Did FDR LIHOP in regard to Pearl Harbor?

[robertpaulsen]

I have heard stories from other people and I believe on TV that FDR knew before December 7 that the Japanese were planning on attacking Pearl Harbor and that he Let It Happen On Purpose in order to shake America out of its isolationist complacency and give Congress a justification to declare war. I was wondering if anyone could provide links to articles that would confirm this. Wasn't there an investigation into the causes that allowed Pearl Harbor to happen? I'm not sure if the proof of negligence come out of the report of that investigation or not.

[MrBenchley]

1. This was a common lie

from right wing fuckwits in the 1950s...along with the claim that FDR's real last name was Rosenfeld.

[starroute]

28. It goes back to right-wing extremist John T. Flynn

The idea that Pearl Harbor was a setup may have begun with Harry Elmer Barnes, who was later a major figure in Holocaust revisionism. However, it was popularized primarily by John T. Flynn.

Flynn led the opposition to Roosevelt throughout FDRs administration. As early as the middle 30's, he was actively condemning the New Deal and warning that Roosevelt would try to entangle the US in a European war. In 1940, Flynn became one of the founders of the America First Committee. His anti-Roosevelt publications included:

"The Truth About Pearl Harbor" (1944)
"As We Go Marching" -- accused Roosevelt of leading the nation towards fascism
"Why the Americans Did Not Take Berlin" -- accused Roosevelt of handing Eastern Europe over to Stalin at Yalta
"The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor" -- expanded on the idea that Roosevelt had deliberately provoked a Japanese attack

With World War II over, Flynn turned his efforts to fanatical anti-Communism. His postwar writings included:

"The Roosevelt Myth" (1948) -- claimed the New Deal had enabled Communists to enter the US government
"The Road Ahead: America's Creeping Revolution" (1949) -- claimed that Communists had penetrated the Democratic Party
"While You Slept" (1951) -- claimed that American media convinced people that the Chinese Communists were preferable to the Nationalists and thereby enabled Mao to take over China
"The Lattimore Story" (1953) -- named a specific group of writers, educators, and government officials as conspiring to force the State Department to hand China and Korea over to the Communists

By this time, Flynn was a leading McCarthyite. He wrote an article supporting Joseph McCarthy and another accusing Eisenhower of being soft on Communism. In 1955, he started campaigning against the United Nations, which he claimed was a center of communist subversion. However, his attacks on Eisenhower had tended to marginalize him, and he fell more and more out of tune with the New Right which was emerging at this time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. I don't recall ever agreeing with you before

But here you are mighty right about this lie. It amazes me how much anti-FDR material actually crops up on DEMOCRATIC Underground. Anti-Truman stuff as well.

[papau]

2. not proven - a message was intercepted before 12/7 - but not available

to FDR per the inquiry.

There are major books on the Pearl Harbor inquiry.

[Renew Deal]

3. FDR no

But there were some dumb bastards that didn't pay attention in the Navy as well as Military in DC. They also had intelligence problems regarding translating. Sound familiar?

[robertpaulsen]

15. Sounds EEIRILY familiar.

Too bad they didn't have Clinton to blame it on!

on edit: was there a Sibel Edmonds at that time who was served a gag order?

[radwriter0555]

4. who cares? that was like 60 years ago.

makes no difference.

[rinsd]

5. It depends....

US intelligence at the time was sketchy at best. We didn't have a CIA or even its predecessor the OSS. Army Signal and Navy code breakers has very little coordination or cooperation. I believe that the US lost track of the Japanese fleet for weeks.

Here is an interesting book and Roosevelt and intelligence before and during the war.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375761268/qid=1083174601/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9086710-8718330?v=glance&s=books

Also here's some info on the hearings held

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html

[bemildred]

6. More like MIHOP.

Pushed Japan into a corner economically and left a nice
fat target there in Hawaii. Not unlike the shit Wilson
pulled against Germany to get into WWI. There was something
to be said for picking a fight in the case of WWII, however.
My point is just that it would have been easy enough to stay
out of it if FDR had actually wanted to.

[rinsd]

18. I would disagree.....

Japan pushed herself into the corner first with its Chinese invasion, strong arming the Dutch in the East Indies and then military incursions into French Indo-China after the fall of France.

[bemildred]

19. I'm not defending the Japanese, far from it.

That was not the question.

[rinsd]

25. I didn't mean to imply such either. (nt)

[bemildred]

29. You seem civil. I don't get your point.

Do you think FDR just stumbled into war with Japan?
The Japanese certainly earned their enemies in WWII, they
did not behave well at all, or that smartly either.
But they were not anxious to pick a fight with the US,
they had enough on their plate, and FDR certainly was
anxious to get the US into the war.

[rinsd]

33. My point was that you weren't defending the Japanese

"Do you think FDR just stumbled into war with Japan?"

To a point, yes. Though I wouldn't use the word stumble. More like caught off guard by Japanese reaction. I found the German side of the euqation to be far more calculated. The dealings with China, the crashing of British military power in the region, the relative weakness of the US navy all contributed to the US using the one weapon they had to stem Japanese expansion, economic sanction. While we had scrap metal and aviation fuel embargoes during the Chinese invasion, it wasn;t until Japan made forceful military incursions into Indo-China that we cut off all pertoleum. The Navy was of course far more cautious than Roosevelt and was not happy about this. We only had 3 carriers in the Pac Fleet at the time. I think FDR had a feeling the Japanese may go after the Philipines(which was a subject of negotiations before Pearl) but I don't think he believed the Japanese would come full force in an end game play.


"The Japanese certainly earned their enemies in WWII, they
did not behave well at all, or that smartly either.
But they were not anxious to pick a fight with the US,
they had enough on their plate,"

War with the US may have been inevitable. Not just over the embargo. Japan was planning to create an empire in which Japan would be the manufacturing hub of natural resources from SE Asia then sold to the huge market of China. Basically your British plan of imperialism. Now the Japanese Navy was not crazy about taking on the US, but the Japanese Army was far more insular and believed in their own invincibility. When the Briitish could not longer rule the seas in the Pacific Japan stepped in. They wished to cut us off from the China market and have it for themselves. Couple that with being a military threat to other US interests and I have a feeling war was coming, Pearl or no Pearl.

"and FDR certainly was anxious to get the US into the war."

