Treason At Pearl Harbor.

[Mac-7]

I posted many links to websites in my thread. Read them.

I dont deny that FDR wanted to enter the war against Germany and a majority of the American public didnt

He would have had to be extremely stupid not to

What we know now about the Nazis leaves no doubt about that

And the Imperial Japanese were no better

It was never a question of if we would go to war but rather when

Imagine the Germans and Japanese meeting somewhere between India and Egypt, with America all alone and sitting in the sights of both

So we prodded the Japanese with demands that they not overrun china and stop acting like barbarians

If that makes FDR a traitor so be it

And thank God he was

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"Hindsight?" I call it history.

You cannot change history by hindsight. You change the future be remembering history.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The carriers were critical for the hunter killer naval groups that knocked out the U-Boat wolfpacks.

In 1941 there were no carriers being used for hunter-killer packs and no fleet carriers were being for ASW work. Attempting to do so cost the RN the carrier Courageous. There were not enough escorts to form hunter-killer groups in 1941. Most convoys in 1941 were lucky to have one or two real warships as escorts and many had no escort at all except an Armed Merchant Cruiser to deal with surface raiders.

 

[westwall]

In 1941 there were no carriers being used for hunter-killer packs and no fleet carriers were being for ASW work. Attempting to do so cost the RN the carrier Courageous. There were not enough escorts to form hunter-killer groups in 1941. Most convoys in 1941 were lucky to have one or two real warships as escorts and many had no escort at all except an Armed Merchant Cruiser to deal with surface raiders.

Yes, there were. The British were already experimenting with them. It was those experiments that led to the F4F remaining in production till the end of the war because they were better suited to the escort carriers being used in the hunter killer groups.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes, there were. The British were already experimenting with them. It was those experiments that led to the F4F remaining in production till the end of the war because they were better suited to the escort carriers being used in the hunter killer groups.

There were no Hunter-killer groups in 1941. The only RN escort carrier in 1941 was HMS Audacity which was a converted German merchant ship. She was sunk on her maiden voyage while escorting a convoy. The RN didn’t commission any escort carriers until late 1942. The RN didn’t organize any Hunter-killer groups until mid-1943 and they didn’t contain any carriers, just surface escorts.

as for F4Fs, in 1941 and 1942, the RN couldn’t even get enough for their fleet carriers. The British escort carriers were operating Swordfish with Sea Hurricanes for fighters IF any could be spared from the fleet carriers,

 

[westwall]

There were no Hunter-killer groups in 1941. The only RN escort carrier in 1941 was HMS Audacity which was a converted German merchant ship. She was sunk on her maiden voyage while escorting a convoy. The RN didn’t commission any escort carriers until late 1942. The RN didn’t organize any Hunter-killer groups until mid-1943 and they didn’t contain any carriers, just surface escorts.

Correct, they were still trying to figure out the proper tactics. HMS Audacity's first convoy was OG 74 to Gibraltar. She carried 10 Martlets from 802 Squadron Fleet Air Arm. They maintained a standing patrol of two aircraft with a third at the ready. They engaged several U-Boats and marked them for the accompanying escorts with smoke floats. On the return convoy (OG 76) they engaged four FW-200 Condors, and managed to shoot down three of them for the loss of one Martlet. However, she was so successful at intercepting the U-Boats that the Kriegsmarine designated her a special target and on the evening of December 21 she was torpedoed and sunk. But the tactics for the hunter killer teams were now set. There was some modifications as the U-Boats changed their tactics around 1943.

In the interim the British used cargo ships modified with catapults to launch the fighters, mainly Sea Hurricanes, to provide cover while the new classes of ships were being built. Once the ships were floated, the tactics were already in place.

 

[Unkotare]

Next, he will yell us Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

You mean the truth?

 

[AZrailwhale]

You mean the truth?

