Roosevelt's Rotten Record:Communism, Treachery, Betrayal

[SpringHallConvert]

No. Again, they couldn't have known about the effects of radioactive fallout because there had never been an atomic blast previously.

Yes. Again, because they understood that large amounts of radioactivity were released in an atomic explosion and that radioactivity was extremely dangerous to humans. They knew this from the Trinity test. Our government simply didn't care about the troops or civilians subjected to that radioactivity.

It's important to remember, this is the same criminal government that was, at the time, conducting the Tuskegee syphilis experiments against its own citizens and would just a few short years later carry out MK-ULTRA and Project 112/SHAD tests against its citizens and military personnel. Testing the effects of radioactivity, drugs, diseases, chemicals, poisons, and biological weapons on citizens was standard operating procedure for our government, so you're not going to convince anyone here that our government "didn't know".

It's total B.S.

[Gawdzilla]

Show me the documentation on the effects of fallout prior to August, 9th, 1945, please. I gotta see this ****.

[SpringHallConvert]

Show me the documentation on the effects of fallout prior to August, 9th, 1945, please. I gotta see this ****.

Are you actually arguing that our government was completely unaware of the risks of radiation exposure to humans? That our government didn't know that radiation was dangerous?

Do you have any proof of this?

[Hans]

An aside, but how soon after the Trinity test did the scientists go into view the site and what measures to protect themselves did they make?

SHC you need to provide evidence for your claim.....but we all know you won't!

[Gawdzilla]

Are you actually arguing that our government was completely unaware of the risks of radiation exposure to humans? That our government didn't know that radiation was dangerous?

Do you have any proof of this?

Show the documentation. I'll be having a beer. Or fifty.

[BravesFan]

Burden of proof lies on you hotshot. But you don't understand what that means as you are just a waste of time troll. I still don't know why you haven't been banned. You add nothing to this forum but noise.

[JohnG]

Sorry, what does all this have to do with FDR?

[Hans]

Sorry, what does all this have to do with FDR?

He hid all the documents outlining the dangers of radioactive fallout under his bed.....

[SpringHallConvert]

Show the documentation. I'll be having a beer. Or fifty.

As soon as you show yours.

[SpringHallConvert]

Burden of proof lies on you hotshot. But you don't understand what that means as you are just a waste of time troll. I still don't know why you haven't been banned. You add nothing to this forum but noise.

No, burden of proof lies with you. You don't get to be right by default.

Sorry, but that's just the way it's going to be from now on.

[Garrison]

As soon as you show yours.

No again the burden of proof lies with you, if you wish to overturn the accepted view of Roosevelt you have to do the work.

[SpringHallConvert]

Sorry, what does all this have to do with FDR?

A lot, actually, since Roosevelt was the concentration camp president and our country took a step backwards toward outright barbarianism after that. The stuff that followed - carpet bombing of women and children, chemical, biological, and nuclear testing on human beings - was just a natural regression.

[Gawdzilla]

No, burden of proof lies with you. You don't get to be right by default.

You haven't been right yet. And that's the way it's going to be from now on.

[JohnG]

A lot, actually, since Roosevelt was the concentration camp president and our country took a step backwards toward outright barbarianism after that. The stuff that followed - carpet bombing of women and children, chemical, biological, and nuclear testing on human beings - was just a natural regression.


By that logic, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra et al. are suitable for discussion in the "FDR" thread? Seems unwieldy.

[Gawdzilla]

By that logic, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra et al. are suitable for discussion in the "FDR" thread? Seems unwieldy.

That's the result of weak Google-fu. Just jump on the first thing on the list and pretend it's relevant.

[DGM]

A lot, actually, since Roosevelt was the concentration camp president and our country took a step backwards toward outright barbarianism after that. The stuff that followed - carpet bombing of women and children, chemical, biological, and nuclear testing on human beings - was just a natural regression.
When did FDR do "chemical, biological, and nuclear testing on human beings"?

You can support this, right?

[Gawdzilla]

When did FDR do "chemical, biological, and nuclear testing on human beings"?

You can support this, right?

Absurd fantasy in 5, 4, 3...

[SpringHallConvert]

When did FDR do "chemical, biological, and nuclear testing on human beings"?

You can support this, right?

The Tuskegee syphilis experiments were being conducted all throughout the Roosevelt administration, and those experiments certainly qualify as biological.

Next?

[Gawdzilla]

The Tuskegee syphilis experiments were being conducted all throughout the Roosevelt administration, and those experiments certainly qualify as biological.

Next?

And FDR knew about this? Don't bother answering.

[DGM]

The Tuskegee syphilis experiments were being conducted all throughout the Roosevelt administration, and those experiments certainly qualify as biological.

Next?
Do you actually feel this answers my question?

Try again, this time with feeling.


:rolleyes:

[SpringHallConvert]

And FDR knew about this? Don't bother answering.

Sure, why wouldn't I? He was the C-in-C. Why? Are you arguing that he didn't have knowledge? That his administration had no control over or knowledge of what subordinate departments were doing?

Do you figure the government was just out of control?

[Gawdzilla]

Sure, why wouldn't I? He was the C-in-C. Why? Are you arguing that he didn't have knowledge? That his administration had no control over or knowledge of what subordinate departments were doing?

Do you figure the government was just out of control?

Prove he knew.

Back to the beer for me.

[Mudcat]

The Tuskegee syphilis experiments were being conducted all throughout the Roosevelt administration, and those experiments certainly qualify as biological.

Next?

This question is not for you SHC: Anyone know why they went through with that experiment? I Thought the doctors had said it wouldn't be good experiment or something like that and reconmended not to do the experiment.

[SpringHallConvert]

Prove he knew.

Back to the beer for me.

Either way, I've got you.

If he knew, and did nothing, he was complicit.

If he didn't know, he was effectively the figurehead of a criminal, racist, out-of-control government conducting cruel biological tests on the nation's most oppressed citizens

So, take your pick, pal.

[Mudcat]

If he knew, and did nothing, he was complicit.




Highlighted the word that's tripping you up. If, the biggest two letter word in the English language. And you have to provide evidence for this 'if', too, if you want people want to take you seriously.

[SpringHallConvert]

Highlighted the word that's tripping you up. If, the biggest two letter word in the English language. And you have to provide evidence for this 'if', too, if you want people want to take you seriously.

Either way, I've got you.

If he knew, and did nothing, he was complicit.

If he didn't know, he was effectively the figurehead of a criminal, racist, out-of-control government conducting cruel biological tests on the nation's most oppressed citizens

So, take your pick, pal.

[Mudcat]

Either way, I've got you.
I think you'll find that you are wrong about that. Along with a great number of things.

If he knew, and did nothing, he was complicit.

If he didn't know, he was effectively the figurehead of a criminal, racist, out-of-control government conducting cruel biological tests on the nation's most oppressed citizens

Believe or not we still live in a democracy with a system of checks and ballances which means that, as powerful as the president was/is/will be they weren't/aren't/won't be the absolute ruler of everything. And there were/is/will be elements within the government that will be operating outside the law and outside of the president's approval.

But seriously what are we talking about now? Pearlharbor still? The droping of the A-bombs? The illegal testing on American citizens?

[SpringHallConvert]

There were/is/will be elements within the government that will be operating outside the law and outside of the president's approval.

You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist here. Elements within government operating outside the law?

I wonder if something like that could have happened on 9/11.

But seriously what are we talking about now? Pearlharbor still? The droping of the A-bombs? The illegal testing on American citizens?

You responded to a post focusing on the Tuskegee experiments. You know, our government using its own citizens in dangerous biological tests? Tests in which they were being deliberately deceived?

[Mudcat]

You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist here. Elements within government operating outside the law?
There are almost always elements in any sufficiently large enough groups that'll be working towards their own agendas. This is fact, but it does not make the whole system corupt.

It is'nt a conspiracy theory until I start speculating wildly about things I have no way to verify and start accusing people who might not related to an event of being in on it. You know, like you do.

I wonder if something like that could have happened on 9/11.
This has been explained to you repeatedly, but that wasn't an inside job. Could it have been avoided? Yes, which makes it even sader still.



You responded to a post focusing on the Tuskegee experiments. You know, our government using its own citizens in dangerous biological tests? Tests in which they were being deliberately deceived?
These would be the very same Tuskegee experiments that we have evidence for and that the government failed to succesfully cover up by any chance?

Now don't get me wrong here I'm not defending the Tuskegee experiments here but it was precisely because of things just like it we have such systems of checks and balances in place. It's not perfect, but it does make it hard for the government to get away with such things.

[Gawdzilla]

Either way, I've got you.

If he knew, and did nothing, he was complicit.

If he didn't know, he was effectively the figurehead of a criminal, racist, out-of-control government conducting cruel biological tests on the nation's most oppressed citizens

So, take your pick, pal.

Wow, small minds can only think of two options I guess. You can try to tear down FDR, but an ant attacking Mt. Rushmore has a better chance.

[Gawdzilla]

Sure, why wouldn't I? He was the C-in-C. Why? Are you arguing that he didn't have knowledge? That his administration had no control over or knowledge of what subordinate departments were doing?

Do you figure the government was just out of control?

Name one President that knew EVERYTHING that was happening in his administration.

[BazBear]

Name one President that knew EVERYTHING that was happening in his administration.Oh come on GZ, everyone knows all U.S. Presidents are omniscient, clairvoyant, precognitive, and telepathic. Jeezum!;)

[Gawdzilla]

Oh come on GZ, everyone knows all U.S. Presidents are omniscient, clairvoyant, precognitive, and telepathic. Jeezum!;)
And they have never heard of "plausible deniability" so they have to know everything every single one of their subordinates do, down the local letter carriers and that private standing guard over a garbage bin at Fort Kit Carson.

Given the above I guess we CAN stick FDR with the Tuskegee travesty. My bad.

[BazBear]

And they have never heard of "plausible deniability" so they have to know everything every single one of their subordinates do, down the local letter carriers and that private standing guard over a garbage bin at Fort Kit Carson.

Given the above I guess we CAN stick FDR with the Tuskegee travesty. My bad.Yeah, that would take micromanagement to whole new (incredible) level. But it would seem that in SHC's world, any and all evil government things are possible.

[Gawdzilla]

Yeah, that would take micromanagement to whole new (incredible) level. But it would seem that in SHC's world, any and all evil government things are possible.

You just have to dumb down the Presidency to the level of Andy of Mayberry and there you go!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You don't get to be right by default.


Neither do you.

[Hans]

Oh come on GZ, everyone knows all U.S. Presidents are omniscient, clairvoyant, precognitive, and telepathic. Jeezum!;)

That is a nice addition to his belief that the entire gub'mint is a monolithic organization....maybe FDR was an advanced human or alien from the future? lol

[Gawdzilla]

FDR isn't as evil as one of his minions, however. Capt. Beardall, his naval attache, bought into the conspiracy despite the fact that his own son was one of the people in the cross-hairs. I can just imagine it...

"Okay, anyone have an objections to just letting it happen? We really need to look like idiots so the country will rally around us while we wait for the Germans to declare war on us. Anyone? Captain Beardall?"

"No problem, sir! My slavish devotion to you trumps any affection I may have for the little peckerhead. Anyway, he always did like his mother more than me. AND I'm his beneficiary. That insurance money will buy me a new Cadillac once they go on sale again after the war."

"Good man, Captain. I'll promote you again in a few weeks. How would you like to be ambassador to Tahiti?"