Okay, except that by "allowing"(I am not sure how to phrase that, I don't want to imply FDR allowed such, I consider it more a failure of unorganized intelligence) the Japanese to be the ones drawing us into war instead of the Germans he jeopardized what he was supposedly working for. Hitler did him a favor for sure by declaring war but substantial portions of the populace didn't care about Europe and thought we should only fight the ones who attacked us. Heck, alot of the military couldn't believe that the Pac war effort had to divert substantial resources to the fight against the Axis in Europe. There was almost continuous pressure by Churchill & Stalin on Roosevelt that Germany had to come first. FDR felt that way too but the American public was not very sure about that.

I posted it on this thread but here is a cool book you may enjoy about our pre-war intell.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375761268/qid=1083183880/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-9086710-8718330?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[bemildred]

35. Thanks interesting discussion.

And interesting book, I'll put it on the list.
I don't think I'll haggle with you further, we differ mainly
on the extent to which we think FDR was master of his fate.
I think he knew exactly what he was about, he was not elected
four times by accident or luck. I become annoyed when people
expound on the masterful vision and management of politicians
until they get to the ugly bits, whereupon said politician
suddenly becomes a bit of flotsam cast about by the winds of
fate. Have a nice day Sir.

[rinsd]

38. To agree to disagree with a wave and smile is the way it ought to be. (nt)

[On the Road]

7. What Persuades Me That He DIDN'T Know

is that FDR's supposed reason for LIHOP was drawing the US into war. But by that logic, it was completely unecessary for the Japanese attack to be successful.

All it would have taken was an attack. If the US military had been alterted and defeated the Japanese, Congress would still have declared war on Japan. So what's FDR motive supposed to be?

[theboss]

10. I've seen the theory and that's where it loses me too

Any action by Japan against the US would have been the impetus for war. So why would FDR sacrifice the Pacific Fleet, which nearly cost us the war.

[bemildred]

13. Well the question is this:

How fat a target does one have to present to the Japanese
military to get them to bite? It's not like Japan is going
to take a whack at some little post so they can start a fight
with the USA too ...

That said, it's possible that FDR underestimated the success
of the Pearl Harbor attack, but it's also possible he didn't
really care, it's not like there was any question about who
would win, Pacific Fleet or no.

[ieoeja]

8. They knew something was coming.

And all Pacific commands were told to go on a war time footing. No special emphasis was place on any individual post. But nobody, high to low, thought it would be Pearl. Everyone assumed it would be somewhere further west.

[nostamj]

11. exactly.

Pearl Harbor was not considered a likely target.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. They knew war was possible

After all, Japan was trying to conquer the Pacific and Asia. But everyone knew that was POSSIBLE.

[nostamj]

9. if you respect Gore Vidal

the answer would be yes.

i can't remember if it was DREAM WAR or PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE but he discusses it convincingly there.

it is also a key element in his portrait of the FDR administration in his historical novel, THE GOLDEN AGE.

FDR wanted to enter the war, but the population was overhwhelming against that. he campaigned with the promise that he would not take the country into war unless attacked.

it's a thought-provoking premise.

[robertpaulsen]

56. Dreaming War.

I googled and found the title, but I'm having trouble locating the essay. All I can find are reviews of it.

[robertpaulsen]

57. Just found some great excerpts.

p74
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (whose domestic policies-the New Deal-I admire) deliberately provoked the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor. Why? As of 1940, he wanted us in the war against Hitler, but 80 percent of the American people wanted no European war of any kind after the disappointments of 1917. He could do nothing to budge an isolationist electorate. Luckily for him (and perhaps the world), Japan had a military agreement with Germany and Italy. For several years, Japan had been engaged in an imperial mission to conquer China. Secretly, FDR began a series of provocations to goad the Japanese into what turned out to be an attack on our fleet at Pearl Harbor, thus making inevitable our prompt, wholehearted entry into the Second World War. There is a vast literature on this subject, beginning as early as 1941 with Charles A. Beard's President Roosevelt and the Coming of War and continuing to the current Day of Deceit by Robert B. Stinnett, now being argued about in the U.S. Stinnett gives the most detailed account of the steps toward war initiated by FDR, including the November 26, 1941, ultimatum to Japan, ordering them out of China while insisting they renounce their pact with the Axis powers; this left Japan with no alternative but war. the object of the exercise.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Gore_Vidal/Dreaming_War.html

I haven't read any Gore Vidal books, but I've just read a great interview about how much he LOATHES Bush. I'm looking forward to reading his stuff. Thank nostamj!

[nostamj]

88. the two books of short essays are excellent

and yes, he UTTERLY LOATHES bush...

[glitch]

97. I do respect Gore Vidal, but I don't assume he's always right. nt

[Pholus]

12. Pearl Harbor

Of course FDR didn't know. However, Rethugs tended to respect Adolph
and so were rabidly isolationist at the time. This was before they
found out the profit margins on munitions! Anyway, the investigations
wanted to find out how we could have been caught so badly off guard.

There *was* sufficient intel to show that war was imminent and even
enough to suggest several targets, including Pearl. However, high
level intel is political. People with access to one source frequently
didn't have access to others which would have been needed for context.
The right wing revisionists make their case with perfect hindsight.

So, you end up talking tactics. In war games, Pearl was too remote
to effectively attack. It made a good forward base for the best war
plan, which presumed that the war would be in the West Indies and that
the Philippines would be the main battleground. The local commanders
had some warnings, but their main goal was to wait for war then
attack across the Pacific to engage the Japanese Navy (Aircraft Carriers
were only support vessels in the plan and Battleships needed
too much fuel to attack that far away).

Kimmel (Navy) didn't have enough search planes to cover 360 degrees
like he wanted to and besides those search planes were needed for the
counterattack so he kept them grounded and rested, presuming
Short (Army) would do it. Short thought Pearl was a Navy base and so
Kimmel was doing the recce work. So Pearl Harbor happened.

One of the cause celebres of the right is to exonerate Kimmel and Short
since they were the two high profile people punished for
Pearl Harbor and the politicians largely got away. The problem with this is that
irrespective of the intelligence from Washington, the
local commanders had a base to defend with ample resources and yet they failed to do so.

It's hard (and perhaps wrong) to prosecute intelligence failures,
just fix the system. However, specific tactical mistakes are
unforgivable.

