Was Pearl Harbor a LIHOP?

[UpsideDownFlag]

im pretty sure it was.

[Not_Giving_Up]

1. WTF is a LIHOP? eom

[wicket]

2. "Let It Happen On Purpose"

[UpsideDownFlag]

3. let it happen on purpose. as in, did FDR know the japanese were

going to attack, but let it happen as an excuse to go to war.

[Not_Giving_Up]

7. OK....I gotcha!

I saw something on the History Channel last week that pretty much said it was...That the Japanese broke radio silence and the high ups knew that they were there, just didn't do a thing.

[Sterling]

22. That's the Ruppert Murdoch History Channel to you friend.

There is a great case for gross negligence and the fact that people were punished unlike after the 9-11 attacks indicates the government took accountability seriously for the mistakes that were made.

The notion that it was part of a plan to initiate the war is based on an incomplete understanding of the event, the context of the event and the actual details of the attacks.

[UpsideDownFlag]

32. have you ever read "Roosevelt's secret war"?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375761268/102-0371371-8709729?v=glance

[Sterling]

53. No tell me what's in it that makes you think

that Pearl was LIHOP. I base my opinion on a hell of a lot of history classes and a lot of personal research as I am a bit of a war buff.

I have made a sincere effort to support my opinion with the facts I base that opinion on. So far I have not seen anything posted on this thread that can validate your theory in the face of the facts of the case, some of which have been addressed here with no credible refutation.

[linazelle]

4. I just heard a coworker say that it was....I wasn't around then

but my coworker is a history buff who lived through that era. He said it was LIHOP. First time I ever heard that.

What I don't get is how come people are so reluctant to believe 9/11 was LIHOP. :shrug:

[durutti]

5. Probably not, but it was completely predictable.

Chickens coming home to roost.

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. It wouldnt surprise me at all...

I personally dont think it was, but if one day the government officially admited that it was, it would not surprise me.

[Occams Razor]

8. Not a Chance

Sorry to say to have to say it, but if you think FDR allowed the IJN to take a free shot at the Pacific Fleet to "get us into the war", you are an idiot.

"Getting us into the war", presupposes that our primary means of fighting that war isn't resting on the bottom of the ocean.

[the other rick]

9. exactly

Knowledge of the attack would have allowed the carriers (which were out looking for danger) to find them BEFORE the attack, engage in a sea battle where the *Japanese* were surprised, and 'get us into the war' after crippling the Japanese fleet, instead of the other way around.

[Occams Razor]

15. Not Quite

The Saratoga was finishing up a refit in San Diego, the Enterprise was on the way back to Pearl after ferrying planes to Wake Island and Lexington was steaming to Midway to deliver some more aircraft.

It was just dumb luck are carriers weren't there.

[Sterling]

14. People would argue that the Battleships were expendable at that point

in military development but I would disagree for two three reasons.

The first is that Aircraft carrier warfare was not yet established as the primary means of engagement in fleet to fleet combat. Yes the Brits had done well against the Italians but it was really Pearl that once and for all established that the carrier was now king of the sea.

Two is that the battleships did play a vital role in protecting the carriers as well as were used for shore bombardment.

Last is that each battleship was a gigantic investment not only in resources but highly trained personnel.


Now at the same time I think 9-11 and pearl are very different situations and the case for 9-11 being a sort of inside job is very credible IMHO.

[Swamp Rat]

19. You shouldn't call people idiots when you've not done your research.

Welcome to DU and good luck!

[Demonaut]

57. the rumour was that Churchill knew, they had broken the codes at

Bletchly Park and had knowledge of the attacks and wanted the US to join the war.....

[pretzel4gore]

10. same with the lusitania....

it was purposely sent into a submarine infested waters w/out any protection and naturally the germans sank it (it was carrying ammo)...the lusitania was the excuse the war party in US congress had to involve the US in the 1st world war, hitler was a combat soldier in german army and the germans knew that the lusitania wasn't just an innocent passenger ship, yet even as late as 70's school kids in canada etc were taught that the krauts sank poor lusitania for no reason....the lusitania case, pearl harbour, KAL 007, the gulf of tonkin affair, the sinking of the uss maine (so britain/us could steal spain's colonies) and so on show that 911 had plenty of precedents....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Surely you're not suggesting

that we blew up the Maine ourselves!

