Iwo Jima- Uncommon Valor and wasted lives

[Unkotare]

You're saying that he's wrong in assuming that the civilians wouldn't sacrifice themselves at the orders of the military, and anyone who knows their history knows that they would have.

Those who only know stereotypes and propaganda from that time - instead of actual history - assume that starving, exhausted civilians who had long since had enough of the war would have done so en masse.

Based on the performance of the Japanese civilians on Saipan and Okinawa the military had no choice but believe that the majority of the population would in fact obey those orders. .

Such a belief based on a misunderstanding of the attitudes and relations between ethnicities within the Japanese Empire at the time (to say nothing of common sense).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Those who only know stereotypes and propaganda from that time - instead of actual history - assume that starving, exhausted civilians who had long since had enough of the war would have done so en masse.

Based on the performance of the Japanese civilians on Saipan and Okinawa the military had no choice but believe that the majority of the population would in fact obey those orders. .

Such a belief based on a misunderstanding of the attitudes and relations between ethnicities within the Japanese Empire at the time (to say nothing of common sense).

You keep saying that and it simply is not true. The people of Japan revered the Emperor and the Military was supreme. They had been told for 3 years that the Americans were butchers and rapists, that they would commit all kind of atrocities on the civilians if captured. And the people had no inkling it was not true.

Once again on Saipan the Japanese civilians committed mass suicide, few survived. On Okinawa the same happened, the difference being the Okinawan people did not believe. There is absolutely no evidence to support a claim that the civilains on main land Japan would not have believed the same thing as the Japanese on Okinawa or Saipan or the soldiers that basically fought to the death rather then surrender when beaten.

You are aware the Soldiers came from all walks of life and as a man they died rather ten surrender? Hell some of them hid in the Jungle for 50 YEARS rather then surrender.

 

[Unkotare]

Based on the performance of the Japanese civilians on Saipan and Okinawa the military had no choice but believe that the majority of the population would in fact obey those orders. .

Such a belief based on a misunderstanding of the attitudes and relations between ethnicities within the Japanese Empire at the time (to say nothing of common sense).

You keep saying that and it simply is not true.

I keep saying it because it is true. Okinawans, and certainly those native to Saipan, were seen as different than the Japanese of the main islands. To a certain extent, this feeling persists among some people even to this day. The people native to those regions - and others unfortunate enough to find themselves there - were considered more 'expendable' than would the bulk of the population of Honshu. The mass suicides of the people on Saipan and Okinawa were used as a war measure on a number of levels. The people of the mainland of Japan would not and could not be used in the same manner for obvious reasons. There is nothing in Japanese history to suggest the sacrifice of the entire civilian population in war. Quite the contrary, in fact. The tiniest bit of common sense should provide all the reinforcement this point requires.

 

[Unkotare]

You are aware the Soldiers came from all walks of life and as a man they died rather ten surrender?

That is obviously not true. YOU are aware that there were Japanese POWs taken by Allied forces, and the Chinese, during the war. Death before dishonor is a virtue in the West as well, but that doesn't mean that nobody ever found themselves in an untenable position during war.

 

[gipper]

Based on the performance of the Japanese civilians on Saipan and Okinawa the military had no choice but believe that the majority of the population would in fact obey those orders. .

Such a belief based on a misunderstanding of the attitudes and relations between ethnicities within the Japanese Empire at the time (to say nothing of common sense).

You keep saying that and it simply is not true. The people of Japan revered the Emperor and the Military was supreme. They had been told for 3 years that the Americans were butchers and rapists, that they would commit all kind of atrocities on the civilians if captured. And the people had no inkling it was not true.

Once again on Saipan the Japanese civilians committed mass suicide, few survived. On Okinawa the same happened, the difference being the Okinawan people did not believe. There is absolutely no evidence to support a claim that the civilains on main land Japan would not have believed the same thing as the Japanese on Okinawa or Saipan or the soldiers that basically fought to the death rather then surrender when beaten.

You are aware the Soldiers came from all walks of life and as a man they died rather ten surrender? Hell some of them hid in the Jungle for 50 YEARS rather then surrender.

I agree with much of your post, but had America invaded I do not think the Japanese people would have fought as you suggest. They were a starving worn out people. Most of their young men were dead. Yes they might have fought fanatically at first, but very quickly American forces would have wiped out their initial efforts. I think this would have lead the remaining Japanese to realize their efforts were futile and they would have surrendered.

Keep in mind that we occupied their nation immediately after they surrendered. American forces were stationed throughout Japan and few incidents of violence occurred. If the Japanese were so fanatical, as you claim, don't you think violence against Americans would have occurred?

