Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

The US Let Japan Bomb Pearl Harbor

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
On December 7th, 1941 the Japanese led a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor Naval Base stationed in Hawaii. Less than a day later, FDR declared war on Japan. In this OP, I will be making a case for the notion that US government officials knew of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and let it happen, or even encouraged it to happen.

By June 1940, Great Britain was the last democracy fighting Hitler; with a third of Europe under Nazi control. With Nazi Germany"s invasion of the Soviet Union, combined with Germany, Italy, and Japan uniting under the Tripartite Treaty that September, the future of Europe looked grim.

With 81% of Americans opposing involvement, the only way for FDR to join the war would be to make it seem as if the US was on the defensive. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was perfect for this.

There is a surprisingly large amount of evidence to show that US government officials knew of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. Henry L. Stimson, the United States Secretary of Defense at the time writes,

"General Short had been told the two essential facts: 1) a war with Japan is threatening, 2) hostile action by Japan is possible at any moment. Given these two facts, both of which were stated without equivocation in the message of Nov. 27, the outpost commander should be on the alert to make his fight ... To cluster his airplanes in such groups and positions that in an emergency they could not take the air for several hours, and to keep his antiaircraft ammunition so stored that it could not be promptly and immediately available, and to use his best reconnaissance system, the radar, only for a very small fraction of the day and night, in my opinion betrayed a misconception of his real duty which was almost beyond belief"" [1].

Stimson also admits to talking with FDR about, "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." [2]

Furthermore, the US had already broken the Japanese radio code, Purple, and 5Num. This makes it probable that the US would have known about an attack, but the files are still classified, meaning that it cannot be confirmed. But I won"t go into detail about this.

There are several other justifications, but I was just general. It is an interesting thought, and I"d love to hear what you all think about it.

[1] http://content.time.com...
[2]: "Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations" by Bruce Cumings
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 8:23:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:

This actually goes into depth about an issue I highlighted here: http://www.debate.org...

This is addressed in a book I have called "The Greatest Lies in History."
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 6:32:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
On December 7th, 1941 the Japanese led a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor Naval Base stationed in Hawaii. Less than a day later, FDR declared war on Japan. In this OP, I will be making a case for the notion that US government officials knew of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and let it happen, or even encouraged it to happen.

By June 1940, Great Britain was the last democracy fighting Hitler; with a third of Europe under Nazi control. With Nazi Germany"s invasion of the Soviet Union, combined with Germany, Italy, and Japan uniting under the Tripartite Treaty that September, the future of Europe looked grim.

With 81% of Americans opposing involvement, the only way for FDR to join the war would be to make it seem as if the US was on the defensive. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was perfect for this.

There is a surprisingly large amount of evidence to show that US government officials knew of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. Henry L. Stimson, the United States Secretary of Defense at the time writes,

"General Short had been told the two essential facts: 1) a war with Japan is threatening, 2) hostile action by Japan is possible at any moment. Given these two facts, both of which were stated without equivocation in the message of Nov. 27, the outpost commander should be on the alert to make his fight ... To cluster his airplanes in such groups and positions that in an emergency they could not take the air for several hours, and to keep his antiaircraft ammunition so stored that it could not be promptly and immediately available, and to use his best reconnaissance system, the radar, only for a very small fraction of the day and night, in my opinion betrayed a misconception of his real duty which was almost beyond belief"" [1].

Stimson also admits to talking with FDR about, "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." [2]

Furthermore, the US had already broken the Japanese radio code, Purple, and 5Num. This makes it probable that the US would have known about an attack, but the files are still classified, meaning that it cannot be confirmed. But I won"t go into detail about this.

There are several other justifications, but I was just general. It is an interesting thought, and I"d love to hear what you all think about it.

[1] http://content.time.com...
[2]: "Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations" by Bruce Cumings

Have you heard of the ONI memorandum that was declassified on the Pearl Harbor 70th Anniversary? It basically says that an attack by Japan was expected, especially in Hawaii and the Panama Canal. It also went into detail about reports of Japanese surveillance of Hawaii a few days before the attack: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

There is also this: http://www.thenewamerican.com...
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 7:15:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 6:32:00 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
Have you heard of the ONI memorandum that was declassified on the Pearl Harbor 70th Anniversary? It basically says that an attack by Japan was expected, especially in Hawaii and the Panama Canal. It also went into detail about reports of Japanese surveillance of Hawaii a few days before the attack: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

There is also this: http://www.thenewamerican.com...

