FDR knew!

[MisterBeale]

My post was not in reference to anything other than what was apparent at the time. Japan had the biggest navy in the world, by far the most aircraft carriers, an absolute dependence upon imported resources, a history of 'surprise' attacks, and a radical, out-of-control militarist, fascist, right wing government in charge.

From the actual documents I have read on the hearings by Congress on the attack, it does state that they knew there was going to be an attack, they did not know exactly the most important issue of time and place. The US had it's air craft carrier out of the harbor in the event of such an attack and also to do -patrol duty, yet one carrier can't cover much more than a radius of 2-300 miles from the ship...
The idea that the shipping lanes were abandoned is a strategy used when knowing your enemy has a superior force and thus air patrol was the most important way to operate strategically.The commander of Pearl had been alerted and later it was found that he did not stress the use of air patrol to it's furthest extent..

FDR made sure to get the carriers out of Pearl Harbor. The only ships in port that Sunday were WWI era battleships, Which FDR gladly sacrificed for his heinous cause.

Why would FDR sacrifice his battleships when they were the backbone of our Naval defenses? Most of the Admirals were old school naval tacticians. FDR was undersecretary of the Navy in WWI. They loved Battleships and would not willingly give them up

Naval aviation was a new theory pushed primarily by Jimmy Doolittle. The Navy brass begrudgingly built carriers but they were looked at as more support for the surface fleet than offensive weapons

It was not till after Pearl Harbor that Naval doctrine changed to focus on the carriers

Battleships were NOT the backbone of our naval defense....you are duped again by the government historians.

The aircraft carrier was the backbone and the reason why the scumbag FDR had them moved out of Pearl prior to the known attack. The only ships left in port were WWI era battle ships and cruisers. The attack was a total failure for the Japanese, as they sunk ships that meant little. Those damaged were quickly repaired an put back in service. If you knew anything about history, you would know this...but sadly everything you know is wrong.

I am certain you did not know the USS Arizona was commissioned on October 17, 1916. Do you know the date FDR allowed all those sailors to be sacrificed?

FDR and all of his key naval advisors were old school navy tacticians. Aircraft carriers were a new technology and doctrine and tactics were still evolving. The Arizona was only 25 years old....far from ancient (Battleship NJ was in service for almost 50 years)

I have visited Pearl Harbor twice and read extensively...managing to skip the conspiracy rags that you frequent

Nonsense. You keep repeating this lie.

FDR thought highly of Billy Mitchel. He knew the era of the Battleship was over.


The Navy reluctantly agreed to the demonstration after news leaked of its own tests. To counter Mitchell, the Navy had sunk the old battleship Indiana near Tangier Island, Virginia, on November 1, 1920, using its own airplanes. Daniels had hoped to squelch Mitchell by releasing a report on the results written by Captain William D. Leahy stating that, "The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs." When the New-York Tribune revealed that the Navy's "tests" were done with dummy sand bombs and that the ship was actually sunk using high explosives placed on the ship, Congress introduced two resolutions urging new tests and backed the Navy into a corner.[18]


In the arrangements for the new tests, there was to be a news blackout until all data had been analyzed at which point only the official news report would be released; Mitchell felt that the Navy was going to bury the results. The Chief of the Air Corps attempted to have Mitchell dismissed a week before the tests began, reacting to Navy complaints about Mitchell's criticisms, but the new Secretary of War John W. Weeks backed down when it became apparent that Mitchell had widespread public and media support.[19]
Billy Mitchell - Wikipedia

 

[rightwinger]

FDR was a traitor in more ways than one, but his actions leading up to and directly after Pearl Harbor were without question, the acts of a traitor. He should have been hung for what he did. Instead he is lionized as a great man.

This spells it out very clearly and concisely...even the most devoted statist should be able to comprehend...

FDR’s Pearl Harbor Bait
On October 30, 1940, during his campaign for an unprecedented third term as president, Franklin Roosevelt told an audience in Boston,

And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores. The purpose of our defense is defense.

It was a lie. In actuality, FDR was secretly doing everything he could to embroil the United States into World War II to help Great Britain and France defeat Germany.

Why secretly? Because he knew that the American people, having been fed a bill of goods by President Wilson some 20 years regarding World War I, were overwhelmingly opposed to entering another European war.

If Roosevelt wanted to intervene in the war, why didn’t he just send U.S. troops into battle, just as later presidents would do in places like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, Afghanistan, Somalia, and others?

This was during a time when presidents still complied with the constitutional provision that prohibits a president from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. FDR knew that if he went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war, as Wilson had for intervention into World War I, there was no chance that Congress would have consented to it.

So, FDR did everything he could to induce Germany into attacking the United States, including having U.S. warships escort British ships in war zones and even going so far as to track and report on German submarines in the area. Also, under so-called “lend-lease” agreements, FDR began providing armaments to Great Britain.

That’s when he began squeezing Japan. He began demanding that Japan end its brutal military occupation of China. When Japan refused to comply with his order, FDR ordered a freeze on Japanese bank accounts in the United States.

More important, he imposed complete embargo on U.S. oil shipments to Japan, an act that directly threatened the ability of the Japanese military to continue occupying China.