[pretzel4gore]

29. no, but neither did the spanish...

same difference...the maine became the excuse the US needed....and no one can ever know if the accident wasn't helped a little....

[Sterling]

13. Well true but not the same thing.

You point to a case of trying to get away with blockade running using civilians as cover not a conspiracy to get directly involved in the war.

The fact it was used as one of several pretexts for getting into the war was a convenience after the fact.

[Occams Razor]

16. Excuse?

...the lusitania was the excuse the war party in US congress had to involve the US in the 1st world war.

Lusitania was sunk in 1915. We didn't enter the war until two years later.

After the Lusitania was sunk we warned the Germans to knock it off and they did for a time.

The impetus to get us into WW1 was the German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 and the outrage caused by the interception of the Zimmerman Telegram.

That would appear to me to be a legitimate casus belli not "an excuse".

[pretzel4gore]

23. true...and most informed people were aware of the lusitania case....

if you read colin simpson's 'lusitania' he explains the sequence of events better then i've attempted to...certainly schoolkids weren't taught that the US entered the war because of mexico...the fact remains that the king of england knew that churchill, who was sea lord or whatever, had intentionally put lusitania into situation where it was amost certainly doomed......the US entered the war in 1917 and it was the lusitania case (about 100 americans died on her) that provoked rage in the american people, rage that was result of careful promotion by the newspapers of the day...btw the main player on the american side, pro britain, was robert lansing, uncle of john foster and allen dulles. Simpson writes, on page 184 'However, lansing had his political ear closer to the ground then the others, and knew that armed intervention by the US would never be carried through congress. He counselled an immediate break in diplomatic relations with Germany, but suggested that the US be confined to the role of supplier (etc) until the opportune moment, which he saw as shortly after the presidential election of 1916. Until then, he reasoned, America must keep her quarrels with Germany defused until a suitably emotive moment.'
And it was the emotion of the lusitania sinking that was evoked in 1917 to get the american people to support the US entry into the war....

[knight_of_the_star]

30. Ummm, no

The reason the US got into WWI was because the Kaiser declared a round of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 AFTER promising in the aftermath of the sinking of the Lusitania NOT to. Also, what does Hitler have to do with the Lusitania?

[pretzel4gore]

47. mygod, what did i get myself into!

question: why on earth would the germans declare 'unrestricted' submarine warfare against US ships? The germans did indeed sink everything they could that belonged to their enemy, but the US was neutral....why would the germans get the most dynamic economy and people on earth at war against them, especially when the US ruling elite were already pro british etc? The history book simplify what happened by using broad strokes and painting big brash pictures but the fact is there was a conspiracy, and no one with any appreciation of the events denies it today....
also, adolph hitler counted his experience in the war as most formative event...and his knowing that the lusitania case which made the german's into 'huns' etc was bullshit...the lusitania was in effect a warship, and it was the conspirators fault that 1100 civilians were killed.....hitler was warped by nature, can you imagine what he thought when thinking about the lusitania? How many millions of people may have died because of what those sneaky bastards (lansing, house etc) did? And what was their reasoning? racism. plain and simple..anglo saxon racism! Hitler had to have known that...the american people were manipulated like crazy by the war party, just like in iraq, and probably also true in ww2....

[Sterling]

12. No and here is why.

The Germans and Japs declared war on us, not the other way around.

Ad to that at that point all we would have needed to have war with Japan would be the knowledge of an attack on it's way not a full blown successful and highly destructive attack that set our war effort back months.

I would be more likely to believe a conspiracy involving a failed trap using our aircraft carriers which were out on exercises that day. The idea that it would have been prudent or necessary to let that kind of damage be done in an effort to get into WW2 is just not supported by the facts and the context of the event.

