|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 4, 2020 22:58:43 GMT
To me, there are bits and pieces that seem to add up. But, questions remain.
Much like WWI, the United States wasn't keen on joining a European campaign. But, it did, and does, have allies there.
Late 1930s United States was highly pacifist, isolationist, mainly against communism movements seen since 1905, because of the perceived threat Communism in general represented to captains of industry. And, America did have a corporation or two that actually helped finance some NAZI interests just because of this fear of communism. To the Russians, though, this was proof that America "created" Hitler in order to finally achieve what Napoleon could not...
By late 1940 all of the above spelled absolute doom for England as Germany began an 8-month long bombing blitz against the lone hold out against the NAZIs. Meanwhile, mired in disputes over joining the war effort, America looked on with mixed opinion. There were those, though, who knew we needed to act.
There was a letter sent to President Roosevelt asking for assistance sent by Churchill. The U.S. Navy had parked all of its vessels in Pearl Harbor, except for aircraft carriers. Many of the vessels in the fleet were WWI vintage.
The U.S. spies, located in Japan, did report that the Japanese fleet had left port.
The Sunday of the attack on Pearl Harbor the all important radar systems were shut down, even though a call had come in from that station that something was seen.
Could America have secretly chosen to take a mighty suckerpunch, delivered by the Japanese, in order to be forced into getting over its isolationist attitudes and realize who Hitler actually was and finally join the war effort against Germany once again?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2020 2:22:04 GMT
Just bits and pieces that seem to add up. Much like WWI, the United States wasn't keen on joining a European campaign. But, it did, and does, have allies there. Late 1930s United States was highly pacifist, isolationist, mainly against communism movements seen since 1905, because of the perceived threat Communism in general represented to captains of industry. And, America did have a corporation or two that actually helped financed some NAZI interests just because of this fear of communism. To the Russians, though, this was proof that America "created" Hitler in order to finally achieve what Napoleon could not... By late 1940 all of the above spelled absolute doom for England as Germany began an 8-month long bombing blitz against the lone hold out against the NAZIs. Meanwhile, mired in disputes over joining the war effort, America looked on with mixed opinion. There were those, though, who knew we needed to act. There was a letter sent to President Roosevelt asking for assistance sent by Churchill. The U.S. Navy had parked all of its vessels in Pearl Harbor, except for aircraft carriers. Many of the vessels in the fleet were WWI vintage. The spies located in Japan did report that the Japanese fleet had left port. The Sunday of the attack on Pearl Harbor the all important radar systems were shut down, even though a call had come in from that station that something was seen. Could America have secretly chosen to take a mighty suckerpunch, delivered by the Japanese, in order to be forced into getting over its isolationist attitudes and realize who Hitler actually was and finally join the war effort against Germany once again? the challenge, of course, is proving the difference between hubris and conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 5, 2020 13:12:47 GMT
the challenge, of course, is proving the difference between hubris and conspiracy. I know the term conspiracy carries with it a lot of baggage. I think, however, unfounded claims rich with political purpose are the sorts of so called conspiracies we actually frown upon. I have nothing against Roosevelt or any of his cabinet, or any of those in his war department. In fact, I barely knew the man.  It's just all those chronological elements that keep coming up, time and again; in almost every documentary I find on the subject. If you call attempting to sway public opinion with political decisions conspiracy, then don't ever delve too deeply into CIA tactics. You'll blow a gasket trying to package their story without garnering and earning the phrase "conspiracy theory"... lol. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2020 14:46:11 GMT
the challenge, of course, is proving the difference between hubris and conspiracy. I know the term conspiracy carries with it a lot of baggage. I think, however, unfounded claims rich with political purpose are the sorts of so called conspiracies we actually frown upon. I have nothing against Roosevelt or any of his cabinet, or any of those in his war department. In fact, I barely knew the man. It's just all those chronological elements that keep coming up, time and again; in almost every documentary I find on the subject. If you call attempting to sway public opinion with political decisions conspiracy, then don't ever delve too deeply into CIA tactics. You'll blow a gasket trying to package their story without garnering and earning the phrase "conspiracy theory"... lol. I was using the term neutrally. to be more specific, I guess I should say how do we prove that the reason the information was ignored was because the people in a position to pay attention knew it would allow them to enter the war; rather than ignoring it because they thought the japanese couldn't possibly do anything to the almighty US. keep in mind the Japanese expansionism caught the brits as flat footed as it caught us. occam's razor would suggest hubris, but there is nothing concrete to eliminate strategy. except the same argument I use against the claims that 9/11 was a plot: the US government is terrible at keeping secrets. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 5, 2020 19:20:31 GMT
Of course the Japanese Fleet leaving Japanese waters doesn’t mean they were going to attack Pearl Harbour, Japan was fighting in China they could have been going to strike targets there.