When Japan entered negotiations with the United States in an attempt to avoid war with the U.S., FDR offered terms that he knew would be highly humiliating to the Japanese and that they would never accept. By this time, the United States had broken Japan’s diplomatic code and also possibly its military code (that part is still being held secret by the U.S. military) and so U.S. officials knew that war was imminent.

That’s why U.S. troops were left in the Philippines and why U.S. ships were left at Pearl Harbor. FDR used them as bait for the Japanese to attack. Roosevelt was crafty enough to order U.S. carriers out of Hawaii so that they would still be available for war later on. But he just as craftily left destroyers and cruisers — and the men operating them at Pearl Harbor — so that the Japanese could be lured into attacking and providing FDR with his casus belli. It’s also why Gen. Douglas Macarthur and 10,000 American troops were left in the Philippines. They too were being used as bait.

More at the link......STATISTS PLEASE READ IT>>>>
FDR’s Pearl Harbor Bait - The Future of Freedom Foundation

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor
How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor - Robert Higgs

An Untenable Position Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]

Common response to use economic warfare instead of military warfare

Because Japan invaded China, FDR imposed economic sanctions

Why would we continue to send steel and oil to fuel their military expansion?

What a dupe.

Trump takes a call from the PM of Taiwan and you bitch like a little school girl.

FDR works diligently to instigate a war with Japan and you say it is commonplace.

Damn...you get more stupid with each passing day.

Go back to bed and try again tomorrow.

Do you always play apologetic cynic for Japanese aggression after WWI?

I think it is warranted if and when it can be foreseen drawing the nation into a global conflict, don't you?


If you could foresee a Trump administration pursuing a policy of economic warfare that would lead to a full on nuclear exchange with Russia and China, would you prefer that they avoid an economic war, or pursue it like the Obama and Clinton regimes were doing?

As it stands, it looks like Trump is going to ease tensions. Only time will tell though.

Trump is already declaring economic warfare against China

Looks like he will remove sanctions on his buddy Putin as payback for helping to get him elected

 

[MisterBeale]

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor
How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor - Robert Higgs

An Untenable Position Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]

Common response to use economic warfare instead of military warfare

Because Japan invaded China, FDR imposed economic sanctions

Why would we continue to send steel and oil to fuel their military expansion?

What a dupe.

Trump takes a call from the PM of Taiwan and you bitch like a little school girl.

FDR works diligently to instigate a war with Japan and you say it is commonplace.

Damn...you get more stupid with each passing day.

Go back to bed and try again tomorrow.

Do you always play apologetic cynic for Japanese aggression after WWI?

I think it is warranted if and when it can be foreseen drawing the nation into a global conflict, don't you?


If you could foresee a Trump administration pursuing a policy of economic warfare that would lead to a full on nuclear exchange with Russia and China, would you prefer that they avoid an economic war, or pursue it like the Obama and Clinton regimes were doing?

As it stands, it looks like Trump is going to ease tensions. Only time will tell though.

I do believe that Reagan, Carter, the Bushes all have played economic warfare too, it would be dishonest not to do so..It is form of protest against what a regime is doing...Doing nothing would be worse..

Fair enough. Where does the line from economic war to shooting war end though?

 

[MisterBeale]

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor
How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor - Robert Higgs

An Untenable Position Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]

Common response to use economic warfare instead of military warfare

Because Japan invaded China, FDR imposed economic sanctions

Why would we continue to send steel and oil to fuel their military expansion?

What a dupe.

Trump takes a call from the PM of Taiwan and you bitch like a little school girl.

FDR works diligently to instigate a war with Japan and you say it is commonplace.

Damn...you get more stupid with each passing day.

Go back to bed and try again tomorrow.

Do you always play apologetic cynic for Japanese aggression after WWI?

I think it is warranted if and when it can be foreseen drawing the nation into a global conflict, don't you?


If you could foresee a Trump administration pursuing a policy of economic warfare that would lead to a full on nuclear exchange with Russia and China, would you prefer that they avoid an economic war, or pursue it like the Obama and Clinton regimes were doing?

As it stands, it looks like Trump is going to ease tensions. Only time will tell though.

Trump is already declaring economic warfare against China

Looks like he will remove sanctions on his buddy Putin as payback for helping to get him elected

Only time will tell. It might only be a negotiating tactic. Truly "declaring war," requires action, not rhetoric.

 

[Moonglow]

Common response to use economic warfare instead of military warfare

Because Japan invaded China, FDR imposed economic sanctions

Why would we continue to send steel and oil to fuel their military expansion?

What a dupe.

Trump takes a call from the PM of Taiwan and you bitch like a little school girl.

FDR works diligently to instigate a war with Japan and you say it is commonplace.

Damn...you get more stupid with each passing day.

Go back to bed and try again tomorrow.

Do you always play apologetic cynic for Japanese aggression after WWI?

I think it is warranted if and when it can be foreseen drawing the nation into a global conflict, don't you?


If you could foresee a Trump administration pursuing a policy of economic warfare that would lead to a full on nuclear exchange with Russia and China, would you prefer that they avoid an economic war, or pursue it like the Obama and Clinton regimes were doing?