No, I have not, thank you. This is very helpful.

I already read the second article
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 7:17:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 7:15:13 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/7/2016 6:32:00 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
Have you heard of the ONI memorandum that was declassified on the Pearl Harbor 70th Anniversary? It basically says that an attack by Japan was expected, especially in Hawaii and the Panama Canal. It also went into detail about reports of Japanese surveillance of Hawaii a few days before the attack: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

There is also this: http://www.thenewamerican.com...

No, I have not, thank you. This is very helpful.

Any time. It further incriminates the U.S.

I already read the second article

I noticed that, after reading the second article a little more, that it basically reiterates what you have already said, lol.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 7:22:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:

The theory is interesting however I think it requires a lot more support than we have. Yes people opposed the war and there's a possible motivation however just because we have proof of a potential motivation I don't believe that we should jump to the conclusion that this actually happened. It's like arguments for the existence of God (particularly comparable to many ontological arguments), it presents chance but not enough chance to prove the claim.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 7:29:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 7:22:03 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:

The theory is interesting however I think it requires a lot more support than we have. Yes people opposed the war and there's a possible motivation however just because we have proof of a potential motivation I don't believe that we should jump to the conclusion that this actually happened. It's like arguments for the existence of God (particularly comparable to many ontological arguments), it presents chance but not enough chance to prove the claim.

You concede the compelling motivation, but you deny the evidence.

There is evidence, that extends much farther than I have outlined for the purpose of discussion. If I would have written more than I did, people would see a lot of text and not read it, I had the keep it short (I even went longer than I should have).

As Voice has pointed out, a declassified memo shows that the US had been warned about the attack.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The fact that they knew about it, and disabled their defenses (see Secretary of Defense account), makes the case extremely compelling. This alone is a strong case, furthered by much more evidence, mostly outlined in the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org...

and Sinett's book, "Day of Deceit", makes the argument very compelling.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 8:03:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 7:29:36 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/7/2016 7:22:03 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:

The theory is interesting however I think it requires a lot more support than we have. Yes people opposed the war and there's a possible motivation however just because we have proof of a potential motivation I don't believe that we should jump to the conclusion that this actually happened. It's like arguments for the existence of God (particularly comparable to many ontological arguments), it presents chance but not enough chance to prove the claim.

You concede the compelling motivation, but you deny the evidence.

But motivation doesn't prove that they do it. If I got really annoyed at somebody and then the next day they were found dead you could say that I had motivation but you couldn't arrest me solely on this premise. You'd need more evidence. Motivation makes it justifies to consider you a suspect but it doesn't prove that I did it. Just like this motivation doesn't prove that they did this.

There is evidence, that extends much farther than I have outlined for the purpose of discussion. If I would have written more than I did, people would see a lot of text and not read it, I had the keep it short (I even went longer than I should have).

As Voice has pointed out, a declassified memo shows that the US had been warned about the attack.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The fact that they knew about it, and disabled their defenses (see Secretary of Defense account), makes the case extremely compelling. This alone is a strong case, furthered by much more evidence, mostly outlined in the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org...

and Sinett's book, "Day of Deceit", makes the argument very compelling.

This is better stuff. I'd be more compelled to agree with the title of the thread if this stuff was highlighted in the OP.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 8:08:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 8:03:51 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/7/2016 7:29:36 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/7/2016 7:22:03 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:

The theory is interesting however I think it requires a lot more support than we have. Yes people opposed the war and there's a possible motivation however just because we have proof of a potential motivation I don't believe that we should jump to the conclusion that this actually happened. It's like arguments for the existence of God (particularly comparable to many ontological arguments), it presents chance but not enough chance to prove the claim.

You concede the compelling motivation, but you deny the evidence.

But motivation doesn't prove that they do it. If I got really annoyed at somebody and then the next day they were found dead you could say that I had motivation but you couldn't arrest me solely on this premise. You'd need more evidence. Motivation makes it justifies to consider you a suspect but it doesn't prove that I did it. Just like this motivation doesn't prove that they did this.

I agree. You cannot, and should not accuse someone solely on motive, it is still compelling, but not adequate to rest the case. There is evidence outside motives though, thus we can

There is evidence, that extends much farther than I have outlined for the purpose of discussion. If I would have written more than I did, people would see a lot of text and not read it, I had the keep it short (I even went longer than I should have).

