"About the whole Saddam Hussein, Al-Queda connection, it just must be said, there wasn't any connection between Hitler and Pearl Harbor either."
If O'Reilly were a USENET group, he would be off the air right now!
Bill O'Reilly Dick Morris
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"it just must be said, there wasn't any connection between Hitler and Pearl Harbor either."
You know, I love Republican talking points. They're so funny. This one in particular is amusing, since the generally accepted truth is that Roosevelt deliberately provoked Japan into attacking so that he would have a more popular pretext for getting involved in the European theater -- and that this decision proved nearly disastrous for the USA. Do Republicans really want to be making this parallel, especially since they have to stretch so far to make it in the first place?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: This one in particular is amusing, since the generally accepted truth is that Roosevelt deliberately provoked Japan into attacking so that he would have a more popular pretext for getting involved in the European theater -- and that this decision proved nearly disastrous for the USA.
Apparently its also generally accepted that JFK was setup by LBJ.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it would take a willful ignorance of history to suggest that Roosevelt was surprised by and in fact did not provoke a Japanese attack. That he got the details a little wrong, and that the early attacks were more fierce than our military at first expected, is IMO at least partly due to a preoccupation with planning for intervention in the European theater.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't think (although I could be wrong...lol.) that he was saying that Pearl Harbor was a plot...but that as a nation, we provoked an attack.
I don't think that we knew about the attack (although we should have) and allowed it to happen, but we knew tensions were escalating, and were prepared to go to war...adn he thought that if we did we would be able to use the attack to justify entering the war in Europe as well...something most Americans didn't want to do.
We were a pretty isolationist country at that point..hard as that is to believe these days.
Kwea
[ October 05, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, he provoked them by not selling them oil to carry on their depradations in China.
Funny how heated controversies get settled into "generally accepted" with no additional proof.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Funny how heated controversies get settled into 'generally accepted' with no additional proof."
Is this really a heated controversy, Dag? While there is indeed a "heated controversy" over whether Roosevelt knew specifically about the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened, there is as I understand it historical consensus that he intended to enter the war under the blanket of Japanese provocation.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Like I said before, the same consensus that agrees JFK wasn't shot by Oswald?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which is it Tom? Did he provoke them or did they provoke us?
Dagonee
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Tom is right on this one. The US was operating a sea blockade against Japan, something which has historically been considered an act of war. I know of no historians who dispute this fact. If you do, please anti up.
Roosevelt knew that this would provoke an attack against the US navy. I doubt he expected anything like Pearl Harbor, but he would have to have been an idiot to believe that the Japanese would not attack.
It is also important to note, that Hitler declared war on the US on Dec. 11 1941 before the US congress declared war on germany. That simple fact should invalidates Morris' comparison.
[ October 05, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, Dag, I suppose you can argue that they provoked us into taking steps which then pretty much forced them to attack us. But based on Japanese behavior early in the war, I think it's safe to say that they did not want us to involve ourselves in the Pacific, and would have preferred overall to be ignored completely.
That we chose not to ignore their behavior is in fact part of my point. Roosevelt deliberately involved himself in actions specifically designed to frustrate the Japanese, not because he felt really bad for China but because 1) American strategic interests in the Pacific could not withstand a stable Japanese empire and 2) he needed a pretext to enter the war, which at the time was still a very unpopular sentiment. For a number of reasons, Japan made a more acceptable enemy in that regard -- and, certainly, was more vulnerable to American economic provocation.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Tom, whatever YOU may think, it is not "generally accepted" that Roosevelt intentionally provoked Japan to attack. I'm pretty sure any poll of Americans would reveal that, and I doubt you can find the facts to prove such a claim.
[ October 05, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Define your definition of "Generally Accepted" please.