[bemildred]

14. The thing is, why assume he was caught off guard?

Aside from his own words, what evidence is there that would
indicate that was the case? Only the level of damage. The
assumption is that he would have arranged something more modest.
But that seems highly questionable, he needed something big.

This is rather like the arguments about the 9/11 attack. There
is this lack of mental cojones when it comes to thinking of ones'
own goverment having the public interest so little at heart. And
yet that is the tale history tell of leaders in all times and
most places.

[The Magistrate]

23. Is It Safe To Presume, My Friend, You Are Playing Devil's Advocate?

There does not seem to me any sound basis for concluding the attack on Pearl Harbor was forseen by the military establishment, let alone courted knowingly by President Roosevelt.

Three most basic reasons for the military establishment not foreseeing it are: first, the still prevelant naval assumption aircraft could do little against capital ships; second, the prevailing racist dismissal of Japanese capabilities at modern warfare; third, the general assumption a Japanese strike at the U.S. in the Pacific would be aimed at the Phillipine bases.

It is certainly true that the oil embargo against Imperial Japan forced that nation into an untenable situation, out of which most serious analysts knew a warlike act must emerge, and it is hard to imagine that it was done without awareness war would ensue. There does not seem any reason to suppose the precise character of the un-orthodox blow that was delivered was foreseen, however.

A much better case could be made that President Roosevelt was directly attempting to provoke war with Nazi Germany at the time, and courting attack on U.S. naval forces to achieve it. U.S. warships were participating in convoy escorts in the North Atlantic in company with English units, and there had been several engagements, including the famous sinking of the U.S.S. Rueben James, already. This followed on the pattern of Wilson's entry into the Great War, based on the traditional U.S. policy of "freedom of the seas" against interference with trade by a belligerent power. There is little question Presdident Roosevelt was more desirous of war with Nazi Germany than with Imperial Japan.

[bemildred]

27. Something like.

The question was whether FDR was trying to get us into the war.
He clearly was. One can argue about the attack on Pearl ad nauseum
to little end; you put the case well enough, and we will never
know FDR's inner thoughts at the time, which is the crux of the
matter. One may safely assume the Navy was not in on it. One
may argue about whether or not FDR would have liked it better if
it was a smaller disaster, or with the Germans, etc. so it got us
in the war. It would hardly be the first time the US government
arranged an "incident" in order to get into a war.

If there is any point I want to make, it is that the notion that
our political leaders are disinterestedly looking out for our best
interests and are to be trusted is wrong. They desire to rule
and they dislike interference, and they clearly do knowingly make
decisions that result in the deaths of many in pursuit of their
political agendas.

I suppose I'm a bit testy today.

[Pholus]

30. LIHOP for an "incident"

Roosevelt knew that war was coming, but it was presumed to be towards
the East, where the resources were. In addition, intel flows up
and orders flow down. Roosevelt could not have LIHOP without the
consent of at least a dozen senior uniforms who owed him no fealty.
It stretches credibility to no end to argue that they (many of them staunch Republicans who disliked the New Dealers on principle) would
have went along and kept their mouths shut afterwards.

In addition, Roosevelt did want to get into the war but for PR an
interception of the Japanese fleet on its way to attack would have
been just as good. In the end it was fortunate that we *didn't* know
since the likely outcome of an interception would have been the
destruction of the fleet in deep water.

As far as the relation to the present, both FDR and the chimp have
one thing in common: NEITHER would have LIHOP had they had a choice.

Reality is far too complex to have to ascribe such wild conspiracies.

Using the event to further an agenda is another thing....

[bemildred]

31. A skilled use of the passive voice Sir.

Obviously, I do not share your premises about the
noble motives of our "leaders". You seem to be of
the "The King can do no wrong" school. I am not.
The opposition to the War party was not the Republicans
but the general citizenry; to motivate them one needs
something flashy. They will not enlist in droves because
of an interception of fleets, one needs an attack on the
home turf. There is no conspiracy at issue here,
no plotting in basements, FDR was clearly antagonizing the
Japanese in an effort to get them to produce a casus belli,
which they did in due course. One may of course dispute
whether he got a bit more than he bargained for, as with
Mr. Bush.

[Pholus]

34. Why do you name call when we agree?

So we agree, FDR was looking for a war. Sometimes that's
what a "leader" needs to do. However, on both 9/11 and 12/7
we seem to have lost because we discount exactly how creative
our opponents can be.

All this X-files level stuff about FDR also has another gaping
hole in it: FDR feared Germany more and Adolph sure didn't have to declare war on us! How would WW II have turned out had Germany
publically declared that Japan's action was atrocious and Germany was breaking their treaty obligations?

Do you think the "general citizenry" would have signed onto a war
against Germany?

[bemildred]

37. I called you no names.

I pointed out your use of the passive voice.
And I made no X-files type assertions. I said
FDR knew what he was doing, and he got exactly what
he wanted, that is praise of a sort. You seem to
think politicians never lie. Good luck to you
with that.

[Pholus]

39. Ever make it down to Tucson, AZ we'll talk over some beverage or other...

Passive voice by training and personality both. I'm doubly darned. :)

Actually, you called me a member of the "King can do no wrong" school,
which I take as a rather crass insult. Politicians are born to lie.
Politicians are also born to be the lightning rods of resentment we
all have. Both extremes will lead to a cartoonization of them.

So, as far as "FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen" versus
FDR wanted a war but the Japanese were clever and lucky -- Occam does
my talking for me.

[bemildred]

45. Very good, Sir.

Perhaps a Belgian Ale on me.

The "King can do no wrong" school is the default one.
I meant no insult, I see I have mischaracterized you.

Occams rule is a better argument than most I see on
this subject. Napoleon's rule (something like "never assume
malice where incompetence will do the job") serves one well
too in these cases.

Someday in Tucson.

[Pholus]

47. You're on!

Anyway, having misspent my youth reading history (and the origins
of WW II in particular) I couldn't pass up leaving my lurker's
perch on this one topic! :)

[bemildred]

69. One last bit.

I offer this quote:

"In politics, nothing happens by accident.
If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way."
-- FDR

[Sterling]

64. While I agree with the ultimate conclusion

Your facts are not accurate and yet you spew them as if they are reality, as usual.

The British had already been very successful targeting capitol ships in WW2 against the
Italians. Billy Mitchell had already made his case to the war dept and the US was well aware
that Flat tops were the way of the future.