As Voice has pointed out, a declassified memo shows that the US had been warned about the attack.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The fact that they knew about it, and disabled their defenses (see Secretary of Defense account), makes the case extremely compelling. This alone is a strong case, furthered by much more evidence, mostly outlined in the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org...

and Sinett's book, "Day of Deceit", makes the argument very compelling.

This is better stuff. I'd be more compelled to agree with the title of the thread if this stuff was highlighted in the OP.

So do you agree with the notion then after hearing the evidence?
famousdebater
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 8:12:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 8:08:23 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is evidence, that extends much farther than I have outlined for the purpose of discussion. If I would have written more than I did, people would see a lot of text and not read it, I had the keep it short (I even went longer than I should have).

As Voice has pointed out, a declassified memo shows that the US had been warned about the attack.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The fact that they knew about it, and disabled their defenses (see Secretary of Defense account), makes the case extremely compelling. This alone is a strong case, furthered by much more evidence, mostly outlined in the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org...

and Sinett's book, "Day of Deceit", makes the argument very compelling.

This is better stuff. I'd be more compelled to agree with the title of the thread if this stuff was highlighted in the OP.

So do you agree with the notion then after hearing the evidence?

I don't agree or disagree. I'll have to look into it further before making a decision. I'm always skeptical of things so before this OP was posting I still didn't have a definitive opinion on the subject and it did seem a bit suspicious. I was just saying that the motivation argument wasn't particularly convincing (I never said if I agreed or disagreed). If I have time I'll look into it further and come to a conclusion after I know all of the facts.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 9:34:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
On December 7th, 1941 the Japanese led a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor Naval Base stationed in Hawaii. Less than a day later, FDR declared war on Japan. In this OP, I will be making a case for the notion that US government officials knew of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and let it happen, or even encouraged it to happen.

By June 1940, Great Britain was the last democracy fighting Hitler; with a third of Europe under Nazi control. With Nazi Germany"s invasion of the Soviet Union, combined with Germany, Italy, and Japan uniting under the Tripartite Treaty that September, the future of Europe looked grim.

With 81% of Americans opposing involvement, the only way for FDR to join the war would be to make it seem as if the US was on the defensive. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was perfect for this.

There is a surprisingly large amount of evidence to show that US government officials knew of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. Henry L. Stimson, the United States Secretary of Defense at the time writes,

"General Short had been told the two essential facts: 1) a war with Japan is threatening, 2) hostile action by Japan is possible at any moment. Given these two facts, both of which were stated without equivocation in the message of Nov. 27, the outpost commander should be on the alert to make his fight ... To cluster his airplanes in such groups and positions that in an emergency they could not take the air for several hours, and to keep his antiaircraft ammunition so stored that it could not be promptly and immediately available, and to use his best reconnaissance system, the radar, only for a very small fraction of the day and night, in my opinion betrayed a misconception of his real duty which was almost beyond belief"" [1].

Stimson also admits to talking with FDR about, "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." [2]

Furthermore, the US had already broken the Japanese radio code, Purple, and 5Num. This makes it probable that the US would have known about an attack, but the files are still classified, meaning that it cannot be confirmed. But I won"t go into detail about this.

There are several other justifications, but I was just general. It is an interesting thought, and I"d love to hear what you all think about it.

[1] http://content.time.com...
[2]: "Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations" by Bruce Cumings

I agree to the extent that the United States had some intelligence regarding the potentiality of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But, they didn't know the details. So, there was no mention of when the attack would happen, how it would happen, the extent of force, or anything like that.

Given that the United States was not, then, actively antagonistic to Japan, it also didn't make any sense that the Japanese would do anything so stupid. The Japanese were aware of the United States' military capacity, generally, (although they were not aware that FDR had been quietly militarizing "just in case"), and they were aware enough to know without question that they would be vastly outsized.

That said, there's more potentials here.... might post a bit more later. I don't think that the US encouraged Pearl Harbor to happen, though.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 10:07:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 9:34:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
On December 7th, 1941 the Japanese led a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor Naval Base stationed in Hawaii. Less than a day later, FDR declared war on Japan. In this OP, I will be making a case for the notion that US government officials knew of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and let it happen, or even encouraged it to happen.

By June 1940, Great Britain was the last democracy fighting Hitler; with a third of Europe under Nazi control. With Nazi Germany"s invasion of the Soviet Union, combined with Germany, Italy, and Japan uniting under the Tripartite Treaty that September, the future of Europe looked grim.