There were also various targets such as French Indo China, British and Dutch territories that Japan could have been going to strike.
And they could just have been engaging in manoeuvres.
Unless there is actually evidence that American spies had actionable intelligence then as TLW says it’s more likely just hubris.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2020 21:28:58 GMT
Of course the Japanese Fleet leaving Japanese waters doesn’t mean they were going to attack Pearl Harbour, Japan was fighting in China they could have been going to strike targets there. There were also various targets such as French Indo China, British and Dutch territories that Japan could have been going to strike. And they could just have been engaging in manoeuvres. Unless there is actually evidence that American spies had actionable intelligence then as TLW says it’s more likely just hubris. From what I understand, Japan's naval officer academy had a major examination in which they'd list a dozen foreign naval bases and write papers detailing how they'd launch a hypothetical attack on that base. Some rounds of examination supposedly had Pearl Harbor on the list of bases, something that a few conspiracy theory types have made noise about over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 5, 2020 23:12:39 GMT
Of course the Japanese Fleet leaving Japanese waters doesn’t mean they were going to attack Pearl Harbour, Japan was fighting in China they could have been going to strike targets there. There were also various targets such as French Indo China, British and Dutch territories that Japan could have been going to strike. And they could just have been engaging in manoeuvres. Unless there is actually evidence that American spies had actionable intelligence then as TLW says it’s more likely just hubris. Well, right. Japan sending its fleet abroad somewhere shouldn't surprise anyone or alarm anyone. But, if America was acting sharply and in its own interests it would be compiling the immediate data: Europe is again at war. Japan is on the side of the Axis Powers. The war in Europe has seriously ramped up recently. Warnings are out that Japan will try and attack. The fleet is suddenly out. A radar on Hawaii reports what could be unexplained aircraft before being told to go ahead and shut down for Sunday. For a country like America said to be war weary from WWI, and now being a country not wanting to enter WWII only about twenty years later you'd expect them to behave on alert when seeing Europe ramping up action. So it's the totality of all those elements I've just mentioned. Not just that Japan's fleet took off somewhere. I know, I know. Now I'm a conspiracy theorist. And, I also know there is a fairly well written wiki about all of this, further detailing how it's supposed to be fringe conspiracy. Great way to sour someone from picking it up again and looking at it, isn't it? I guess I'll suffer the tag of being a nut, so to speak. But, something just isn't right with history here and I can feel it. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 5, 2020 23:48:10 GMT
Of course the Japanese Fleet leaving Japanese waters doesn’t mean they were going to attack Pearl Harbour, Japan was fighting in China they could have been going to strike targets there. There were also various targets such as French Indo China, British and Dutch territories that Japan could have been going to strike. And they could just have been engaging in manoeuvres. Unless there is actually evidence that American spies had actionable intelligence then as TLW says it’s more likely just hubris. From what I understand, Japan's naval officer academy had a major examination in which they'd list a dozen foreign naval bases and write papers detailing how they'd launch a hypothetical attack on that base. Some rounds of examination supposedly had Pearl Harbor on the list of bases, something that a few conspiracy theory types have made noise about over the years. A good military war games multiple scenarios I am sure that there were also plans for attacking Hong Kong or Singapore in a first strike as well although they did also take them later in the war. We just remember the Pearl Harbour one because it was the one that came to fruition. Just as the US had plans for invasions of Canada and the U.K. in War Plan Red. A military that doesn’t make such hypothetical plans isn’t doing its job. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 6, 2020 1:27:04 GMT
bottom line for me - it's pretty commonly accepted there was enough intelligence available for our intelligence services to have connected the dots and figured it out. that means either they connected the dots and ignored it, or they just ignored it.
my own opinion goes closer to the latter than to the former.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 8, 2020 0:42:53 GMT
My take is it is more likely that even though they had all the clues, they never connected all the dots.