It’s not the truth. The revisionist history people are very careful not to say the Japanese Government was trying to surrender because that is an easily disproven lie. The Japanese government never even considered a surrender. It’s only official position was a return to status quo ante December 5th 1941, a do over as children would say. Some Japanese CIVILIANS with no official backing proposed a surrender with conditions that weren’t acceptable to the Allies whose public ally pronounced position was unconditional surrender just as they did with Germany.

 

[otto105]

The big problem with history written by the victors is that everything else, such as the truth, becomes a "conspiracy theory." But the truth of the matter is that FDR knew well in advance when the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. Making all of the servicemen who died in the attack suckers. If I were a ghost of any of those killed there, I wouldn't have the least interest in any "honor" you may pay me and the others who died. I would be more interested in JUSTICE! Such as by having the real story come out. I will show you a number of websites that show that FDR knew well in advance what the Japanese were planning on doing and when. The first two bring up what cryptographers themselves had to say. This first one is from a letter written by somebody named Lietwiler to Parke. The really telling part of it is it speaking of the Japanese naval code. It says, "By November 16, 1941 (Manila time) Lietweiler informed Parke that he was "reading enough current traffic to keep two translators very busy." Here is the website.

Pearl Harbor Document: Letter from Leitweiler to Parke | Robert B. Stinnett

Pearl Harbor Document: Letter from Leitweiler to Parke: The...​

Obviously, it was in FDR's best interest to keep this information as secret as possible. And it is still being kept secret. For any cryptographers back then, it was in their best interest to shut up about the matter. In this next website it speaks of another cryptographer named William Friedman. Though what he had to say came from what his wife had to say on the matter. Probably after his death. I would assume it is what happened when they both heard about the 'surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor. He paced back and forth in their home and muttered to himself repeatedly, "But they knew, they knew, they knew." Here is the website that speaks of it and other matters.


https://covertactionmagazine.com/20...dence-demonstrating-government-foreknowledge/

Eighty Years of Lies: President... - CovertAction Magazine​

This next website posts a quote that was stated by an army board of inquiry in 1944. It says, "...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." Here is the website.

Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies

Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies​

Here is another website for you on the matter.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/the-state/pearl-harbor-81st-anniversary

81 Years After Pearl Harbor, We... - The Free Thought Project​

Pearl Harbor Document: Letter from Leitweiler to Parke | Robert B. Stinnett​

Loser maga lies.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That wasn’t known in 1941. Carriers were for scouting for the battle line. They only became critical in the Pacific after the Japanese sank our battle line. In the Atlantic, they were never important, The Germans, Italians and British still considered the battleships and cruisers the most important ships in the fleet.

Goodluck: So, you live in fantasy land too. Big surprise.

John Edgar Slow Horses The carriers won the Battle of the Atlantic by creating air cover for the convoys from America to the British Isles. Britain was not starved into submission, the Anglo-American armed forces were mobilized in great numbers, well supplied, and superbly trained, all because our air cover allowed the material necessary for the assault on Europe.

 

[westwall]

You mean the truth?

No, that's a well proven lie.

Try reading some real history instead of the crap the Japanese peddle.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Well, Leitwiler did make a suggestion to Parke at one point. But apart from that there is nothing suggestive about the whole thing. It is all pure fact. Another point is that it might be possible to dig up a photocopy of the original letter. But I have run across people like you on many topics. No amount of evidence is good enough for you.

Wrong

It is nothing but suggestion and you have no evidence AT ALL

 

[Soupnazi630]

The websites I gave links to in my thread tell what really happened.

No they do not they merely engage in speculation

 

[Soupnazi630]

Interesting fantasy world you live in.

It is the real world and it is in your face.

you cannot post or cite evidence to the contrary

 

[AZrailwhale]

Goodluck: So, you live in fantasy land too. Big surprise.

John Edgar Slow Horses The carriers won the Battle of the Atlantic by creating air cover for the convoys from America to the British Isles. Britain was not starved into submission, the Anglo-American armed forces were mobilized in great numbers, well supplied, and superbly trained, all because our air cover allowed the material necessary for the assault on Europe.