With 81% of Americans opposing involvement, the only way for FDR to join the war would be to make it seem as if the US was on the defensive. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was perfect for this.

There is a surprisingly large amount of evidence to show that US government officials knew of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. Henry L. Stimson, the United States Secretary of Defense at the time writes,

"General Short had been told the two essential facts: 1) a war with Japan is threatening, 2) hostile action by Japan is possible at any moment. Given these two facts, both of which were stated without equivocation in the message of Nov. 27, the outpost commander should be on the alert to make his fight ... To cluster his airplanes in such groups and positions that in an emergency they could not take the air for several hours, and to keep his antiaircraft ammunition so stored that it could not be promptly and immediately available, and to use his best reconnaissance system, the radar, only for a very small fraction of the day and night, in my opinion betrayed a misconception of his real duty which was almost beyond belief"" [1].

Stimson also admits to talking with FDR about, "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." [2]

Furthermore, the US had already broken the Japanese radio code, Purple, and 5Num. This makes it probable that the US would have known about an attack, but the files are still classified, meaning that it cannot be confirmed. But I won"t go into detail about this.

There are several other justifications, but I was just general. It is an interesting thought, and I"d love to hear what you all think about it.

[1] http://content.time.com...
[2]: "Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations" by Bruce Cumings

I agree to the extent that the United States had some intelligence regarding the potentiality of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But, they didn't know the details. So, there was no mention of when the attack would happen, how it would happen, the extent of force, or anything like that.

If they knew that there was an imminent attack, then why did government officials order aircraft in formations so that they couldn't take off in an emergency, store anti-aircraft gun ammo so that it couldn't be retrieved, and limit the use of the radar system.

Given that the United States was not, then, actively antagonistic to Japan, it also didn't make any sense that the Japanese would do anything so stupid. The Japanese were aware of the United States' military capacity, generally, (although they were not aware that FDR had been quietly militarizing "just in case"), and they were aware enough to know without question that they would be vastly outsized.

The United States was antagonistic to Japan in economic warfare
http://www.independent.org...

That said, there's more potentials here.... might post a bit more later. I don't think that the US encouraged Pearl Harbor to happen, though.

But they could have let it happen...*conspiracy*
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 10:58:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Oh well

We went to war and we killed japs

boo hoo that we had some casualites

Murica'
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 12:11:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
It was logical that the Japanese Empire would attack somewhere 'like' Pearl Harbour or, as mentioned above, the Panama Canal. This is because the Japanese had a negative attitude against an attack on the US mainland.

Furthermore, Pearl Harbour was the gateway to the pacific ocean and with a large presence of the US navy in an area which the Japanese 'controlled'.

So it was quite obvious that they would attack, but as to what extend the US knew where or when they would attack exactly, that I wouldn't know, but they I doubt they willingly took the damage. If they would have wanted to go to war with Japan, there would have been plenty of sufficient justification other than the Pearl Harbour attack, though the Pearl Harbour attack obviously united the nation against the enemy.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 2:34:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 12:11:43 AM, WAM wrote:
It was logical that the Japanese Empire would attack somewhere 'like' Pearl Harbour or, as mentioned above, the Panama Canal. This is because the Japanese had a negative attitude against an attack on the US mainland.

Furthermore, Pearl Harbour was the gateway to the pacific ocean and with a large presence of the US navy in an area which the Japanese 'controlled'.

So it was quite obvious that they would attack, but as to what extend the US knew where or when they would attack exactly, that I wouldn't know, but they I doubt they willingly took the damage. If they would have wanted to go to war with Japan, there would have been plenty of sufficient justification other than the Pearl Harbour attack, though the Pearl Harbour attack obviously united the nation against the enemy.

This is refuted by post #12, YYW had a similar objection.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 4:33:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 2:34:28 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/8/2016 12:11:43 AM, WAM wrote:
It was logical that the Japanese Empire would attack somewhere 'like' Pearl Harbour or, as mentioned above, the Panama Canal. This is because the Japanese had a negative attitude against an attack on the US mainland.

Furthermore, Pearl Harbour was the gateway to the pacific ocean and with a large presence of the US navy in an area which the Japanese 'controlled'.

So it was quite obvious that they would attack, but as to what extend the US knew where or when they would attack exactly, that I wouldn't know, but they I doubt they willingly took the damage. If they would have wanted to go to war with Japan, there would have been plenty of sufficient justification other than the Pearl Harbour attack, though the Pearl Harbour attack obviously united the nation against the enemy.