There are a number of case studies of the era that show that inter-department communication in the military was bad. Each section tended to horde the intel they had. This was an issue through out the war. That is part of why the CIA was created in 1947. It was a single, central collection and analysis point for military intelligence.
So no one person/group had access to all the clues about what Japan was planing. From there, the idea of a long range, airborn attack just was not something that anyone considered at the time. Hawaii was considered to be beyond the range of Japan's navy. Besides, Japan was h aving enough troubles with Indochina, why would they attack the US?
In the end, the idea that the US knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor is common in any conspiracy theory. People don't want to admit that a small group of people could pull of something so momentous and traumatizing. They would rather built a massive, overly complex and implausible conspiracy than admit that people goofed up and missed the warnings.
As Carl Sagan said: "Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 8, 2020 2:12:18 GMT
My take is it is more likely that even though they had all the clues, they never connected all the dots. There are a number of case studies of the era that show that inter-department communication in the military was bad. Each section tended to horde the intel they had. This was an issue through out the war. That is part of why the CIA was created in 1947. It was a single, central collection and analysis point for military intelligence. So no one person/group had access to all the clues about what Japan was planing. From there, the idea of a long range, airborn attack just was not something that anyone considered at the time. Hawaii was considered to be beyond the range of Japan's navy. Besides, Japan was h aving enough troubles with Indochina, why would they attack the US? In the end, the idea that the US knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor is common in any conspiracy theory. People don't want to admit that a small group of people could pull of something so momentous and traumatizing. They would rather built a massive, overly complex and implausible conspiracy than admit that people goofed up and missed the warnings. As Carl Sagan said: "Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." I remembered that there was a quote to that effect, but I couldn't remember it. fact of the matter is, America's greatest strength is our capacity to dump vast numbers of people and vast quantities of resources into any effort we've never been very good at anticipating what other groups will do. or in other words, we've always been better at reaction than proaction. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 8, 2020 14:57:26 GMT
Fair enough. Fair enough...
May I ask what kind of information would be needed to move this from conspiracy theory over to conspiracy fact?
For instance, instead of Japanese-American spies merely reporting that the fleet had left port, what about a document specifically showing that the spies had retrieved fleet documents from Japanese command showing the attack was on Pearl Harbor. But, the response was to switch off radar anyway.
Just asking what is the bar set at for enough proof that something went foul?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 8, 2020 15:05:53 GMT
Fair enough. Fair enough... May I ask what kind of information would be needed to move this from conspiracy theory over to conspiracy fact? For instance, instead of Japanese-American spies merely reporting that the fleet had left port, what about a document specifically showing that the spies had retrieved fleet documents from Japanese command showing the attack was on Pearl Harbor. But, the response was to switch off radar anyway. Just asking what is the bar set at for enough proof that something went foul? for me, I think it would have to be smoking-gun level - like internal memos to disregard intel. it's one of those things: you can't convict based on nothing but motive and opportunity. I guess at the same time, any progress also has to overcome an "ends justified the means" bias on the part of the average person. I mean intellectually, it would have been wrong if they had allowed the attack with the intent of breaking us out of our isolationism to stop Hitler. but it would have been a greater wrong, to allow Hitler to become entrenched, and would probably have caused greater loss of innocent life. - and people can sidestep that kind of moral dilemma by choosing what they believe. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 8, 2020 18:00:13 GMT
You would have to have enough deviance to show that one person or group of people was able to connect all the dots. The Japanese fleet left port, that they were sailing towards Hawaii with intent and ability to strike at Pearl. This is more than just fleet movements. The Pacific is a big ocean, so it is easy for a fleet to go one way, then change course and go somewhere else to throw off tracking. This was standard procedure for all fleets throughout the war.
So just leaving port is not enough. You have to have evidence that they were going to Hawaii. This was at the extreme range of the fleet at the time. Even then they had to take extra precautions to have enough fuel for the fleet and also the strike planes due to their long flight that would be needed.
