🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Intelligence failures in the 20th century

Where do you start? Prior to WW2 the US was a hodgepodge of competing inefficient intelligence networks. The Army Chief of Staff was the coordinator of military intelligence and J. Edgar Hoover spied on everyone else. Together they couldn't find Kate Smith in a phone booth. Along came Wild Bill Donovan's OSS (Office of Strategic Services). Donovan spent more time trying to convince FDR that an espionage agency was viable than he spent in the field. The Military intelligence network stabbed Donovan in the back every chance they had and Hoover had FBI agents spying on OSS agents. FDR didn't trust Donovan who was an old line NY republican and seemed to relish the political intrigue and in-fighting. Meanwhile the efficient British espionage network was reluctant to share any information with the OSS or the FDR administration. A critical moment for Army intelligence came during the lull in fighting when rumors went around about the Troops being home for Christmas in 1944. The Battle of the Bulge was perhaps the greatest failure of Military intelligence in American history.

And the US intelligence communities long history of failures continues even to this day.

Of course the argument can be made that we don't know about their successes, but consider some of the the failures: North Korean invasion of S Korea; Berlin Wall, Missiles in Cuba, Kennedy Assination, KIng Assination, Kennedy assination; Tet offensive; 72 War in Isreal; Fall of Iran; and opf course everything having to do with 9-11.
 
Where do you start? Prior to WW2 the US was a hodgepodge of competing inefficient intelligence networks. The Army Chief of Staff was the coordinator of military intelligence and J. Edgar Hoover spied on everyone else. Together they couldn't find Kate Smith in a phone booth. Along came Wild Bill Donovan's OSS (Office of Strategic Services). Donovan spent more time trying to convince FDR that an espionage agency was viable than he spent in the field. The Military intelligence network stabbed Donovan in the back every chance they had and Hoover had FBI agents spying on OSS agents. FDR didn't trust Donovan who was an old line NY republican and seemed to relish the political intrigue and in-fighting. Meanwhile the efficient British espionage network was reluctant to share any information with the OSS or the FDR administration. A critical moment for Army intelligence came during the lull in fighting when rumors went around about the Troops being home for Christmas in 1944. The Battle of the Bulge was perhaps the greatest failure of Military intelligence in American history.

And the US intelligence communities long history of failures continues even to this day.

Of course the argument can be made that we don't know about their successes, but consider some of the the failures: North Korean invasion of S Korea; Berlin Wall, Missiles in Cuba, Kennedy Assination, KIng Assination, Kennedy assination; Tet offensive; 72 War in Isreal; Fall of Iran; and opf course everything having to do with 9-11.

I think most nations can look back on their intelligence failures, we tend to see our own. Even the USSR which many believe to have had spies in every spot in the world were caught with Barbarossa, and in those days it meant moving 100 divisions with armor to the right positions. Then we caught Hitler with Normandy, and Russia with Japan, Britain with France, and today attacks are so much easier to conceal. A new attack could happen tomorrow, where, what kind, by whom and are we ready?
 
Sometimes the truth is hard to find amid the propaganda that is spewed out to kids in school and the fake legacies that are created in the media but it's out there. Douglas Waller's fair and balanced and incredibly well researched bio "Wild Bill Donovan" is still in print. Halbertstam's "the Coldest Winter" is a factual account of Korea. Korea was a gigantic mess and when the liberal media couldn't bring themselves to criticize Truman and MacArthur the freaking cowards called it "the forgotten war". It wasn't forgotten and Korean war and WW2 Vets kept MacArthur from runiing for president on the republican ticket.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes the truth is hard to find amid the propaganda that is spewed out to kids in school and the fake legacies that are created in the media but it's out there. Douglas Waller's fair and balanced and incredibly well researched bio "Wild Bill Donovan" is still in print. Halbertstam's "the Coldest Winter" is a factual account of Korea. Korea was a gigantic mess and when the liberal media couldn't bring themselves to criticize Truman and MacArthur the freaking cowards called it "the forgotten war". It wasn't forgotten and Korean war and WW2 Vets kept MacArthur from runiing for president on the republican ticket.