This is refuted by post #12, YYW had a similar objection.

Here's some interesting reading... some that also goes along with what I personally believe. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]

It's not necessarily true that the US simply "let it happen," but they didn't take the warning signs seriously. I've heard a story (and I wish I could find the source, but I can't seem to locate it again...) that there was a Japanese-American worker or something at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack who had realized what was happening and tried to warn the US. They simply ignored the warnings and claimed that the warnings and radar indication were simply US troops, even though they couldn't be properly identified.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 3:22:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 2:34:28 AM, Hayd wrote:
This is refuted by post #12, YYW had a similar objection.

No it's not.. As said in my post and prior, they knew that an attack was likely, but did not know at what location.

Besides, thinking about it logically, had they been attacked and 'prepared', there still would have been plenty of casualties, or would this not have been 'sufficient' to go to war with the Japanese?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 6:52:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 4:33:51 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Here's some interesting reading... some that also goes along with what I personally believe. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]

It's not necessarily true that the US simply "let it happen," but they didn't take the warning signs seriously. I've heard a story (and I wish I could find the source, but I can't seem to locate it again...) that there was a Japanese-American worker or something at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack who had realized what was happening and tried to warn the US. They simply ignored the warnings and claimed that the warnings and radar indication were simply US troops, even though they couldn't be properly identified.

It could be true that they didn't take the warning signs seriously, and was just a result of carelessness. But the motivations make a strong case, and the fact that the base was ordered to store anti-aircraft materials in such a way so that it couldn't be used, arrange planes in a way that they would be easier to hit from ships, and so that they couldn't take off, use of radar system, etc. makes a strong case for foul play.

In regards to the Japanese-American, my case has an answer for this; the US wanted Pearl Harbor to be bombed, and thus purposely ignored this guy.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 6:58:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 3:22:31 PM, WAM wrote:
At 2/8/2016 2:34:28 AM, Hayd wrote:
This is refuted by post #12, YYW had a similar objection.

No it's not.. As said in my post and prior, they knew that an attack was likely, but did not know at what location.

Besides, thinking about it logically, had they been attacked and 'prepared', there still would have been plenty of casualties, or would this not have been 'sufficient' to go to war with the Japanese?

If they knew an attack was likely on the Pacific, then they should have prepared all Naval bases, especially their largest that housed the majority of their power.

They needed it to seem like the attack was cowardly, unwarranted, to make the Japanese look like the bad guys, to go to war with the public's support. So making Pearl Harbor unprepared helped all of these be achieved. And, obviously, the larger the destruction the more grave the situation, and thus the more public outrage there is.

If they would have been prepared, they would have been able to fend of the japanese
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 7:37:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 6:52:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:33:51 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Here's some interesting reading... some that also goes along with what I personally believe. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]

It's not necessarily true that the US simply "let it happen," but they didn't take the warning signs seriously. I've heard a story (and I wish I could find the source, but I can't seem to locate it again...) that there was a Japanese-American worker or something at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack who had realized what was happening and tried to warn the US. They simply ignored the warnings and claimed that the warnings and radar indication were simply US troops, even though they couldn't be properly identified.

It could be true that they didn't take the warning signs seriously, and was just a result of carelessness. But the motivations make a strong case, and the fact that the base was ordered to store anti-aircraft materials in such a way so that it couldn't be used, arrange planes in a way that they would be easier to hit from ships, and so that they couldn't take off, use of radar system, etc. makes a strong case for foul play.

Yeah. Personally, I don't give the US enough credit be crafty enough to play this conspiracy theory so well. I'm wary of evidence that is edging on being fabricated. :P

In regards to the Japanese-American, my case has an answer for this; the US wanted Pearl Harbor to be bombed, and thus purposely ignored this guy.

Well, I don't think the lower-level guys had any knowledge of it, they were just acting under the pretense of what their superiors had told them.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 7:38:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 7:37:10 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/8/2016 6:52:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:33:51 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Here's some interesting reading... some that also goes along with what I personally believe. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]

It's not necessarily true that the US simply "let it happen," but they didn't take the warning signs seriously. I've heard a story (and I wish I could find the source, but I can't seem to locate it again...) that there was a Japanese-American worker or something at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack who had realized what was happening and tried to warn the US. They simply ignored the warnings and claimed that the warnings and radar indication were simply US troops, even though they couldn't be properly identified.