[UpsideDownFlag]

17. the germans never declared war on us. we declared war on the 'japs'....

and the germans after pearl harbor. didnt you read the old newspapers? "america declares war"

[AliciaKeyedUp]

18. The Japanese declared war on us

By attacking Pearl Harbor.

I really wonder about threads like this one that paint FDR as a murdering megalomaniac. I feel like I took a right turn and landed in Freeper Hell.

[Sterling]

28. yes you are right. The Japanese Ambassador delivered the declaration

before the Attack in Pearl was over. The only Declarations made By the US were after the fact. Even Germany declared war on US before we Declared war on them. So there goes the idea we were trying to get into the war in Europe by LIHOPing Pearl.

[Sterling]

20. Did you ever read a history book?

Look it up, they beat us to the punch. Don't take my word for it please.

[UpsideDownFlag]

21. we declared war on them because of Pearl Harbor.

and let's not get down the road of why japan bombed us, the thread has digressed enough.

[Sterling]

24. If you make me link you the date of the German and Jap declaration of war

you are really lazy. Please do this yourself and spare me from having to post a nasty condescending response to you along with the info.

Given another poster has indicated to you that this is the case I suggest you look into this before further embarrassing yourself.

[UpsideDownFlag]

25. ahem.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

[Sterling]

26. Here you go times up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/themes/conflict_and_war/world_war_ii/default.stm

11 December
1941: Germany and Italy declare war on US
Hitler and Mussolini announce they are at war with America which retaliates with its own declaration of war on "the forces of savagery and barbarism".

This pretty much lays it out for you. Next time fact check for yourself please.

[UpsideDownFlag]

27. see post 25. nt

[Sterling]

31. See post 28

You are arguing a pointless straw man by saying that The US declaring War on Japan on the 8th as a reaction to Japans simultaneous attack and declaration on the 7th and was significant to the issue who declared war first.

Back to the theory that FDR was using Pearl to get us into the fight against Hitler. The fact that on the 8th in our reply to Japans attack and declaration of war we did not declare war on the other Axis powers indicates FDR still held out the hope of avoiding immediate involvement in the European theater.

here:
http://www.virtualology.com/virtualwarmuseum.com/hallofworldwarii/
7-8 Dec. Japan delivers simultaneous bombing attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Wake, and Guam, invades Malaya and Thailand, seizes Shanghai, and declares war on the U.S. and Great Britain.

[UpsideDownFlag]

34. even if it's wrong, it doesn't mean Pearl Harbor couldnt have been

a LIHOP.

period.

[Sterling]

37. Not by itself I would agree.

But it does weigh heavily against it. The fact that we did not use it as a chance to declare war on Germany does a lot of damage to the idea that we were desperate to get into the war in Europe.

Wouldn't you agree?

[UpsideDownFlag]

40. how soon after pearl harbor did we get involved in Europe?

you really think it wasn't used to go after germany, too?

[Sterling]

45. We were actually already "involved" in Europe.

We were supplying the Brits and keeping them in the game. We were even shipping stuff to the USSR via the Arctic ports. In many cases our escort Destroyers had actively engaged German U Boats while defending US shipping to Britain well before Pearl happened.

That being said we did not use the attack on pearl to declare war on Germany and start a total war. They in fact declared war on us. Many view this as Hitlers Greatest blunder next to operation Barbarossa.

Now it would make sense that after they declared war on US that we actually fight the war. I am not sure how the fact that we started engaging the enemy after they declared war on us makes us the aggressor or somehow proves we used Pearl as the pretext to attack Germany.

Why do you keep persisting with the idea that somehow in spite of the facts somehow pearl was a pretext on the part of the US for attacking Germany?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

46. "you really think it wasn't used to go after germany, too?"

Please cite an example.

[UpsideDownFlag]

48. well, before pearl harbor, there werent US troops attacking germany.

afterwards, half a generation of young men were shipped out to western europe.

[Sterling]

51. True but that like I said does little to prove your point.

How and why the got there is the issue. Having already gone over that part I think we cleared up a lot of misconceptions that that particular theory is based on.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. ::sigh::

That's a rather simplistic view of the situation, don't you think? I mean, in addition to its being historically inaccurate.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. Of course it doesn't.