I really do agree that FDR did not "know". I just wanted to point out that you don't really
have any idea what you are talking about regarding a variety of your points.

[The Magistrate]

98. Honestly, Mr. Sterling

You are refering to two matters, it would seem: the Tarranto attacks, and the demolition by Gen. Mitchell of several captured German dreadnoughts. Neither of these things demonstrated much relevant to the Pearl Harbor situation, and more to the point, neither made much impact on the various Western military establishments.

Gen. Mitchell's demonstration was considerably devalued because the vessels attacked were un-crewed, and therefore unable to take any defensive or damage control measures. Little more was proved beyond that a target the size of a ship could be struck, and that a large enough bomb could break several inches of steel, and both of these things were already well known at the time, since air bombing with some degree of accuracy at lower altitudes had already been a feature of the Great War, and bombs of over three quarters of a ton had been emploted in its latter stages.

The Tarranto attack was of a very different character than the Pearl Harbor strike. It was launched from very close in, by a small number of aircraft, in conditions of darkness, and from waters controlled by the Royal Navy. A better lesson along the lines of the vulnerability of ships to air power was available from the Norwegian campaign, where German air power played havoc with Royal Navy vessels beyond the range of land based R.A.F. fighters. Nonetheless, the Royal Navy did not take the lesson, nor did the U.S. Navy: this is clear from the English willingness to operate the unfortunate H.M.S. Prince of Wales and H.M.S. Repulse off Malaya without air cover, even after the Pearl Harbor strike.

The "Brown Shoe Navy" and the "Black Shoe Navy" were still very much engaged in intercine combat for dominance at the outbreak of World War Two in the United States, and it was by no means settled doctrine that aircraft carriers would replace battleships as the leading capital vessels. Without the destruction of the battle fleet in Pearl Harbor, which left the U.S. with only carriers in the Pacific, the issue might not have been decided even in the early stages of the war.

[castlerockliving]

16. Heck Billy Mitchell predicted it back in the 20s

Billy Mitchell was military pilot during WWI. He predicted back in the 1920s, that the US and Japan would go to war. The issue would be natural resources. He also said the Japanese would attack first and declare war afterwards. He got court-martial, reduced in rank and died about 1936 or 1937.

He was the first big proponent of using airplanes in war, making a separate air force, a secretary of defense, making carriers and other numerous innovations which the military and the USA did not do until WW2 or afterwards.

I would have to say that FDR probably thought we would go to war with Germany first. A german Uboat would sink one of our supply ships we were either sending to Britian or to Russia. Then we could use this to enter the war.

FDR set up us to enter the war. Lend Lease with the British and Russia and then we stopped selling oil to Japan.

I dont think he knew that Pearl Harbor would be attacked.

[Gruenemann]

17. Billy Mitchell's reward for being prophetic

about air power was demotion. Join the army, be whistle blower, and get screwed.

[Pholus]

26. Mitchell was not always right, either!

Well, admirers aside, Billy had a few problems besides prophecy.

Morison points out that Mitchell also said the aircraft carrier was
a waste of money -- land based aircraft would always win. Tell
that to Halsey and Nimitz!

Not all prophets have a 100 percent accuracy rating!

[davsand]

20. It could have been LIHOP, but it could have been Intel failure

The US HAD cracked Japanese diplomatic codes (referred to as the Purple codes in some places) however, those by themselves would not necessarily have provided enough info to plan for defense against any attack. Our folks knew it was coming, but, like the events of 9/11, the claim is that no info was specific enough to have directly prevented it.

I've seen some stuff that contains info that the Dutch knew the attack on Pearl was coming and had warned the US about it. (Read a book titled Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its aftermath by John Toland if you want to read some of this stuff, BTW) and I've also seen some books that even go so far as to claim that not only did the US know it was coming and where it would be--but even the DATE!

I think there is a very clear parallel between the questions about Pearl and how it happened and the questions about 9/11 and how it happened. Both could be attributed to massive failures-- not in intel gathering-- but in the analysis of that intel and the application of the intel. Further, I see some very real similarities in the fact that there are opinions out there that the government may have allowed it to happen either thru mishap or even possibly some political agenda.

If Pearl is still this hotly contested, after all these years, I expect that 9/11 will be a real bone of contention as well.

FWIW, there is an interesting article disputing some of this on the BBC website. You may enjoy seeing it as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/pearl_harbour_01.shtml


Laura

edited to fix link.

[robertpaulsen]

24. Thanks davsand!

I love history, and that was a great link that put the events in their historical context. I agree that there is a very clear parallel between the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 intelligence failures. However, I have yet to read about any Pearl Harbor whistleblowers as damaging as what I have read from 9/11 whistleblowers Colleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds. Hopefully, the whole truth will come out on that one.

[mot78]

21. No, but I can understand why you'd think that

Someone earlier in the year warned of a Pearl Harbor attack, but nobody in FDR's admin took it seriously. They did anticipate a Japanese attack, but in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) because Japan needed oil and rubber because of our sanctions, or in the Philippines. They did conquer those places in early 1942, but only after they crippled our Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor.

[Raven]

22. FDR ABSOLUTELY KNEW!!!!!

After the Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Husband Kimmel, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet was brought before Congress on charges that he was asleep at the switch. My father, who was a young Navy lawyer at the time, defended him. Kimmel was striped of his rank and retired and subsequently died in disgrace.

For the next 50+ years, my Father and many historians, the Kimmel family and others fought to have Kimmel's rank reinstated. Over the years as the war's memories receeded, many facts came out about what FDR knew...many historians concluded that FDR did know that Japan was going to attack but that he thought that such an attack was the only way to propell the US into the war...he was right, of course.

In 2000, there were hearings before Congress on the matter of Kimmel's reinstatement. My father, at age 88 and ailing, went to Washington and testified.With the help of Senator Ted Kennedy, among others, Kimmel was restored posthumously to his full rank. President Clinton signed the Bill into Law. Ted Kennedy sent my father a copy of the Bill and one of the signing pens. My father passed away three weeks later.

I know I am giving you my account with no citations. I am not very good at finding and posting those but I will ask Will Pitt to do that for me.

Believe me, I lived with this for many, many years...FDR KNEW.

[Pholus]

32. Not a chance!

You have some interesting informaiton there but the conclusion
you'd have to draw was that Kimmel was either grossly negligent
or a willing participant.

