Why do you not believe/discuss the Pearl Harbor Cts?

[Caustic Logic]

This is the thread where I will argue about Pearl Harbor and the foreknowledge debate, in general terms - any class of evidence and/or questions of motive and means, the role of openness vs. 'National Security' in public discourse, etc. I've always tried to make my analysis independent of morality considerations and about the facts - I'm not about tearing down FDR, or covering for the Nazis, but rather pursuing the complex truth, in the hopes that folks are wise enough to handle it and make a balanced judgment. It could well be argued that if FDR and his cabinet/advisers did follow such a plan, that they are all the more worthy of hero status for making a tough choice of Greek Tragedy type and WWII scale to wake up the nation and save the world.

My position on the issue is, sorry to say, there exists strong points of evidence that the Pearl Harbor debacle was due to a long-term plan to provoke Japan, provide the perfect target, enable and allow the attack, withhold intelligence from the target to ensure surprise, and manipulate the consequences. While there is no proof of this notion, it makes sense from a logic standpoint, and the entirety of evidence I'm aware of is totally consistent with it. I've seen some decent arguments/opinions opposed to this, from on high and all over, but never yet any conclusive counter evidence or unequivocal debunks. There is yet no compelling alternate narrative that doesn't rely on appeal to patriotism/optimism or leave random coincidence the prime player.

Personally I feel this is a special case because of the considerations above, and worth more than the standard agree-disagree-argue formula. Off the bat I would like to draw attention to a few possible valid positions - please check your own views against these and then weigh in with more detail:

1) The evidence contradicts foreknowledge and I'm willing to explain how
2) I'm not sure what is true, but am willing to learn and consider any rational option in pursuit of the truth
3) I'm not sure what is true, and not willing to find out.
4) I have no comment on the foreknowledge debate, because these issues should not be discussed publicly. Best to let sleeping corpses lie.
5) These issues should not be discussed publicly, but I'll still flatly say FDR didn't know, etc., without explaining why.

Alright, so that's the intro. Anyone care to share their thoughts on why there was no such plan, etc.?

 

[Biscuit]

First off your chosen title for this thread is way off. There are at least three active threads on the events at Pearl Harbor.

I'm not about tearing down FDR, or covering for the Nazis, but rather pursuing the complex truth, in the hopes that folks are wise enough to handle it and make a balanced judgment.

What do the NAZI's have to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Who is it that is disguising the truth about pearl harbor to this day? Is it academics from around the world? Is the actual evidence itself lying to us? Is it the illuminati?

It could well be argued that if FDR and his cabinet/advisers did follow such a plan, that they are all the more worthy of hero status for making a tough choice of Greek Tragedy type and WWII scale to wake up the nation and save the world.

This is an interesting twist for a CTer. Hero by way of villainous treason to his own government. I don't think you are being very sincere in this analysis.

My position on the issue is, sorry to say, there exists strong points of evidence that the Pearl Harbor debacle was due to a long-term plan to provoke Japan, provide the perfect target, enable and allow the attack, withhold intelligence from the target to ensure surprise, and manipulate the consequences. While there is no proof of this notion, it makes sense from a logic standpoint, and the entirety of evidence I'm aware of is totally consistent with it.

Full disclosure I nominated you for a stundie for this one. Opinion based on evidence that points to a logical conclusion that is devoid of proof? That should be discarded in favor of a more scientific method.

I've seen some decent arguments/opinions opposed to this, from on high and all over, but never yet any conclusive counter evidence or unequivocal debunks. There is yet no compelling alternate narrative that doesn't rely on appeal to patriotism/optimism or leave random coincidence the prime player.

What evidence are you talking about? Have you read any history books on the events that lead up to WWII? The narrative you have described appeals, as most ct's do, to a very unpatriotic and pessimistic view of America as the omnipotent villain behind everything.

I don't see how a tragic event like pearl harbor could be remembered without being colored with patriotic hues. Why is that a problem?

What random coincidence are you referring to? Do you suggest that Japan did not carefully and skillfully execute a sneak attack?

Personally I feel this is a special case because of the considerations above, and worth more than the standard agree-disagree-argue formula. Off the bat I would like to draw attention to a few possible valid positions - please check your own views against these and then weigh in with more detail:

1) The evidence contradicts foreknowledge and I'm willing to explain how
2) I'm not sure what is true, but am willing to learn and consider any rational option in pursuit of the truth
3) I'm not sure what is true, and not willing to find out.
4) I have no comment on the foreknowledge debate, because these issues should not be discussed publicly. Best to let sleeping corpses lie.
5) These issues should not be discussed publicly, but I'll still flatly say FDR didn't know, etc., without explaining why.

Alright, so that's the intro. Anyone care to share their thoughts on why there was no such plan, etc.?