I was told by an old Marine Korean War vet, who was stationed in Japan in the early 50s, that the Japanese he came across were extremely subservient and frightened of American fighting men.

Also the American military predicted 46k American deaths, if we invaded the main islands, BEFORE the a-bombs dropped. It wasn't until after Truman (the war criminal) incinerated 200k women, child, and old men, when he got criticized for the genocide he committed by many high ranking military officals and some in the press, that they pushed the propaganda of 500k American deaths, if they invaded.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Such a belief based on a misunderstanding of the attitudes and relations between ethnicities within the Japanese Empire at the time (to say nothing of common sense).

You keep saying that and it simply is not true.

I keep saying it because it is true. Okinawans, and certainly those native to Saipan, were seen as different than the Japanese of the main islands. To a certain extent, this feeling persists among some people even to this day. The people native to those regions - and others unfortunate enough to find themselves there - were considered more 'expendable' than would the bulk of the population of Honshu. The mass suicides of the people on Saipan and Okinawa were used as a war measure on a number of levels. The people of the mainland of Japan would not and could not be used in the same manner for obvious reasons. There is nothing in Japanese history to suggest the sacrifice of the entire civilian population in war. Quite the contrary, in fact. The tiniest bit of common sense should provide all the reinforcement this point requires.

I am not discussing the local population, I am discussing the Pure Blood Japanese that were present on those islands. You have your blinders on. Both Islands had NUMEROUS pure Japanese on them, Saipan was considered Japanese soil not a colony.

And the JAPANESE civilian population on both islands committed suicide rather then surrender. On Okinawa the army tried to FORCE the Okinawan to do the same.

You lack certain pertinent facts in your claim, you do not seem to understand that both Islands had HEAVY pure Japanese populations.

 

[Unkotare]

You keep saying that and it simply is not true.

I keep saying it because it is true. Okinawans, and certainly those native to Saipan, were seen as different than the Japanese of the main islands. To a certain extent, this feeling persists among some people even to this day. The people native to those regions - and others unfortunate enough to find themselves there - were considered more 'expendable' than would the bulk of the population of Honshu. The mass suicides of the people on Saipan and Okinawa were used as a war measure on a number of levels. The people of the mainland of Japan would not and could not be used in the same manner for obvious reasons. There is nothing in Japanese history to suggest the sacrifice of the entire civilian population in war. Quite the contrary, in fact. The tiniest bit of common sense should provide all the reinforcement this point requires.

I am not discussing the local population, I am discussing the Pure Blood Japanese that were present on those islands. You have your blinders on. Both Islands had NUMEROUS pure Japanese on them, Saipan was considered Japanese soil not a colony.

And the JAPANESE civilian population on both islands committed suicide rather then surrender. On Okinawa the army tried to FORCE the Okinawan to do the same.

You lack certain pertinent facts in your claim, you do not seem to understand that both Islands had HEAVY pure Japanese populations.

You didn't read what I wrote.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I keep saying it because it is true. Okinawans, and certainly those native to Saipan, were seen as different than the Japanese of the main islands. To a certain extent, this feeling persists among some people even to this day. The people native to those regions - and others unfortunate enough to find themselves there - were considered more 'expendable' than would the bulk of the population of Honshu. The mass suicides of the people on Saipan and Okinawa were used as a war measure on a number of levels. The people of the mainland of Japan would not and could not be used in the same manner for obvious reasons. There is nothing in Japanese history to suggest the sacrifice of the entire civilian population in war. Quite the contrary, in fact. The tiniest bit of common sense should provide all the reinforcement this point requires.

I am not discussing the local population, I am discussing the Pure Blood Japanese that were present on those islands. You have your blinders on. Both Islands had NUMEROUS pure Japanese on them, Saipan was considered Japanese soil not a colony.

And the JAPANESE civilian population on both islands committed suicide rather then surrender. On Okinawa the army tried to FORCE the Okinawan to do the same.

You lack certain pertinent facts in your claim, you do not seem to understand that both Islands had HEAVY pure Japanese populations.

You didn't read what I wrote.

I read it and you have zero evidence to support your claim. You are assuming. And your assumption is wrong.

 

[there4eyeM]

"The war in the Pacific could have ended well before August '45, had we not demanded unconditional surrender. The only reason thousands of Japanese and Americans died in the Pacific war, was because of FDR's absurd unconditional surrender requirement.