I don't think Korea was called the forgotten war because the media couldn't criticize Truman and MacArthur, but rather for many it was just an extension of WWII, same equipment all the same thing and people had had enough war for a time.
Truman was criticized from the day he took office. Could any president follow FDR and not be criticized? There was serious talk of Truman's impeachment, even more serious than the usual Republican impeachment talk.
The vets may have done it to Mac, but I think it was MacArthur and his ego that destroyed Mac's chances. After Truman fired Mac, Mac was pretty hot stuff for a time, parades speeches to West Point, to the Congress, but nothing, and there standing tall was Ike.
 
Truman couldn't even get support from his own party to run for a 2nd elected term and yet he gets a #8 from self described "historians". Here it is in simple terms. Truman's lack of leadership turned a victory in Korea in less than a year into a truce and the loss of 55,000 American Troops in three years but the media gets away with throwaway cliches like "the forgotten war" when they should be critical about both Truman and MacArthur. The problem is that the media writes the history books and the liberal media never met a democrat that they didn't like.
 
Truman couldn't even get support from his own party to run for a 2nd elected term and yet he gets a #8 from self described "historians". Here it is in simple terms. Truman's lack of leadership turned a victory in Korea in less than a year into a truce and the loss of 55,000 American Troops in three years but the media gets away with throwaway cliches like "the forgotten war" when they should be critical about both Truman and MacArthur. The problem is that the media writes the history books and the liberal media never met a democrat that they didn't like.

The self described historians were 238 noted historians and presidential experts in the last poll. The polls of historians began in 1948 and Truman was first rated in 1962 and he was rated 8th at that time, since 1962, Truman's ratings were 8,8,7,7,7, 7,8,5,7,7,7,5, and 9. Different sets of historians and different polls were used over the years.
The media seldom writes history, it is generally historians that write history, and the historians polled were the tops in the history pool; a historian does not get asked to participate in these polls unless he is a historian of some reputation. Those are the historians that teach the historians and write the college texts. That you disagree with their history means what?
Just to arm yourself you might read a little about Truman and see why he is rated so high.
 
Truman should be rated as the worst president and one of the worst leaders in the history of the world, since he massacred thousands of old men, women, and children by using the a-bomb on a defenseless nation and did so for racist and political reasons. To say nothing of his many other failures as president, including refusing to remove commies from his administration and even going so far as to protect those commies, while demonizing Americans who exposed those commies.
 
Truman should be rated as the worst president and one of the worst leaders in the history of the world, since he massacred thousands of old men, women, and children by using the a-bomb on a defenseless nation and did so for racist and political reasons. To say nothing of his many other failures as president, including refusing to remove commies from his administration and even going so far as to protect those commies, while demonizing Americans who exposed those commies.

Right, and Mrs. Truman said Harry didn't eat his veggies. Of course, there were political reasons for using the bombs, we live in a nation that votes, and the people voted for Truman even after the bomb.
Do you realize that more Japanese, including old men, old women and children, were killed by conventional bombs than the A weapons? Do you also realize the slaughter that would have taken place if we had to invade? That slaughter would have involved many more Japanese not just the old, but also thousands of Americans. With the invasion we might have discovered the Japanese were not so defenseless? The bulk of the Japanese army was still in Japan and their code of Bushido mean fighting to their death.
 
Truman should be rated as the worst president and one of the worst leaders in the history of the world, since he massacred thousands of old men, women, and children by using the a-bomb on a defenseless nation and did so for racist and political reasons. To say nothing of his many other failures as president, including refusing to remove commies from his administration and even going so far as to protect those commies, while demonizing Americans who exposed those commies.

Right, and Mrs. Truman said Harry didn't eat his veggies. Of course, there were political reasons for using the bombs, we live in a nation that votes, and the people voted for Truman even after the bomb.
Do you realize that more Japanese, including old men, old women and children, were killed by conventional bombs than the A weapons? Do you also realize the slaughter that would have taken place if we had to invade? That slaughter would have involved many more Japanese not just the old, but also thousands of Americans. With the invasion we might have discovered the Japanese were not so defenseless? The bulk of the Japanese army was still in Japan and their code of Bushido mean fighting to their death.