Because if you want to get yourself into a war, the first thing you *always* do is let the enemy destroy 75% of your offensive capability.

[Sterling]

50. It was not that much but it was enough to make a plan like that

insane.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. Please excuse the exaggeration.

And thanks for keeping me honest.

[pretzel4gore]

56. japan wasn't a match for britain, much less US

there were freeper types in japan in days leading up to pearl, who thought germans were going to win in europe ...and there were freeper types in britain/US who wanted US in war against germany....i assumed that pearl was the japanese declar of war and the US replied later that day....really, the actual times of telegrams were just formalities (and as US Britain won the damn war, maybe the telegrams times were altered by your sources? In dec '41 germany had russia on the run, occupied most of europe and was winning the war by any measure, japanese rightwingnuts must have thought that hitler was like geebush, goddarn invincible despite everything (nice guy too despite buchenwald etc)...and to some eextent one might wonder if collusion occurred between freepers on both sides, though the jap freepers overestimated hitler, and underestimated the USSR USA and many of them died for their sin.....the usa/british freepers were dispicable sub human assholes, just like they are today....

[Sterling]

60. A lot of truth to that except this part.

"and as US Britain won the damn war, maybe the telegrams times were altered by your sources"

Actually the Japanese acknowledge these facts and originally they were reported widely of the international press so there is little room for fudging. Now it is contended by the Japanese that the notification being delivered after the attack started was a mistake on their part due to slow translation at the embassy in DC.

I am sure you know there actually were freeper types here trying to keep us out of the war in Europe. Prescott Bush was one of the leading members of this clique. In fact he was reprimanded by congress fro aiding the enemy by funding the Nazi's well into 1943.

[pretzel4gore]

85. yeah, so true...

the official pearl harbour story is easiest to accept if only because the motives of everybody directly involved that day is obvious, while the schemes of any secret cliques etc require too much explanations...and FDR was an astute politician who did his best by the powerless (and his new deal still enrages the rightwingnuts)...millions of us still benefit from FDR's programs, and we still must fight to keep them; that almost certainly should be the more important consideration

[T Town Jake]

62. You've got it wrong...

...Jibby. We declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, not Germany. On December 11, 1941, Adolf Hitler declared war on us. It was only after this that we reciprocated his declaration and a state of war existed between the United States and Germany.
Time to hit the history books a little harder...

[Bush was AWOL]

74. WRong. Germany and Italy Declared war on the US before

the US declared war on Germany.

[Fescue4u]

33. Of course. ALL BAD THINGS are conspiracys

Every single bad national event that has ever occurred happened because "they" wanted it to happen.

/sarcasm off

In this case I don't know, but Im quite fatigued of every single large event being blamed on a conspiracy.

While its naive to believe that none are, its equally naive to think that everything is.

[UpsideDownFlag]

36. I didnt say that ALL bad things were 'conspiracys'.

just including pearl harbor in the list.

[Fescue4u]

38. Well I wasnt really addressing you specifically

At least I didnt mean to.

Just kind of complaining out loud to no one in particular.

[Sterling]

41. Most bad things are actually conspiracies.

Pearl was in fact a gigantic conspiracy on the part of the Japanese to attack the US with as little warning as possible.

Even the official 9-11 story is itself a conspiracy theory, one that has some really obvious holes in it mind you.

I have looked at Pearl as objectively as possible, based on all the information that I have to go on it is pretty clear that Pearl was in fact not an inside job.

Unlike 9-11 the motive issue really does not hold up. The big picture in the theory is based on fundamental misunderstanding of the facts at play.

[Fescue4u]

44. well yes, but you know what I meant

A conspiracy is when 2 people get together and plan something.

Clearly the Japanese had more than 2 people planning the attack.
9/11 had more than 2 people planning the attack...etc.

I guess Im talking about a "counter conspiracy". i.e. The Japanese conspired to attack us, and we conspired to let it happen. Terrorist conspired to attack us, and "we" conspired to help them, or let it happen.