As it stands, it looks like Trump is going to ease tensions. Only time will tell though.

I do believe that Reagan, Carter, the Bushes all have played economic warfare too, it would be dishonest not to do so..It is form of protest against what a regime is doing...Doing nothing would be worse..

Fair enough. Where does the line from economic war to shooting war end though?

That is up to those running the govt. Japan could have been satisfied with it's gains of oil producing areas they had conquered before Pearl Harbor. yet when in the mindset of megalomaniac the ability to reason is thoroughly discarded for the desire to conquer...Hitler had the same problem as did Mussolini...Had FDR been a megalomaniac, I could see how he would have wanted to start a war. Yet he was not a ruler that had the power or the ability to do so.....

 

[rightwinger]

From the actual documents I have read on the hearings by Congress on the attack, it does state that they knew there was going to be an attack, they did not know exactly the most important issue of time and place. The US had it's air craft carrier out of the harbor in the event of such an attack and also to do -patrol duty, yet one carrier can't cover much more than a radius of 2-300 miles from the ship...
The idea that the shipping lanes were abandoned is a strategy used when knowing your enemy has a superior force and thus air patrol was the most important way to operate strategically.The commander of Pearl had been alerted and later it was found that he did not stress the use of air patrol to it's furthest extent..

FDR made sure to get the carriers out of Pearl Harbor. The only ships in port that Sunday were WWI era battleships, Which FDR gladly sacrificed for his heinous cause.

Why would FDR sacrifice his battleships when they were the backbone of our Naval defenses? Most of the Admirals were old school naval tacticians. FDR was undersecretary of the Navy in WWI. They loved Battleships and would not willingly give them up

Naval aviation was a new theory pushed primarily by Jimmy Doolittle. The Navy brass begrudgingly built carriers but they were looked at as more support for the surface fleet than offensive weapons

It was not till after Pearl Harbor that Naval doctrine changed to focus on the carriers

Battleships were NOT the backbone of our naval defense....you are duped again by the government historians.

The aircraft carrier was the backbone and the reason why the scumbag FDR had them moved out of Pearl prior to the known attack. The only ships left in port were WWI era battle ships and cruisers. The attack was a total failure for the Japanese, as they sunk ships that meant little. Those damaged were quickly repaired an put back in service. If you knew anything about history, you would know this...but sadly everything you know is wrong.

I am certain you did not know the USS Arizona was commissioned on October 17, 1916. Do you know the date FDR allowed all those sailors to be sacrificed?

FDR and all of his key naval advisors were old school navy tacticians. Aircraft carriers were a new technology and doctrine and tactics were still evolving. The Arizona was only 25 years old....far from ancient (Battleship NJ was in service for almost 50 years)

I have visited Pearl Harbor twice and read extensively...managing to skip the conspiracy rags that you frequent

Nonsense. You keep repeating this lie.

FDR thought highly of Billy Mitchel. He knew the era of the Battleship was over.


The Navy reluctantly agreed to the demonstration after news leaked of its own tests. To counter Mitchell, the Navy had sunk the old battleship Indiana near Tangier Island, Virginia, on November 1, 1920, using its own airplanes. Daniels had hoped to squelch Mitchell by releasing a report on the results written by Captain William D. Leahy stating that, "The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs." When the New-York Tribune revealed that the Navy's "tests" were done with dummy sand bombs and that the ship was actually sunk using high explosives placed on the ship, Congress introduced two resolutions urging new tests and backed the Navy into a corner.[18]


In the arrangements for the new tests, there was to be a news blackout until all data had been analyzed at which point only the official news report would be released; Mitchell felt that the Navy was going to bury the results. The Chief of the Air Corps attempted to have Mitchell dismissed a week before the tests began, reacting to Navy complaints about Mitchell's criticisms, but the new Secretary of War John W. Weeks backed down when it became apparent that Mitchell had widespread public and media support.[19]
Billy Mitchell - Wikipedia

The Navy was old school. They knew the way to sink ships was to hit them with naval artillery. Mitchell was a lone voice in the wilderness on the power of naval aviation.

While we were learning that aircraft could sink a ship, Naval tacticians were not willing to abandon Battleships and give the mission over to aircraft carriers

Question: If FDR and his naval advisors considered the Battleship to be so obsolete in 1941 that they would intentionally allow them to be sunk....Why did they build the Missouri and New Jersey?

 

[gipper]

FDR made sure to get the carriers out of Pearl Harbor. The only ships in port that Sunday were WWI era battleships, Which FDR gladly sacrificed for his heinous cause.

Why would FDR sacrifice his battleships when they were the backbone of our Naval defenses? Most of the Admirals were old school naval tacticians. FDR was undersecretary of the Navy in WWI. They loved Battleships and would not willingly give them up

Naval aviation was a new theory pushed primarily by Jimmy Doolittle. The Navy brass begrudgingly built carriers but they were looked at as more support for the surface fleet than offensive weapons

It was not till after Pearl Harbor that Naval doctrine changed to focus on the carriers

Battleships were NOT the backbone of our naval defense....you are duped again by the government historians.