And plus, keep in mind that FDR PUSHED Japan to war by his ridiculous demands and refusal to negotiate terms prior to Pearl Harbor. He set it all up.

In my view, the war in the Pacific should never have happened had we had real leadership in our government and White House, rather than deceitful fools.

But the deceit continues unabated today with the fools that now occupy Congress and the WH."

War with Japan was almost inevitable. They had the biggest navy the world had seen, all dressed up and no place to go. They would eventually have sought to secure oil producing Indonesia at least.
America could have been better prepared, and the war might not have lasted so long, true. Avoiding war was probably not possible. In any case, after the Russians finished off the Germans, they would have smashed Japan in support of their Soviet-style communist allies in China.

 

[Unkotare]

I am not discussing the local population, I am discussing the Pure Blood Japanese that were present on those islands. You have your blinders on. Both Islands had NUMEROUS pure Japanese on them, Saipan was considered Japanese soil not a colony.

And the JAPANESE civilian population on both islands committed suicide rather then surrender. On Okinawa the army tried to FORCE the Okinawan to do the same.

You lack certain pertinent facts in your claim, you do not seem to understand that both Islands had HEAVY pure Japanese populations.

You didn't read what I wrote.

I read it and you have zero evidence to support your claim. You are assuming. And your assumption is wrong.

I am not assuming. Read what I wrote.



http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/history_treatment.htm


http://japanfocus.org/-Steve-Rabson/3720


http://www.east-asian-history.net/ryukyu/history/Okinawa/Postwar/


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/world/asia/20iht-oki.html?_r=0


http://www.stripes.com/news/okinawa...rged-mass-suicides-during-wwii-battle-1.62503

 

[editec]

Only if you accept the Marine's definition of "timid and ineffective" as meaning the Army didn't get enough of their own troops killed.

Oh I see.

Yeah well...that's just the nature of some kinds of Marines, ya' know?

I was addressing his basic assessment of the campaign's thrust, (which I think was a pretty good thumbnail of it) and ignoring his silly editorial "my service is the best "comments.

We think of the heavy marine casualties on some of those islands but fail to realize that many army divisions had much heavier casualties because of the longer period of time spent in combat.
By the end of the war 47 army infantry regiments had suffered at least 100% casualties and some over 200%.

My father made that observation to me once. He is a WWII veteran (coffin corner Merchant Marines) wounded twice in by enemy fire.

He noted that even during WWII, the USMC seemed to have the best PR.

He noted that often the headlines would read: "Marines take someplace nobody had ever heard of" but then when the list of casualties was included, the US army casualties outnumbered the Marine casualties.

That said, the Corps took terrible casuaties in some of the pacific Island campaigns and their service to this nation's defeat of the Axis powers is undeniable

 

[gipper]

War with Japan was almost inevitable. They had the biggest navy the world had seen, all dressed up and no place to go. They would eventually have sought to secure oil producing Indonesia at least.
America could have been better prepared, and the war might not have lasted so long, true. Avoiding war was probably not possible. In any case, after the Russians finished off the Germans, they would have smashed Japan in support of their Soviet-style communist allies in China.

I do not think war with Japan was inevitable and so do many experts of the time. The Japanese did not want war with America, but they felt FDR forced them into an untenable position....which he did in a deceitful effort to overcome the Great Depression and keep him and the power elite, in power.

The Japanese knew they could not beat the US in war...well before they bombed our military installations at Pearl. Their plan was to reduce our naval capabilities for a time, while they consolidated their gains in Asia. Then they planned to sue for peace with the US hoping to keep their military gains. They did put out peace feelers as early as '43. And you forget that FDR knew the Japanese would attack Pearl BEFORE it happened...allowing him to remove the carriers....thus sacrificing thousand of American men who died in the attack...purely for his nefarious reasons.

Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy ". . . was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war . . . . Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, costs us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace."
The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history dating back to 660 B.C. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The Emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, "Why then were the bombs dropped?"http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[75][76] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[74] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[77]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[67]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[78]

Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that ‘On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: Learn Austrian Economics
In time for the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the leftist National Catholic Reporter treats us to an entirely conventional rendition and defense of that awful episode in U.S. history, a rendition I might have expected to read in the neoconservative Weekly Standard. (Thanks to Laurence Vance for the link.) My comment, which is “awaiting moderation,” ran as follows:
I am shocked that this kind of jingoism and raw collectivism would soil the pages (so to speak) of the NCR. I would expect this in the Weekly Standard. The use of formulations like “Japan started the war” helps to evade all the relevant moral questions; if “Japan” started it, can “Japan” be laid waste? Their political class makes an idiotic and suicidal military move, so every single three-year-old in the country becomes subject to bombing, poisoning, being burned or buried alive, etc.? At what point do we start questioning the logic of this, instead of formulating all our arguments as if this were simply an obvious moral given?
Instead of asking these hard questions, the kind of questions we are trained from early childhood not to ask, indeed not even to be intellectually equipped to formulate, NCR gives us a collectivist propaganda piece. Anyone who criticizes the decision to drop the bomb is trying to “defame our country” (again, in classic neocon style, conflating the decisions of a small circle of officials with “our country”).
I guess the editor of the Paulist Catholic World was trying to “defame our country”? Or how about L’Osservatore Romano, which also criticized the bombings? Or the great Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe? Or even Pat Buchanan, who denounces the bombings as acts of barbarism?
Oh, but “we” had to burn all those kids alive, comes the reply. Why, that’s all the fanatics in Japan would understand! (What if the author had said the police needed to kick in the heads of certain races of people because that’s all they would understand? Would you thoughtlessly nod your head at that?) Completely left out of the discussion are the genuine alternatives that existed to dropping the bomb, alternatives that could have worked even with the incorrigible Japanese. (Of course, whenever someone mentions “alternatives” to a decision made by the U.S. military, he is instantly derided as some kind of leftist dreamer.)
For what these alternatives were, and for something a little more significant than mindless, knee-jerk cheering of the U.S. military, as if this group of government employees were sacrosanct, I recommend this short piece by historian Ralph Raico.
Reprinted with permission from TomWoods.com.
Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! | Tom Woods

 

[there4eyeM]

" And you forget that FDR knew the Japanese would attack Pearl BEFORE it happened..."

Not at all forgotten; read 'could have been better prepared' above.

 

[gipper]

" And you forget that FDR knew the Japanese would attack Pearl BEFORE it happened..."

Not at all forgotten; read 'could have been better prepared' above.

No it is much worse than that. FDR very likely KNEW the Japanese were going to attack Pearl days before it happened. He purposely refused to tell commanders that the attack was coming. He moved the carriers out on a nothing mission so they would not be sunk. He did this to awaken a nation unwilling to go to war AGAIN.

It is all here [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299]Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor: Robert Stinnett: 9780743201292: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

and others have reported that same.

 

[there4eyeM]

I repeat, the fact that an attack on Pearl Harbor would have been obvious to any military planner beyond the level of Cub Scout was not forgotten by this poster. If the entire fleet had been at sea, the Japanese planes would have arrived, Pearl would have been bombed, the US would have been at war and a lot more ships and sailors would have been around. Thus, the US would have been better prepared. In any case, the ships that were sunk were almost all back in service in less than a year and didn't account for much in the war, anyway.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

" And you forget that FDR knew the Japanese would attack Pearl BEFORE it happened..."

Not at all forgotten; read 'could have been better prepared' above.

No it is much worse than that. FDR very likely KNEW the Japanese were going to attack Pearl days before it happened. He purposely refused to tell commanders that the attack was coming. He moved the carriers out on a nothing mission so they would not be sunk. He did this to awaken a nation unwilling to go to war AGAIN.

It is all here [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299]Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor: Robert Stinnett: 9780743201292: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

and others have reported that same.

Absolute bullshit. Military theory was that carriers were SUPPORT ships, that they SUPPORTED battleships and regular fleets. Except for a few radical thinkers no one thought carriers were decisive. And no way FDR could have known. Further we REACTED to the Japanese war in China. Our embargo was BECAUSE Japan renewed her war in China. According to you retards we should have just kept selling oil and scrap metal to Japan whle they steam rolled China.

As for warning Pearl harbor that was done, Pearl harbor was on a War time schedule. They just did not understand the importance of Radar or carriers.

A little real history and not the new crap being peddled by the revisionists would teach you your opinions are based on garbage.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Japanese, then, were the only and original thinkers about carriers?

Guess that's why they had so many.

Guess that shows how stupid American planners were.

Guess that excuses missing the obvious in the Pacific.

Guess that explains why just an oil embargo was thought to suffice against a huge enemy navy and land force.

Guess that explains, with all this stupidity, why the US lost the war.

 

[gipper]

" And you forget that FDR knew the Japanese would attack Pearl BEFORE it happened..."

Not at all forgotten; read 'could have been better prepared' above.

No it is much worse than that. FDR very likely KNEW the Japanese were going to attack Pearl days before it happened. He purposely refused to tell commanders that the attack was coming. He moved the carriers out on a nothing mission so they would not be sunk. He did this to awaken a nation unwilling to go to war AGAIN.

