Treason At Pearl Harbor.

[Soupnazi630]

Suggestion? The first link I posted was of a letter from a cryptographer named Leitwiler to somebody named Parke. There was no "suggestion" about any of it. In the letter he was speaking of the Japanese naval code. It said that as of November 16, 1941 (Manila time). he was "reading enough current traffic to

Suggestion? The first link I posted was of a letter from a cryptographer named Leitwiler to somebody named Parke. There was no "suggestion" about any of it. In the letter he was speaking of the Japanese naval code. It said that as of November 16, 1941 (Manila time). he was "reading enough current traffic to keep two translators very busy."

Yes suggestion

You are a liar. The first link was to a general website which cites the letter ands clearly states that it SUGGESTS an alternative narratifve

 

[goodluck]

Actually, many Japanese units in Manchuria put up fierce resistance to the Russians, but the Russians had vastly more artillery and armor.



Dead wrong. The Japanese were fiercely against surrendering to the Soviets and absolutely preferred surrendering to the Americans than to the Soviets. If you can find a single scholar who disputes this well-known and heavily documented fact, I'd like to know his/her name.



That's absurd. By April 1945, the Japanese posed no offensive threat to us. The Japanese were virtually defenseless against air and naval attack by then. The population was on nearly starvation rations. We were bombing Japanese cities at will and were not even bothering to send fighter escorts with the bomber formations because we knew that Japanese air defenses were essentially non-existent.

Gen. MacArthur and many other senior American officers noted after the war that if Truman had simply assured the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender, the war could have been ended without dropping any nukes. I might add that if Truman had given this assurance in the Potsdam Declaration, as Admiral Leahy and others urged him to do, there would have been no need to let the Soviets rape Manchuria and grab northern Korea.

1. We ourselves had quite a bit of artillery and armor. But it was very difficult to take any Japanese soldier alive. But they surrendered to the Russians.

2. Same answer as 1.

3. You are missing out on the whole political scheme of things. We may have been bombing the hell out of the Japanese, but they still put up a hell of a fight. Our invasion of Okinawa gave a taste of what to expect from an invasion of the Japanese main islands. But of course, the Russians were now in on the fight. What was a fight between the U.S. and Japan took a back seat to the struggle between American capitalism and "freedom" and Russian communism and totalitarianism. The sooner the U.S. could end the war, the less ground the Russians would take. Not to mention all the lives that would be saved on both sides by using nukes.

4. Our whole purpose was to defeat the Japanese. Everything that had happened had happened with the Japanese having an emperor. It would have been stupid to let him remain as the human god king of Japan.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is an absolute fact that the Japanese code was broken well before Pearl Harbor

At best, you can only speculate that the Japanese did not send any messages before the attack to defend the notion that FDR did not know the attack was coming. I highly doubt that was the case though.

Trouble is, history tells us that FDR used the same device that broke the code a few months later at Midway to route the Japanese in a victory.

There is a conundrum of sorts when breaking a code during war time. If you know what you enemy will do at every turn and take actions to fight them off at every turn, then they will conclude that you must have broken their code and change it or find another way to communicate. You are then in far more danger in future conflict.

However, if you allow some devastation by not responding to their every code, they will assume you have not broken their code and continue with it. So, you let the Japanese have some victories so long as you don't let them win the war.

Thus, it certainly becomes an interesting ethical dilemma regarding ignoring certain codes that cost people their lives so that you will ultimately win the war.

We have records of people alive at the time. People involved. This kind of bullshit is unworthy or serious consideration.

 

[goodluck]

Yet another lying Conspiracy theory from a site that panders conspiracy nut job. FDR did NOT know about the Dec. 7 attack. He knew that large for of JapaNavy ships had left their home waters, but had no idea where they were. Stop the bullshit.

Read the websites I gave links to. Educate yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes suggestion

You are a liar. The first link was to a general website which cites the letter ands clearly states that it SUGGESTS an alternative narratifve

"alternative narrative?"
We've been there -- with Rudy Giuliani.