Put me down for column A. Did we expect Japan was going to attack? Yes. Did we think it would be Pearl Harbor? No.

I strongly suggest you read the following before commenting again.
http://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/center_crypt_history/pearl_harbor_review/index.shtml

I know you said you want to discuss it in general terms but do you plan on providing any evidence for your POV?

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

What do the NAZI's have to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

Ask John Belushi.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

The NSA link that Bisquit provides is valuable. And before you claim that you can't trust the NSA, one of the authors uncovered the Gulf of Tonkin cover-up.

 

[MG1962]

While there is no proof of this notion, it makes sense from a logic standpoint, and the entirety of evidence I'm aware of is totally consistent with it. I've seen some decent arguments/opinions opposed to this, from on high and all over, but never yet any conclusive counter evidence or unequivocal debunks.

What I dont understand. Why do others 60 years on have to attempt to prove this debunking. You have no proof your assertion can be proved, but still expect others to do so.

If FDR and military administrators at the time did anything wrong, it was to misjudge the Japanese mind. Japanese history is littered with audacious and inovative attacks. Often against enemy strong points. Pearl Harbor (since the up grades of the 1930's) Had always caught eye of Japanese planners. FDRs choice to move the fleet there made too attractive to pass up.

In essence the US were preparing to sacrifice Manila, assuming they could not defend everything else. Pearl could become the staging point for any re-invasion. The Japanese saw an oppotunity to push the US all the way back to California. History shows it did not pan out that way

 

[Caustic Logic]

First off your chosen title for this thread is way off. There are at least three active threads on the events at Pearl Harbor.

I know there are, but none started by me, recent and clean, that start with this big picture thing and include the option of not discussing it and why, which I think has been glossed over before. I already have two threads, yeah, but these are on more specific issues but keep meandering into generalist arguments, so this is the place I'd like to take those.

What do the NAZI's have to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

Obviously, the latter led to US war with the former. And a lot of 12/7 Truther types are known to be anti-FDR, or pro-Nazi, right-wing, etc. Just saying that's not me, even if I wind up agreeing with them on Pearl Harbor, the facts anyway, if not the judgments.

Who is it that is disguising the truth about pearl harbor to this day? Is it academics from around the world? Is the actual evidence itself lying to us? Is it the illuminati?

See? That's a big question. Obviously the FDR White House, US Navy, Army, and it seems NSA have ensured that much material remains hidden from view. I feel the UK is also hiding info (that's the alliance again), and perhaps other forces around the world to some extent. But even more so the story is really not secret, just has its own little roadblocks in peoples' own minds. We are disguising the truth from ourselves. And maybe that's good, I dunno...

This is an interesting twist for a CTer. Hero by way of villainous treason to his own government. I don't think you are being very sincere in this analysis.

For war with Spain, or Iraq, or political points, no. But we're dealing with World War 2 here, late 1941. That's very late and it was getting very dark. I only feel I can even approach this openly, and others consider it half-fair, because of that distinction.

Full disclosure I nominated you for a stundie for this one. Opinion based on evidence that points to a logical conclusion that is devoid of proof? That should be discarded in favor of a more scientific method.

Cool, that's a first AFAIK. Please offer the PROOF of your own theory. I await eagerly.

 

[Biscuit]

I did offer you proof, read the NSA article I linked to before you post anything else in response. It will take some time but if you really want a genuine good faith talk about the generalities of Pearl Harbor than we need to be on the same page.

Please feel free to provide any evidence of your own in your response.

 

[Horatius]

Cool, that's a first AFAIK. Please offer the PROOF of your own theory. I await eagerly.

Well, there's the problem. You're asking us to prove a negative. How could we, even in theory, demonstrate that no one in authority in the US had definite intelligence of an attack on Pearl Harbor on that particular day? Should we post the entirety of everything ever known by the US government, and then say, "Nope! Nothing there!"?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry, goofed the previous response:

What random coincidence are you referring to? Do you suggest that Japan did not carefully and skillfully execute a sneak attack?

Well, like the coincidence that US decision to put the fleet at Hawaii indefinitely ooops allowed it to be attacked far easier than at San francisco. That the US 'peace proposal" of Nov 26 was, oops, taken as an ultimatum by the japanese. That Naval intel decisions not to pass certain warnings to Pearl because 'they already knew enough' was, oops, disastrous.

Etc...

Put me down for column A. Did we expect Japan was going to attack? Yes. Did we think it would be Pearl Harbor? No.

Good, then we can talk. Depends on what you mean by "we." And "expect." What do you make of the bomb plot messages?

I strongly suggest you read the following before commenting again.
http://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/center_crypt_history/pearl_harbor_review/index.shtml

I've read two of the links at least, and scanned a couple others. Some good info, I agree. Let's keep that link here for reference.

I know you said you want to discuss it in general terms but do you plan on providing any evidence for your POV?