Kimmel was ultimately responsible for the defense of his base. But
he was also responsible for the counterattack. So he was
getting ready for the offense at the expense of defense. He grounded
his PBY's so that they would be at peak levels for the start of the
war. His reason was that he didn't have enough of them to cover
360 degrees from Pearl anyway. This was *his* order, and didn't come
from above. He also never made sure the Army was included in plans
for the base defense either. Why should he? Pearl was "safe" to the
extent of our best intel due to its distance.

At no point during his defense did he ever indicate that this
decision was made for him, which would have been his vindication
in one sentence. So:

a) He took the fall for FDR "knowing"
b) He made one of the very few mistakes he ever made

Either way, he should have been demoted. A sorry end for a fine man,
but fitting no matter what the semantics. He was the local commander
with adequate resources to protect himself yet he still got caught.

Besides, why do so many people not beleive the Japanese were pretty
darned capable warriors fully able to pull off this attack?

[Raven]

48. Washington knew and never alerted Kimmel...

that was the bottom line. When I get the cites I'll PM you. :-)

[robertpaulsen]

52. Hey Raven!

I'd be interested in checking out those sites as well. Please let me know when you find them.

[Raven]

58. I certainly will...

try John Toland for starters.

[Pholus]

62. Irrespective of that,

Washington could NOT force Kimmel to put his search planes
in the air. Neither did they force him to make them stand
down. So, Kimmel is not exactly a hero.

[bpilgrim]

65. the 8 recommendations for action in 1940 and breaking the JN-25 codes

Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Action by the United States - 7, october 1940
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/pearl_harbor/recommendations/

Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743201299/002-5338648-2803222?v=glance

INVESTIGATION OF THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_0.html

we also had all our carriers out to sea that day, hmmm...

:hi:

peace

[robertpaulsen]

95. Thanks bpilgrim!

Great links, hope I can read some of these.

[RBHam]

36. FDR drew Japan into War

I'm a big FDR fan, but in all my research I've discovered that, indeed, FDR had a plan to get America into WW II. He was primarily worried about the Nazis, but also wanted to keep Japan from creating a naval empire in the Pacific. Resources and political leverage were the main reason, of course.

The U.S. SHOULD have declared War on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland - but the U.S. had a large amount of people who sympathized with the Germans and their "Aryan" ideal. Remember, racism and bigotry were the NORM in those days.

If the U.S HADN'T entered WW II at all, however, I fear that all of Europe would still be a united Nazi Empire and Japan would have had a stranglehold on East Asia.

Was FDR justified in goading the Japanese unto their fatal mistake?
In some cases, does the END truly justify the means?

Aye, there's the rub. Those on the hard right, 60 years from now, may be arguing that it was a brilliant strategic move for the Carlyle-Halliburton Administration to set up 9-11.

Here's a good resource to draw on:


http://www.threeworldwars.com/ww3-site-map/conspiracies/Pearl-Harbor-Conspiracy.html

[Pholus]

40. Good way to put it!

Anyway, you're bang on as usual!

[nostamj]

41. that's EXACTLY what Vidal says....

not that anyone read my post...

[Pholus]

43. Sorry nostamj

Sorry! I read it, just didn't see anything to argue!

That's a *good* thing! :)

[nostamj]

44. i'm just being pissy

all day "LIVE DEATH" coverage on CNN from Fallujah has me in a bad mood.

but, no one seems to know what Vidal has written on this subject, or they prefer to ignore it...

[Pholus]

46. Hey, I think we all feel like Cassandra these days...

I remember the hornet nest analogy on the boards a while back.
How apt!

[RBHam]

51. I've read most of Vidal's stuff...

There's a reason the Corporate Media furiously ignore him.

He's right - he wins every debate I've seen him engage in.

[leftofthedial]

42. no

military incompetence and excellent planning by the Japanese

[Quahog]

49. Yes. No. Who gives a sh!t?

OK, let's say that FDR definitely knew about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor, and he sat back and let it happen. Does this now mean that chimp and company are in the clear for letting al-Qaeda take down the WTC? Since a DEMOCRAT once commited the sin, it's now OK for some rethugs to do it? You know, tit for tat, eye for an eye or whatever?

I am SO FUCKING SICK of these kinds of discussions! Sorry about the language, and sorry about yelling, but really. It's like all of those puking pundits who went on and on about how Clinton shot his wad on Monica's dress, so now it was OK for all middle-aged married guys to shoot their wad on young single employees or some such idiocy. Two wrongs make a right. Three wrongs make a "cultural shift." Four wrongs and the Constitution is endangered and "the flag is falling." WTF? Are our morals that fragile?

If FDR knew what was coming and let it happen, then that burden is on his soul and he went to his grave knowing what he had done and how many lives were lost because of it. You take a look at that video of the monkey reading goat books to kids on 9-11, and you see the face of a man who has the same kind of burden on his soul. Yeah, bush* gives every indication of being a soulless, amoral fuck, but you can see a twinge pass over his face, because he knew how many people were dying for his and Unka Dick's little scheme. Not just brown or black or heathen people, or foreigners or dykes or fags. Upper-middle class rethugs went down in the WTC, and that got to him. Watch the video, watch his face. GUILTY. GUILTY. GUILTY.

So, if FDR did the same thing, WHATEVER his motive might have been, what does that mean? Who was the greater criminal? Who has more blood on their hands?

When you're measuring the blood in huge fucking vats, does it really make any difference?

[Sterling]

66. That is so lame. Of course it matters. Murder is murder.

Sorry I wont join the cult of Dem. Democrats are not above the law. However based on the facts FDR did not LIHOP.

[Quahog]

70. Read my post again. You're arguing against me when we agree. Duh!

My whole point was that no one is above the law. Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity. The fact is not altered by who may have committed the crime before. Pukes bring up this FDR thing so their boy won't look so bad. "Hey, FDR sat on his hands while Pearl Harbor was bombed, how come you mean Dems are being so harsh on W? He was just following in the footsteps of a great president!"

I don't care if you are the 1,000,000,000th rapist, your rape is still a rape. Doesn't matter if you are upholding a proud history of raping, you are still a criminal and you deserve to go down.

Any time you come across a thread about historical precedent for bush* crimes, it's a freep thread as far as I'm concerned. Just looking for justification for the monkey's crimes. Yeah, no one is above the law, no matter how many have broken the law before. If W committed treason or war crimes, it doesn't matter a fuzzy rat's rectum which presidents committed similar crimes in the past. A criminal is a criminal. Yapping about FDR and Pearl Harbor is a fucking waste of time, and plays right into the hands of the GOP.