Escort carriers weren’t used in any numbers until mid-1943 by which time the U-Boats threat had already been emasculated. More merchant losses happened in 1942 than in 1943. If they were so necessary, the RN wouldn’t have spent months rebuilding their Avgas systems to its own standards. That pissed off the USN which was shorting its own needs to provide CVEs to the RN. Land-based aircraft covered most of the Atlantic and got most of the aircraft U-Boat kills. Escort carrier aircraft were valuable because they forced U-Boats to submerge and lose contact with the convoys. Most U-Boats were killed near shore, not in mid-Atlantic by land-based aircraft.

 

[Mac-7]

Escort carriers weren’t used in any numbers until mid-1943 by which time the U-Boats threat had already been emasculated. More merchant losses happened in 1942 than in 1943. If they were so necessary, the RN wouldn’t have spent months rebuilding their Avgas systems to its own standards. That pissed off the USN which was shorting its own needs to provide CVEs to the RN. Land-based aircraft covered most of the Atlantic and got most of the aircraft U-Boat kills. Escort carrier aircraft were valuable because they forced U-Boats to submerge and lose contact with the convoys. Most U-Boats were killed near shore, not in mid-Atlantic by land-based aircraft.

The Axis could have won WWII if it had smarter leaders

We are very fortunate that Hitler and Tojo carried fatal flaws that eventually spelled their demise

God does indeed watch over fools

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

And some people prefer simplistic myths to complicated facts. When it comes to history, the simple answer is often not the correct or complete answer. Take, for example, the simple story that FDR and the War Department had no idea the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor. The Hoover-Ladd memos alone destroy this myth, as do the accounts of Dutch Admiral Ranneft and Colonel Ketchum, the discovery of the transcript of the Briggs interview, the discovery of the OP-20-G file on message 7001 (proving that the Winds execute message was intercepted on December 4, just as Captain Safford reported), etc., etc., etc.

Or, take the simple explanation that nuking Japan caused Japan to surrender. It's a simple, feel-good story, but it's fiction. Japanese records show that the atomic bomb had very little influence on the emperor, his advisers, and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka Supreme War Council) on their decision to surrender. In fact, the Supreme War Council did not even think that confirmation of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was sufficient reason to convene the council. But, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately.

Historian Gregg Herken, a professor emeritus of U.S. diplomatic history at the University of California:

The notion that the atomic bombs caused the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, has been, for many Americans and virtually all U.S. history textbooks, the default understanding of how and why the war ended. But minutes of the meetings of the Japanese government reveal a more complex story. The latest and best scholarship on the surrender, based on Japanese records, concludes that the Soviet Union’s unexpected entry into the war against Japan on Aug. 8 was probably an even greater shock to Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima two days earlier. Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war. As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa writes in his book Racing the Enemy, “Indeed, the Soviet attack, not the Hiroshima bomb, convinced political leaders to end the war.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html?noredirect=on)

To follow up on Herken's use of Tsuyoshi Hasegawe's Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, it is one of the most highly acclaimed books on Japan's surrender ever written, and Hasegawe spends dozens of pages documenting the fact that it was the Soviet invasion, not the nukes, that (1) enabled the moderates to convene a meeting with the emperor and the Supreme War council where the emperor could order a surrender and (2) persuaded the hardliners to accept the emperor's order to surrender.

Indeed, at the Big Six meeting on August 9 when Hirohito broke the deadlock and ordered a surrender, he said nothing about Hiroshima or the atomic bomb in his remarks to the meeting--not one word (Noriko Kawamura, Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, Kindle Edition, locs. 3287-3314; see also Robert Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender, p. 175).

The moderates needed no convincing. They had already decided many weeks earlier that Japan needed to surrender, which is why Emperor Hirohito himself ordered that the Soviets be approached about negotiating a surrender with the Americans weeks before Hiroshima--and we know that Truman knew all about this approach.

 

[westwall]

Escort carriers weren’t used in any numbers until mid-1943 by which time the U-Boats threat had already been emasculated. More merchant losses happened in 1942 than in 1943. If they were so necessary, the RN wouldn’t have spent months rebuilding their Avgas systems to its own standards. That pissed off the USN which was shorting its own needs to provide CVEs to the RN. Land-based aircraft covered most of the Atlantic and got most of the aircraft U-Boat kills. Escort carrier aircraft were valuable because they forced U-Boats to submerge and lose contact with the convoys. Most U-Boats were killed near shore, not in mid-Atlantic by land-based aircraft.

Correct. But the success of the hunter killers wasn't in the sinking of the U-Boats, it was PREVENTING them sinking merchant shipping. That was their primary mission.

And they were very successful at it.

 

[westwall]

The Axis could have won WWII if it had smarter leaders

We are very fortunate that Hitler and Tojo carried fatal flaws that eventually spelled their demise

God does indeed watch over fools

Only if the war is won before 1941. Once the US gets truly involved, our production capacity wins it for the allies.

 

[westwall]

And some people prefer simplistic myths to complicated facts. When it comes to history, the simple answer is often not the correct or complete answer. Take, for example, the simple story that FDR and the War Department had no idea the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor. The Hoover-Ladd memos alone destroy this myth, as do the accounts of Dutch Admiral Ranneft and Colonel Ketchum, the discovery of the transcript of the Briggs interview, the discovery of the OP-20-G file on message 7001 (proving that the Winds execute message was intercepted on December 4, just as Captain Safford reported), etc., etc., etc.

Or, take the simple explanation that nuking Japan caused Japan to surrender. It's a simple, feel-good story, but it's fiction. Japanese records show that the atomic bomb had very little influence on the emperor, his advisers, and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka Supreme War Council) on their decision to surrender. In fact, the Supreme War Council did not even think that confirmation of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was sufficient reason to convene the council. But, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately.

Historian Gregg Herken, a professor emeritus of U.S. diplomatic history at the University of California:

The notion that the atomic bombs caused the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, has been, for many Americans and virtually all U.S. history textbooks, the default understanding of how and why the war ended. But minutes of the meetings of the Japanese government reveal a more complex story. The latest and best scholarship on the surrender, based on Japanese records, concludes that the Soviet Union’s unexpected entry into the war against Japan on Aug. 8 was probably an even greater shock to Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima two days earlier. Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war. As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa writes in his book Racing the Enemy, “Indeed, the Soviet attack, not the Hiroshima bomb, convinced political leaders to end the war.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html?noredirect=on)

To follow up on Herken's use of Tsuyoshi Hasegawe's Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, it is one of the most highly acclaimed books on Japan's surrender ever written, and Hasegawe spends dozens of pages documenting the fact that it was the Soviet invasion, not the nukes, that (1) enabled the moderates to convene a meeting with the emperor and the Supreme War council where the emperor could order a surrender and (2) persuaded the hardliners to accept the emperor's order to surrender.

Indeed, at the Big Six meeting on August 9 when Hirohito broke the deadlock and ordered a surrender, he said nothing about Hiroshima or the atomic bomb in his remarks to the meeting--not one word (Noriko Kawamura, Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, Kindle Edition, locs. 3287-3314; see also Robert Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender, p. 175).

The moderates needed no convincing. They had already decided many weeks earlier that Japan needed to surrender, which is why Emperor Hirohito himself ordered that the Soviets be approached about negotiating a surrender with the Americans weeks before Hiroshima--and we know that Truman knew all about this approach.

The "unexpected Soviet invasion"?

Unexpected by whom?

Peace overtures without agreeing to the Allied demands are nothing more than verbal self pleasure.

The three day battle between the hard liners and the unconditional surrender seekers isn't mentioned, why is that?