The aircraft carrier was the backbone and the reason why the scumbag FDR had them moved out of Pearl prior to the known attack. The only ships left in port were WWI era battle ships and cruisers. The attack was a total failure for the Japanese, as they sunk ships that meant little. Those damaged were quickly repaired an put back in service. If you knew anything about history, you would know this...but sadly everything you know is wrong.

I am certain you did not know the USS Arizona was commissioned on October 17, 1916. Do you know the date FDR allowed all those sailors to be sacrificed?

FDR and all of his key naval advisors were old school navy tacticians. Aircraft carriers were a new technology and doctrine and tactics were still evolving. The Arizona was only 25 years old....far from ancient (Battleship NJ was in service for almost 50 years)

I have visited Pearl Harbor twice and read extensively...managing to skip the conspiracy rags that you frequent

Nonsense. You keep repeating this lie.

FDR thought highly of Billy Mitchel. He knew the era of the Battleship was over.


The Navy reluctantly agreed to the demonstration after news leaked of its own tests. To counter Mitchell, the Navy had sunk the old battleship Indiana near Tangier Island, Virginia, on November 1, 1920, using its own airplanes. Daniels had hoped to squelch Mitchell by releasing a report on the results written by Captain William D. Leahy stating that, "The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs." When the New-York Tribune revealed that the Navy's "tests" were done with dummy sand bombs and that the ship was actually sunk using high explosives placed on the ship, Congress introduced two resolutions urging new tests and backed the Navy into a corner.[18]


In the arrangements for the new tests, there was to be a news blackout until all data had been analyzed at which point only the official news report would be released; Mitchell felt that the Navy was going to bury the results. The Chief of the Air Corps attempted to have Mitchell dismissed a week before the tests began, reacting to Navy complaints about Mitchell's criticisms, but the new Secretary of War John W. Weeks backed down when it became apparent that Mitchell had widespread public and media support.[19]
Billy Mitchell - Wikipedia

The Navy was old school. They knew the way to sink ships was to hit them with naval artillery. Mitchell was a lone voice in the wilderness on the power of naval aviation.

While we were learning that aircraft could sink a ship, Naval tacticians were not willing to abandon Battleships and give the mission over to aircraft carriers

Question: If FDR and his naval advisors considered the Battleship to be so obsolete in 1941 that they would intentionally allow them to be sunk....Why did they build the Missouri and New Jersey?

Do you not know the aircraft carrier won the war in the Pacific? Please get an education before it is too late.

 

[gipper]

Yep. I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of four years, they are two of Trump's biggest supporters, when they were both vehemently opposed to him at election time.

They're like operation mockingbird on acid.

More transparent than a window.

FDR was a traitor in more ways than one, but his actions leading up to and directly after Pearl Harbor were without question, the acts of a traitor. He should have been hung for what he did. Instead he is lionized as a great man.

This spells it out very clearly and concisely...even the most devoted statist should be able to comprehend...

FDR’s Pearl Harbor Bait
On October 30, 1940, during his campaign for an unprecedented third term as president, Franklin Roosevelt told an audience in Boston,

And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores. The purpose of our defense is defense.

It was a lie. In actuality, FDR was secretly doing everything he could to embroil the United States into World War II to help Great Britain and France defeat Germany.

Why secretly? Because he knew that the American people, having been fed a bill of goods by President Wilson some 20 years regarding World War I, were overwhelmingly opposed to entering another European war.

If Roosevelt wanted to intervene in the war, why didn’t he just send U.S. troops into battle, just as later presidents would do in places like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, Afghanistan, Somalia, and others?

This was during a time when presidents still complied with the constitutional provision that prohibits a president from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. FDR knew that if he went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war, as Wilson had for intervention into World War I, there was no chance that Congress would have consented to it.

So, FDR did everything he could to induce Germany into attacking the United States, including having U.S. warships escort British ships in war zones and even going so far as to track and report on German submarines in the area. Also, under so-called “lend-lease” agreements, FDR began providing armaments to Great Britain.

That’s when he began squeezing Japan. He began demanding that Japan end its brutal military occupation of China. When Japan refused to comply with his order, FDR ordered a freeze on Japanese bank accounts in the United States.

More important, he imposed complete embargo on U.S. oil shipments to Japan, an act that directly threatened the ability of the Japanese military to continue occupying China.

When Japan entered negotiations with the United States in an attempt to avoid war with the U.S., FDR offered terms that he knew would be highly humiliating to the Japanese and that they would never accept. By this time, the United States had broken Japan’s diplomatic code and also possibly its military code (that part is still being held secret by the U.S. military) and so U.S. officials knew that war was imminent.

That’s why U.S. troops were left in the Philippines and why U.S. ships were left at Pearl Harbor. FDR used them as bait for the Japanese to attack. Roosevelt was crafty enough to order U.S. carriers out of Hawaii so that they would still be available for war later on. But he just as craftily left destroyers and cruisers — and the men operating them at Pearl Harbor — so that the Japanese could be lured into attacking and providing FDR with his casus belli. It’s also why Gen. Douglas Macarthur and 10,000 American troops were left in the Philippines. They too were being used as bait.