It could be true that they didn't take the warning signs seriously, and was just a result of carelessness. But the motivations make a strong case, and the fact that the base was ordered to store anti-aircraft materials in such a way so that it couldn't be used, arrange planes in a way that they would be easier to hit from ships, and so that they couldn't take off, use of radar system, etc. makes a strong case for foul play.

Yeah. Personally, I don't give the US enough credit be crafty enough to play this conspiracy theory so well. I'm wary of evidence that is edging on being fabricated. :P

In regards to the Japanese-American, my case has an answer for this; the US wanted Pearl Harbor to be bombed, and thus purposely ignored this guy.

Well, I don't think the lower-level guys had any knowledge of it, they were just acting under the pretense of what their superiors had told them.

I agree, which is why in my OP I said government officials, only a select few (FDR and other high ranking officials such as generals knew of it)
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 8:11:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 7:38:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/8/2016 7:37:10 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/8/2016 6:52:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/8/2016 4:33:51 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Here's some interesting reading... some that also goes along with what I personally believe. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]

It's not necessarily true that the US simply "let it happen," but they didn't take the warning signs seriously. I've heard a story (and I wish I could find the source, but I can't seem to locate it again...) that there was a Japanese-American worker or something at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack who had realized what was happening and tried to warn the US. They simply ignored the warnings and claimed that the warnings and radar indication were simply US troops, even though they couldn't be properly identified.

It could be true that they didn't take the warning signs seriously, and was just a result of carelessness. But the motivations make a strong case, and the fact that the base was ordered to store anti-aircraft materials in such a way so that it couldn't be used, arrange planes in a way that they would be easier to hit from ships, and so that they couldn't take off, use of radar system, etc. makes a strong case for foul play.

Yeah. Personally, I don't give the US enough credit be crafty enough to play this conspiracy theory so well. I'm wary of evidence that is edging on being fabricated. :P

In regards to the Japanese-American, my case has an answer for this; the US wanted Pearl Harbor to be bombed, and thus purposely ignored this guy.

Well, I don't think the lower-level guys had any knowledge of it, they were just acting under the pretense of what their superiors had told them.

I agree, which is why in my OP I said government officials, only a select few (FDR and other high ranking officials such as generals knew of it)

Perhaps.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 8:37:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Can't we just all agree that Austrians were the cause?

Until now, every world war has been caused by an Austrian.... So they surely must have had their hands in there somewhere....
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:38:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:49:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
On December 7th, 1941 the Japanese led a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor Naval Base stationed in Hawaii. Less than a day later, FDR declared war on Japan. In this OP, I will be making a case for the notion that US government officials knew of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and let it happen, or even encouraged it to happen.

By June 1940, Great Britain was the last democracy fighting Hitler; with a third of Europe under Nazi control. With Nazi Germany"s invasion of the Soviet Union, combined with Germany, Italy, and Japan uniting under the Tripartite Treaty that September, the future of Europe looked grim.

With 81% of Americans opposing involvement, the only way for FDR to join the war would be to make it seem as if the US was on the defensive. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was perfect for this.

There is a surprisingly large amount of evidence to show that US government officials knew of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. Henry L. Stimson, the United States Secretary of Defense at the time writes,

"General Short had been told the two essential facts: 1) a war with Japan is threatening, 2) hostile action by Japan is possible at any moment. Given these two facts, both of which were stated without equivocation in the message of Nov. 27, the outpost commander should be on the alert to make his fight ... To cluster his airplanes in such groups and positions that in an emergency they could not take the air for several hours, and to keep his antiaircraft ammunition so stored that it could not be promptly and immediately available, and to use his best reconnaissance system, the radar, only for a very small fraction of the day and night, in my opinion betrayed a misconception of his real duty which was almost beyond belief"" [1].

Stimson also admits to talking with FDR about, "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." [2]

Furthermore, the US had already broken the Japanese radio code, Purple, and 5Num. This makes it probable that the US would have known about an attack, but the files are still classified, meaning that it cannot be confirmed. But I won"t go into detail about this.

There are several other justifications, but I was just general. It is an interesting thought, and I"d love to hear what you all think about it.

[1] http://content.time.com...
[2]: "Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations" by Bruce Cumings

Japan and the US were in the midst of peace negoations at the time. The Japanese didn't want peace but according to you the US didn't want peace either. Kinda seems a bit ignorant to say that FDR let hundreds of people die just to do war. He would have warned troops, let them evacuate, and then when the japs came it would still be a good enough reason to declare war on Japan
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question