Sometimes, bad people do bad shit.

Everything isnt a dime novel with a twist ending.

[Sterling]

49. I agree Pearl was not that kind of conspiracy.

And keeping with the principle of some times bad people do bad shit I always keep my eye open for bad people on both sides of an "event" like Pearl that was a catalyst for other events doing bad things.

IMHO on the facts Pearl was not an act of collusion on the part of our government. Would I put it past them if it would have actually achieved something? No.

I look at 9-11 differently, it obviously achieved something. In fact it achieves more and more for the agenda of the people I believe sponsored it everyday. To me those people look less like this:



And a lot more like this:

[moondust]

35. No way.

Some reasons:

1. There are much easier and far less costly ways to get yourself into a war. Try a Gulf of Tonkin type incident. Plant a bomb on one ship in Pearl Harbor to detonate when no one is aboard and blame the enemy. Or try sailing out to meet the approaching Japanese fleet and commence fire claiming you knew their plan and carried out a "preemtive strike". Or claim that they fired first which they probably would do anyway believing you had found out their plan and were there to stop them. Etc.

2. No way to keep a LIHOP quiet in those days. I believe military people in those days were far less political and would not be inclined to conspire in a coverup. Military LIHOP is probably impossible to pull off anyway. (9/11 would not have required any military involvement.)

[jpgray]

39. Let me get this straight

FDR knew of an imminent massive Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and felt that rather than thwart it, destroy/cripple the attacking fleet and get into the war that way, it would be better to let the attack succeed, decimate the Pacific fleet and get into the war that way?

Makes sense.

:crazy:

[Sterling]

43. Yes that is one of the major big picture issues that show this to be

an invalid theory. I think it is great people are willing to examine the facts but the facts just don't go there.

[pretzel4gore]

66. maybe FDR didn't know

i don't know enough about the crew around FDR, but by dec '41 you'll admit that anglophiles in the US would dearly love the US to help out the allies group...russia, britain free france etc....and as FDR was a democratic hero (also Eleanor Roosevelt was the 'Hillary Clinton' of her day) alot of the Pearl Harbour LIHOP suggestions might be agent provacateur stuff aimed at calling into question FDR's integrity (?)...letting a japanese naval group approach then attack the US pacific fleet was not that difficult, as the info was secret anyway, and though almost certainly FDR was in sympthy with the western powers/USSR....for the C in C to let 1700 of his men get murdered(?).....i just don't know and can see that the answer creates very intense reponses even today, and we can't even sort out 911, which happened right before our eyes, in broad daylight, on tv!! One thing for sure: Pearl Harbour doomed the japanese warhawks....it probably doomed hitler and mussilini too. And few of the politically attuned of the time would have expected anything less....

[Sterling]

79. Actually you have missed some vital points.

I will stay away from a lot of your post as I think most of it has been amply addressed if you read this whole thread.

I will just say that the Anglophiles were not in charge of Pearls radar and picket ships during the days leading up to the attacks and a General alert had been in place before the attacks so in a general sense our military knew that "something" might be coming.

"letting a Japanese naval group approach then attack the US pacific fleet was not that difficult"

I am not sure what you mean. Yes "letting" them approach and covering it up would have been difficult. However failing to detect them given the equipment of the day was not impossible.


Now concerning 9-11 which is what I really wanted to address from your post. Yes we watched two planes hit the towers. that is about all that we saw. That's it. Not what was going on on these planes or what was happening at NORAD, FAA and all the other agencies that failed that day to our amazement.

Given what we have learned about that day since it is clear we are not being told the truth of that day whatever that may be.

Now back to Pearl. There is no doubt we were attacked by the uniformed military of Japan. There were plenty of eyewitness to that event and no one denies it happened and who did it.

9-11 however was not committed by people wearing a uniform of any nation. It was not the work of any nation state according to the official story. It has been used however as a pretext to give the US a free hand to attack anyone anytime.

The motive with 9-11 is very clear and the event itself is shrouded in secrecy and inconsistencies.