More at the link......STATISTS PLEASE READ IT>>>>
FDR’s Pearl Harbor Bait - The Future of Freedom Foundation

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor
How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor - Robert Higgs

An Untenable Position Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]

Common response to use economic warfare instead of military warfare

Because Japan invaded China, FDR imposed economic sanctions

Why would we continue to send steel and oil to fuel their military expansion?

What a dupe.

Trump takes a call from the PM of Taiwan and you bitch like a little school girl.

FDR works diligently to instigate a war with Japan and you say it is commonplace.

Damn...you get more stupid with each passing day.

Go back to bed and try again tomorrow.

Do you always play apologetic cynic for Japanese aggression after WWI?

Please do not ask me stupid questions...I don't have time for dat.

 

[Moonglow]

Why would FDR sacrifice his battleships when they were the backbone of our Naval defenses? Most of the Admirals were old school naval tacticians. FDR was undersecretary of the Navy in WWI. They loved Battleships and would not willingly give them up

Naval aviation was a new theory pushed primarily by Jimmy Doolittle. The Navy brass begrudgingly built carriers but they were looked at as more support for the surface fleet than offensive weapons

It was not till after Pearl Harbor that Naval doctrine changed to focus on the carriers

Battleships were NOT the backbone of our naval defense....you are duped again by the government historians.

The aircraft carrier was the backbone and the reason why the scumbag FDR had them moved out of Pearl prior to the known attack. The only ships left in port were WWI era battle ships and cruisers. The attack was a total failure for the Japanese, as they sunk ships that meant little. Those damaged were quickly repaired an put back in service. If you knew anything about history, you would know this...but sadly everything you know is wrong.

I am certain you did not know the USS Arizona was commissioned on October 17, 1916. Do you know the date FDR allowed all those sailors to be sacrificed?

FDR and all of his key naval advisors were old school navy tacticians. Aircraft carriers were a new technology and doctrine and tactics were still evolving. The Arizona was only 25 years old....far from ancient (Battleship NJ was in service for almost 50 years)

I have visited Pearl Harbor twice and read extensively...managing to skip the conspiracy rags that you frequent

Nonsense. You keep repeating this lie.

FDR thought highly of Billy Mitchel. He knew the era of the Battleship was over.


The Navy reluctantly agreed to the demonstration after news leaked of its own tests. To counter Mitchell, the Navy had sunk the old battleship Indiana near Tangier Island, Virginia, on November 1, 1920, using its own airplanes. Daniels had hoped to squelch Mitchell by releasing a report on the results written by Captain William D. Leahy stating that, "The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs." When the New-York Tribune revealed that the Navy's "tests" were done with dummy sand bombs and that the ship was actually sunk using high explosives placed on the ship, Congress introduced two resolutions urging new tests and backed the Navy into a corner.[18]


In the arrangements for the new tests, there was to be a news blackout until all data had been analyzed at which point only the official news report would be released; Mitchell felt that the Navy was going to bury the results. The Chief of the Air Corps attempted to have Mitchell dismissed a week before the tests began, reacting to Navy complaints about Mitchell's criticisms, but the new Secretary of War John W. Weeks backed down when it became apparent that Mitchell had widespread public and media support.[19]
Billy Mitchell - Wikipedia

The Navy was old school. They knew the way to sink ships was to hit them with naval artillery. Mitchell was a lone voice in the wilderness on the power of naval aviation.

While we were learning that aircraft could sink a ship, Naval tacticians were not willing to abandon Battleships and give the mission over to aircraft carriers

Question: If FDR and his naval advisors considered the Battleship to be so obsolete in 1941 that they would intentionally allow them to be sunk....Why did they build the Missouri and New Jersey?

Do you not know the aircraft carrier won the war in the Pacific? Please get an education before it is too late.

Then why were they not manufactured at the same rate as battleships, cruisers and destroyers, before the war?

 

[Moonglow]

FDR was a traitor in more ways than one, but his actions leading up to and directly after Pearl Harbor were without question, the acts of a traitor. He should have been hung for what he did. Instead he is lionized as a great man.

This spells it out very clearly and concisely...even the most devoted statist should be able to comprehend...

FDR’s Pearl Harbor Bait
On October 30, 1940, during his campaign for an unprecedented third term as president, Franklin Roosevelt told an audience in Boston,

And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores. The purpose of our defense is defense.

It was a lie. In actuality, FDR was secretly doing everything he could to embroil the United States into World War II to help Great Britain and France defeat Germany.

Why secretly? Because he knew that the American people, having been fed a bill of goods by President Wilson some 20 years regarding World War I, were overwhelmingly opposed to entering another European war.

If Roosevelt wanted to intervene in the war, why didn’t he just send U.S. troops into battle, just as later presidents would do in places like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, Afghanistan, Somalia, and others?

This was during a time when presidents still complied with the constitutional provision that prohibits a president from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. FDR knew that if he went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war, as Wilson had for intervention into World War I, there was no chance that Congress would have consented to it.

So, FDR did everything he could to induce Germany into attacking the United States, including having U.S. warships escort British ships in war zones and even going so far as to track and report on German submarines in the area. Also, under so-called “lend-lease” agreements, FDR began providing armaments to Great Britain.