It is all here [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299]Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor: Robert Stinnett: 9780743201292: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

and others have reported that same.

Absolute bullshit. Military theory was that carriers were SUPPORT ships, that they SUPPORTED battleships and regular fleets. Except for a few radical thinkers no one thought carriers were decisive. And no way FDR could have known. Further we REACTED to the Japanese war in China. Our embargo was BECAUSE Japan renewed her war in China. According to you retards we should have just kept selling oil and scrap metal to Japan whle they steam rolled China.

As for warning Pearl harbor that was done, Pearl harbor was on a War time schedule. They just did not understand the importance of Radar or carriers.

A little real history and not the new crap being peddled by the revisionists would teach you your opinions are based on garbage.

So, lets do some analysis of the situation as we know it today.
1. FDR moves the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor in 1940 over the objections of his senior military staff, who considered Pearl indefensible...remember this was before effective radar.
2. FDR had surrounded himself with Stalinist spies who were doing all they could to help the USSR. Getting the US into war against Germany was their main goal after Hitler invaded the USSR on June 22, 1941. Six months before the attack on Pearl.
3. FDR's economic policies were complete failures. Unemployment was very high, mostly due to his idiotic policies, and strikes were occurring throughout the nation. It would not be the first time the power elite pushed a nation to war to protect their position.
4. The Japanese military code communications were broken BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Pearl Harbor Deception: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/BETRAYAL-PEARL-HARBOR-Churchill-Roosevelt/dp/0671708058]BETRAYAL AT PEARL HARBOR: How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II: James Rusbridger, Eric Nave: 9780671708054: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
5. It is well known that FDR was an ego manic who loved his power. He actually thought he could get Stalin to do what he wanted by being NICE. He ignored precedent set by George Washington and ran for a third term. Even before running for his third term, his was in ill health. There are reports that he knew he had a TERMINAL illness, yet refused to step down for the good of the nation. Never telling the American people of his terrible illness. All proof of his power hungry and deceitful personality.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Deadly-Secret-Eric-Fettmann/dp/B004MPRWRI]FDR's Deadly Secret: Eric Fettmann, Steven Lomazow: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Book Review: FDR's Deadly Secret - WSJ.com
6. FDR told others to expect an attack from Japan. He said such words BEFORE Dec 7, 1941...because he knew what was coming.

American intelligence had broken all the Japanese codes. On 24 September 1941, a message from Japanese Naval Intelligence headquarters in Tokyo to the Japanese consul general in Honolulu was deciphered. It requested the exact locations of all US Navy ships in Pearl Harbor. Such detailed information would only be required if the Japanese were planning an attack on the ships at their moorings. In November, another message was intercepted ordering more drills involving attacks on capital ships at anchor in preparation to 'ambush and completely destroy the US enemy.' The only American fleet within reach was at Pearl Harbor.

On 25 November, a radio message from Admiral Yamamoto ( Yamamoto, Isoruko) ordering the Japanese task force to attack the US fleet in Hawaii was intercepted. US Intelligence was understaffed and it is not known whether this message was decoded at the time. However, that same day, the US Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, noted in his diary:

'FDR stated that we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as next Monday. FDR asked: 'The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors.''
Essential Pearl Harbor

7. There is much more....

FDR and Big Ears have much in common. You would not believe Big Ears, why FDR? It is all about the promoting and protecting the STATE!

Throughout history leaders lie to their people to protect their power and position. It is a very old story and continues unabated today....see Lenin's quote below.

 

[whitehall]

The Japanese had 40 years to fortify the island and they had the entire volcanic terrain honeycombed with tunnels and every square inch was criscrossed with rifle, mortar and artillery fire. Marine commanders requested 10 days of Naval bombardment. Admiral Spruance said they were too busy and the Marines got three.

 

[regent]

In a war the size of WWII there had to be many mistakes, problems and blunders. One problem was the interservice rivalry, it exists in most nation and still exists in the US today. The problems, lives lost and cost of those interservice rivalries are enormous.

The blunders in WWII would fill volumes, probably more than even the volumes written about the biggie, Pearl Harbor. All of these blunders etc, can give rise to the conspiracy theories, and in the conspiracy theories there is money to be made, one can turn a blunder into a deep seated conspiracy thing. But the real value of the conspiracy thing is in the political realm, make a blunder into a conspiracy issue and it can beome politican's dream or nightmare come true. Maybe because conspiracy is part of politics?
But in a war the size of WWII, there was this thing called SNAFU.