[x-g.o.p.er]

50. No. Neither did Bush LIHOP about 9-11 n/t

[Sterling]

67. Noit was probably MIHOP, you are right.

And yes I mean you are right.

[x-g.o.p.er]

72. It wasn't MIHOP, either.

It was an intelligence failure.

[0rganism]

53. Here's why I find Pearl Harbor LIHOP by FDR improbable

Consider: the actions FDR could have taken to prevent Pearl Harbor, had he known, would include fleet maneuvers which would have been sufficient to attain the same result. He could have engaged the Japanese fleet near Hawaii, for instance, and brought America into the war thusly. There really wasn't anything to be gained by LIHOP in that circumstance compared to some of the reasonable alternatives.

The reason a 9-11 LIHOP by bush is plausible is that he gains next-to-nothing by stopping a single terrorist plot through conventional law-enforcement methods, but he has everything to gain if they succeed. By allowing the hijackings to proceed, he receives a "mandate" from people who up to that time regarded him with skepticism, if not outright loathing. The cost-benefit for LIHOP makes sense in the case of 9-11, but not for Pearl Harbor.

[nostamj]

54. read Vidal's analysis

and comment. still waiting for someone to....

FDR needed a 'Pearl Harbor event' to motivate the US's entry into WWII - which FDR wanted but lacked popular support for.

[0rganism]

55. FDR could have done quite a bit to mitigate the impact, had he known

Think of what the Allies did in the leadup to D-Day: huge decoys of planes and vehicles left in the base camps to disguise the pending invasion. He could have done a similar thing with the ships, left only a token force in the Harbor as a gambit, and flanked the Japanese fleet after they launched the bombing runs from carriers. Letting half the Pacific Fleet get sunk at port makes no sense, if one can avoid it. He could have started the war with a victory over the Japanese navy! There would have been no doubt of the Japanese intentions, and the military action would have been sufficient to motivate a declaration of war.

I understand Vidal's point about national reluctance to go to war, but any military action would have been sufficient to change that.

[bpilgrim]

68. like have all our carriers out at sea that fateful day?

Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
It was not long after the first Japanese bombs fell on the American naval ships at Pearl Harbor that conspiracy theories began to circulate, charging that Franklin Roosevelt and his chief military advisors knew of the impending attack well in advance. Robert Stinnett, who served in the U.S. Navy with distinction during World War II, examines recently declassified American documents and concludes that, far more than merely knowing of the Japanese plan to bomb Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt deliberately steered Japan into war with America.

Stinnett's argument draws on both circumstantial evidence--the fact, for example, that in September 1940 Roosevelt signed into law a measure providing for a two-ocean navy that would number 100 aircraft carriers--and, more importantly, on American governmental documents that offer apparently incontrovertible proof that Roosevelt knowingly sacrificed American lives in order to enter the war on the side of England. Although obviously troubled by his discovery of a systematic plan of deception on the part of the American government, Stinnett does not take deep issue with its outcome. Roosevelt, he writes, faced powerful opposition from isolationist forces, and, against them, the Pearl Harbor attack was "something that had to be endured in order to stop a greater evil--the Nazi invaders in Europe who had begun the Holocaust and were poised to invade England." Sure to excite discussion, Stinnett's book offers what may be the final word on the terrible matter of Pearl Harbor. --Gregory McNamee

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743201299/002-5338648-2803222?v=glance

i don't think FDR and his people were caught by suprise, they were certainly no fools.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. I see you continue with your hate FDR propaganda

Followed readily by your hate Truman propaganda. Are there any Democrat presidents you do like?

[bpilgrim]

73. fdr, one of america's GREATEST presidents

where are you getting that i 'hate' him?

you must be mistaken, as usual.

:hi:

Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Action by the United States - 7, october 1940
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/pearl_harbor/recommendations /

Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743201299/002-5338648-2...

INVESTIGATION OF THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_0.html

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. Because you are accusing him of LIHOP or MIHOP

For Pearl Harbor.

Funny treatment for a guy you like...

and then there's how you treat Truman. So, again I ask, which Democrat presidents do you like?

[bpilgrim]

80. to WAKE up the SLEEPING GIANT as even yamamoto knew it would

he knew japan would loose but gambled on a 'hail mary' that if it somehow succeeded would at least buy japan time...

remember, lots of folks in the good ole homeland, back then, RESPECTED and SUPPORTED the PREMPTIVE and DECISIVE POWER and CONTROLL excersized by the FACIST of their day, to assure their SECURITY, in their struggle against their many enemies/terrorist.

it's a shame we will never live down - like rawanda - that we only acted AFTER germany declared war on US.

i think fdr was a wise and calculating man who made a tough but correct call to ENSURE that the public was completely conviced of the HARSH COURSE they had to embark for the sake of the WORLD.

fast-foward to today...

BUSH HITS THE fucking TRIFECTA to further our IMPERIAL AIMS in the ME.

we are behaving JUST LIKE IMPERIAL JAPAN and it is DISGUSTING. :argh:

now wtf are you talking about with TRUMAN?!@

please POST where i said i hate him ANYWHERE :argh:

i am getting SICK of your LIES, sheesh...

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. You blame FDR for LIHOP or MIHOP

Yet "claim" to respect him. You call Truman a mass murderer for ending the war with Japan by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but claim you don't hate him.

My God, it's like watching the White House spin.

[bpilgrim]

83. i didn't 'BLAME' him, i said he KNEW it was comming

nothing wrong with knowing what your enemy is up to, as long as your are prepared for going the distance and WINNING.

truman, i do believe made a TERRIBLE DECISION, but i NEVER said i HATE him.

can we get that STRAIGHT? this ain't fox news, there is a PAPER TRAIL, so stop LYING to make your point... fair enough :shrug:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. OK, let's get this straight

You say FDR knew it was coming, but you don't blame him? How could you not? Seems a non sequitor.

As for Truman, you have made it clear you consider the bombings murder. You blame Truman for them. So, in your mind, he murdered a couple hundred thousand people, yet you don't hate him.

You must not hate anybody.

Over here in the pro-FDR and pro-Truman camp, I like them both. I support them both. I don't cite wild GOP-induced conspiracies against them. Nor do I blame them for ending a war.