Yes, I just mean in general I'm open to anything. I was hoping everyone else could take the lead on offering points, since I just don't know where to start.

 

[Caustic Logic]

If FDR and military administrators at the time did anything wrong, it was to misjudge the Japanese mind. Japanese history is littered with audacious and inovative attacks. Often against enemy strong points. Pearl Harbor (since the up grades of the 1930's) Had always caught eye of Japanese planners. FDRs choice to move the fleet there made too attractive to pass up.

Oops! The closest we have to a plausible reason for the Fleet's location is it was "thought" it would have a "restraining effect" on Japanese moves into Indochina, etc. It had proximity but not the strength or readiness for this end, and so served more as a provocation that invited response (calling the bluff). I can illustrate the points with quotes and facts with a little digging.

Can you say for sure this was all miscalculation? Because it's real bad if so, quite deft if the goal was an "overt act of war."

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, there's the problem. You're asking us to prove a negative. How could we, even in theory, demonstrate that no one in authority in the US had definite intelligence of an attack on Pearl Harbor on that particular day? Should we post the entirety of everything ever known by the US government, and then say, "Nope! Nothing there!"?

Also to MG1962 above - I'm not actually looking for proof either way. IMO there is none, and I only asked after Biscuit Stundied me for having no proof. He has none either. We have evidence, of all kinds, on different levels. I'm willing to discuss that.

 

[dudalb]

Ask John Belushi.

Damn. Ya Beat me to it.

 

[dudalb]

Well, like the coincidence that US decision to put the fleet at Hawaii indefinitely ooops allowed it to be attacked far easier than at San francisco.

Uh, the US Fleet was NEVER based at San Francisco 1in the 1930's. It was based at San Diego.
You are shooting yourself in the foot with howlers like that one.
So you admit have no evidence that the fleet was based in Hawaii as a staked out lamb for the Japanese Fleet?

 

[fezzic]

I don't believe Pearl Harbor CTs because, from what I can see, a lot of them try to infer "intentions" on the part of FDR and USN, among others. Now one is trying to guess what FDR, et al, thought. On that basis, there can be all kinds of speculation any one of which could be plausibly valid even if unprovable.

Like hijackers flying civilian passenger airliners into buildings, the idea of a carrier task force sailing, undetected, to Hawaiian waters and delivering a surprise attack aimed at crippling the US Pacific Fleet was not on people's radars -- even if it was played out in war games. Responsible people had to make decisions based on the realities of the day and second-guessing their decisions based on events leads to "if I knew then what I know now" situations of hindsight.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Uh, the US Fleet was NEVER based at San Francisco 1in the 1930's. It was based at San Diego.
You are shooting yourself in the foot with howlers like that one.

The fleet did something at SF, tho maybe the main mooring was at SD. Those are the two ports I'm recalling, but maybe mixed up - Howler, please. West Coast - Hawaii. Point confirmed.

So you admit have no evidence that the fleet was based in Hawaii as a staked out lamb for the Japanese Fleet?

Why would I claim that when I do? Again, no proof, for the sillies who think such things have proof. Let's see...

The Fleet was moved out for a training exercise sometime in early 1940 and was supposed to be sent back. FDR personally was insistent it stay there, first for two weeks, then for some time, then permanently until further notice, no more questions, Hawaii is home. What did the CINCPAC (or diff title at the time), Adm James O. Richardson think of this? Why was he relieved of duty in January 1941 and replaced with Kimmel?

This is an older post I did, but still good. http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-treadmill-admiral-richardson-out-of.html

What I can add now is that in his public testimony, he does not say things like what I quote there, or even that he felt the fleet was vulnerable - just questioned the 'deterrent' rationale. But he was forceful in his efforts to either put the fleet back at CA, or get on war footing with intel and surveillance, and other readiness. And his memoirs reveal he was very concerned about vulnerability to attack, and that it almost seemed desired.

"[FDR's] public statements, of course, did not state what I consider what were his real intentions or beliefs in the matter, which were that we would be at war with Japan in due time, and that he was willing for some ship of the Navy to be the victim of a Japanese “mistake.””

That's just the starting point, how they got there.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't believe Pearl Harbor CTs because, from what I can see, a lot of them try to infer "intentions" on the part of FDR and USN, among others. Now one is trying to guess what FDR, et al, thought. On that basis, there can be all kinds of speculation any one of which could be plausibly valid even if unprovable.

Uh-huh.

If FDR and military administrators at the time did anything wrong, it was to misjudge the Japanese mind.

Etc...

Like hijackers flying civilian passenger airliners into buildings, the idea of a carrier task force sailing, undetected, to Hawaiian waters and delivering a surprise attack aimed at crippling the US Pacific Fleet was not on people's radars -- even if it was played out in war games.