 

[whitehall]

"Treason" is too strong. Mismanagement and incompetence are more accurate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Read the websites I gave links to. Educate yourself.

It's been debunked here and elsewhere. Why would anyone bother?

 

[goodluck]

Some people find it difficult to accept the simple answer and cling to conspiracies

We dont know for sure, but the best guess is that the Japanese were a lot better than our War Dept gave them credit for

And therefore did not take proper precautions

Some people find it difficult to accept that history is written by the victors. That doesn't make it true.

 

[goodluck]

Oh joy. And I bet goodluck still thinks the September 11 attacks were really a controlled demolition. Just ask the Naudet brothers who filmed both planes slamming into the towers, or retired FDNY Battalion Chief Pfeiffer, who lost his brother when the towers fell. They were eyewitnesses to that.

Wrong. And given your avatar image, don't bother talking to me.

 

[goodluck]

Yes suggestion

You are a liar. The first link was to a general website which cites the letter ands clearly states that it SUGGESTS an alternative narratifve

Wherever you read "suggestion," what Leitwiler wrote wasn't a "suggestion."

 

[goodluck]

"Treason" is too strong. Mismanagement and incompetence are more accurate.

No. FDR knew of the attack beforehand. That makes it treason.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Wrong. And given your avatar image, don't bother talking to me.

Awww another butthurt far Left whackjob who's fee fees got hurt.

 

[goodluck]

It's been debunked here and elsewhere. Why would anyone bother?

"Debunked" my ass. I bet you think that holocaust denial has been debunked as well. Yeah, they "debunk" it. By shutting up anybody who says otherwise. I'm not impressed. But you may be.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wherever you read "suggestion," what Leitwiler wrote wasn't a "suggestion."

Wrong it says so specifcically in the link.

None of your links has any actual evidence.

Youa re a failure

 

[Soupnazi630]

"Debunked" my ass. I bet you think that holocaust denial has been debunked as well. Yeah, they "debunk" it. By shutting up anybody who says otherwise. I'm not impressed. But you may be.

yes debunked and disproven

Both your stupid clam and holocaust denial.

No one has been shut up they have been marginalized as proven liars and frauds LIKE YOU

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Debunked" my ass. I bet you think that holocaust denial has been debunked as well. Yeah, they "debunk" it. By shutting up anybody who says otherwise. I'm not impressed. But you may be.

You're a subscriber to holocaust denial?

 

[DudleySmith]

The code was only partially broken. There were still gaps.

Most of the radio traffic indicated a possible attack on Australia or the Philippines.

 

[GMCGeneral]

You're a subscriber to holocaust denial?

Just as he's also a 9/11 "truther"

 

[Mac-7]

No. FDR knew of the attack beforehand. That makes it treason.

That makes it delusional on your part

 

[AZrailwhale]

You clearly have done little reading on this subject.



That is a superficial, public-school-textbook version of what happened.



Oh my goodness. The fact that Japan's civilian leadership, along with some sensible military leaders, were trying to surrender weeks before we nuked Hiroshima has been profusely documented. We have also known for years that Truman was aware weeks before Hiroshima that the emperor wanted to surrender and that he was hoping the Soviets would help Japan negotiate the surrender terms with the U.S.

Yet, Truman stubbornly and immorally refused to even give Japan private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender, even though he knew this was the only real concern among the Japanese about a surrender.

Even Gen. MacArthur said after the war that if Truman had simply given the Japanese private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, the war could have been ended without using nukes. Many other senior American military officers, including Eisenhower, said that we did not need to nuke Japan to end the war on satisfactory terms.

Japan had no civilian leadership in 1945. The people making peace proposals had no more legal right to do so than a state governor in the USA did. The official government’s position was that the only end of hostilities acceptable to Japan was a return to status quo ante December 5th 1941. No war crimes trials, no disarmament not agreed to by the Japanese government AND overseen by the Japanese government. The Japanese ambassador is on record in official Japanese records AND US intercepts as saying the Russians wouldn’t even forward those terms and even if they did the WAllies would never agree.