Was it Kennedy's fault for riding in an open car?

[bpilgrim]

86. ok

"You say FDR knew it was coming, but you don't blame him? How could you not?"

blame means to find fault with, and i DON'T, considering the circumstances.

as for truman, he has given us a TERRIBLE LEGACY and made a HORRIBLE decision but i don't 'HATE' him.

i don't believe in such EXTREMIST VIEWS as they lead to everything i do HATE, VIOLENCE.

you need to set yourself FREE from your black-and-white, good-vs-evil mindset.

it will be the death of us all.

"Was it Kennedy's fault for riding in an open car?"

no, the SS but wtf does that got to do with this thread?



peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Then let's try this

OK, you don't find fault with FDR, however you do consider it LIHOP or MIHOP for Pearl Harbor. Then let's try this phrasing, you CREDIT FDR with LIHOP or MIHOP.

:crazy:

Alright, it does seem you don't hate anybody, though again it is clear you accuse Truman of 250,000 or so murders.

Do you hate Hitler?

How do you feel about other Democratic presidents? Kennedy? Johnson? Carter? Clinton? Do you have enormous issues with them as well?

[bpilgrim]

91. actually there are almost 250,000 deaths from hiroshima alone

cumulatively, but who's counting, right?

you sound just like a commissar with your bogus litmus tests, why can't you accept that not everyone who is NOT a knee jerk reactionary reductionist isn't a dem?

your arguments remind me a lot of the arguments of the extremist you claim to oppose, strange ain't it.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

94. I notice you never really responded

Thanks for answering my questions nevertheless. It explained a lot.

[0rganism]

74. Why not have more ships out at sea, too?

The battle at Midway certainly proved that American ships could move incognito, if needed. Why not send additional ships out on maneuvers with the carrier group, leaving only decoys and the most obsolete ships in the harbor to be bombed? Then, bring them in to attack the Japanese fleet, shortening the war in the Pacific.

The alternative to LIHOP is prevention. In the case of the Pearl Harbor attack, prevention could include a military confrontation which would itself have been adequate to bring America into the war. There's no benefit to having half the fleet sunk. Remember that the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the Zimmerman letter were sufficient to bring the USA into WW1, and a concoted incident in the Gulf of Tonkin was enough to get the USA invested in the Vietnam conflict; a bombardment of Pearl Harbor would be even greater motivation even if only a few ships and personnel were lost.

I can't concur with the notion that FDR knew enough details to prevent the attack.

No such mitigating alternatives existed for shrub -- although one might propose that sending up fighters to intercept the airliners could have prevented the attacks, that would have been thoroughly inadequate as far as getting Americans to sign away their constitution.

[bpilgrim]

77. didn't want to tip their hand?

our 2 most important assest in the pacific from day one was our CARRIERS which were DECISVE in EVERY BATTLE, including midway AND our ability to READ THEIR MAIL that also played a large role in midway.

also you assume that the SHOCK-n-AWE factor would be ignored by FDR which is would be a wrong assumption, imo.

maybe for the shrub but not fdr.

:hi:

peace

[amazona]

61. no way

He would not have left that much of the Navy there to be hit. If he wanted a LIHOP to get people mad, you could do it just as well having moved the ships to safety and still having the Japanese fly in and try something.

[Sterling]

63. LIHOP was not needed for Pearl

The Japs cruised a huge fleet across the pcean with nice big Jap flags on the ships. There was no question WHO we were attacked by.

Logic would dictate that in this case FDR would have have MORE to gain by intercepting the Japs before the attack. He woulsd still have recieved the support of the coutry and been looked to as a hero.

There are other differences between Pearl and 9-11. The WTC while a valuable property was not crucial to the war effort that PNAC has planned for us. The loss of the ships at pearl could have cost us the war.


People screwed up at pearl and people were punished. So far that has yet to happen regarding 9-11.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. Read "Day of Deceit" by Stinnett...definitely LIHOP, perhaps MIHOP...

<http://www.pearlharbor41.com/1.htm>

...and here's the McCollum 8-point memo that outlined the plan used by FDR:

<http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/index.html>

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. The deceit here is blaming FDR for a Japanese attack

Wow, DEMOCRATIC Underground...

Next, we'll rehash criticism of Truman for ending WWII. Then let's focus on Kennedy for getting shot.

[gandalf]

93. No, he doesn't.

Read the book.

[HawkerHurricane]

84. Read "Pearl Harbor: Verdict of History" by Gordan Prange

Takes apart the Mihop/Lihop theories of the anti new deal crowd.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

96. No, sorry...Prange does nothing of the sort...

FDR is one of my personal heroes, but even I can see facts for what they are.

Read Stinnett's book, and then say whatever you want to say.

[HawkerHurricane]

101. I have.

I wasn't impressed.

I get tired of this "FDR knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked". If he did, why wasn't the fleet alerted? As others have pointed out, he didn't need the fleet smashed, just attacked. A one hour warning would have had the 300 odd fighter planes based on Oahu in the air to meet the Japanese, and the fleet at battle stations...

So, what are the first words out of FDR's mouth when told that the Japanese are bombing Pearl Harbor?

"You must be mistaken. You mean Subic or Manila." (the two naval bases in The Phillipines).
If he KNEW that Pearl was going to be attacked, why was he shocked? What, was he a great actor, able to convince everyone?

If he knew, how come the others who had to know, the intel guys who translated it (he didn't do it himself, did he?), the military men who delivered it, the dozens of people involved... why did NONE of them come forward to report this crime? Nothing. Silence. Except for psuedo historians with an ax to grind.

The truth is, Lt. Gen. Short was negligent and possibly incompetent. Adm. Kimmel was negligent. And the Japanese launched a brilliant attack.

Why weren't the carriers there? They were doing missions only they could do. If the attack had occured a day later, they would have caught Enterprise in harbor. Enterprise was scheduled to pull in the next morning. And, in spite of after the fact evidence, except for a handful of aviators, nobody believed a carrier could take on a battleship at sea, or that airplanes could sink a battleship underway. The first battleships to be sunk while at sea, ready to fight? HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse, sunk off of Singapore on 10 December, 1941... 3 days AFTER Pearl Harbor.