That’s when he began squeezing Japan. He began demanding that Japan end its brutal military occupation of China. When Japan refused to comply with his order, FDR ordered a freeze on Japanese bank accounts in the United States.

More important, he imposed complete embargo on U.S. oil shipments to Japan, an act that directly threatened the ability of the Japanese military to continue occupying China.

When Japan entered negotiations with the United States in an attempt to avoid war with the U.S., FDR offered terms that he knew would be highly humiliating to the Japanese and that they would never accept. By this time, the United States had broken Japan’s diplomatic code and also possibly its military code (that part is still being held secret by the U.S. military) and so U.S. officials knew that war was imminent.

That’s why U.S. troops were left in the Philippines and why U.S. ships were left at Pearl Harbor. FDR used them as bait for the Japanese to attack. Roosevelt was crafty enough to order U.S. carriers out of Hawaii so that they would still be available for war later on. But he just as craftily left destroyers and cruisers — and the men operating them at Pearl Harbor — so that the Japanese could be lured into attacking and providing FDR with his casus belli. It’s also why Gen. Douglas Macarthur and 10,000 American troops were left in the Philippines. They too were being used as bait.

More at the link......STATISTS PLEASE READ IT>>>>
FDR’s Pearl Harbor Bait - The Future of Freedom Foundation

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor
How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor - Robert Higgs

An Untenable Position Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]

Common response to use economic warfare instead of military warfare

Because Japan invaded China, FDR imposed economic sanctions

Why would we continue to send steel and oil to fuel their military expansion?

What a dupe.

Trump takes a call from the PM of Taiwan and you bitch like a little school girl.

FDR works diligently to instigate a war with Japan and you say it is commonplace.

Damn...you get more stupid with each passing day.

Go back to bed and try again tomorrow.

Do you always play apologetic cynic for Japanese aggression after WWI?

Please do not ask me stupid questions...I don't have time for dat.

I doubt you have time for non-stupid questions, what with your over emotive state of mind..

 

[there4eyeM]

It must be admitted that world powers at the time were still fascinated with the battleship; those great big guns, you know! That is why Germany built the Bismark and others. It is why Japan built the two largest battleships ever. But, they also built fourteen aircraft carriers. They sensed the evolution to new possibilities, just as the Wehmacht took up dramatically new tactics based upon new capabilities.
Now, the military is fascinated with huge, terribly expensive, hazardously vulnerable aircraft carriers. The cliché continues; generals are always fighting the last war.

 

[gipper]

It must be admitted that world powers at the time were still fascinated with the battleship; those great big guns, you know! That is why Germany built the Bismark and others. It is why Japan built the two largest battleships ever. But, they also built fourteen aircraft carriers. They sensed the evolution to new possibilities, just as the Wehmacht took up dramatically new tactics based upon new capabilities.
Now, the military is fascinated with huge, terribly expensive, hazardously vulnerable aircraft carriers. The cliché continues; generals are always fighting the last war.

Yes...and as it must be admitted, since it is a known fact, dumb fuck warmongering leaders often fight the last war instead of the current one. Hence the fascination with the battleship in the 1940s, when clearly the aircraft carrier was far more important and deadly.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would FDR sacrifice his battleships when they were the backbone of our Naval defenses? Most of the Admirals were old school naval tacticians. FDR was undersecretary of the Navy in WWI. They loved Battleships and would not willingly give them up

Naval aviation was a new theory pushed primarily by Jimmy Doolittle. The Navy brass begrudgingly built carriers but they were looked at as more support for the surface fleet than offensive weapons

It was not till after Pearl Harbor that Naval doctrine changed to focus on the carriers

Battleships were NOT the backbone of our naval defense....you are duped again by the government historians.

The aircraft carrier was the backbone and the reason why the scumbag FDR had them moved out of Pearl prior to the known attack. The only ships left in port were WWI era battle ships and cruisers. The attack was a total failure for the Japanese, as they sunk ships that meant little. Those damaged were quickly repaired an put back in service. If you knew anything about history, you would know this...but sadly everything you know is wrong.

I am certain you did not know the USS Arizona was commissioned on October 17, 1916. Do you know the date FDR allowed all those sailors to be sacrificed?

FDR and all of his key naval advisors were old school navy tacticians. Aircraft carriers were a new technology and doctrine and tactics were still evolving. The Arizona was only 25 years old....far from ancient (Battleship NJ was in service for almost 50 years)

I have visited Pearl Harbor twice and read extensively...managing to skip the conspiracy rags that you frequent

Nonsense. You keep repeating this lie.

FDR thought highly of Billy Mitchel. He knew the era of the Battleship was over.