Stop with the silliness. The political reasons had nothing to do with America....you should know this, if you know history. Dipshit Harry murdered those defenseless NONCOMBATANTS to impress the ruthless murdering scumbag Lil’ Joey Stalin...who was our ally…thanks to those stinking commies surrounding Stalin’s Stooge (FDR). Dipshit was concerned about the horrors committed by Joey's wonderful army in E. Europe and thought that murdering vast numbers of those dirty yellow bastard slanty eyed Japs (Harry's view of Japanese) that little pocked marked Joey would stop being such a naughty boy. What a fool! Killing innocents was Joey’s specialty, so the a-bombing did not impress Uncle Joe..and after all Uncle Joe knew all about the a-bomb before Dipshit told him about it…again, thanks to those commie spies in the White House.

And don't believe the lie about all those American boys dying should we have invaded Japan. It was all made up bogus bullshit....again you should know this, if you know history.

Japan was done. They have nothing left. Our unconditional surrender requirement (imposed by the Stalin's Stooge FDR) was a terrible mistake that cost the lives of thousands of young American boys and Japanese. Most immoral and disgusting.
 
Truman should be rated as the worst president and one of the worst leaders in the history of the world, since he massacred thousands of old men, women, and children by using the a-bomb on a defenseless nation and did so for racist and political reasons. To say nothing of his many other failures as president, including refusing to remove commies from his administration and even going so far as to protect those commies, while demonizing Americans who exposed those commies.

Right, and Mrs. Truman said Harry didn't eat his veggies. Of course, there were political reasons for using the bombs, we live in a nation that votes, and the people voted for Truman even after the bomb.
Do you realize that more Japanese, including old men, old women and children, were killed by conventional bombs than the A weapons? Do you also realize the slaughter that would have taken place if we had to invade? That slaughter would have involved many more Japanese not just the old, but also thousands of Americans. With the invasion we might have discovered the Japanese were not so defenseless? The bulk of the Japanese army was still in Japan and their code of Bushido mean fighting to their death.

Stop with the silliness. The political reasons had nothing to do with America....you should know this, if you know history. Dipshit Harry murdered those defenseless NONCOMBATANTS to impress the ruthless murdering scumbag Lil’ Joey Stalin...who was our ally…thanks to those stinking commies surrounding Stalin’s Stooge (FDR). Dipshit was concerned about the horrors committed by Joey's wonderful army in E. Europe and thought that murdering vast numbers of those dirty yellow bastard slanty eyed Japs (Harry's view of Japanese) that little pocked marked Joey would stop being such a naughty boy. What a fool! Killing innocents was Joey’s specialty, so the a-bombing did not impress Uncle Joe..and after all Uncle Joe knew all about the a-bomb before Dipshit told him about it…again, thanks to those commie spies in the White House.

And don't believe the lie about all those American boys dying should we have invaded Japan. It was all made up bogus bullshit....again you should know this, if you know history.

Japan was done. They have nothing left. Our unconditional surrender requirement (imposed by the Stalin's Stooge FDR) was a terrible mistake that cost the lives of thousands of young American boys and Japanese. Most immoral and disgusting.

You may believe Japan was done but the military did not. We now have the Japanese records that show how they planned to defend Japan. The Japanese had four million men ready to do battle with the Americans. In addition to the military there were the millions of civilians being trained to do battle. Japan claimed 100 million.
In the Normandy Dday invasion for first 30 days America had 42000 casualties, for Okinawa
invasion we had 45000 casualties, and Okinawa was not Japan.
In any case we were going to invade, and we were going to have casualties, lots of them. If only you had been there to reassure the troops that Japan had nothing left--but they wouldn't have believed you nor do I.
 
Truman should be rated as the worst president and one of the worst leaders in the history of the world, since he massacred thousands of old men, women, and children by using the a-bomb on a defenseless nation and did so for racist and political reasons. To say nothing of his many other failures as president, including refusing to remove commies from his administration and even going so far as to protect those commies, while demonizing Americans who exposed those commies.