The writings of FDR and his cabinet at the time show that they regarded Japan as a dangerous sideshow to the real enemy, Nazi Germany. Did FDR want a war with Germany? Probably. Was he pushing for one? Yes. But he did NOT want one with Japan. When he gave his "Day of Infamy" speech before congress on Dec. 8, 1941, he did NOT request a declaration of war against Germany. Why not? Because he had no excuse to declare war on Germany. And, given the fact that Japan had already broken it's treaty with Germany (the treaty included a clause that Japan would attack Russia if Germany did; Japan refused since they <rightly> feared what the Red Army would do to them), there was no guarentee that Germany would declare war on the U.S. (side note: the United States was the only country Hitler declared war on).
(Another side note: When Hitler heard about Pearl Harbor, he was elated... until none of his Admirals could tell him where it was...)

Japan did a foolish/brilliant thing. To excuse the Army running the country, they needed a war. So they invaded China from Manchuria. This upset the U.S., especially after word of some of the atrocities came out. So the U.S. insisted that the Japanese pull out of China (NOT Manchuria... but there seems to have been some confusion on the Japanese side over this). IF the Japanese Army pulled out of China, they had no reason to continue to control the government. So they refused. The U.S. put sanctions into place, the most crippling one on oil...
The nearest source of oil for the Japanese was the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia)...
To get to that, they had to overcome the tiny Dutch fleet (Holland was occupied by the Nazi's, most of thier fleet scuttled to prevent it from falling into Hitler's hands), get past the British bases at Hong Kong and Singapore, and the American bases in the Philipines.
Taking on the British would be fairly easy, with most of their army and fleet tied up fighting the Germans and Italians, but the Americans...
The Japanese Army said they were going to do it, and so the Navy had to come up with a way to prevent the American Fleet from interfering...
Leading to the Pearl Harbor raid.

Now, who's fault is it? Can we blame the Japanese? Or must we continue with the FDR bashing? Because the 'evidence' against FDR is so thin as to be invisible.

[Codeblue]

76. My thoughts

If FDR DID let Pearl Harbor happen, I see nothing wrong with that, The eventual outcome (defeat for the Axis) was a very good thing. Also, sacrificing several hundred American sailors to save MILLIONS in Europe and China seems worth it to me.

Secondly, I don't think people who believe FDR let it happen "hate him". That seems like a ridiculous argument to me. Maybe those people feel the same way I do in that IF he did LIHOP, it was for a worthwhile cause.

9/11 on the other hand is a different story. IF Bush LIHOP on 9/11 that is atrocious. He let 3,000 people in the WTC so he could go and kill hundreds of thousands more around the world...not a good cause.

In WWII, we were not the agressors. Germany had already taken over nearly all of Europe and killed millions of Jews and others. Now, we are the agressors, taking over the world and killing millions of Arabs and Muslims.

I also do not believe that discussing this incident is "playing into the GOP's hands". Nobody here is trying to justify 9/11. The circumstances in both events were entirely different. If Bush LIHOP on 9/11 there was no justified reason for it. On 12/7 41 there was. That's my take on it.

I'm still not saying FDR did it, but there were some pretty OUTRAGEOUS fuck-ups in intelligence if he didnt.

[robertpaulsen]

100. Thank you, Codeblue!

As the original poster of this thread, I agree with you and I appreciate your input. It offends me that there are certain people, who I refuse to address directly because I consider their accusations disgraceful and beneath my dignity, that believe that this is a freeper thread "playing into the GOP's hands". Anyone see any freepers here? I don't. Anyone justifying LIHOP on September 11 here? Nope.

The whole reason I posted this is because I don't know the answer and I would like to have an informed opinion about the obvious intelligence failure leading up to Pearl Harbor. For those of you who posted links to sites on the subject, thank you very much. I've got a lot of reading ahead of me before I make up my mind on this subject.

[moof]

82. nostamj and Raven have given quite enough evidence for resolution

this is not as complicated a story as 9/11 even thought why debate continues pass the fact that the leader sat on his butt after being told of the second jet crashing into the wtc takes disonence to nw heights. That aside there are many small clues leading up to the Dec. 7th attack that are very difficult to dismiss as anything but deliberate attempts to make sure that the events set in motion did not get derailed. There is a very interesting account of the after dinner conversation between FDR & Edward R. Murrow that Ed took to his grave but the person he did confide in related that the main reason for the invite that evenong was for FDR to find out if Ed thought that the attack on Pearl would be "enough" to insure the American people would willingly follow FDR into war with Japan. Looked a bit for the link to this conversation/story but didn't find it & as this is a topic much like many so called debates, only a debate to those that are uninformed, it was not worth any more effort. If you are not swayed by nostamj & Raven you are not ready for the truth or do not realize that all evidence to the contarary you do not yet live in a civilization.

[Caution]

89. Neither Raven nor nostamj have given one shred of evidence

I'm not disagreeing with either side of this argument but those two posters have not given a single shred of evidence in this thread. Saying it is so without any corroborating evidence as Raven has done, and referring to the work of gore vidal is not evidence. You are relating a conversation claimed by an acquaintence of Murrow who says that Murrow confided this conversation to him. Again this is not evidence.

So far I have seen no evidence to prove the assertion that FDR knew in advance that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. Most modern day WWII scholars would disagree with that assertion. I think there is certainly some circumstantial type evidence out there and as such I personally reserve judgement but there is no clear evidence out there that I have seen. Vidal's argument is interesting but it most certainly offers no actual proof.

As for Kimmel, most think the guy was simply unfairly thrown under the bus since they needed someone to blame for the failure. I'd be curious to hear what Raven has to say on the subject though since obviously Raven has some first hand knowledge.

[nostamj]

90. true, I gave no evidence

merely suggested you read Vidal's assessment.

I found it quite convincing. and I respect Vidal and his work.

but you quite correct that *I* offered no evidence.

however, if you haven't read DREAMING WAR. do so and get back to me. OK?

[gandalf]

92. "I've seen no evidence". Correct. Evidence disappeared,

as described by Stinnet in the above-mentioned book Day of Deceit. For example in the archives just the most important volumes with decoded Japanes radio messages are missing.

Nevertheless he offers plenty of material to support LIHOP. And he doesn't do that because he wants to discredit FDR, on the contrary, he thinks FDR did the right thing.

"but there is no clear evidence out there that I have seen." I believe that. But did you search for it?

[youngred]

99. possibly/probably

in my opinion the top brass knew something was up and just let it play itself out