Generally accepted by whom?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Tres, I'm not sure a poll of the American people wouldn't reveal that Lincoln ran the country during WWII. Poll historians, however, and Tom's assessment is accurate. The same way it's generally accepted we didn't need to drop any nuclear bombs at all (Japan was talking about surrender in the August before the bombs; their only condition was that the Emperor not be required to step down, and to the end they were relenting even on that). It's possible they're wrong and an attack from Japan was utterly unexpected, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Wait, the Japanese "had" to attack us? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did they "have" to launch the aggressive war on their neighbors that provoked our blockade?
Or am I getting my order of events wrong here? (Darn public schools!)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To put it another way : They could either launch an attack on the United States, or give up their ambition to become the dominating Great Power in the Pacific and East Asia.
Another point is that a Japanese government which took the rational course could well have been ousted from power by a more fanatical set. In this case, you could see it as there really being no choice : Either I launch this war, and hope for a negotiated peace giving me some of what I want, or I lose power and perhaps life, and a fanatic who will never negotiate launches the war.
The prewar Japanese politicians could not know that the US would refuse any negotiations short of unconditional surrender. There was still Germany to think of, after all. It wasn't a totally hopeless gamble, given the information they had.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
From the WWII books I've been reading recently, some of the "Neuvo Historians" think we provoked an attack by interfering in Japan's invasions of it's neighbors.
Basically they were a very proud people and didn't like Westerners telling them how to run the orient. When we backed it up by isolating them, that was provocation.
I guess the same way that if we put sanctions on say South Korea or Iran and they attack us, it will be provoked. Or the same way we provoked 9/11 to happen. Or the same way Sadaam provoked us to invade Iraq.
Basically Japan didn't have to attack us, but we backed them into a corner where they either had to play ball "our" way, or suffer economically. They chose to spit in our faces instead.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: To put it another way : They could either launch an attack on the United States, or give up their ambition to become the dominating Great Power in the Pacific and East Asia.
I agree with that whole quote except I would add "conquering" after dominating.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Poll historians, however, and Tom's assessment is accurate.
I doubt it. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
Furthermore, Tom said "it would take a willful ignorance of history to suggest that Roosevelt was surprised by and in fact did not provoke a Japanese attack." If he means this then he's talking about all people who haven't willfully ignored history - not just historians. Most Americans have not willfully ignored history. But I'd bet most of those Americans do not think Roosevelt intended for Japan to attack the U.S.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Most Americans have not willfully ignored history.
All right we can go with " Most Americans have stupidly ignored history" instead.
I was under the impression that it was a mixed bag actually Roosevelt knew stuff was building up but the fiercity did take him off guard. I'm not sure how extreme our blockade actually was, as to actually constitute an act of war.
Don't we already have sanctions on Iran?
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, I'm not sure I understand the nuance of what you're trying to say, here, because it appears to play into my larger point.
You keep harping on the fact that the Japanese did Bad Things (tm) first, and therefore our response to those Bad Things was not a provocation as much as a necessary reaction. But that misses the point, which revolves around the intention of our entry into WWII and not whether we were right to get involved in the first place. The issue is that we not only chose to get involved (as you yourself appear to be arguing, which only reinforces my argument), but that we got involved in a way that was deliberately chosen to make our intended enemies the aggressor for political reasons.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I still think that the Axis Powers Pact pretty much guarantees that Germany and Japan were connected before Pearl Harbor. And this was something lauded well before the war by all of the members of the Axis.
I don't, however, remember any mention of a public and written alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I don't remember Saddam jumping up and proclaiming solidarity with Osama at any point.
But hey, revisionist history is popular and now they are starting to revise history as it happens.
Smoke and mirrors, don't mind the man behind the curtain...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, you said Roosevelt acted with the intent of having Japan attack us.
That's a very different thing than saying Roosevelt acted to avoid aiding Japan's conquest, understanding the risk of an attack and willing to take that risk to do the right thing.
quote: It's possible they're wrong and an attack from Japan was utterly unexpected, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Lalo, the unexpectedness of the attack is only half of Tom's contention and not the half I'm disagreeing with.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, you said Roosevelt acted with the intent of having Japan attack us."