[Dancing David]

True, the bomb is a bad thing. But that's today's evaluation. They didn't know much about the bomb except that it was A BIG BOMB when they were deciding whether to use it or not. In all my reading on this subject (and I've been paid to give talks about it) I've never read anything where they discussed or even mentioned lingering effects of radiation or the irradiation of people in the target area where it was to be used. Of course some scientists, like Oppenheimer, knew that pure uranium has hazardous, but the experiments done were in the lab, using small amounts and (happily) without a fission reaction of any scale being involved.

Quite simply, the Emperor stepped up after the second bomb and said, "Enough!" The Soviet declaration of war must be factored into this, those two events being the tip-over point.

Hi,
I was actually talking about the use of conventional weapons on indiscriminate civilian targets.

The use of the a-bomb is what it was, and what war is in general: a way of enforcing political power through force.

[Dancing David]

Are you actually arguing that our government was completely unaware of the risks of radiation exposure to humans? That our government didn't know that radiation was dangerous?

Do you have any proof of this?

You made the positive claim, the burden is on you.

[Dancing David]

I can respect the fact that people can reasonably disagree on the matter.





It did, but as stated, the effects were more indirect.

When Hamburg was largely burned to the ground in July of 1943 it had a tremendous psychological impact. Albert Speer stated that another half-dozen German cities wrecked in the same way in short order would "bring Germany's armaments production to a total halt." Erhard Milch stated that "If we get just five or six more attacks like those on Hamburg, the German people will just lay down their tools, however great their willpower..." But the RAF couldn't replicate what it had done at Hamburg, so Germany recovered. As it was some four months' of war production was lost in the city. That's not inconsequential. (Whether that was worth the cost in lives is another calculation entirely.)

More generally, the European bombing campaign produced the following effects. Quoting from The Crucible of War 1939-1945 by Brereton Greenhous, Stephen J. Harris, William C. Johnson, and William G.P. Rawling:




There are some noteworthy indirect effects in the above. Were those effects worth the cost in human lives? That's the harder question to answer. I personally would answer yes, because war is hell and whatever one can do to shorten the hell likely means fewer deaths overall.





The idea was sound—ball bearing production was one of the key choke points in war production. The problem was that at the time the USAAF attempted to knock it out it did so with an insufficiently strong bomber force (it wasn't really grasped just how many bombers were needed to truly knock out a target) and without long-range fighter escort. So that the results were ultimately disappointing should not be surprising.

The Allies were also misled in their bomb damage assessments. They get the post-strike photos of a target, see all kinds of wrecked buildings, would conclude the target had been destroyed, cross it off the list, and move to the next target. Only it was often the case that the damage on the ground was not nearly as severe as it looked from the air. So a wrecked facility wasn't really wrecked and production would be resumed in relatively short order.

The Allies also left some potentially decisive targets off the list. There was no campaign against the German electrical supply, for example, even though a sustained effort against it could have produced results as decisive as those obtained in the attacks against oil and transportation.

I agree with all this, I spent quite a bit of time obsessed about WWII, I just happen to feel that the bombing of civilian targets is wrong.

And Speer spent a lot of time compensating for the loss of ball bearing production, hence the comment by the Allied commander.

The choice of targets is not one I have looked into quite as much.

[Dancing David]

No, burden of proof lies with you. You don't get to be right by default.

Sorry, but that's just the way it's going to be from now on.

Nope you made the positive claim that the bomb makers knew all the dangers of radiation, so the burden falls to you.

Sophistry shall avail you naught.

[Gawdzilla]

Hi,
I was actually talking about the use of conventional weapons on indiscriminate civilian targets.Guernica, Rotterdam, Nanking, the Axis doesn't have a lot of reason to complain.

The use of the a-bomb is what it was, and what war is in general: a way of enforcing political power through force.War happens when diplomacy fails, and diplomacy picks up again after the war is over.

[Dancing David]

Guernica, Rotterdam, Nanking, the Axis doesn't have a lot of reason to complain.
War happens when diplomacy fails, and diplomacy picks up again after the war is over.

You won't find me defending the Axis.

[Captain_Swoop]

Area Bombing was a result of the weight of losses to both German and British aircraft in daylight raids early in the war. Night raids aren't precise at all, you hit the general area. Later in the war with the advent of Radar and various other pathfinder techniques it becale more accurate and of course long range fighters made daylight raids sustainable.

[Myron Proudfoot]

Name one President that knew EVERYTHING that was happening in his administration.

George Washington, hour 1 of day 1. After that, not so much.

[Gawdzilla]

You won't find me defending the Axis.

Sorry if I implied that, didn't mean to.

[Gawdzilla]

George Washington, hour 1 of day 1. After that, not so much.

Actually, no. The folks on the border between Georgia and then-Spanish Florida, as well as the folks on the western frontier, and up in Maine, were just a few of the folks doing things that day that George wouldn't hear about.

[Gawdzilla]

Area Bombing was a result of the weight of losses to both German and British aircraft in daylight raids early in the war. Night raids aren't precise at all, you hit the general area. Later in the war with the advent of Radar and various other pathfinder techniques it becale more accurate and of course long range fighters made daylight raids sustainable.
I agree with this, but it's not often brought out that there were actually improvements in the bombing accuracy.

Might as mention this here. I hear "less than 50% of the bombs fell within five miles of the target." Damning statistic or sound byte? The line is from the RAF's study of bombing results, done in January of 1940. Very early in the war, and it lead to improvement in the system.

[Corsair 115]

I agree with all this, I spent quite a bit of time obsessed about WWII, I just happen to feel that the bombing of civilian targets is wrong.


Again, I understand and sympathize with the point. But the point hinges upon the definition of 'civilian target' and when it comes to an industrialized nation-state engaged in total war against another industrialized nation-state, pretty much everything civilian feeds into the national war effort in one way or another.


The choice of targets is not one I have looked into quite as much.


Part of the problem there was that the Allies looked at German weaknesses through the prism of their own weaknesses. When the USAAF looked at the key choke points in the economy to target, it considered the electrical supply. But the U.S. had an ample electrical supply, so any attacks against electricity wouldn't produce significant results. They assumed that the same would be true for Germany, so the electrical supply was dropped as a potential target. For much the same reason oil production was a low priority target for a long time. It was only Ultra decrypts indicating how much attacks against oil were hurting Germany that got oil moved up to the top of the target lists.

The assumption that the enemy's weaknesses are the same as one's own happened on both sides during the war.

[Corsair 115]

I agree with this, but it's not often brought out that there were actually improvements in the bombing accuracy.


Very much so. While Bomber Command's accuracy varied widely, the trend was upwards. In August of 1942 less than 30% of bombs dropped were landing within three miles of the aiming point; a year later, it was up to about 55%; in August of 1944 it was up to 70%; and in February of 1945 it was close to 90%. The major developments that led to better results were the introduction of H2S and Oboe, the use of master bombers on raids, and the establishment of Gee stations on the continent.

The biggest impediment in effectively utilizing that increasingly accurate striking power was Harris. He simply did not believe that attacks against specific industrial targets would produce results; he derided anyone suggesting such as "panacea merchants". Harris remained committed to the idea of area bombing only right through to the end of the war, even in spite of evidence showing that Bomber Command could do better and achieve noteworthy results.

Harris probably should have been replaced by the start of 1945, but his stature by that time was such that the government couldn't or wouldn't do it.

[CORed]

Actually, no. The folks on the border between Georgia and then-Spanish Florida, as well as the folks on the western frontier, and up in Maine, were just a few of the folks doing things that day that George wouldn't hear about.

Even if he did hear about them, it would take a considerable amount of time. Information traveled the speed of a horse or ship in Washington's day.

[Captain_Swoop]

In the total war that was WW2 that depended on the entire population and industry of a country to wage the war were there any civilian targets?

[Gawdzilla]

Even if he did hear about them, it would take a considerable amount of time. Information traveled the speed of a horse or ship in Washington's day.

And that's with the relatively small bureaucracy he inherited from the Confederation. So SHC gets it wrong again.

[Mudcat]

Anyone know why they went through with that experiment? I Thought the doctors had said it wouldn't be good experiment or something like that and reconmended not to do the experiment.

Bump

[000063]

That did not answer the question child. Now, would you see a Nazi victory in Europe as a positive or negative? It's a simple question really. Answer it.

Considering that he literally can't answer a question as simple as "What did you have for breakfast?"...

[000063]

Nope you made the positive claim that the bomb makers knew all the dangers of radiation, so the burden falls to you.

Sophistry shall avail you naught.

Weren't they seriously concerned they would set the world on fire?

[Craig4]

In the total war that was WW2 that depended on the entire population and industry of a country to wage the war were there any civilian targets?

Yes there were sort of. A factory worker's house would be a legitimate target if he/she worked in a factory that contributed to a country's war potential. If you make bombers it's okay to bomb your house. Pretty much the country being attacked is responsible for keeping noncombatants away from legitimate targets. If you house your family in your house and you build tanks, it's your fault if they get killed when the enemy bombs your home. This gets a bit sticky when you talk about dual use infrastructure but you get the general idea.

We talk a lot these days about proportionality but that has more to do with the fact that our technology has finally caught up to doctrine. Today we wouldn't area bomb a city to stop the ball bearing production. However, in WWII the ball bearing plant had to be destroyed so that's what the Allies did.

[Captain_Swoop]

If you bake bread that feeds the man that builds the tank you are a legit target, same for the man who repairs the roads or the plumber that keeps the water flowing to the bakery of the man that bakes the bread that feeds the man that builds the tank and so on.

[Gawdzilla]

And a note to future despots: Decentralizing your industries will result in decentralizing the effort to destroy said industry. Tokyo, March, 1945, check it out.

[MaGZ]

I'm curious, why do so many of you government truthers have such reverence for this scumbag? It was on his watch that we had concentration camps in America filled with innocent American citizens, many of which were defenseless women and children.

Why do so many of you gloss over this and change the subject when it's mentioned?

Are you one of those libertarians?

[MaGZ]

We won, he let them go.
If the Germans had won do you tihnk they would have let anyone out of their camps or stopped the mass murder of the camp inmates?
Evidence seems to suggest they had plans to round up and murder even more people in any of the lands they invaded.


The US released their last remaining concentration camp victims in 1948 on Ellis Island.

[MaGZ]

The internment of American citizens during World War II was horrible and is a stain on FDR's legacy. Good thing for FDR that that's not the only thing he's remembered for.

Just about any 'great' person in the history of the world has their bad points and even some horrific people actually do something good.

One has to determine whether or not the good outweighs the bad or vice versa. Oftentimes people get blinded because of some irrational hatred for a historic figure that they will latch onto something that a figure did (good or bad) and totally ignore the overall picture. It's kind of sad when people do that. You really can't argue coherently with them because usually the thing is objectively bad or good even though it's in no way indicative of the historical figure's overall behavior. So people latch on to FDR and the internment, Lincoln and the suspension of habeas corpus, Jefferson owned slaves, etc. and totally dismiss the body of work of the person. Such factors should not be dismissed and they aren't, they just shouldn't overwhelm the overall evaluation of the person.

Abe Lincoln had his concentration camp at Fort McHenry.

[Dancing David]

Weren't they seriously concerned they would set the world on fire?

Not really, there is little evidence that any one thought that would happen. There are some great stories however.

[BravesFan]

Not really, there is little evidence that any one thought that would happen. There are some great stories however.