The Navy reluctantly agreed to the demonstration after news leaked of its own tests. To counter Mitchell, the Navy had sunk the old battleship Indiana near Tangier Island, Virginia, on November 1, 1920, using its own airplanes. Daniels had hoped to squelch Mitchell by releasing a report on the results written by Captain William D. Leahy stating that, "The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs." When the New-York Tribune revealed that the Navy's "tests" were done with dummy sand bombs and that the ship was actually sunk using high explosives placed on the ship, Congress introduced two resolutions urging new tests and backed the Navy into a corner.[18]


In the arrangements for the new tests, there was to be a news blackout until all data had been analyzed at which point only the official news report would be released; Mitchell felt that the Navy was going to bury the results. The Chief of the Air Corps attempted to have Mitchell dismissed a week before the tests began, reacting to Navy complaints about Mitchell's criticisms, but the new Secretary of War John W. Weeks backed down when it became apparent that Mitchell had widespread public and media support.[19]
Billy Mitchell - Wikipedia

The Navy was old school. They knew the way to sink ships was to hit them with naval artillery. Mitchell was a lone voice in the wilderness on the power of naval aviation.

While we were learning that aircraft could sink a ship, Naval tacticians were not willing to abandon Battleships and give the mission over to aircraft carriers

Question: If FDR and his naval advisors considered the Battleship to be so obsolete in 1941 that they would intentionally allow them to be sunk....Why did they build the Missouri and New Jersey?

Do you not know the aircraft carrier won the war in the Pacific? Please get an education before it is too late.

No shit Sherlock

We knew that after the war but not in 1941

 

[rightwinger]

It must be admitted that world powers at the time were still fascinated with the battleship; those great big guns, you know! That is why Germany built the Bismark and others. It is why Japan built the two largest battleships ever. But, they also built fourteen aircraft carriers. They sensed the evolution to new possibilities, just as the Wehmacht took up dramatically new tactics based upon new capabilities.
Now, the military is fascinated with huge, terribly expensive, hazardously vulnerable aircraft carriers. The cliché continues; generals are always fighting the last war.

Yes...and as it must be admitted, since it is a known fact, dumb fuck warmongering leaders often fight the last war instead of the current one. Hence the fascination with the battleship in the 1940s, when clearly the aircraft carrier was far more important and deadly.

Very true

Now WHY would FDR agree to sacrifice his Battleships at a time when Naval doctrine was built around a traditional fleet?

 

[gipper]

It must be admitted that world powers at the time were still fascinated with the battleship; those great big guns, you know! That is why Germany built the Bismark and others. It is why Japan built the two largest battleships ever. But, they also built fourteen aircraft carriers. They sensed the evolution to new possibilities, just as the Wehmacht took up dramatically new tactics based upon new capabilities.
Now, the military is fascinated with huge, terribly expensive, hazardously vulnerable aircraft carriers. The cliché continues; generals are always fighting the last war.

Yes...and as it must be admitted, since it is a known fact, dumb fuck warmongering leaders often fight the last war instead of the current one. Hence the fascination with the battleship in the 1940s, when clearly the aircraft carrier was far more important and deadly.

Very true

Now WHY would FDR agree to sacrifice his Battleships at a time when Naval doctrine was built around a traditional fleet?

If only you were educable.

The more one researches the event, the more one HAS TO CONCLUDE FDR KNEW...IF ONE IS LOGICAL AND CAPABLE OF THINKING....


More damaging information for FDR lovers and statists....

The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.

Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders' repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: "There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts."

The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

When the White House learned of Kimmel's move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel's action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an "enemy air and submarine attack" on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington's Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor's air defenses.

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous "war warning" to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: "This dispatch is to be considered a war warning." But it went on to state: "The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo." None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: "Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage." The message further stated that "measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population." Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the "war warning" was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall's adjutant general to Short warned only: "Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage."

Statists please go to the link for more...if you dare....
Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

 

[gipper]

Battleships were NOT the backbone of our naval defense....you are duped again by the government historians.

The aircraft carrier was the backbone and the reason why the scumbag FDR had them moved out of Pearl prior to the known attack. The only ships left in port were WWI era battle ships and cruisers. The attack was a total failure for the Japanese, as they sunk ships that meant little. Those damaged were quickly repaired an put back in service. If you knew anything about history, you would know this...but sadly everything you know is wrong.

I am certain you did not know the USS Arizona was commissioned on October 17, 1916. Do you know the date FDR allowed all those sailors to be sacrificed?

FDR and all of his key naval advisors were old school navy tacticians. Aircraft carriers were a new technology and doctrine and tactics were still evolving. The Arizona was only 25 years old....far from ancient (Battleship NJ was in service for almost 50 years)

I have visited Pearl Harbor twice and read extensively...managing to skip the conspiracy rags that you frequent

Nonsense. You keep repeating this lie.

FDR thought highly of Billy Mitchel. He knew the era of the Battleship was over.


The Navy reluctantly agreed to the demonstration after news leaked of its own tests. To counter Mitchell, the Navy had sunk the old battleship Indiana near Tangier Island, Virginia, on November 1, 1920, using its own airplanes. Daniels had hoped to squelch Mitchell by releasing a report on the results written by Captain William D. Leahy stating that, "The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs." When the New-York Tribune revealed that the Navy's "tests" were done with dummy sand bombs and that the ship was actually sunk using high explosives placed on the ship, Congress introduced two resolutions urging new tests and backed the Navy into a corner.[18]


In the arrangements for the new tests, there was to be a news blackout until all data had been analyzed at which point only the official news report would be released; Mitchell felt that the Navy was going to bury the results. The Chief of the Air Corps attempted to have Mitchell dismissed a week before the tests began, reacting to Navy complaints about Mitchell's criticisms, but the new Secretary of War John W. Weeks backed down when it became apparent that Mitchell had widespread public and media support.[19]
Billy Mitchell - Wikipedia

The Navy was old school. They knew the way to sink ships was to hit them with naval artillery. Mitchell was a lone voice in the wilderness on the power of naval aviation.

