken together in series they lead to an event that is worse than the total of the contributory incidents. The conspiracy people will point this out and say there must have been an evil plan.

Also I think there a people that don't want to believe that some other country or organiztion could cause massive death in this country "without help". That helps them sleep better because they don't want the little "I'm safe here" world view taken away from them.

That's also why in every major political assaination in the country....... it had to be a conspiracy. Again they don't want to think that 1 determined person with a gun could kill another person, even if that person has security. Funny thing is if you ask these conspiracy theorist how well the shoot the will tell you that a good handgun shot can make 100 yd headshots freestanding, and a good rifle shot can make 1000 yard headshots. But there had to be multiple people involved in an assaination..........

Ok, you guys win, I don't want you afraid anymore, the Japanese were in cahoots with the Germans. They planned the attack on Pearl Harbor to bring the US into the war. What the didn't realize is that FDR had use alien mind control equipment on Tojo to make him want to attack the US. FDR's astrologer told him that the US would never enter the war unless we were provoked. FDR wanted to be in the war, because the space aliens that use area 51, refueling stop, had used the same type of mind control devise on FDR. The aliens did it because betting on football was outlawed, so that had to find something else to bet on. Most aliens bet on the Axis powers, but the Alien mobsters knew they would lose too much money if the Axis won. So they made FDR a deal he couldn't refuse, the atomic bomb. FDR got cold feet and the aliens had him killed.

Yes I'm mocking you.

A sound question.

In fact, the answer lends creedence to my THEORY.

Japan attacks us, and we send the VAST majority of out troops, equipment, and $$$ to......

NO, NOT the war in the Pacific.

We send them to .....

(drum roll please)

The European theatre. Why?? Well, we can all speculate. My speculation is that the REAL goal was to destroy Hitler, as he posed an immense and immediate threat to Moscow and communism.

What those of us who grew up in the Cold War FORGET is that during the late 30's / early 40's, Communism was  sheik. It was fashionable to be a Communist, even in America, among the elitists. Any threat to Communism would have been VERy un-PC. It was as a reaction to this mindset the book "Animal Farm" came, an "extended parable" of sorts to show the evils of communism.

In summary, Japans attack baited us into the war, and them as a proper response, we attack Hitler?? it makes NO sense. If punishing Japan were the goal, we would have gone after Japan IMMEDIATELY. We DID NOT. And that is HIGHLY suspicious.

Lastly, remember - no country on the face of the globe is more capable of apathy than America. It REQUIRED a sound defeat on American soil to get public outrage to a sufficiently high fever pitch to justify heading to Europe when it was [size=4]JAPAN[/size=4] that just attacked us.

Hypothesis you mean.  A theory requires evidence to back it up.
By the way, do the words "garandman out" mean anything to you?



No, the real goal was to destroy Hitler as he posed an immense and immediate threat to THE WORLD.  



Communism was an Arab chief?  Or do you mean "chic?"



On the contrary, it makes perfect sense.  Hitler was a more real threat to us and our allies than the Japs were.  We KNEW we could beat the Japs once we got geared up...we did NOT know that about the Germans.

Good theory, when you have time go look up the date that the Germans invaded Russia. Since for a time they were in cahoots. Russia got parts of Poland after the Russians invaded.

FDR was more concerned for Britain than any other counrty.

And while your working on twisting history go look up how many soldiers German and Russian were fighting each other on the Eastern front. Then think about how many soldiers our "ally" Russia lost from 1941-1944 when we actually put troops in mainland Europe. (10 million soldiers on each side, FYI the US had 15 million soldiers TOTAL during WWII) (And before you pop of about the US fight in N. Africa, that force represnted less the .5 percent of the German soldiers and less than that much of their war effort.)

And for the sake of discussion, earlier you mentioned that FDR gave Eastern Europe to the USSR, exaclty what could have we done to stop them from taking it?

Europe first was probably a result of several things. Incuding the nervousness about how we could re-take the place if we lost Britian to the Germans. Plus the Germans were seen as more of a threat. The Japanese were stretching their resources to the the breaking point, even before Pearl Harbor. We knew that and knew that they couldn't sustain a war effort very much longer. The Germans could however.

Ahhh, so teh 2,000 mile away threat of Hitler, who was heading in the OPPOSITE direction at teh time, was a greater threat than an attck ON AMERICAN SOIL????

Shoot, where can I get a set of those rose colored glasses yoa re wearing???? [}:D]





Gee, we knew ALL THAT about the Japs, yet THERES NO POSSIBLE WAY we could have known in advance they were gonna attack. SOunds like your smoking from BOTH ENDS of your cannibis joint.

i'm a little late for this argument, but here goes...



apples and oranges, garandman.  it is not the size of the threat that determines the actions/preparations, but the probability of the threat being true.

when you go out in the morning, do you prepare more for protecting yourself against a car crash (i.e., buckling your seat belt) or do you prepare more for protecting yourself against a lightning strike?

i may be wrong, but i'd guess the former.  why?  because there's a [b]greater likelihood[/b] that the former will happen than the latter.

however, even if the actual likelihood of each event was equal to the other, we still have to take into account what the people in charge of making decisions thought about the likelihoods.  if they [i]perceived[/i] one likelihood as being greater than another, then it would make more sense to plan for that one than they one they didn't think would happen.  

while i don't doubt that there are some less than stellar actions in our nation's history at that time, i'm also fairly sure that there were good people who just misjudge the probabilities, based on what at the time seemed like logical assumptions, and put the effort into protecting against the sabotage instead of the attack on Pearl.

at the ver least, these judgements made it easier for those who wanted an attack by the Japs to succeed.  it made for a fairly easy excuse for "letting" it happen.

things are hardly ever black and white, guys.  

RAF -


It makes NO sense for us to go after a third party when Japan just attacked us on our OWN SOIL.

If a bully that you know comes and beats up your wife, do you decide to go protest encroachments of your Second Amendment rights by the US gov't instread of going and getting that bully.

(In this example, the bully represents Japan, and the US gov't represents Hitler.)

No, you go after the bully, REGARDLESS as to the perceived strength of the bully vs. the US govt.


What the US did in going after Hitler first is as much of a logical inconsistency as my bully example.

Comparing a lightning strike to a car crash is the ULTIMATE sterotypical example of apples and oranges.

The threat of a attack by unarmed Japanese  civilian islanders actually had a LESSER probability than the probability of a carrier based attack.

But let's use the car example - do you carry car insurance more for a collision that causes extensive damage, or for a pebble that may chip your paint???

The pebble actually has the greater probability, but the car crash will cause FAR more collateral damage. I insure against the car crash, BECAUSE of theh amount of damamge it can cause.

The first Pearl commander was preapring for the car crash / the carrier based fighter plane attack.

Kimmel prepared for the pebble chipping the paint, ignoring the threat that had MUCH greater probability of causing HUGE collateral damage - a carrier based Jap fighter attack.

I mean, what kind of IDIOT (Kimmel) prepares for a few thousand unarmed peasants when his nation is in negotiations that if they don't go well, everyone KNEW we were CERTAIN to go into full scale war??? And if Kimmel didn't know this was going on, WHY did FRD withold this info from the Commander who is in the ONE  place  a concentrated japanese attack could cause severe collater damage? Either way, SOMETHING stinks.



And the fact the Kimmel was installed just months before Dec. 7 happened, EXACTLY as the man he replaced predicted it would, it just TOO MUCH coincidence for me to stomach.

Again, go back to my Rodney King example I posted twice above. In any other situation where the ONE person who was preparing against the kind of attack eventually happened was REMOVED from authority, you would be screaming. Why not here??/

You have YET to explain how Hilter declaring war against the US  with ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY WHATSOEVER to make good on that threat deserves priority over a brillintly executed and horribly devastating attack on American soil that took over 2,000 lives.

No more discussion UNTIL you explain that.