Next the ability to actually cause damage to ships in harbor. Japan had to modify their torpedoes in order to be effective in Pearl's shallow harbor.
You would need enough information to show that a group had enough information from which they could reasonably conclude that Japan intended to and was able to attack Pearl.
All of that is only half of the story. Not only do you need to be able to show that someone knew about it, the other side of this is that you would need to prove that they chose to ignore the information presented to them.
All in all, that is a lot of evidence that would have to be collected in order to actually prove such a conspiriacy. Likely it would not be a single smoking gun. It would more likely be a series of memos where the full picture was reported and then a responce to not take action.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 9, 2020 13:00:32 GMT
Okay. The bar is reasonably set to that which tells the whole story, rather than merely using elements.
I can see that.
Still, there are some rather uncomfortable elements. I know today, America has spies located throughout the world. Post world war 2 America ramped up the use of spies mainly due to the cold war. And the result was to create a spy culture that we've basically gotten used to - a spy vs. spy novel everywhere in some sense.
But, before world war 2, how many spies did America deploy? I think it's easy to look at the situation of spies through today's lens. Back then, though, I think the United States was building up the FBI to look at Italian mobs mainly. Having spies located in Japan is dangerous for the time, and somewhat pricey too in other ways. That's an expensive asset to just treat willynilly.
Just prior to, and throughout world war 2, the United States military was commanded by some rather important WWI aces. Hard to believe these people would deploy spies to a dangerous part of the world and then not raise alert levels just a little when informed thusly.
That's where I'll try and leave it. The topic troubles me as much as the notion that New York was targeted in the 1990s, and then by 2001 we do the same thing all over again with regard to knowing it's a target, but not being able to raise "shields".
The "Hey! I've been suckerpunched! Let's get em!!" technique comes up a lot in other government stories too. Like the story of a man dealing with an IRS "SWAT" team, pulled up in his yard. When the man steps up to the first agent at his door, the agent feigns being hit and drops to the ground. The rest open fire.
So, yes, conspiracy is easy. It is also conveniently easy to accentuate the absurdity too: taking the whole story way over the top such that no one can see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 9, 2020 15:03:12 GMT
Okay. The bar is reasonably set to that which tells the whole story, rather than merely using elements. I can see that. Still, there are some rather uncomfortable elements. I know today, America has spies located throughout the world. Post world war 2 America ramped up the use of spies mainly due to the cold war. And the result was to create a spy culture that we've basically gotten used to - a spy vs. spy novel everywhere in some sense. But, before world war 2, how many spies did America deploy? I think it's easy to look at the situation of spies through today's lens. Back then, though, I think the United States was building up the FBI to look at Italian mobs mainly. Having spies located in Japan is dangerous for the time, and somewhat pricey too in other ways. That's an expensive asset to just treat willynilly. Just prior to, and throughout world war 2, the United States military was commanded by some rather important WWI aces. Hard to believe these people would deploy spies to a dangerous part of the world and then not raise alert levels just a little when informed thusly. That's where I'll try and leave it. The topic troubles me as much as the notion that New York was targeted in the 1990s, and then by 2001 we do the same thing all over again with regard to knowing it's a target, but not being able to raise "shields". The "Hey! I've been suckerpunched! Let's get em!!" technique comes up a lot in other government stories too. Like the story of a man dealing with an IRS "SWAT" team, pulled up in his yard. When the man steps up to the first agent at his door, the agent feigns being hit and drops to the ground. The rest open fire. So, yes, conspiracy is easy. It is also conveniently easy to accentuate the absurdity too: taking the whole story way over the top such that no one can see it. judging "back then" by today's standards is a common error people make. I run into it a lot when locking horns with 9/11 "truthers" who insist that the WTC towers were marvels of modern construction and fireproofing, when in fact, they were as much modern marvels as 1970s cars were. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 9, 2020 15:12:30 GMT
Part of the reason this comes up is that figuring out the future of warfare is hard. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback something, but Saturday night is a totally different story.