While we were learning that aircraft could sink a ship, Naval tacticians were not willing to abandon Battleships and give the mission over to aircraft carriers

Question: If FDR and his naval advisors considered the Battleship to be so obsolete in 1941 that they would intentionally allow them to be sunk....Why did they build the Missouri and New Jersey?

Do you not know the aircraft carrier won the war in the Pacific? Please get an education before it is too late.

No shit Sherlock

We knew that after the war but not in 1941

Wrong...it was well known before 1941....why would we build aircraft carriers otherwise?

Must you ALWAYS believe what the lying government jesters tell you?

 

[rightwinger]

It must be admitted that world powers at the time were still fascinated with the battleship; those great big guns, you know! That is why Germany built the Bismark and others. It is why Japan built the two largest battleships ever. But, they also built fourteen aircraft carriers. They sensed the evolution to new possibilities, just as the Wehmacht took up dramatically new tactics based upon new capabilities.
Now, the military is fascinated with huge, terribly expensive, hazardously vulnerable aircraft carriers. The cliché continues; generals are always fighting the last war.

Yes...and as it must be admitted, since it is a known fact, dumb fuck warmongering leaders often fight the last war instead of the current one. Hence the fascination with the battleship in the 1940s, when clearly the aircraft carrier was far more important and deadly.

Very true

Now WHY would FDR agree to sacrifice his Battleships at a time when Naval doctrine was built around a traditional fleet?

If only you were educable.

The more one researches the event, the more one HAS TO CONCLUDE FDR KNEW...IF ONE IS LOGICAL AND CAPABLE OF THINKING....


More damaging information for FDR lovers and statists....

The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.

Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders' repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: "There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts."

The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

When the White House learned of Kimmel's move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel's action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an "enemy air and submarine attack" on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington's Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor's air defenses.

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous "war warning" to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: "This dispatch is to be considered a war warning." But it went on to state: "The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo." None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: "Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage." The message further stated that "measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population." Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the "war warning" was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall's adjutant general to Short warned only: "Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage."

Statists please go to the link for more...if you dare....
Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

Very true...The US was a third rate military power in 1941
We had embraces our isolationism and reluctance to get involved in global affairs

We still used biplanes at the beginning of the war, by the end of the war we were developing jets

Woulda. coulda, shoulda makes a great excuse when looking at Pearl Harbor

 

[rightwinger]

The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo." None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: "Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage


Good quote...it shows that while FDR may have known war with Japan was imminent, he did not believe Pearl Harbor would be the target. The distance from Japan was too far and the ability of Aircraft carriers to strike at that distance and with that lethality was not understood

Pearl Harbor was more concerned with sabotage than an attack

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I see the statist idiots have stained the thread.

The truth is impossible for some to accept. They prefer lies.

no surprise since the two of them that came on and farted in your thread are two paid shills on the governments payroll. Jake is the loverboy of agent rightwinger.always having his head up his ass.

How much do they earn?

I have never seen the money the government gives them so i dont know.

i would say ask THEM since they are the ones that know but since the government pays them to lie all the time,you would not get a straight honest answer from them.

rightwinger even today STILL says the Rams are not playing in LA. seriously,I am not kidding.He is the ONLY poster at this site who refuses to say they are playing in LA now,seriously I am not joking.

that is all the proof in the world that he LIES all the time when he knows he is wrong and is USMB'S resident troll with the logic -I am right,everybody else in the world is wrong. that cannot be disputed. sadly,he would KILL himself first before ever uttering the words -I was wrong.lol

If you don't know how much they get, then you have no way of knowing if they get paid at all...

wrong. paid trolls like agents rightwinger,jake and sayit troll get constant ass beatings here everyday constantly hour by hour. They are obviously not children from looking at their posts which would explain how they have the time to troll here at all hours everyday but that is not the case so if they were not getting paid,there would be no way in hell they would have the time they do to troll here everyday like they do and they sure as hell would NEVER come back for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday for FREE. No way,no how.not happening.

to put up with the constant ass beatings they get here everyday and how they embarrass themselves constantly with their out right lies they make up and have been exposed for thousands of times,any person with logic and common sense knows they would NEVER do it for free.no way in hell would they put up with humilating themselves everyday for FREE.not happening.Only if they are paid well do they come back for their constant ass beatings they get everyday.

you can either accept that truth or live in denial on it as you do about government corruption all the time,that is your choice if you dont want to accept it.no skin off my nose if you want to be in denial on this.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

If one rates F.D.R. as a traitor for actions in WWII, what would one say of the President in 2003?

One not blinded by partisanship and only guided by logic, would demand that the president in 2003 be imprisoned...along with his predecessor and successor.

...which I have done several times on this forum over the years.