Unlike Pearl no one was ever held accountable for any of the supposed mistakes made that day. In fact the people in charge of the agencies responsible for preventing 9-11 were promoted.


All I can say is an open mind is healthy but please consider all the facts when contemplating these kinds of issues and don't make a decision based on prejudice or conventional wisdom.

[number6]

52. possibly LIHOP (other)

some people in gov may have known ....

[kittykitty]

58. My Father always said this, so I believed it all my life.

[Sterling]

59. Well thats a good reason.

:eyes: Nothing like forming your own educated opinion? That is kinda like saying that since a lot of people here are clicking the first choice it must be true.

[UpsideDownFlag]

61. i had thought it was to the point where it was (quiet) public knowledge.

nt

[Sterling]

64. Well obviously it's not.

And i think this thread has gone a long way to expose what a poor theory it really is.

It's almost like you have not participated in the thread so far.

[Bush was AWOL]

76. Take a WWII history class

and your historian will strongly reject that notion. FDR did not know.

[moondust]

63. Is he a Republican?

[Sterling]

67. He could very well be either part of the population like Lindberg

And Prescott Bush that resented the idea of going to war with Germany. Or maybe he is just someone with a half ass knowledge of history?

I see a lot of blanket statements with either no or very faulty logic used to support the theory and little acknowledgment of the fact many of their points have been thoroughly debunked. Not the work of credible researchers or even the sign of an intellectually honest person.

[DireStrike]

65. Yes, BUT...

If my general conceptions about history are to be believed, it's a damn good thing it happened.

Everyone would have been much worse off had the U.S. never stepped in. Unlike the current situation, where everyone would have been better off if 9/11 had never happened.

[Sterling]

69. Maybe but....

It is very possible and in fact probably inevitable that the US would at some point join the war in Europe. It can be argued that it happened at a critical time when the war was at a possible turning point.

We have to remember that the Russians reversed the course of the war in Europe without much help from the UK and US and before we were engaging Hitler on a two front war in Europe.

My point is that WW2 is a very complex event in human history and that this particular theory is based on a very simplistic and under informed point of view that refuses to acknowledge critical facts.

[DireStrike]

75. My point of view is simplistic, but the theory is as complex as it needs

to be.

It only needs to focus on the atmosphere of the U.S. and the specific facts surrounding the administration and the events of Dec 7, and thereabouts.

On the other hand, you are right that we may have eventually joined anyway.

[Sterling]

87. Important yes but all things need to be considered.

"It only needs to focus on the atmosphere of the U.S. and the specific facts surrounding the administration and the events of Dec 7, and thereabouts."

Like the actual sequence of events that followed the attack is relevant for example. Those facts make it hard to side with the LI HOP theory.

I think this thread addresses many misconceptions that lead people to believe LIHOP when it comes to Pearl. I really do hope people are not so married to their pet theories that they ignore this important info.

I know that you don't have to be a freeper to be interested in the subject but it really is a false MEME that benefits the RW agenda on a several levels.

[AP]

83. FDR was an huge anti-fascist. He had spies following around the Duke

of Windsor and Wallace Simpson in FL and the Bahamas because he thought they were fascists.

FDR appreciated that the battle Europe and China were fighting against imperials fascists in Germany and Japan was the same exact battle he was fighting against Prescott Bush and against Wall St in the US.

If Hitler started to win, FDR would have defended democracy, Pearl Harbor or no Pearl Harbor.

[Sterling]

88. Yes I have that sense as well.

We were on the edge as it were with the U boat issue just like WW1.
It was INO a question of how we got into the war. I believe that it would have been preferable to FDR to NOT fight Japan and Germany at the same time.

I think the Dec 7 attacks made the war far more difficult for an allied victory. Japan's only chance of victory was an attack like Pearl. Time was on our side in terms of industrial capacity and manpower. It was either now or never for Japan's imperial interests.

Without Pearl Japan could have been contained while Germany was defeated.

[AP]

68. I don't think so. Because, had he known, he could have at least defended

against the attack. I don't think Americans wouldn't have been any less willing to enter the war had the US Navy been ready and countered the attack on the high seas rather than just waited there like sitting ducks.