"they" didn't know... coincidence theorists and their mysterious ignorant "they." No one foresaw this possibility? Not enough people? Not clearly enough? Sources? They didn't know how to do radio direction finding on aircraft carriers? Didn't realize they carried aircraft? What?

Who are "they," Fezzic?

 

[theprestige]

Look at a map of the Pacific some time. I mean, really look at it. Take your time. Try to fully grok the distances involved.

One of the major problems with naval warfare--especially early 20th-century naval warfare--is the amount of time it takes to get from Point A to Point B. Another major problem was the amount of fouling a ship's hull would accumulate on a long voyage far from any major shipyard, slowing it down and forcing it to burn more fuel with every additional nautical mile it traveled.

Basing the fleet at Hawaii still meant it was too far away from Japan to make any immediate meaningful counterattack. West Coast bases would have added several more months of costly, unproductive voyaging, before the fleet even arrived in the theater. U.S. naval planners had been wrestling with this problem for over 40 years, by the time Japan attacked.

It was understood that even sortieing from Pearl on Day One, the fleet would still take months to get to the Philippines, and would be in dire need of major maintenance immediately upon arrival. That's why the gradual, island-hopping approach was favored. That's why the Naval Construction Battalions were formed: specifically to follow along behind the fleet as quickly as possible, building shipyards and installing drydocks in favorable harbors all along the route from Hawaii to the Far East.

And even then, some planners for years argued in favor of preempting mid-Pacific island chains, and installing bases there ahead of time, so that whatever hostilities might in future break out, the fleet would already be prepared.

 

[dudalb]

I don't believe Pearl Harbor CTs because, from what I can see, a lot of them try to infer "intentions" on the part of FDR and USN, among others. Now one is trying to guess what FDR, et al, thought. On that basis, there can be all kinds of speculation any one of which could be plausibly valid even if unprovable.

Like hijackers flying civilian passenger airliners into buildings, the idea of a carrier task force sailing, undetected, to Hawaiian waters and delivering a surprise attack aimed at crippling the US Pacific Fleet was not on people's radars -- even if it was played out in war games. Responsible people had to make decisions based on the realities of the day and second-guessing their decisions based on events leads to "if I knew then what I know now" situations of hindsight.

The focus was on the Phillipines and Guam. No one was thinking about an aerial attack on Pearl Harbor. The most they thought would happen is sabotage (which General Short was obbsesive about) and Submarine action off the coast of Hawaii.
As one admiral said after the war: "None of thought the Bastards would have the nerve or take the risk of coming that far East".
And even among the Japanese High Command, it was a controversial decision.
Even Yamamoto expected to lose roughly one third of his fleet in the attack.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Look at a map of the Pacific some time. I mean, really look at it. Take your time. Try to fully grok the distances involved.

As I'm sure the specialists at the time did, considering things like:

[/QUOTE] the amount of time it takes to get from Point A to Point B [...] the amount of fouling a ship's hull would accumulate [...] forcing it to burn more fuel [...][/QUOTE]

Basing the fleet at Hawaii still meant it was too far away from Japan to make any immediate meaningful counterattack.

Do you know this or make it up? Because obviously if that's what war planners calculated, they were wrong.

West Coast bases would have added several more months of costly, unproductive voyaging, before the fleet even arrived in the theater. U.S. naval planners had been wrestling with this problem for over 40 years, by the time Japan attacked.

No, from what I gather they just moved the fleet back in each of the however many years before 1940.

It was understood that even sortieing from Pearl on Day One, the fleet would still take months to get to the Philippines, and would be in dire need of major maintenance immediately upon arrival.

I'm no expert, but here is what a task force of 2 battleships, 2 heavy cruisers, 9 destroyers, 3 submarines, 8 train vessels, and 6 aircraft carriers moved in 12 days:

That's why the gradual, island-hopping approach was favored.

No, I think that was to also take terriitory to, for example:

follow along behind the fleet as quickly as possible, building shipyards and installing drydocks in favorable harbors all along the route from Hawaii to the Far East.

That's a slower process than zipping somewhere, attacking, and zipping away.

 

[MG1962]

Oops! The closest we have to a plausible reason for the Fleet's location is it was "thought" it would have a "restraining effect" on Japanese moves into Indochina, etc. It had proximity but not the strength or readiness for this end, and so served more as a provocation that invited response (calling the bluff). I can illustrate the points with quotes and facts with a little digging.

Can you say for sure this was all miscalculation? Because it's real bad if so, quite deft if the goal was an "overt act of war."

It had nothing to do with a restraining effect on Indo China. It was to discourage them from attacking Pearl Harbor by ceating a situation of unacceptable losses for the IJN.

The Japanese understood the value of Peal as a base, and always intended to attack it. The US in their Rainbow studies arrived at the same conclussion