The problem with planning for future attacks is that it is almost entirely reactive, not proactive. When the World Trade Center was attacked in 1990, it was using a truck bomb. So they addapted and implemented various measures to prevent a future attack. They were ready for the next attack and would keep that bomb from getting close. The problem is the next attack is not something anyone expected. It was passenger airplanes used as guided missiles. At that point, all the previous planning went out the window. We had no defense against someone that no one had ever tried before.
Since then, we have adapted and implemented new security measures. Armored door for airliner cockpits. TSA security screenings. Etc. You can argue how effective those are, but so far it has prevented a repeat of 9-11. The problem is that that does nothing to help us tell what the next attack will be. Maybe it's drone cluster bombs. Or a dirty bomb. Or who knows what. We don't know what it will be. That is the $64 Trillion question.
"So, yes, conspiracy is easy. It is also conveniently easy to accentuate the absurdity too: taking the whole story way over the top such that no one can see it."
Take the thing so over the top that no one can see it and then throw in a type of warfare that no one has ever seen before. In 1941, nearly all the brass in the USN were former battleship commanders. So how did they think when it came to attacking a land target? Pull up your big guns off short and start lobbing shells. One guy tried telling the Navy that air power would change warfare. He was an Army guy who managed to embarrass the Navy commanders in some 1920's war games. He was Brigadier General William L. Mitchell, and would eventually be forced to retire when the brass at the time didn't agree with his view of the future. Pearl Harbor, in a way, was history showing Mitchell to be right.
In a way, the Navy didn't couldn't think that an attack on Pearl was possible because they had simply never conceived that it was even possible. Even if they had all the evidence in front of them, I don't think they could have figured out what the bigger picture was because it was something the world had never seen before. Because of the way they had been trained and they way they had fought wars for, really, a couple hundred years previous to this, the who idea of long range air strikes just never was something they thought could happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 9, 2020 15:29:19 GMT
U.S. Navy saw fit to have seven aircraft carriers before 1941.
Mitchell must have left some kind of mark.
Even by today's standards, there are some mighty powerful "world power" countries that are not equipped with that many true aircraft carriers.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 9, 2020 16:35:45 GMT
U.S. Navy saw fit to have seven aircraft carriers before 1941. Mitchell must have left some kind of mark. Even by today's standards, there are some mighty powerful "world power" countries that are not equipped with that many true aircraft carriers. according to Wikipedia, the UK also had 7. it appears from a quick read that carrier doctrine was still in flux in the 40s. there had clearly been successful uses of carrier based planes in long range attack roles, but it appears the "old guard" still considered carriers as a combination of defensive air support, and something that would lose against a ship with big guns. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_aircraft_carrierI would hazard a guess that most senior strategists, being senior, still thought of airplanes as a way to better direct the REAL weapons; and hadn't started thinking of the airplanes as the weapons, themselves. it's a good illustration of why the advantage and disadvantage of having your oldest, most experienced men be your strategy bosses are the same. "we've always done it this way" works right up until it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 9, 2020 16:52:26 GMT
U.S. Navy saw fit to have seven aircraft carriers before 1941. Mitchell must have left some kind of mark. Even by today's standards, there are some mighty powerful "world power" countries that are not equipped with that many true aircraft carriers. according to Wikipedia, the UK also had 7. it appears from a quick read that carrier doctrine was still in flux in the 40s. there had clearly been successful uses of carrier based planes in long range attack roles, but it appears the "old guard" still considered carriers as a combination of defensive air support, and something that would lose against a ship with big guns. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_aircraft_carrierI would hazard a guess that most senior strategists, being senior, still thought of airplanes as a way to better direct the REAL weapons; and hadn't started thinking of the airplanes as the weapons, themselves. it's a good illustration of why the advantage and disadvantage of having your oldest, most experienced men be your strategy bosses are the same. "we've always done it this way" works right up until it doesn't. And, so, we've both managed to identify 14 carriers right there. That's a lot of aircraft for a battleship-only culture (overstated that a bit, but you get it) America dive bomber first flown in 1940: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SBD_DauntlessSeems aircraft could be made to do the job of big guns, whether arny artillery or naval ship guns. I'm not saying either of you is wrong, but I'm not totally willing to dismiss naval commanders during that time as being out of touch, completely. At least not so far as to be unable to appreciate intelligence. |
|