Furthermore, on December 7 and 8, I believe (if I'm not incorrect) Japan attacked Hong Kong, Malay, Midway and a couple other places in addition to Pearl Harbor. NONE of those countries were ready for the attack. It wasn't just the US that was taken by surprise. I find it heard to believe that the US alone would have figured it out but none of those other places.

[DireStrike]

70. Actually that's an excellent point.

Can I change my vote?

[Sterling]

71. Yes another important bit of the story.

Those attacks were part of a huge operation covering the entire pacific. If they LIHOPed it then the gave away a hell of a lot more than just a few ships. It took years to regain what was lost in those initial Japanese attacks.

[ibegurpard]

72. I happened to catch a bit of something on the History Channel

basically stating that very premise. That Roosevelt knew and did nothing to stop it. Now, I have no problem believing this is true if someone can prove it to me. But what I have to question is WHY is this being talked about now? Are they trying so hard to destroy the legacy of Roosevelt that they would be willing to cause Americans to question whether people in our government would be capable of something like that? Particularly with a similar event happening with 9/ll?

[DireStrike]

77. It's being talked about because it would be a precedent.

We have more facts about that time period than we do about 9/11, and we have posterity. It can be studied more objectively.

It can show us, if it did happen, that such things are possible and should be considered when dealing with the government.

[Sterling]

80. It is also IMO an attempt to mitigate the fact the 9-11 lie did not take.

I have seen this come up in discussions with freepers about 9-11. If you can actually get one to have an honest discussion of the facts of 9-11 then they finally resort to "well FDR let Pearl happen" as a defense of the indefensible. Unfortunately the argument does not hold up to the kind of scrutiny that 9-11 has been put to.

[DireStrike]

81. Ah... I haven't talked about it with freepers

That is one way you could look at it, I suppose. I'll have to innoculate myself against that.

[UpsideDownFlag]

90. exactly.

speaking of precedents...FDR detained a certain ethnic group, too. Im not trying to ruin his legacy, but let's be honest with ourselves. I have no reason to believe that despite the good things he accomplished, FDR wasn't capable of such a thing.

[Bush was AWOL]

78. Yes. They are trying to destroy him and the new deal

Did you watch the entire program on the HC? If so, there were several historians that debunked the flawed theories at the end.

[Sterling]

82. Yes that is a goal of the right.

And has been for some time. I think that is where the theory originally took flight is with the people who were against FDR during those days. The same people who tried the coup in the 30's most likely promoted this MEME.


Now days it has become useful to deflect attention for the very real possibility 9-11 is a major lie.

[Bush was AWOL]

84. Ever heard of John T. Flynn?

"I think that is where the theory originally took flight is with the people who were against FDR during those days."

He's the right wing asshole that started the rumor and wrote about it on more than one occasion before the 1944 election in the Chicago Tribune.

Those of you wanting to pass blame on the first true progressive Democrat need to do some more research on this event.

[Sterling]

86. I think I had and filed him in with the rest of the Hitler apologists

of the time. Thanks for the reminder. There is some real good info on this thread if any of the people who voted yes care to get up to speed on their history. Purely from a historian's perspective this kind of stuff irritates me.

[ibegurpard]

89. It seems like a big risk for them to take

Because if people can swallow that our government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, it's just a short hop to 9/11.
I would think they'd stay as far away from it as they could.

[Bush was AWOL]

73. Absolutely NOT!

I've studied WWII history and Pearl Harbor extensively, and FDR did not knowingly allow Pearl Harbor to be attacked.

Any of you using the History Channel program as your source, clearly did not watch the entire program "did FDR know".

Those historians that think FDR knew, are a fringe group among historians.

[ironflange]

91. I've always thought it was a LIHOP

That could be why the precious aircraft carriers were at sea that day. A few old battleships wasn't a great loss, if the carriers had been destroyed the war may have taken quite a different course.

[UpsideDownFlag]

92. well, you seem to be in the majority.

:hi: