Pearl Harbor and 9/11

[SDC]

This is something I have noticed recently: Trutherians seem to be justifying their views on 9/11 = LIHOP (at least), by reference to the notion that FDR and the US government provoked the Japanese into the Pearl Harbor attack. Yes, I know this notion has been frequently discussed (Pearl Harbor LIHOP, I mean), and has gotten somewhat into the mainstream; I don't believe it, mind, but it has gotten out.

I'd be glad to hear what others think. Also, am I correct in thinking that this justifying reference is becoming more frequent? If so, perhaps that is because even Trutherians are coming to see that they have no real evidence for 9/11 LIHOP or MIHOP, and so their casts are net... damn, nets are cast ever wider, in desperation.

My first thread. I blush.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

It's not recent. They seem to bring it up anytime they seem to be losing steam and/or cult members.

Quick Google Search of 9/11 truthers and pearl harbor conspiracies... 12/07/06
http://cliopolitical.blogspot.com/2006/12/history-of-pearl-harbor-conspiracy.html

[Pardalis]

It's been discussed over and over here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473

You will hate the word propitious from now on.

[Alferd_Packer]

There is an even older conspiracy theory. Some people thought that the Soux were led by a renagade westpoint officer. After all there was no way that an ignorant teepee dwelling savage could have defeted General Custer!

[ckent2]

That's kind of funny. I can hear them now... "You expect me to believe that the finest military organization in the hemisphere with the most battle tested cannons and horses that history had EVER seen were defeated by some barefoot injuns with bows and arrows!? Come on!!"

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Well, Custer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Custer#Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn) seemed to have misplaced his Gatling guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattling_gun)...

Custer had already weakened his command earlier in the campaign by leaving behind a battery of Gatling Guns, which would certainly have changed the outcome of the battle

I smell Cornspiracy! Why would he leave them behind? It must have been an insoid jerb!

(wiki caveat. YMMV)

[SDC]

There is an even older conspiracy theory. Some people thought that the Soux were led by a renagade westpoint officer. After all there was no way that an ignorant teepee dwelling savage could have defeted General Custer!

This was actually not an unusual theory whenever the Indians proved annoyingly competent at warfare. It was often blamed on unreconstructed Confederates (well, it was just after the Unpleasantness Between the States).

And if you go back to the Colonial period and the Revolutionary War, there were, in the eastern tribes/ nations, leaders with mixed ancestry or educations who fought on the French or British sides (depending on the war).

[SDC]

It's been discussed over and over here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473

You will hate the word propitious from now on.

Yes, I followed this one. Let's make sure not to speak his name aloud.

[dudalb]

I recommend Gordon Prange's books "At Dawn We Slept" as the best account of Pearl Harbor. An essay in the Appendix throughly dismantles the Conspiracy Theories.

[ConspiRaider]

FDR definitely and absolutely and positively wanted to provoke Germany into war with us. Hitler knew that, shrewdly avoided it as long as he could.

But war with Japan? No. Not what FDR wanted. According to the people closest to him when this attack occurred - he was thoroughly shaken and devastated by the attack. His biggest fear was that he'd go down as the worst president in the history of the USA - not preventing that attack.

If you can - check out the PBS special American Experience: FDR.

[Alferd_Packer]

This was actually not an unusual theory whenever the Indians proved annoyingly competent at warfare. It was often blamed on unreconstructed Confederates (well, it was just after the Unpleasantness Between the States).

And if you go back to the Colonial period and the Revolutionary War, there were, in the eastern tribes/ nations, leaders with mixed ancestry or educations who fought on the French or British sides (depending on the war).


I strongly recomend the book "Son of the Morning Star" by Evan S. Connell for anyone interested in the Custer saga. It is an interesting read into how some people are not only unable to learn from past mistakes, but are unable to even recognize past mistakes.

[dudalb]

I strongly recomend the book "Son of the Morning Star" by Evan S. Connell for anyone interested in the Custer saga. It is an interesting read into how some people are not only unable to learn from past mistakes, but are unable to even recognize past mistakes.


I prefer Robert Utley's "Cavalier In Buckskin" as a book on Custer,but Evan S Connels is not bad.

[Firestone]

This is something I have noticed recently: Trutherians seem to be justifying their views on 9/11 = LIHOP (at least), by reference to the notion that FDR and the US government provoked the Japanese into the Pearl Harbor attack. Yes, I know this notion has been frequently discussed (Pearl Harbor LIHOP, I mean), and has gotten somewhat into the mainstream; I don't believe it, mind, but it has gotten out.

I'd be glad to hear what others think. Also, am I correct in thinking that this justifying reference is becoming more frequent? If so, perhaps that is because even Trutherians are coming to see that they have no real evidence for 9/11 LIHOP or MIHOP, and so their casts are net... damn, nets are cast ever wider, in desperation.I also have the impression that the Pearl Harbor reference is now more frequent with 9/11-CTists than say two years ago.
I think the reason is that the specific arguments that were used to "prove" that 9/11 was an inside job (NORAD standdown, faster than freefall, inside the footprint, outside the footprint, pull it, living hijackers, bla, bla, bla ...) have been debunked a hundred times.
The CTists are retreating to more generic conspiracies, essentially the good old NWO. Pearl Harbor, and also the FED-CT's, are part of this generic conspiracy.

My first thread. I blush.Nice. :)

[ElMondoHummus]

Salon.com also has a column on FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracy fantasy here:

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/14/fdr/index.html

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 fantasists have one thing in common: An ability to take isolated details or events, strip them of their context, and then recast them in an absolutely suspicious light. The truth gets wrapped in a package of lies and/or misdirection, and unfortunately that serves as a trap for the uninformed. Hell, I nearly fell for the "steel melting" myth about the Twin Towers way back when; that, in fact, is what got me studying the whole topic of 9/11 conspiracy fantasy.

Anyway, think about the stripping of context to buttress truther arguments when you think about Pearl Harbor fantasy. Haven't we all seen the stuff about Imperial Japanese communications intercepted and decrypted by the US? Sure, that's a fact, but again, look at the context: A good deal of those intercepts weren't decoded until well after the attack, and a few very late into the war. Do the fantasists ever admit that bit of history? And there are so many more examples of that sort of context-stripping and details-isolation in Pearl Harbor fantasy, let alone any other topic of fantasists.

There's so much history there to analyze without the need to make up stuff. Sometimes I wonder why exactly some minds accept the least probable explanation as long as it has a conspiracy angle. It seems so relentlessly paranoid and dysfunctional to do that. If the facts really do point at a conspiracy, that's one thing, but to isolate and manipulate the narrative in order to paint such a picture? That's a whole other thing altogether, and no longer history at that point.

[ElMondoHummus]

Salon.com also has a column on FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracy fantasy here:

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/14/fdr/index.html


Whoops. Forgot to mention: This is an old column I linked, dating back to June 2001.

[MG1962]

The thing with Custer, the Indians pretty much used the same tactics they always did. Custer put himself in the tactical situation where their tactics worked better than his.

Recent battlefied research suggests that rather than 7th being the elite fighting force remembered by history. It was undertrained, poorly supplied and badly led, and was reduced to a rabble fairly early in the battle

[SDC]

Recent battlefied research suggests that rather than 7th being the elite fighting force remembered by history. It was undertrained, poorly supplied and badly led, and was reduced to a rabble fairly early in the battle

Yes. I once read a report on recent battlefield archeology there. Do you have information on that? Any references? I can't remember what it was.

Ever see "They Died with their Boots On"? I think that's the Errol Flynn version.

[N.Texas]

There is an even older conspiracy theory. Some people thought that the Soux were led by a renagade westpoint officer. After all there was no way that an ignorant teepee dwelling savage could have defeted General Custer!


That's funny I just saw August Schellenberg (played Sitting Bull in HBO's "Bury my heart at wounded knee" on a flight from LA. Just the white mans ego at play IMHO.


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0770763/

[MG1962]

Yes. I once read a report on recent battlefield archeology there. Do you have information on that? Any references? I can't remember what it was.

Ever see "They Died with their Boots On"? I think that's the Errol Flynn version.

I will see what I can find for you. The concept was brilliant. They combed the battlefield for bullet cartridges. Then began matching those bullets by profile, in a sense, seeing how a particular gun moved around the battle field. For example, the famous firing line along the ridge was in fact a headlong paniced withdrawal.

One thing they did prove was the Indians version of the last stand. Army obseravtions always claim it was at the top of the hill where the memorial is. But the researches found that a body of mounted troops did attempt a break out down the hill towards a copt of trees at the river. Although they could follow the fighting down the hill. No one has ever found any evidence of the fighting by the river. Very strange

Their conclusion of the force loosing disicipline was based on the clustering of the men. I am no expert on this, but the claim is as men begin to panic in a fight, they cluster closer and closer together. The retrieved cartridges seems to confirm this effect was happening.

[Alareth]

Japan was in Imperialist expansion mode and at some point that would have brought them into direct conflict with the US. They just decided to get it over with before they spread themselves too thin.

As to the US knowing that Japan was going to attack, well yes, they did. Just not in the manner the CT's like to claim. My favorite account of US foreknowledge is the first chapter of "The Codebreakers" by David Kahn

[MG1962]

Japan was in Imperialist expansion mode and at some point that would have brought them into direct conflict with the US. They just decided to get it over with before they spread thems too thin.

As to the US knowing that Japan was going to attack, well yes, they did. Just not in the manner the CT's like to claim. My favorite account of US foreknowledge is the first chapter of "The Codebreakers" by David Kahn

The thing people forget, the Japanese themselves were unsure which way to take the war. Many wanted to go West and take out the back end of Russia, it was only the Armys flat refusual to follow this course of action that brought the country into conflict with the US

And yes the Americans where well aware that a fleet had gotten underway, they just didn't know exactly where they were going

[CptColumbo]

I recommend Gordon Prange's books "At Dawn We Slept" as the best account of Pearl Harbor. An essay in the Appendix throughly dismantles the Conspiracy Theories.
I'll second that.

[Corsair 115]

The thing people forget, the Japanese themselves were unsure which way to take the war. Many wanted to go West and take out the back end of Russia, it was only the Armys flat refusual to follow this course of action that brought the country into conflict with the USThe army did have good reason to be hesitant about attacking Russia — the Japanese knew from first hand experience in 1939 that the Russians could be very tough opponents, something that it took the Germans awhile to learn.

[MG1962]

The army did have good reason to be hesitant about attacking Russia — the Japanese knew from first hand experience in 1939 that the Russians could be very tough opponents, something that it took the Germans awhile to learn.

Absolutely - no disagreement with you - I was more making the observation than a judgement. But for a simple choice, Pearl harbour would not have happened and the whole war would have played very differently. Something conspiracy theorist refuse to believe

[PhantomWolf]

The army did have good reason to be hesitant about attacking Russia — the Japanese knew from first hand experience in 1939 that the Russians could be very tough opponents, something that it took the Germans awhile to learn.

It took the Germans a while to learn because they were kicking the Soviet's butts across the Urals and back to Moscow. Had Hitler been a bit smarter, and taken the undefended Moscow and set up there over the Winter before going south to take the oil field, the Eastern Front might have been a totally different story. Instead because he turned his forces south to the oil fields, it gave time for the Soviets to regroup in Moscow and they were able to stop the German's advance long enough for winter to arrive. That is what dealt the death blow to the Nazi's Eastern war. With their men and vehicles caught out in the Russian countryside during the winter, they froze. Tanks were inoperatable, men were frozen, weapons malfunctioned and the Soviets were able to recall their Siberian forces who were used to fighting in the extreme cold, forcing the German retreat. With the lines broken, supply lines frozens, the Germans had to abandon their vehicles and flee causing the crumbling of the entire Eastern front, and eventually the loss of the war.

[CptColumbo]

The thing people forget, the Japanese themselves were unsure which way to take the war. Many wanted to go West and take out the back end of Russia, it was only the Armys flat refusual to follow this course of action that brought the country into conflict with the US

And yes the Americans where well aware that a fleet had gotten underway, they just didn't know exactly where they were goingPersonally I think the Japanese wanted the Germans to think that they would attack Russia, in return for Hitler declaring war on the US. With the Japanese striking first, the Germans were under no obligation to help, but with the prospect of drawing Stalin's troops back to Siberia the Eastern European front would be easier.

[PhantomWolf]

Personally I think the Japanese wanted the Germans to think that they would attack Russia, in return for Hitler declaring war on the US. With the Japanese striking first, the Germans were under no obligation to help, but with the prospect of drawing Stalin's troops back to Siberia the Eastern European front would be easier.

The Germans really needed the Japanese to attack the Soviets, spliting them between the two fronts. The lasdt thing Germany wanted was a strong ally coming to Britian's aide, and once Japan attacked the US, the Soviets realised that they could mobilize their Siberian forces back to Moscow, a move that proved decisive in the bitter cold of the Russian winter. With those specially trained trooper hitting the frozen German lines, it was never going to be anything but a bloodbath. Pearl Habor was in many ways the turning point of both wars as it brought the US into the Pacific whee the Japanese really had been unchallenged until then, added their strength to European forces on the Western front, and allowed the Soviets to reinforce their troops on the Eastern. Germany was screwed at that point, and Japan was never going to hold out against the full strength of the Allies once Germany was done.

[MG1962]

The Germans really needed the Japanese to attack the Soviets, spliting them between the two fronts. The lasdt thing Germany wanted was a strong ally coming to Britian's aide, and once Japan attacked the US, the Soviets realised that they could mobilize their Siberian forces back to Moscow, a move that proved decisive in the bitter cold of the Russian winter. With those specially trained trooper hitting the frozen German lines, it was never going to be anything but a bloodbath. Pearl Habor was in many ways the turning point of both wars as it brought the US into the Pacific whee the Japanese really had been unchallenged until then, added their strength to European forces on the Western front, and allowed the Soviets to reinforce their troops on the Eastern. Germany was screwed at that point, and Japan was never going to hold out against the full strength of the Allies once Germany was done.

I was watching an excellent documentary about this whole situation recently, till then I didn't realise the magnitude of the decision of the Japanese not to attack. I think ultimately the Soviets would have held on long enough to turn the supply situation around, but I fear the war would have produced casualty figures that dwarfed what ultimately occured

[Alareth]

Pearl harbour

Hey! Foreign guy! Keep your U's out of our Harbor dangit! :rolleyes:

[sackett]

There was (still is? hope not) a rather limp theory that Eisenhower had George Patton killed because Patton was shooting his mouth off too loudly in favor of war with the Russians. As we all know -- well, those of us old enough to remember -- Eisenhower was a tool of the Red conspiracy, so you can see how he'd want a great patriot like Georgie silenced. Traffic accident my aching ash!

And Custer was clearly a false-flag op. Wall Street and the Bank of England (we know who runs them!) lusted for the Western lands so they could expand their railroads and the suspiciously generous rights-of-way that came with them. Who better than George (another military George, take note) to bamboozle into a foolish battle? And don't forget: the Indians were the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel! Kinda falls into place, eh? I mean, just look at their noses!

Pearl Harbor and that Joo Bastard Roosenvelt? Old stuff! Makes yer aryan blood boil, don't it?

Buy me a drink every quarter-hour and I can keep this up all night.

[Corsair 115]

It took the Germans a while to learn because they were kicking the Soviet's butts across the Urals and back to Moscow. Had Hitler been a bit smarter, and taken the undefended Moscow and set up there over the Winter before going south to take the oil field, the Eastern Front might have been a totally different story.Certainly lots of possible outcomes for Barbarossa exist; some of them can easily include the Russians doing much better initially than was the actual case.

There were plenty of reasons for the Russians' poor performance against the Germans early on — the main point is that, overall, Russia was not the pushover that Hitler thought it would be. Japan knew that from their battles against the Russians in 1939. Any nation which had up to 35 million men of military age available, any nation which had the capacity to outproduce its attacker 5 to 1 in armoured vehicles, is an opponent to be taken very seriously.

The German military leadership seriously underestimated the Russians from the start. Considering that the German Army attacked Russia with only 15 more divisions and about 30% more tanks than they had used in the assault westwards in May of 1940, in spite of the land area involved being twenty times the size, begins to illustrate the degree to which the German military leadership did not take Russia as a serious foe. Add in the unimpressive German logistical capacity, having far too few trucks to support its assault forcing it to rely on rebuilding the Russian railway network as the advance progressed, and the prospect for long-term success in Russia begins to look bleak.

[sackett]

An interesting little sidelight on Pearl: Some of the Japanese pilots who flew in the attack were angered to learn later that there had been no declaration of war. They felt that their honor had been dirtied. I agree.

Parallels between Pearl Harbour and September 11 aren't very close. Say what you will about them and their cause, the Japanese came on like men.