Right, and Mrs. Truman said Harry didn't eat his veggies. Of course, there were political reasons for using the bombs, we live in a nation that votes, and the people voted for Truman even after the bomb.
Do you realize that more Japanese, including old men, old women and children, were killed by conventional bombs than the A weapons? Do you also realize the slaughter that would have taken place if we had to invade? That slaughter would have involved many more Japanese not just the old, but also thousands of Americans. With the invasion we might have discovered the Japanese were not so defenseless? The bulk of the Japanese army was still in Japan and their code of Bushido mean fighting to their death.

Americans weren't aware that Japan was trying to negotiate surrender terms but Truman refused to negotiate but it probably wouldn't have made any difference. Life was so cheap by the end of WW2 and the Japanese were so vilified with racist cartoons and propaganda by the media that Americans didn't give a damn if two cities in Japan were incinerated by Atomic Bombs. Americans voted for Truman (just barely) because the war was over. After Korea the the liberal media couldn't even prop "give 'em hell Harry" up for another term and he retired from politics. MacArthur's bigger ego couldn't face being dumped by the republican party and he ran as an independent apparently trying to syphon votes from fellow general Eisenhower.
 
Of course the American people knew what was going on, as best as the government knew.
I have newspapers from August 13 and 14th, 1945 with huge headlines of the surrender negotiations taking place.
There were groups in the Japanese government that had no intention of surrender with many committing suicide, but even so the Japanese surrendered a few days after the bombs were dropped.
 
Of course the American people knew what was going on, as best as the government knew.
I have newspapers from August 13 and 14th, 1945 with huge headlines of the surrender negotiations taking place.
There were groups in the Japanese government that had no intention of surrender with many committing suicide, but even so the Japanese surrendered a few days after the bombs were dropped.

The media was an arm of the administration during the War years. Propaganda was a legitimate tool to galvanize Americans for the war effort and keep the hatred for the enemy churning. The concept of killing (enemy) civilians for the war effort became a legitimate part of the strategy. I don't apologize for it. It was part of who we were but it's not healthy to hide it either. My original point was to call attention to substantial failures of intelligence that Americans haven't been aware of. The extension of the original Korean War mission is a prime example. Who do we blame? Ironically it was give 'em hell Harry who coined the phrase "the buck stops here".
 
Yes...and much of that government propaganda promoted by the press during the war continued after the war. The media claimed Dipshit Harry had to incinerate those non-combatants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. They also claimed America had to invade the main islands of Japan to end the war, leading to 500,000k dead American boys. Both were lies.
 
Yes...and much of that government propaganda promoted by the press during the war continued after the war. The media claimed Dipshit Harry had to incinerate those non-combatants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. They also claimed America had to invade the main islands of Japan to end the war, leading to 500,000k dead American boys. Both were lies.


Non-combatants were killed with regularity during the war. We killed thousands of German non-combatants and thousands of Japanese non-combatants.
As for the invasion not needed even before the bombs were dropped, creates a dilemma, whose premise do we accept your's that we did not have to invade or the military's that was making preparations to invade?
In any case a few days after the bombs were dropped Japan surrendered. Did Japan surrender because of the bombs or it was just part of Japan's plans? We also knew that if we invaded it would not just be thousands of American GI's that would die, but thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians.
 
Discussion about the use of the Bomb is secondary to the original hypothesis that America's "intelligence" capability was dismal (and still is?) . Much is made of "magic" breaking of the Japanese diplomatic code but when we needed it (on 12/7/41) nobody knew what the hell they were doing. We finally refined it and Midway was a victory as well as the shoot down of Yammamoto's plane.
 
Yes...and much of that government propaganda promoted by the press during the war continued after the war. The media claimed Dipshit Harry had to incinerate those non-combatants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. They also claimed America had to invade the main islands of Japan to end the war, leading to 500,000k dead American boys. Both were lies.