Yes this is one of those myths that just won't die. Being that they needed the proper material to even start a chain reaction, it seemed odd that these same physicists would worry that the reaction would spread to other materials.

[Gawdzilla]

Yes this is one of those myths that just won't die. Being that they needed the proper material to even start a chain reaction, it seemed odd that these same physicists would worry that the reaction would spread to other materials.

Even Oppenheimer didn't predict that. We were a looooong way from haveing all the facts.

[MaGZ]

They are the WORST kind of Nazi, they are Communist Nazis!

another name for National Bolshevicks
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

[MaGZ]

My mother lived next to an Italian POW camp during WWII, southern Missouri. She used to trade fresh fruit for the most beautiful hand carved flatware. (Those were popular "in town" for obvious reasons.) She never had any trouble dealing with the POWs through the fence, the guards were usually asleep in the watch towers, or more interested in her than the inmates. And yet there are some here who would liken the place to Dachau. Or would if Dachau had REALLY been a bad place. ;)

If the rail lines were bombed to that wonderful camp in Missouri during the war, it would look like Dachau.

[MaGZ]

Invading Japan ( who started it) would have meant the deaths of thousands and thousands of brave American GIs. Your hero Hitler would have used the bomb if it had been developed in Germany, but luckily all the smart Jewish scientists went to America. The Third Reich hated 'Jewish physics' so all that Hitler had were knuckle head Nazi physicists. Why am I responding seriously to you?

And still Hitler and his scientists developed the bomb first! March 4, 1945

[The Dark Lord]

And still Hitler and his scientists developed the bomb first!

No, they didn't. And if they did, well, that just makes your heroes' defeat all the more pathetic.

[Gawdzilla]

If the rail lines were bombed to that wonderful camp in Missouri during the war, it would look like Dachau.

Thank you, I'll archive that comment. :D

[MaGZ]

Defending the use of the bomb? Sure. I'd defend its use any day of the week. As horrible as it was, all the alternatives were much, much worse. That is why you cannot come up with an alternative whatsoever.

If you were a Japanese person do you think you could still defend using the bomb?

[MaGZ]

The usual response from soviet apologists and Stalin lovers to Roosevelt's communism is to simply smear the information as coming from "nazis". This is another lie. The original link in this thread - FDR Scandal Page http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
- was compiled from information including THE ROOSEVELT MYTH by John T.Flynn. Other works that condemn Roosevelt include TRAGIC DECEPTION:FDR AND AMERICA'S INVOLVEMENT IN WORLD WAR II and FDR:THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN by congressman Hamilton Fish, a contemporary politician of the day. These men were Republicans, not nazis. True conservatives, not the neo con warmongers of today. And last but not least former Republican US president Herbert Hoover blasted Roosevelt's policies of warmongering and communism in his book FREEDOM BETRAYED. http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/23/herbert-hoovers-long-awaited-m/print www.nationalreview.com/articles/283064/blunders-statesmen-herbert-hoover (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283064/blunders-statesmen-herbert-hoover)

John T. Flynn was a left-wing isolationist and New York head of the America First Committee.

[jaydeehess]

If you were a Japanese person do you think you could still defend using the bomb?

Perhaps not but if you were a Japanses person could you still defend having Japan enter WW2?

Let us not forget that the dropping of bombs, both conventional and nuclear, on Japan is a direct consequence of Japan having begun military actions against the USA and other nations.

Should the deaths attributed to the two A-bombs be soley on the American gov't and Generals when the USA when the USA did not start the fight? Should not that blame rest upon the shoulders of the Japanses leaders and Generals of 1941?

At any rate any Japanese looking at this in a cold logic would have to arrive at the conclusion that fewer Japanese died than would have if an invasion had been undertaken

[MaGZ]

''Hey dudes, ha ha ha. Whatcha say we just drop the whole thing? What? Ah, Pearl Harbour,Schmearl Harbour Let's just chill out guys.''

FDR couldn’t have done that since he went to such an effort to organize a "surprise attack".

[BravesFan]

What a strange world you must live in. So full of paranoia and anti-semitic ranting.

[MaGZ]

When did FDR do "chemical, biological, and nuclear testing on human beings"?

You can support this, right?

The Quakers, who were conscientious objectors, were exposed to biological agents at Fort Detrick, Maryland by the American Mengeles of the US Army.

[MaGZ]

Either way, I've got you.

If he knew, and did nothing, he was complicit.

If he didn't know, he was effectively the figurehead of a criminal, racist, out-of-control government conducting cruel biological tests on the nation's most oppressed citizens

So, take your pick, pal.

If FDR was a racist he would have supported Hitler and not Stalin.

[MaGZ]

I think you'll find that you are wrong about that. Along with a great number of things.



Believe or not we still live in a democracy with a system of checks and ballances which means that, as powerful as the president was/is/will be they weren't/aren't/won't be the absolute ruler of everything. And there were/is/will be elements within the government that will be operating outside the law and outside of the president's approval.

But seriously what are we talking about now? Pearlharbor still? The droping of the A-bombs? The illegal testing on American citizens?

Are you sure we still live in a democracy? Today Obama threatened the Supreme Court.

[Redtail]

If FDR was a racist he would have supported Hitler and not Stalin.

& Hitler's dream keeps dying a little each day.

[MaGZ]

That is a nice addition to his belief that the entire gub'mint is a monolithic organization....maybe FDR was an advanced human or alien from the future? lol

Actually FDR didn’t know anything during his last year as President. He was a total basket-case.

[Hans]

Actually FDR didn’t know anything during his last year as President. He was a total basket-case.

Don't be silly MaGZ, he was 'functioning', you might want to view his March 1st speech to the Congress on the Yalta conference

[jaydeehess]

Are you sure we still live in a democracy? Today Obama threatened the Supreme Court.

Would you care to elaborate on how that translates into the USA not being a Democracy?

Perhaps you care to instead support the Republicans, several of whom, including one front runner for Presidential candidate, would like to make the USA a Theocracy?

[Gawdzilla]

If you were a Japanese person do you think you could still defend using the bomb?
Yes, because it saved millions of Japanese lives.

[Gawdzilla]

Actually FDR didn’t know anything during his last year as President. He was a total basket-case.

Unlike Hitler, who was really a brain case by then, thanks to the experiments his doctor was performing on him.

[Hans]

Yes, because it saved millions of Japanese lives.

I was born in Japan, and yes I support the bomb. Had it not been dropped the Tenno may not have interfered. Japan would have fought on and been invaded and ended with millions dead and the northern part occupied by the Soviets

[dafydd]

FDR couldn’t have done that since he went to such an effort to organize a "surprise attack".

Yea right. Brilliant idea, let's destroy our own fleet.

[Gawdzilla]

I was born in Japan, and yes I support the bomb. Had it not been dropped the Tenno may not have interfered. Japan would have fought on and been invaded and ended with millions dead and the northern part occupied by the Soviets

Do you think Showa would have gone on the side of the "let's end it" folks if the Marquis Kido hadn't supported cessation of hostilities?

[BravesFan]

Yea right. Brilliant idea, let's destroy our own fleet.

Which is,of course, akin to starting a gunfight by allowing your opponent to shoot off your trigger finger......

[Gawdzilla]

Yea right. Brilliant idea, let's destroy our own fleet.

And look like turkeys in the process. "Yep, we got caught with our pants down." Really? People try to claim FDR was this evil politician, but I've never heard anyone seriously call him stupid. And getting porked on the opening day would be just stupid if you could avoid it. And to give up a military victory? "We saw them coming, we fired when we saw the whites of their eyes!" The stupid just rolls out when the situation is honestly viewed.

[SpringHallConvert]

Yes, because it saved millions of Japanese lives.

Government truther logic:

"We had to kill them to save them!"

[SpringHallConvert]

Yea right. Brilliant idea, let's destroy our own fleet.

Entire U.S. Pacific fleet =/= Decrepit old WW1-era battleships

Nope, try again.

[Hans]

Do you think Showa would have gone on the side of the "let's end it" folks if the Marquis Kido hadn't supported cessation of hostilities?

I think the Koshaku had influence, and was in some way, a 'king maker' but that the Emperor would have still made the decision he made. The text is dated but pages 23-25 of Behind Japan's Surrender, by Lester Brooks gives a good idea of the mind sets then

[SpringHallConvert]

Are you one of those libertarians?

How do you mean, "those" libertarians?

[Gawdzilla]

Entire U.S. Pacific fleet =/= Decrepit old WW1-era battleships

Nope, try again.

Again, you are ignorant of the facts.

[Gawdzilla]

I think the Koshaku had influence, and was in some way, a 'king maker' but that the Emperor would have still made the decision he made. The text is dated but pages 23-25 of Behind Japan's Surrender, by Lester Brooks gives a good idea of the mind sets then

Kido was Showa's primary counselor, no? King maker wouldn't enter into this, the Emperor wasn't going to step down or anything.

[MaGZ]

Would you care to elaborate on how that translates into the USA not being a Democracy?

Perhaps you care to instead support the Republicans, several of whom, including one front runner for Presidential candidate, would like to make the USA a Theocracy?

I like Romney only because the Jews don’t trust him.

[Hans]

Entire U.S. Pacific fleet =/= Decrepit old WW1-era battleships

Nope, try again.

Nope wrong again

Oh so when did the US have battleships in the Pacific it could use for operations? Give the date

[Hans]

Kido was Showa's primary counselor, no? King maker wouldn't enter into this, the Emperor wasn't going to step down or anything.


Lord keeper of the privy seal I believe

In the sense of helping to select prime ministers - a power behind the throne

[dudalb]

Entire U.S. Pacific fleet =/= Decrepit old WW1-era battleships

Nope, try again.

The level of historical ignorance displayed by this statement staggers the imigination.



With MaGZ and Spring Hill Convert here, all we need is for 9/11investigator to show up and the Hitler Hugger gang will be complete.

[Gawdzilla]

Nope wrong again

Oh so when did the US have battleships in the Pacific it could use for operations? Give the date

How many battleships did we have in commission that were built after 1925? ;)

[TheRedWorm]

Do you actually feel this answers my question?

Try again, this time with feelingfacts.


:rolleyes:


ftfy

[Hans]

How many battleships did we have in commission that were built after 1925? ;)

We had one Yamato, interestingly none of the other Japanese battleships were commissioned after that date (1925) - but modernized - the Oklahoma and such would have been quite capable of taking on the Kongo, Fuso, Ise and perhaps the two Nagato classes

As for the US I'm not sure, lol, I'll guess none before the new ones came in during the summer of 1942 due to the limitations of the naval treaties

[Hans]

The level of historical ignorance displayed by this statement staggers the imigination.



With MaGZ and Spring Hill Convert here, all we need is for 9/11investigator to show up and the Hitler Hugger gang will be complete.

We would also need Little Grey Rabbit - for seasoning

[Gawdzilla]

We had one Yamato, interestingly none of the other Japanese battleships were commissioned after that date (1925) - but modernized - the Oklahoma and such would have been quite capable of taking on the Kongo, Fuso, Ise and perhaps the two Nagato classes
The Arizonas would have made it a fair fight, I think.


As for the US I'm not sure, lol, I'll guess none before the new ones came in during the summer of 1942 due to the limitations of the naval treaties

The third North Carolina (BB–55) was laid down 27 October 1937 by New York Naval Shipyard; launched 13 June 1940; sponsored by Miss Isabel Hoey, daughter of Governor of North Carolina; and commissioned at New York 9 April 1941, Captain Olaf M. Hustvedt in command

The eighth Washington (BB-56) was laid down on 14 June 1938 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 1 June 1940; sponsored by Miss Virginia Marshall, of Spokane, Wash., a direct descendant of former Chief Justice Marshall; and commissioned at the Philadelphia Navy Yard on 15 May 1941, Capt. Howard H. J. Benson in command.

[Hans]

The Arizonas would have made it a fair fight, I think.


The third North Carolina (BB–55) was laid down 27 October 1937 by New York Naval Shipyard; launched 13 June 1940; sponsored by Miss Isabel Hoey, daughter of Governor of North Carolina; and commissioned at New York 9 April 1941, Captain Olaf M. Hustvedt in command

The eighth Washington (BB-56) was laid down on 14 June 1938 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 1 June 1940; sponsored by Miss Virginia Marshall, of Spokane, Wash., a direct descendant of former Chief Justice Marshall; and commissioned at the Philadelphia Navy Yard on 15 May 1941, Capt. Howard H. J. Benson in command.

Thanks for the info, but of course the US was starting to re-arm at that moment as were the Japanese with the 2 ships in the Yamato class

I think we agree that what SHC ignorantly said -making him a complete Shirime, in that those ships he dismissed were quite capable of taking on the existing Japanese ships, none of which were younger than they (except newly launched Yamato)

[Gawdzilla]

Thanks for the info, but of course the US was starting to re-arm at that moment as were the Japanese with the 2 ships in the Yamato class

I think we agree that what SHC ignorantly said -making him a complete Shirime, in that those ships he dismissed were quite capable of taking on the existing Japanese ships, none of which were younger than they (except newly launched Yamato)

True, and the billions of dollars spent on raising and improving the "old battleships" (OBB in WWII parlance) is prove that they were not used Kleenex.

[Hans]

True, and the billions of dollars spent on raising and improving the "old battleships" (OBB in WWII parlance) is prove that they were not used Kleenex.

But we debate the obvious, SHC doesn't know anything about the history he is trying, hilariously, failing to revise

[Redtail]

Y'all give Magz a break. 3/14/2012 was a horrible day for Nazi fan boys.

[Gawdzilla]

But we debate the obvious, SHC doesn't know anything about the history he is trying, hilariously, failing to revise

He's pretty much been left by the wayside here, irrelevant to anything.

BTW, do you, from the perspective of Japan, think the attack on Pearl Harbor was a legitimate act of war? Be as loose as you wish in answering that, I am truly interested in what you think.

[Hans]

Yes, from the military point of view - as I recall the diplomats and crypto guys screwed up the transmission of the declaration of war, so the attack came in undeclared as had been done in the 1904 war with Russia.

Tactically I would have ambushed the US fleet after it left the harbour in response to an air raid warning

But the Japan lost the war the minute it attacked, production was just not even remotely capable of keeping up with the US and the Submarine boys at the academy were from the lowest graduates - and no one listen to them about the dangerous of unrestricted submarine warfare!

[Gawdzilla]

Yes, from the military point of view - as I recall the diplomats and crypto guys screwed up the transmission of the declaration of war, so the attack came in undeclared as had been done in the 1904 war with Russia.
The "14-part Message" wasn't actually a declaration of war. And I would put the blame for the delay on the Gaimudaijin for:
Sending the parts out of order.
Sending some of them much later than other.
And for insisting that only "cleared" personnel be used to type up the message.

Tactically I would have ambushed the US fleet after it left the harbour in response to an air raid warning
That would presume there was no aircraft scouting the area, yes?

But the Japan lost the war the minute it attacked, production was just not even remotely capable of keeping up with the US and the Submarine boys at the academy were from the lowest graduates - and no one listen to them about the dangerous of unrestricted submarine warfare!

I strongly agree.

[Hans]

Strategically I would have, well first not invaded China but with that done. I think the only course left might have been a limited attack against the British and Dutch with the hope that internal politics of the US would delay any US intervention.

To your question. I would have lead with a surface fleet followed by the carrier task force. Once the surface force was located I believe the Americans would have gone to sea, then somewhere North of Kauai I would have engaged them with airpower then a surface action, hopefully the US would have been badly attrited by the air actions and the lucky shots of the submarine line.....then hit PH

[kookbreaker]

If you were a Japanese person do you think you could still defend using the bomb?

Depends. Given the logic of the situation I would imagine most likely that my father, were he Japanese, would have starved to death or been used as cannon fodder. So the bomb, while horrible, would have indirectly let me be born had my father not lived in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

But I've always been contrary like that. I'm half Scottish and half-Southern US - and I can't stand post-Culloden boo-hoo pity parties, and I want to kick every 'lost causer' in the head.

[SpringHallConvert]

The government truther ignorance with regard to Pearl Harbor is truly fascinating to behold. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

[kookbreaker]

The government truther ignorance with regard to Pearl Harbor is truly fascinating to behold. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Shame you cannot explain or expand upon this 'ignorance' beyond showing your own massive ignorance.

[SpringHallConvert]

Shame you cannot explain or expand upon this 'ignorance' beyond showing your own massive ignorance.

What good would it do you? It's like trying to explain calculus to a brick wall in here.

[The Dark Lord]

The irony. lol

[Hans]

What good would it do you? It's like trying to explain calculus to a brick wall in here.

You could start by

Showing us how your statement about the battleship was correct - in comparison to the opposing battleline of the Japanese?

but then you're just a troll and don't know what you are talking about.....

[SpringHallConvert]

You could start by

Showing us how your statement about the battleship was correct - in comparison to the opposing battleline of the Japanese?

but then you're just a troll and don't know what you are talking about.....

It was quite obviously correct, as the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor, no matter how you gauge their operational capabilities, did not constitute the entirety of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The heart of the fleet was the handful of fleet carriers, which were all conveniently out to sea on December 7, 1941.

[Hans]

It was quite obviously correct, as the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor, no matter how you gauge their operational capabilities, did not constitute the entirety of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The heart of the fleet was the handful of fleet carriers, which were all conveniently out to sea on December 7, 1941.

Wrong yet again

You are using modern hindsight, at that time BB were still considered the backbone of a battlefleet. The Japanese gained, by attacking Pearl harbour, strategic BB supremacy - for after PH there were no operational US BB in the Pacific until when SHC? I mean you do know when the US regain BB parity don't you?

Oh, I guess not.......

Remember it was US strategy to form its battlefleet and force its way to the Phillippines. You might want to review plan orange

[Border Reiver]

It was quite obviously correct, as the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor, no matter how you gauge their operational capabilities, did not constitute the entirety of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The heart of the fleet was the handful of fleet carriers, which were all conveniently out to sea on December 7, 1941.

Except that American naval doctrine focused on the battleship as the primary naval weapon with carriers as support ships.

So the idea that you let your A players take the hit while the B lusters are saved for later needs some work.

That and if not for weather the carriers were due back at Pearl that day or the day before (can't remember which right now).

[Hans]

Except that American naval doctrine focused on the battleship as the primary naval weapon with carriers as support ships.

So the idea that you let your A players take the hit while the B lusters are saved for later needs some work.

That and if not for weather the carriers were due back at Pearl that day or the day before (can't remember which right now).

Yes it was luck that US didn't lose its two carriers too. The Japanese thought they had gotten a carrier by mistaking the target ship Utah

For the lurkers this is what the BB situation in the Pacific was after Pearl harbour

There were no operational battleships in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor. New Mexico departed Maine and Mississippi and Idaho departed Iceland two days later by way of Norfolk for San Francisco, arriving 22/31Jan42, six weeks later. The three formed Task Force 1 based out of San Francisco to patrol and escort convoys to Hawaii. Tennessee and Maryland were repaired and sailed from Puget Sound Navy Yard 26Feb42. Colorado finished overhaul a month later, at about the same time as Pennsylvania finished repair. The new construction North Carolina arrived in June restoring the battle fleet and to its prewar number. The new construction Washington and South Dakota arrived in August and Indiana arrived later in the year.

The newest battleship, Washington (BB-56) and newest carrier, Wasp CV-7, were involved in the prewar Atlantic fiction of neutrality patrol. Both departed to reinforce the British Home Fleet as soon as they could, in March 1942, while new carrier Hornet CV-8 departed for the Pacific about the same time to make Doolittle's Raid on Tokyo. Washington performed convoy escort to northern Russia and North Atlantic; Wasp made two ferry runs through Gibraltar to Malta. When Lexington CV-2 was lost at Coral Sea, Wasp was hurried home to replace her. Wasp and new battleship North Carolina BB-55 departed Norfolk while the Battle of Midway was going on, where Yorktown CV-5 was lost in June. New South Dakota BB-57 was ready to depart for the Pacific in mid-August, followed a week later by Washington who had been recalled when the leadership became convinced that the Pacific War deserved more of the new equipment. But, the Navy was down to one active battleship in an active combat zone for a few weeks, twice, late in 1942. N. Carolina had been torpedoed 6Sep and was in repair at Pearl. S. Dakota was damaged in the defeat at Santa Cruz, 26 Oct, and under repair at New Caldonia. Only Washington BB-56 was active in the South Pacific. The older Colorado BB-45 was rushed to Fiji by 8Nov. Washington and partially repaired S. Dakata fought in the second night of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal,13-14 Nov, where S.D. was again badly damaged and returned to NY. Washington was again the lone fast BB until 28Nov when Indiana BB-58 arrived fresh from shakedown. Old battleships Arkansas BB-33, New York BB-34, and Texas BB-35 remained in the Atlantic, joined by Nevada BB-36 in mid-1943, where their slower speed of 21 knots was not a handicap for troop convoy escort service. The six early war battleships (BB-55 - BB-60) had speeds of 27.5 knots and even these "fast battleships" could not keep up with carriers at combat speeds (CV 33 knot ; CVL 31 kn.). Only the last four, late war Iowa class battleships could reach 33 knots.

[SpringHallConvert]

Wrong yet again

You are using modern hindsight, at that time BB were still considered the backbone of a battlefleet. The Japanese gained, by attacking Pearl harbour, strategic BB supremacy - for after PH there were no operational US BB in the Pacific until when SHC? I mean you do know when the US regain BB parity don't you?

Oh, I guess not.......

Remember it was US strategy to form its battlefleet and force its way to the Phillippines. You might want to review plan orange

False.

Battleships were only considered the backbone of the fleet by some, and they were quickly proven wrong. Forward-thinking naval experts knew that carriers had replaced the battleship as the fleet operations gold standard, especially after the Battle of Taranto and the sinking of the Bismarck.

Those battleships sunk at Pearl were largely obsolete and too slow for carrier operations, which is why they were sacrificed. They had to be replaced anyway, and new battleships were either being planned or built to do just that. Roosevelt had to have an excuse to get into that war, and he needed a few thousands corpses to do it.

Sorry, you're just wrong, as usual.

[SpringHallConvert]

Except that American naval doctrine focused on the battleship as the primary naval weapon with carriers as support ships.



Nope. This is a myth.

[Hans]

False.

Battleships were only considered the backbone of the fleet by some, and they were quickly proven wrong. Forward-thinking naval experts knew that carriers had replaced the battleship as the fleet operations gold standard, especially after the Battle of Taranto and the sinking of the Bismarck.

Those battleships sunk at Pearl were largely obsolete and too slow for carrier operations, which is why they were sacrificed. They had to replaced anyway, and new battleships were either being planned or built to do just that. Roosevelt had to have an excuse to get into that war, and he needed a few thousands corpses to do it.

Sorry, you're just wrong, as usual.

So in your unevidence opinion, again! Again you are mistaking hindsight for reality, you must really try harder. I mean as a troll you completely moronic lack of historical knowledge makes you completely ineffectual.

Go back and read some Naval history, please it's painful to read your unknowing dribble

[Hans]

Nope. This is a myth.

Care to prove its a myth? We know you cannot so its fun to ask you questions and watch you run away

Run SHC, run! lol

[SpringHallConvert]

So in your unevidence opinion, again! Again you are mistaking hindsight for reality, you must really try harder. I mean as a troll you completely moronic lack of historical knowledge makes you completely ineffectual.

Go back and read some Naval history, please it's painful to read your unknowing dribble

If you think I am wrong, prove it. Babbling about naval history isn't going to help you here.

[SpringHallConvert]

Care to prove its a myth? We know you cannot so its fun to ask you questions and watch you run away

Run SHC, run! lol

Do you care to prove it is not a myth?

[Hans]

If you think I am wrong, prove it. Babbling about naval history isn't going to help you here.

I already asked you to compare the Japanese to American battleline - you ran away

Listen troll - I know you tactics, you try to get everyone to do the research so you can reject it

Ain't workin on me troll

So troll either answer the questions or just shut up, okay?

lol

[Hans]

Do you are to prove it is not a myth?

What the heck does that mean?

Whatever you claim its a myth PROVE IT

[SpringHallConvert]

I already asked you to compare the Japanese to American battleline - you ran away

Listen troll - I know you tactics, you try to get everyone to do the research so you can reject it

Ain't workin on me troll

So troll either answer the questions or just shut up, okay?

lol

Nope. You're wrong about the battleships and Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt lied, sailors died!

[Hans]

Nope. You're wrong about the battleships and Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt lied, sailors died!

SHC running like hell now, run SHC run

We wait with baited breath your analysis of the Nippon vs yankee battleline

We also wait for your showing the 'truth' behind the battlefleet myth

[SpringHallConvert]

What the heck does that mean?

Whatever you claim its a myth PROVE IT

No, you prove it first.

You're the one who believes the attack at Pearl Harbor was a surprise.

Well, where's your proof?

[AJM8125]

Those battleships sunk at Pearl were largely obsolete and too slow for carrier operations, which is why they were sacrificed. They had to be replaced anyway, and new battleships were either being planned or built to do just that. Roosevelt had to have an excuse to get into that war, and he needed a few thousands corpses to do it.

Sorry, you're just wrong, as usual.

Which is why most of them were raised, repaired and sent into the fight. Yes, that that makes sense when you really want to get rid of your ships.

[Hans]

No, you prove it first.

You're the one who believes the attack at Pearl Harbor was a surprise.

Well, where's your proof?

SHC you are a troll who constantly asked for information - which you reject

You provide no information

I will not provide you information on your claims

Either provide the information or concede the points

[Hans]

Which is why most of them were raised, repaired and sent into the fight. Yes, that that makes sense when you really want to get rid of your ships.

Good point! But lost on SHC who is far to busy running away right now, lol

[AJM8125]

Good point! But lost on SHC who is far to busy running away right now, lol

Or furiously googling the battleships war records.

[Hans]

he'll find that the Japanese Battleship except for the newly launched Yamato were equal to the modernized US BB and the American ones were actually a bit newer than them.

He's also unable to determine that the BB admirals still had tight control of the US doctrine. At the Army navy football match that year a big banner was floated

I paraphrase

'No battleship under way has ever been sunk by an aircraft"

Which was true but the year prior to that it had said

'No battleship has ever been sunk by an aircraft' the Italian experience vs Swordsfish had made them change the banner.....

[SpringHallConvert]

Which is why most of them were raised, repaired and sent into the fight. Yes, that that makes sense when you really want to get rid of your ships.

We still needed some ships to fight the war with, of course, but we needed to get into that war a whole lot more. Those old battle wagons served their purpose as bait/cannon fodder on December 7, then they were raised to fight another day.

Too bad Roosevelt couldn't raise from the dead those 2,000 sailors he had murdered.

[SpringHallConvert]

SHC you are a troll who constantly asked for information - which you reject

You provide no information

I will not provide you information on your claims

Either provide the information or concede the points

You don't have any information. That's the whole problem. All you have is propaganda and opinions dressed up as "facts" when they are really not.

Now prove your conspiracy theory or concede the point, sweetie.

[SpringHallConvert]

he'll find that the Japanese Battleship except for the newly launched Yamato were equal to the modernized US BB and the American ones were actually a bit newer than them.

He's also unable to determine that the BB admirals still had tight control of the US doctrine. At the Army navy football match that year a big banner was floated

I paraphrase

'No battleship under way has ever been sunk by an aircraft"

Which was true but the year prior to that it had said

'No battleship has ever been sunk by an aircraft' the Italian experience vs Swordsfish had made them change the banner.....

All false. No proof. Just conjecture.

Rejected.

[AJM8125]

First we have:

Those battleships sunk at Pearl were largely obsolete and too slow for carrier operations, which is why they were sacrificed. They had to be replaced anyway, and new battleships were either being planned or built to do just that. Roosevelt had to have an excuse to get into that war, and he needed a few thousands corpses to do it.

Then after you're proven wrong yet again, we now have:

We still needed some ships to fight the war with, of course, but we needed to get into that war a whole lot more. Those old battle wagons served their purpose as bait/cannon fodder on December 7, then they were raised to fight another day.

What's wrong with admitting that you're wrong?

[Mudcat]

So SHc has gone from acusing Roosevelt of having advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor attacks to outright murder? That's some outrageous accusations... that would need some evidence to back it up. I don't suppose you'll be presenting that any time soon SHC?

[SpringHallConvert]

What's wrong with admitting that you're wrong?

OK. You're right. I'll admit I was wrong.

I was wrong to believe you guys had any idea what you were talking about in this thread. You've proven me wrong by being completely clueless about our concentration camp president.

Happy now?

[SpringHallConvert]

So SHc has gone from acusing Roosevelt of having advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor attacks to outright murder? That's some outrageous accusations... that would need some evidence to back it up. I don't suppose you'll be presenting that any time soon SHC?

Sure, just as soon as you prove that the attacks were a surprise to Roosevelt.

Good luck!

[AJM8125]

OK. You're right. I'll admit I was wrong.

I was wrong to believe you guys had any idea what you were talking about in this thread. You've proven me wrong by being completely clueless about our concentration camp president.

Happy now?

Empty rhetoric and won't admit it when you've tripped over your own BS. How unexpected.

[Mudcat]

Sure, just as soon as you prove that the attacks were a surprise to Roosevelt.

Good luck!

Um... no. In a court of law it is the prosecuter (that would be you, by the way) that has to provide evidence. All a defendant has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the evidence presented.

Present your evidence that Roosevelt had advanced knowledge of the attacks. Present your evidence that he did nothing to thwart the attacks. Present your evidence that he murdered anyone (you might want to look up what that word means by the way, because it doesn't mean what you think it means). And while you're at it provide your evidence that the interment camps were in fact concentration camps (and you might want to look up the definitions for those two terms as well, because they are mutually exclusive).

Well? What are you waiting for? Get to it!

[Corsair 115]

If you were a Japanese person do you think you could still defend using the bomb?


I'll repeat: anger at the U.S. for dropping the bombs is misdirected. Instead, the anger should be directed against the Japanese government which stubbornly insisted on continuing a war it had clearly lost many months earlier. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese and non-Japanese lives could have been saved by the simple act of the Japanese government recognizing its hopeless position and surrendering early in 1945 rather than continue to futilely fight the war.

The same criticism, incidentally, applies to the German government. After its defeat in the Battle of the Bulge there could be no doubt any longer that Germany was finished. It was only a matter of time. Yet its leadership exhibited the same futile stubbornness and fought on for months afterwards, consigning a great many of its own citizens to needless deaths.

Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are actually the responsibility of the deluded governments of Germany and Japan and their decision to continue to fight when it was abundantly clear to anyone with even half a brain that they had long ago lost the war.

[Corsair 115]

We had one Yamato, interestingly none of the other Japanese battleships were commissioned after that date (1925) - but modernized - the Oklahoma and such would have been quite capable of taking on the Kongo, Fuso, Ise and perhaps the two Nagato classes.


The Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico classes had all been reconstructed in the 1930s to modernize them. These modernizations included new boilers, improved internal and external torpedo protection, additional deck armour, changes to the secondary armament, addition of heavier anti-aircraft batteries, new weapons fire control installed, and the superstructures greatly modified.



It was quite obviously correct, as the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor, no matter how you gauge their operational capabilities, did not constitute the entirety of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The heart of the fleet was the handful of fleet carriers, which were all conveniently out to sea on December 7, 1941.


The Saratoga had just entered San Diego after having been drydocked at Bremerton. The Lexington was en route to Midway to deliver fighter aircraft to the island. The Enterprise had delivered fighters to Wake Island and had been expected back in Pearl on Saturday. As it was it several of its dive bombers arrived over the harbor during the battle.


Battleships were only considered the backbone of the fleet by some, and they were quickly proven wrong. Forward-thinking naval experts knew that carriers had replaced the battleship as the fleet operations gold standard, especially after the Battle of Taranto and the sinking of the Bismarck.


Even the Japanese didn't think of the aircraft carrier as the principle weapon of naval war. If they had, they never would have devoted the enormous resources they did to building the four ships of the Yamato class (two of which were finished as battleships; one was converted to an aircraft carrier during the war, and the fourth was cancelled in 1942 when 30% complete).


Those battleships sunk at Pearl were largely obsolete and too slow for carrier operations, which is why they were sacrificed. They had to be replaced anyway, and new battleships were either being planned or built to do just that.


And yet it was the "largely obsolote" battleships which fought in the Battle of Suriago Strait in October 1944 (part of the Battle of Leyte Gulf). These battleships—including the Pearl Harbor veterans Maryland, West Virginia, California, Tennesse, and Pennsylvania—fought a night surface engagement against Japanese battleships. Which the U.S. decisively won.

[Hans]

You don't have any information. That's the whole problem. All you have is propaganda and opinions dressed up as "facts" when they are really not.

Now prove your conspiracy theory or concede the point, sweetie.

Ah no proof provided

I take that as your concession. One more defeat for the troll

[Gawdzilla]

Yes it was luck that US didn't lose its two carriers too. The Japanese thought they had gotten a carrier by mistaking the target ship Utah

Um, even the pilot that hit Utah knew he'd made a mistake. They were told to avoid her but in the heat of battle things can get a little confused. Fuchida was highly upset when he saw that attack.

[Gawdzilla]

Back after a few pots of coffee. 4:18 AM here.

[Captain_Swoop]

Even the Royal Navy that invented the Aircraft Carrier and had a number of modern armoured deck carriers saw them as support ships, they were employed in the early war on Anti Submarine patrol.
Commanders of all the navies thought in terms of Battle Fleets. If carriers had been seen as the main weapon why were modern Battleships still being laid down and constructed? What the Admiralty was worried about was always a lack of Battleships until well into the war.

[SpringHallConvert]

Um... no. In a court of law it is the prosecuter (that would be you, by the way) that has to provide evidence.

Hey, genius, this isn't a court of law. This isn't a trial.

You guys can't be this dense, can you?

[Laton]

Commanders of all the navies thought in terms of Battle Fleets. If carriers had been seen as the main weapon why were modern Battleships still being laid down and constructed? What the Admiralty was worried about was always a lack of Battleships until well into the war.

The Japanese followed the same kind of thinking.

Look at their Yamato class BB's

Yamato was ordered in March 1937, laid down 4 November 1937, launched 8 August 1940, and commissioned 16 December 1941.

Musashi was ordered in March 1937, laid down 29 March 1938, launched 1 November 1940, and commissioned 5 August 1942

Shinano was laid down in June 1940, in mid-1941 construction temporarily halted to allow personnel and equipment to be utilized for other naval projects in response to approaching hostilities.
1942, after the Battle of Midway, decision made to convert Shinano's unfinished hull into an aircraft carrier. Launched on 8 October 1944.

So even after Pearl Harbor and the proof of what carrier-borne aircraft were capable of, the IJN was still going to build a third Yamato class battleship until their losses at Midway forced a change.

[Gawdzilla]

After Washington the US commissioned:
South Dakota
Indiana
Massachusetts
Alabama
Iowa
Missouri
Wisconsin
New Jersey
and a few "Large Cruisers", basically small battleships with 12" gun batteries.

One Iowa and an entire class of BBs meant to outclass the Yamatos were canceled when it was clear they wouldn't be needed.

[tsig]

Or furiously googling the battleships war records.

You give him too much credit, regurgitation is his forte.

[kookbreaker]

Hey, genius, this isn't a court of law. This isn't a trial.

You still need to provide evidence. Hint: essentially saying 'nuh-uh!' is not evidence.

[Jack by the hedge]

Even the Royal Navy that invented the Aircraft Carrier and had a number of modern armoured deck carriers saw them as support ships, they were employed in the early war on Anti Submarine patrol.
Commanders of all the navies thought in terms of Battle Fleets. If carriers had been seen as the main weapon why were modern Battleships still being laid down and constructed? What the Admiralty was worried about was always a lack of Battleships until well into the war.

And even though they had carried out the Taranto raid which with hindsight was the game-changer, the RN sacrificed Prince of Wales and Repulse by sending them to the defence of Singapore ahead of any carrier support. If they had decided the age of the battleship without carrier protection was over, they would never have thrown those ships away.

[Jack by the hedge]

I've never ever put anyone on ignore. But I'm wavering, as this could be a really fascinating thread, only spoiled by the "All your facts are lies so nyaaah nyaaah I win" remarks.

[Border Reiver]

Nope. This is a myth.

This is the Naval Doctrine Manual published in 1944 (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/WarInst/index.html).


See Chapter 12 - Carriers are not the cetral part of the plan - the vision is for aircraft to locate and fix the enemy fleet while the fighting ships engage and destroy.

[Mudcat]

Hey, genius, this isn't a court of law. This isn't a trial.

You guys can't be this dense, can you?

No it isn't a court of law, for which you should very much be greatful.

You are still the accusing party to the burden of proof (the burden to provide evidence needed to support your accusations) is on you, the accuser. You may start providing said evidence any time now.

[000063]

This is the Naval Doctrine Manual published in 1944 (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/WarInst/index.html).


See Chapter 12 - Carriers are not the cetral part of the plan - the vision is for aircraft to locate and fix the enemy fleet while the fighting ships engage and destroy.

Nope. You can't use a government source. Even when it's something that no one would have any reason to fake WRT to the alleged conspiracy, and there were, at the very least, thousands of people who have read the relevant section of the manual. Heck, you can probably find a few physical copies floating around.

/SHC logic

[000063]

No it isn't a court of law, for which you should very much be greatful.

You are still the accusing party to the burden of proof (the burden to provide evidence needed to support your accusations) is on you, the accuser. You may start providing said evidence any time now.
I'm trying to imagine a prosecutor who refuses to present evidence and just keeps saying the defense can't prove anything. Even Phoenix Wright's prosecutors are better than that.

[Gawdzilla]

Nope. You can't use a government source. Even when it's something that no one would have any reason to fake WRT to the alleged conspiracy, and there were, at the very least, thousands of people who have read the relevant section of the manual. Heck, you can probably find a few physical copies floating around.

I'm currently working on "USN Fleet Problem XX, 1939". The author of this work thinks CVs will be so threatened by heavy land-based bombers as to be of no use in the coming war. The last section is "Well Aircraft Carriers Survive".

[Biscuit]

You want the truth about FDR well here you go.

-R898wegx6Y

[000063]

...
But I've always been contrary like that. I'm half Scottish and half-Southern US - and I can't stand post-Culloden boo-hoo pity parties, and I want to kick every 'lost causer' in the head.So, stereotypically, you're a) really cheap, and b)own a lot of guns?

[000063]

What good would it do you? It's like trying to explain calculus to a brick wall in here.Which is remarkable, because every time you've tried to "explain" anything at all, you got trounced. And so, you rationalize it as the flaw being on the side of the people you're talking to, rather than your own viewpoint and/or explanation.

[kookbreaker]

So, stereotypically, you're a) really cheap, and b)own a lot of guns?

Cheap guns, yes.

[aggle-rithm]

Hey, genius, this isn't a court of law. This isn't a trial.

You guys can't be this dense, can you?

It's a forum that promotes skepticism, which generally uses the scientific standard of proof...more strict than legal proof.

[Dancing David]

FDR couldn’t have done that since he went to such an effort to organize a "surprise attack".

Yeah he ordered the Japanese Navy to do it....

[Dancing David]

The government truther ignorance with regard to Pearl Harbor is truly fascinating to behold. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Your inability to provide evidence and then spin is much more amazing.

[Dancing David]

What good would it do you? It's like trying to explain calculus to a brick wall in here.

Uh huh, you have no evidence, that is your problem. I have a unicorn in my garage that poops out diamonds.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hey, genius, this isn't a court of law. This isn't a trial.


It's also not a trusting relationship where we have no reason to doubt the things you say to us.

[Gawdzilla]

It's also not a trusting relationship where we have no reason to doubt the things you say to us.

He's just announcing his dismissal of concern for credibility.

[Cleon]

I always learn a lot about WWII history from threads like this. Many thanks to those of you posting actual information.

(I'm not talking to you, SHC.)

[Corsair 115]

One Iowa ...


Six Iowa class battleships were started; four were completed. The Kentucky (BB 66) was originally laid down on March 7, 1942. Only a small section had been completed before the slip was needed for other work; the work was restarted later and the ship was laid down again on December 6, 1944. The Illinois (BB 65) was laid down on January 15, 1945. Its start had been delayed by more pressing work.


... and an entire class of BBs meant to outclass the Yamatos ...


Ah, yes, the Montana class. 70,000 tons full load, 925 feel long, 28 knots, twelve 16" main guns. Interestingly, its armour was designed to protect against the 'heavy' 2,700 lb. 16" shell. The ships would have been too wide for the Panama canal locks then in existence.

[Craig4]

I've never ever put anyone on ignore. But I'm wavering, as this could be a really fascinating thread, only spoiled by the "All your facts are lies so nyaaah nyaaah I win" remarks.

I put him on ignore and have not lost any enjoyment or education from this thread. It's funny, when you don't have the option to respond you're sort of out side looking in and see the post for the absurdity they are. When I see what he writes now, I can't imagine why I ever lowered myself by interacting with him.

[Mudcat]

It's a forum that promotes skepticism, which generally uses the scientific standard of proof...more strict than legal proof.

Indeed, which is why I tried the legal standard of proof in order to make it easier for SHC to provide any kind of evidence so we can move this argument forward.

But SHC isn't looking for anything rational. He can't be bought, reasoned, educated or negotiated with. He just wants to shot himself in the foot.

In video gaming parliance he's the equivalent of a player who insists on playing on easy mode, with God mode on, infinate ammo, aim asist, a full (idiot proof) walk-through... and still loses to an NPC that isn't even firing back.

[Hans]

I'm currently working on "USN Fleet Problem XX, 1939". The author of this work thinks CVs will be so threatened by heavy land-based bombers as to be of no use in the coming war. The last section is "Well Aircraft Carriers Survive".

Interesting, will this piece be put on line? Did you ever play the War in Pacific game?

[carlitos]

I always learn a lot about WWII history from threads like this. Many thanks to those of you posting actual information.

(I'm not talking to you, SHC.)

Same here on both counts.

[SpringHallConvert]

You still need to provide evidence. Hint: essentially saying 'nuh-uh!' is not evidence.

Well, where is your evidence? When are you going to prove that the concentration camp president was truly surprised?

Saying 'nuh-uh' isn't going to cut it here, pal.

[Hans]

Well, where is your evidence? When are you going to prove that the concentration camp president was truly surprised?

Saying 'nuh-uh' isn't going to cut it here, pal.

Interesting an 'echo' troll he just says back what others say

Welcome to ignore Troll

[SpringHallConvert]

It's a forum that promotes skepticism, which generally uses the scientific standard of proof...more strict than legal proof.

That's great. So when are you going to provide proof that Roosevelt was truly surprised by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor?

[SpringHallConvert]

Interesting an 'echo' troll he just says back what others say

Welcome to ignore Troll

You guys have been echoing me through the entire thread.

I say: Where's your evidence?

You say: Where's your evidence?

I say: I asked first.

You say: You hurt my little feelings! I'm putting you on ignore! Whhhaaa!

[Redtail]

You guys have been echoing me through the entire thread.

I say: Where's your evidence?

You say: Where's your evidence?

I say: I asked first.

You say: You hurt my little feelings! I'm putting you on ignore! Whhhaaa!

Then you won't have any problem pointing out the post in which you asked for evidence first. Go.

[SpringHallConvert]

Then you won't have any problem pointing out the post in which you asked for evidence first. Go.

See what I mean?

You guys will do anything to get out of trying to prove Roosevelt was truly surprised by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

[Gawdzilla]

Interesting, will this piece be put on line? Did you ever play the War in Pacific game?

Yeah, it will be at Hyperwar when I'm finished with it. It's a very old copy, and I have to type it in directly, OCR is out of the question.

And no, not played that.

[SpringHallConvert]

I always learn a lot about WWII history from threads like this. Many thanks to those of you posting actual information.

(I'm not talking to you, SHC.)

Well, I'm not surprised you'd find these people informative.

You are quoting an empty-suit scumbag like Newt Gingrich in your signature, after all.

[kookbreaker]

See what I mean?


No.


You guys will do anything to get out of trying to prove Roosevelt was truly surprised by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

So, when you say 'do anything' you actually mean 'ask for evidence that Roosevelt knew', yes?

[kookbreaker]

Well, I'm not surprised you'd find these people informative.

Yeah! Them people with all their actual information instead of real SHC arguments like 'oh yeah?' and 'nuh-uh!!'


You are quoting an empty-suit scumbag like Newt Gingrich in your signature, after all.

And do you know why he is quoting the man or has trolling made you irony-impaired?

[Redtail]

SHC responses since asked to prove his claim of "I asked first": 2

Proof offered: 0

[dudalb]

Six Iowa class battleships were started; four were completed. The Kentucky (BB 66) was originally laid down on March 7, 1942. Only a small section had been completed before the slip was needed for other work; the work was restarted later and the ship was laid down again on December 6, 1944. The Illinois (BB 65) was laid down on January 15, 1945. Its start had been delayed by more pressing work.





Ah, yes, the Montana class. 70,000 tons full load, 925 feel long, 28 knots, twelve 16" main guns. Interestingly, its armour was designed to protect against the 'heavy' 2,700 lb. 16" shell. The ships would have been too wide for the Panama canal locks then in existence.

A number of the tactical naval wargames out have the Montana class ships as a "what if". A slugging match between them and the Yamatos are a lot of fun.

[dudalb]

Yeah! Them people with all their actual information instead of real SHC arguments like 'oh yeah?' and 'nuh-uh!!'



And do you know why he is quoting the man or has trolling made you irony-impaired?

Anybody familiar with Cleon;'s political views would find the idea of him quoting Newt Gringrich in an approving way drop dead funny.

[Mudcat]

See what I mean?

You guys will do anything to get out of trying to prove Roosevelt was truly surprised by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

Your only piece of evidence for "Roosevelt knew it was coming" so far seems to be a mere footnote in a memo that the president may or may not have seen. Not very strong evidence there, SHC.

Meanwhile in historical reality:
Japan launched an un-anouched attack that the president never received any actionable intelligence report warning of the attack and the attack landed, killing thousands in the process. Without any evidence to the contrary the only reasonable conclusion was that it was a successful sneak attack.

[Biscuit]

IIRC correctly they suspected Japan would launch an attack but they didn't know where and hadn't considered Pearl harbor as one of the targets.

[Hans]

SHC responses since asked to prove his claim of "I asked first": 2

Proof offered: 0

He's just a troll doing troll things, lol

[SpringHallConvert]

Japan launched an un-anouched attack that the president never received any actionable intelligence report warning of the attack and the attack landed, killing thousands in the process.

Can you provide credible evidence for this claim?

Without any evidence to the contrary the only reasonable conclusion was that it was a successful sneak attack.

No, you first have to prove the prior claim. How do you really know what actionable intelligence the president received? Remember, we have no choice but to rely on the U.S. government's word here, and if the government did allow the attacks, it's not like they'd willingly admit it or release evidence that they were complicit.

[Redtail]

SHC Responses since claim: 3

Proof of claim provided: 0

[Biscuit]

How do you really know what actionable intelligence the president received? Remember, we have no choice but to rely on the U.S. government's word here, and if the government did allow the attacks, it's not like they'd willingly admit it or release evidence that they were complicit.


I see what you did here. A lack of evidence is all the evidence you need.

[Captain_Swoop]

Can you provide credible evidence for this claim?



No, you first have to prove the prior claim. How do you really know what actionable intelligence the president received? Remember, we have no choice but to rely on the U.S. government's word here, and if the government did allow the attacks, it's not like they'd willingly admit it or release evidence that they were complicit.

Established historical record is that it was a surprise attack. IF you want to claim otherwise then it's up to you to support that claim.

Saying you don't believe the govt isn't enough. Multiple lines of evidence support the current record. What have you got?

[SpringHallConvert]

I see what you did here. A lack of evidence is all the evidence you need.

A 'lack of evidence' leads to 'speculation' and 'theorizing'.

You guys are faced with a lack of evidence, and this means you are speculating and theorizing about what really happened with Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. You don't know what really happened, you only think you do. You are Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists who subscribe to the "official" conspiracy theory approved by the U.S. government and court historians.

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you are honest about it.

[Cleon]

Well, I'm not surprised you'd find these people informative.

You are quoting an empty-suit scumbag like Newt Gingrich in your signature, after all.

There's nothing empty about Newt's suit. It's filled with ego, hubris, and good old-fashioned chutzpah.

Anybody familiar with Cleon;'s political views would find the idea of him quoting Newt Gringrich in an approving way drop dead funny.

Not nearly as funny as I do. :D

[SpringHallConvert]

Established historical record is that it was a surprise attack.

Who says it's "established"? Just because it's in a bunch books doesn't mean it's "established". Tons of conspiracy theories are listed in books. Your conspiracy theory just happens to be the one approved by the U.S. government.

IF you want to claim otherwise then it's up to you to support that claim.

No, it doesn't work that way. Your conspiracy theory doesn't get to be "right" by default. It's nobody's responsibility to prove it wrong. It's your responsibility to prove it right, and none of you have done that. Until you do it's just another conspiracy theory competing among other conspiracy theories.

Saying you don't believe the govt isn't enough.

By the same token, saying you do believe the government isn't enough either.

Multiple lines of evidence support the current record. What have you got?

Correction:

Multiple lines of evidence *which are controlled and disseminated by the U.S. government* support the current record.

This is the functional equivalent of letting a Mafia control the investigation and narrative around a diamond heist and then believing them when they tell you they weren't involved. They can selectively show you evidence that proves they weren't involved, but are you automatically going to believe them?

No, not unless you are a total moron.

[Redtail]

SHC responses since claim: 5

Proof offered: 0

[DGM]

*which are controlled and disseminated by the U.S. government*
And your proof for this is what? Your claim.

[Redtail]

He's just a troll doing troll things, lol

True... but his floundering can be useful.:D

[Gawdzilla]

IIRC correctly they suspected Japan would launch an attack but they didn't know where and hadn't considered Pearl harbor as one of the targets.

The idea was a possibility, but a weak one. We didn't know the IJN could refuel their ships at sea for such a voyage, the "obvious" axis of advance was south, Oahu was supposed to be a "fortress", etc. The Army was charged with keeping the Fleet safe when it was in port, and Gen. Short was under the assumption that the Navy was doing long distance recon. There were mistakes enough to go around, of course.

[DGM]

Multiple lines of evidence *which are controlled and disseminated by the U.S. government* support the current record.



So you admit we have evidence you just dismiss it for reasons you can't substantiate.


Glad you cleared that up.

[Captain_Swoop]

Who says it's "established"? Just because it's in a bunch books doesn't mean it's "established". Tons of conspiracy theories are listed in books. Your conspiracy theory just happens to be the one approved by the U.S. government.



No, it doesn't work that way. Your conspiracy theory doesn't get to be "right" by default. It's nobody's responsibility to prove it wrong. It's your responsibility to prove it right, and none of you have done that. Until you do it's just another conspiracy theory competing among other conspiracy theories.



By the same token, saying you do believe the government isn't enough either.



Correction:

Multiple lines of evidence *which are controlled and disseminated by the U.S. government* support the current record.

This is the functional equivalent of letting a Mafia control the investigation and narrative around a diamond heist and then believing them when they tell you they weren't involved. They can selectively show you evidence that proves they weren't involved, but are you automatically going to believe them?

No, not unless you are a total moron.

So the US Govt is the only source of historical record?

[SpringHallConvert]

And your proof for this is what? Your claim.

Who else, other than the U.S. government, has unfettered access to records of U.S. government intelligence assessments, communications, and classified material?

By controlling the release of in-house information, the U.S. government controls the narrative. If the U.S. government claims they had no knowledge of something, you can't disprove it either way because they control the flow of information.

[Mudcat]

Can you provide credible evidence for this claim?
Nothing you would accept as credible evidence, I'm certain. I should probably note I only have a passing interest in Pearl Harbor. It's as cut and dried, open and shut case as it gets.



No, you first have to prove the prior claim. How do you really know what actionable intelligence the president received? Remember, we have no choice but to rely on the U.S. government's word here, and if the government did allow the attacks, it's not like they'd willingly admit it or release evidence that they were complicit.

Read again, with comprehension: In absence of any contrary evidence the only reasonable conclusion was that it was a successful sneak attack.

You'll be providing the grounds that sheds reasonable doubt on that statement sometime soon I assume?

[Mudcat]

So the US Govt is the only source of historical record?

Why do the CTs fail to consider this point?

[Border Reiver]

Except in this case the mafia's record is corroborated by the Yakuza's since the records of the IJN confirm that the attack surprised the Americans.

[Gawdzilla]

Except in this case the mafia's record is corroborated by the Yakuza's since the records of the IJN confirm that the attack surprised the Americans.

They were desperately hoping for complete surprise, but the whack jobs claim is that FDR aided and abetted in that surprise by withholding information from Kimmel and Short. The facts say otherwise. It was Kimmel's decision to keep the Fleet in Pearl after receiving warnings of serious ka-ka looming PDQ. The Fleet was in that bathtub because the immediate area commander made that call.

[Biscuit]

A 'lack of evidence' leads to 'speculation' and 'theorizing'.

You guys are faced with a lack of evidence, and this means you are speculating and theorizing about what really happened with Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. You don't know what really happened, you only think you do. You are Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists who subscribe to the "official" conspiracy theory approved by the U.S. government and court historians.

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you are honest about it.

Nope. Your claim is that because there is no evidence for your claims it's evidence that your evidence has been concealed. It's just silly.

[SpringHallConvert]

Nothing you would accept as credible evidence, I'm certain. I should probably note I only have a passing interest in Pearl Harbor. It's as cut and dried, open and shut case as it gets.

No, not really. It's only open and shut for those who wish to subscribe to the official conspiracy theory. For those who don't, the debate rages on.

Read again, with comprehension: In absence of any contrary evidence the only reasonable conclusion was that it was a successful sneak attack.

Why is it reasonable to conclude that the attack was a surprise? Because the government said so? Unlike you, I don't assume the government told us the truth. Therefore, from my point of view, in absence of any contrary evidence the only reasonable conclusion was that it wasn't a surprise to our government.

You'll be providing the grounds that sheds reasonable doubt on that statement sometime soon I assume?

Right back at you.

[SpringHallConvert]

Nope. Your claim is that because there is no evidence for your claims it's evidence that your evidence has been concealed. It's just silly.

False.

I'm claiming we have no way of knowing whether evidence has been concealed or not. You believe it hasn't been while I believe it has been.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Laton]

Why do the CTs fail to consider this point?

Apparently, not only is the US Govt. the only source of information on the Pearl attack but the government itself is an enormous monolithic entity and the people who would have complied these mythical reports for the President would have never noticed that the government story is a fabrication and mentioned it to anyone.

Leaving SHC's nonsense aside.

It's my understanding that the US viewed war with Japan as inevitable, based on their incursions in China and aggressive posturing in the Pacific. That while an attack was expected, it was the timing and the location that was a surprise. Pearl Harbour was on the list of possible targets but the Philippines was considered a much more likely target.

[SpringHallConvert]

Except in this case the mafia's record is corroborated by the Yakuza's since the records of the IJN confirm that the attack surprised the Americans.

How would the IJN really know if the attack surprised our government? How would they have confirmed such a thing?

Just because the commanders, sailors, and airmen at Pearl Harbor were surprised doesn't necessarily mean our government was surprised.

[Redtail]

Responses since SHC claim: 9

Proof offered by SHC for claim: 0

[Gawdzilla]

Apparently, not only is the US Govt. the only source of information on the Pearl attack but the government itself is an enormous monolithic entity and the people who would have complied these mythical reports for the President would have never noticed that the government story is a fabrication and mentioned it to anyone.
Bingo. They're really that stupid. The fact that Republicans were slathering for FDR's blood and would have jumped on a real "Just Let It Happen"(tm) seems to have escaped them. Of course the Dems and Repubs were and are in bed with each other, any apparent conflict is a construct to confuse the sheeple.
Leaving SHC's nonsense aside.
Done.
It's my understanding that the US viewed war with Japan as inevitable, based on their incursions in China and aggressive posturing in the Pacific. That while an attack was expected, it was the timing and the location that was a surprise. Pearl Harbour was on the list of possible targets but the Philippines was considered a much more likely target.
The timing of the attack, prior to any declaration of war (one wasn't even written yet) certainly contributed to the disaster, but there are those who would say Kimmel and Short should have been ready for an attack even if they didn't expect one.

[kookbreaker]

No, not really. It's only open and shut for those who wish to subscribe to the official conspiracy theory. For those who don't, the debate rages on.

Debate? What debate? Saying this is a 'debate' is like saying the local Army base is 'at war' with the end of the target shooting range! Your side of the debate has nothing, nothing at all!

[SpringHallConvert]

They were desperately hoping for complete surprise, but the whack jobs claim is that FDR aided and abetted in that surprise by withholding information from Kimmel and Short. The facts say otherwise. It was Kimmel's decision to keep the Fleet in Pearl after receiving warnings of serious ka-ka looming PDQ. The Fleet was in that bathtub because the immediate area commander made that call.

Perhaps the immediate area commander only made that call because he was deliberately kept in the dark about what was really headed his way?

You don't know, you only think you do.

[Redtail]

Bingo. They're really that stupid. The fact that Republicans were slathering for FDR's blood and would have jumped on a real "Just Let It Happen"(tm) seems to have escaped them. Of course the Dems and Repubs were and are in bed with each other, any apparent conflict is a construct to confuse the sheeple.

Done.

The timing of the attack, prior to any declaration of war (one wasn't even written yet) certainly contributed to the disaster, but there are those who would say Kimmel and Short should have been ready for an attack even if they didn't expect one.

See, that's what I don't get. Ready how?

[SpringHallConvert]

Debate? What debate? Saying this is a 'debate' is like saying the local Army base is 'at war' with the end of the target shooting range! Your side of the debate has nothing, nothing at all!

False.

I have just as much as your side, since both sides can only speculate as to what the Roosevelt administration really knew about the oncoming attack.

Your speculative guesses are no better than mine.

[Laton]

False.

I have just as much as your side, since both sides can only speculate as to what the Roosevelt administration really knew about the oncoming attack.

Your speculative guesses are no better than mine.

Do I spy a moving goalpost?

We've gone from just Roosevelt himself to the entire administration - an even dumber claim on SHC's part I'd think.

[The Dark Lord]

SHC can't prove that I have never seen his mother naked. If he claims that I am lying, he is just speculating. He doesn't really know. And so I win.

Ha, ha, ha!

[Gawdzilla]

See, that's what I don't get. Ready how?

They were given warnings that the Japanese were ready to move, "in any direction" and to be prepared. That means getting ready for war. Short, however, only focused on sabotage of his own forces, despite the fact that the only reason his troops were on Oahu was to protect the fleet when it was in port. Kimmel increased anti-submarine protection, but kept the Fleet in port. Even worse for Kimmel was the fact that the Japanese only tried the attack because Kimmel had the fleet on "banker's hours" and thus became predictable enough from the IJN to risk the venture.

[Redtail]

They were given warnings that the Japanese were ready to move, "in any direction" and to be prepared. That means getting ready for war. Short, however, only focused on sabotage of his own forces, despite the fact that the only reason his troops were on Oahu was to protect the fleet when it was in port. Kimmel increased anti-submarine protection, but kept the Fleet in port. Even worse for Kimmel was the fact that the Japanese only tried the attack because Kimmel had the fleet on "banker's hours" and thus became predictable enough from the IJN to risk the venture.

I recall an interview with one of Short's sailors saying they were supposed to look out for sabotage which is what I thought the whole fleet was doing.

Didn't know that Kimmel's guys were on that predictable a schedule though.

[SpringHallConvert]

The fact that Republicans were slathering for FDR's blood and would have jumped on a real "Just Let It Happen"(tm) seems to have escaped them.

According to whom? Who says this was the case? The corporate media? The political establishment in BrainWashington, D.C.? Court historians? Why do your arguments rely on this notion of perfect competition and separation between the two parties?

Of course the Dems and Repubs were and are in bed with each other, any apparent conflict is a construct to confuse the sheeple.

Sure, and why not? Both parties have displayed a knack for seamlessly carrying out each other's policies, wars, and occupations. Rarely do you see the parties overturning legislation created by the opposing party.

What better way to keep power than to convince those you rule that they have a choice when they really don't?

[Dancing David]

Who else, other than the U.S. government, has unfettered access to records of U.S. government intelligence assessments, communications, and classified material?

By controlling the release of in-house information, the U.S. government controls the narrative. If the U.S. government claims they had no knowledge of something, you can't disprove it either way because they control the flow of information.

Really, what kind of secrets lock is there on FDR's papers. How long is it?

[Border Reiver]

How would the IJN really know if the attack surprised our government? How would they have confirmed such a thing?

Just because the commanders, sailors, and airmen at Pearl Harbor were surprised doesn't necessarily mean our government was surprised.

Because rational beings don't "just let it happen.". If you want a war you do not allow your top assets get attacked with a minimal ability to avoid catastrophic damage. You don't cripple yourself to get into a fight, hoping that you can be healed by the time the final round turns up.

Roosevelt felt that the European Axis was the main show, letting Japan attack was no guarantee that he'd get the European war he thought needed to be fought. Fortunately, a certain failed art student and former corporal obliged and declared war.

[Dancing David]

False.

I'm claiming we have no way of knowing whether evidence has been concealed or not. You believe it hasn't been while I believe it has been.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I have a giant in my garage it takes the diamonds that my unicorn poops out and makes them into computer parts.

[Dancing David]

False.

I have just as much as your side, since both sides can only speculate as to what the Roosevelt administration really knew about the oncoming attack.

Your speculative guesses are no better than mine.

So all of FDR's memos are under secret lock?

[kookbreaker]

False.

I have just as much as your side, since both sides can only speculate as to what the Roosevelt administration really knew about the oncoming attack.

Your speculative guesses are no better than mine.

Nonsense. We have records, we have diaries, and we have the information that was available to FDR. Unless FDR was able to astrally project to see the IJN fleet in motion there is no indication that he knew the attack was coming. This was all provided to you, but you declined to look at it, preferring to play games instead.

If FDR knew, then he had to get that information from someone. More than just 'someone', probably dozens if not hundreds of 'someones'. Naval and diplomatic intelligence information doesn't show up magically on the President's desk. It has to be gathered, filtered, analyzed, and summarized. That involves lots of people, and the idea that all of these people kept quiet for decades about their comrades being slaughtered and the Pacific fleet crippled defies logic in just about every way possible. Only in the minds of CT fools can this kind of human behavior take place, a reflection of their own mindsets rather than those of real human beings.

In the meantime all that you can do is claim is that some mysterious,, unnamed, unverified, and exist only in your imagination classified documents might vindicate your claims. Never mind that these documents didn't write themselves. So you are reduced to twisted 'logic' games that are an insult to the word logic.

We aren't guessing. Every piece of data we have points towards the attack on Pearl Harbor being a surprise. You fantasies and games don't change that one bit.

[Laton]

So all of FDR's memos are under secret lock?

It really wouldn't matter. We could have a diary entry from FDR saying:

"Boy, that whole Pearl Harbor thing came as a complete suprise, those sneaky guys."

and it would just be dismissed as FDR just covering up his knowledge of the attack.

[The Dark Lord]

It really wouldn't matter. We could have a diary entry from FRD saying:



and it would just be dismissed as FDR just covering up his knowledge of the attack.

As I have said before, the only way that SHC could be convinced is if he could go back in time and read FDR's mind.

[kookbreaker]

One of the more laughable parts of the SCH's whole 'the ships were obsolete, LOL!' argument is that he seems to forget that even if the ships were obsolete (they weren't) the Pearl certainly was not. Even if it was the material stored at Pearl certainly wasn't (unless stores of oil are can be considered 'obsolete'. It was very lucky that the Japanese didn't destroy these as that would have made the attack much more devastating as the so-called 'non-obsolete' fleet would have been unable to move.

One thing you can never do in war is plan on the enemy making a specific mistake, so in SHC's world when FDR hears that there will be an attack on Pearl Harbor he just thinks "that's fine, let them attack - I'll just expect them to not attack the Harbor's resources."

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Laton]

As I have said before, the only way that SHC could be convinced is if he could go back in time and read FDR's mind.

It's pretty clear that there is no evidence that SHC would actually accept.

[Gawdzilla]

I recall an interview with one of Short's sailors saying they were supposed to look out for sabotage which is what I thought the whole fleet was doing.
Point of order: Short was Army. However, yes, all military was to be alert for sabotage. There were ~160,000 people of Japanese heritage on Oahu, including ~35,000 who were born in Japan or were Japanese citizens by birth. There were no acts of sabotage during the entire war in the T. H., despite the fact that the Japanese were not rounded up. The local governor protested the very idea of a round-up, stating that Hawaii's economy would collapse overnight if the Isei and Nisei were taken into custody.
Didn't know that Kimmel's guys were on that predictable a schedule though.

This was the basis of Yamamoto's guarantee of a "big bag". Yoshikawa Takeo, a IJN officer working in Hawaii under an assumed name, reported ship's movements for months before the attack and st

[SpringHallConvert]

So all of FDR's memos are under secret lock?

Maybe. Maybe some others were destroyed and/or sabotaged. You don't know.

You only assume you've been given all the real details of what our government truly knew prior to December 7, 1941.

[The Dark Lord]

Maybe. Maybe some others were destroyed and/or sabotaged. You don't know.

You only assume you've been given all the real details of what our government truly knew prior to December 7, 1941.

You only assume that I have not seen your mother naked. You don't really know.

[Redtail]

Point of order: Short was Army. However, yes, all military was to be alert for sabotage. There were ~160,000 people of Japanese heritage on Oahu, including ~35,000 who were born in Japan or were Japanese citizens by birth. There were no acts of sabotage during the entire war in the T. H., despite the fact that the Japanese were not rounded up. The local governor protested the very idea of a round-up, stating that Hawaii's economy would collapse overnight if the Isei and Nisei were taken into custody.
Ah, well it couldn't have been Short's man then... (I wonder if I'm mixing up names from "Tora, Tora, Tora"...)
At any rate that's what i thought was going on with the sabotage threat.


This was the basis of Yamamoto's guarantee of a "big bag". Yoshikawa Takeo, a IJN officer working in Hawaii under an assumed name, reported ship's movements for months before the attack and st
I see.

[Redtail]

SHC posts since claim: 13

Proof provided by SHC: None.

[SpringHallConvert]

We aren't guessing. Every piece of data we have points towards the attack on Pearl Harbor being a surprise. You fantasies and games don't change that one bit.

False. You are guessing, as you can't be certain that you've been provided a full picture of all the evidence by the government.

Like you said, fantasies and games don't change that one bit.

[Gawdzilla]

Since "Tora, Tora, Tora" has been mentioned, I'd just like to repeat that Yamamoto's quote at the end of that movie has less evidence than anything SHC has said so far. (Is he still posting in this thread?)

[kookbreaker]

False. You are guessing,


No, we are working with the overall picture of evidence. That is not guessing.


as you can't be certain that you've been provided a full picture of all the evidence by the government.

Like I said, your dreams of hidden documents is not considered anything but laughable fantasies.


Like you said, fantasies and games don't change that one bit.

Yup. Like I said. But I am not fantasizing or playing games. I'm working with evidence.

[SpringHallConvert]

No, we are working with the overall picture of evidence. That is not guessing.

How do you know you have all the relevant evidence? How do you know the government isn't withholding key evidence?

You don't, therefore you are guessing.