Non-combatants were killed with regularity during the war. We killed thousands of German non-combatants and thousands of Japanese non-combatants.
As for the invasion not needed even before the bombs were dropped, creates a dilemma, whose premise do we accept your's that we did not have to invade or the military's that was making preparations to invade?
In any case a few days after the bombs were dropped Japan surrendered. Did Japan surrender because of the bombs or it was just part of Japan's plans? We also knew that if we invaded it would not just be thousands of American GI's that would die, but thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians.

So since lots of noncombatants were killed, one concludes the use of the a-bomb was warranted...not a good conclusion. It was immoral and must be condemn for what it is.

You need to research the bombing. Many experts agree with me including many in Truman's administration and many military leaders including Ike, MacArthur, and Leahy.

Here this might help....Hiroshima: Quotes
 
Discussion about the use of the Bomb is secondary to the original hypothesis that America's "intelligence" capability was dismal (and still is?) . Much is made of "magic" breaking of the Japanese diplomatic code but when we needed it (on 12/7/41) nobody knew what the hell they were doing. We finally refined it and Midway was a victory as well as the shoot down of Yammamoto's plane.

Depends...there is proof Stalin's Stooge knew the Japanese were about to attack Pearl. He moved out the carrers and refused to inform commanders at Pearl. Why? It would appear our intel was good. Problem was the jackasses who received the intel. Their motives come into question.

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable
 
Yes...and much of that government propaganda promoted by the press during the war continued after the war. The media claimed Dipshit Harry had to incinerate those non-combatants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. They also claimed America had to invade the main islands of Japan to end the war, leading to 500,000k dead American boys. Both were lies.


Non-combatants were killed with regularity during the war. We killed thousands of German non-combatants and thousands of Japanese non-combatants.
As for the invasion not needed even before the bombs were dropped, creates a dilemma, whose premise do we accept your's that we did not have to invade or the military's that was making preparations to invade?
In any case a few days after the bombs were dropped Japan surrendered. Did Japan surrender because of the bombs or it was just part of Japan's plans? We also knew that if we invaded it would not just be thousands of American GI's that would die, but thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians.

So since lots of noncombatants were killed, one concludes the use of the a-bomb was warranted...not a good conclusion. It was immoral and must be condemn for what it is.

You need to research the bombing. Many experts agree with me including many in Truman's administration and many military leaders including Ike, MacArthur, and Leahy.

Here this might help....Hiroshima: Quotes

Better than quotes might be some books, in fact I can suggest a few if needed. The bottom line is that we dropped the bombs and and a few days later the Japanese surrendered. The war was over.
The questions:
Would the Japanese have surrendered if no bombs?
If they had not surrendered, would we have invaded?
If we had invaded would the Japanese have resisted?
If they Japanese resisted, would both Americans and Japanese taken casualties?
If both sides had taken casualties what were the estimated casualties?
Did the bombs reduce the predicted invasion casualties?
If the bombs had been available to end the war and Truman had not used the bombs would anyone have been upset with that decision?

Me, for one.
 
Of course the American people knew what was going on, as best as the government knew.
I have newspapers from August 13 and 14th, 1945 with huge headlines of the surrender negotiations taking place.
There were groups in the Japanese government that had no intention of surrender with many committing suicide, but even so the Japanese surrendered a few days after the bombs were dropped.

The media was an arm of the administration during the War years. Propaganda was a legitimate tool to galvanize Americans for the war effort and keep the hatred for the enemy churning. The concept of killing (enemy) civilians for the war effort became a legitimate part of the strategy. I don't apologize for it. It was part of who we were but it's not healthy to hide it either. My original point was to call attention to substantial failures of intelligence that Americans haven't been aware of. The extension of the original Korean War mission is a prime example. Who do we blame? Ironically it was give 'em hell Harry who coined the phrase "the buck stops here".

The Republican media, and it was active, supported the war but did not support some of the Democratic war decisions. There were a number of newspapers, radio commentators, columnists that opposed much of the Democratic conduct of the war.
I don't think there was much effort to hide the fact that enemy civilians were being killed. No TV but movie newsreels had it. In fact, today many of those old newsreels are still on documentaries and on certain channels.
Both Korea and the war with Japan was subject to criticism. Were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan subject to criticism? Every war we ever had came with opposition and criticism.
 

Forum List

Back
Top