Yes. In fact, I specifically listed what I believe were Roosevelt's two motivations in a previous post. Should I reiterate them, or did you already read it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's a very different thing than saying Roosevelt acted to avoid aiding Japan's conquest, understanding the risk of an attack and willing to take that risk to do the right thing.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Nothing like a good experts' debate between laymen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's a very different thing than saying Roosevelt acted to avoid aiding Japan's conquest, understanding the risk of an attack and willing to take that risk to do the right thing."
Yes, yes, it is. Are you saying that's what Roosevelt did? Because it would seem to contradict everything we know about the guy, once you get past the vaselined lens of nostalgia.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nothing like a good experts' debate between laymen.
Tom's the one attempting to claim expertise and to speak for the "historical consensus," with no showing that the experts agree with his take.
quote:Yes, yes, it is. Are you saying that's what Roosevelt did? Because it would seem to contradict everything we know about the guy, once you get past the vaselined lens of nostalgia.
You're right. It contradicts EVERYTHING we know about him, including that he smoked his cigarettes with that cheesy holder.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*sigh* How, exactly, am I supposed to convince you of "historical consensus," Dag, particularly since you're clearly determined to ignore history in favor of your idealized misunderstanding of the situation? Is there really a hyperlink I can provide that will demonstrate "consensus" to you, or will you trust me that you do, in fact, need to do more research on this topic -- and that, once this research is done, you will almost certainly concede the point?
You're one of the more stubborn posters on the site, Dag; please tell me what evidence I could provide that would convince you that you're wrong. Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:Tom's the one attempting to claim expertise and to speak for the "historical consensus," with no showing that the experts agree with his take.
While you are the one contradicting him flatly without even pretending to know anything about what the experts think (except that they must surely disagree with Tom because, well, Tom's claim is ridiculous isn't it!). Well done.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:. Are you saying that's what Roosevelt did? Because it would seem to contradict everything we know about the guy, once you get past the vaselined lens of nostalgia.
Again, you makes claims like this with nothing to back it up. Yet, the history books don't say it. The average person doesn't believe it - even among those who have "not willfully ignored history."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, particularly since you're clearly determined to ignore history in favor of your idealized misunderstanding of the situation?
How unbeleivably arrogant of you. You're the one claiming historical consensus. You must have some reason for thinking this is the consensus.
And yet you're jumping immediately to the conclusion that the only way I could disagree with your version of the consensus is if I'm ignoring history and have an idealized misunderstanding. Which history am I ignoring?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While you are the one contradicting him flatly without even pretending to know anything about what the experts think (except that they must surely disagree with Tom because, well, Tom's claim is ridiculous isn't it!). Well done.
I'm not claiming one thing happened or the other. I'm claiming there's no historical consensus.
In other words, Tom's claiming to know what every historian who's formed an opinion thinks on this subject. I'm claiming they disagree about it, not that the fact Tom's claiming there is an exemption on isn't true.
Since there are articles published by historians almost every Dec 7 taking one side or the other, how does a consensus exist?
in other word's, Tom's the one claiming the "experts" agree with him. I'm claiming not all of them do. Do you see the difference?
Dagonee
[ October 06, 2004, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Even a simple google will bring up articles like this, suggesting that if there is any consensus, it is that what Tom is talking about are "far-flung theories" that historians "wearily rebut." Or articles like this suggesting that "the debate still rages -- how could the United States have been caught so unprepared?" Or this article claiming "the controversy over Pearl Harbor is as lively as ever."
It is clear there is no consensus.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It's called "re-writing" history if you don't like it. It's the new form of "neuvo history" that involves accepting assumptions as factual history, and disregarding what actually happens.
It's the result of our "consipiracy theory" mentallity that if we don't like what happened, we can misrepresent facts, twist truths and misquote historical figures in order to place doubt in factual history in an effort to push an "alternate version" that makes those historians feel better about their belief systems.
So keep in mind that "expert's opinions" should be tempered by the knowledge of their agendas.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I do think there's very credible, non-paranoid evidence that FDR did provoke an attack. If I had to vote one way or another, I'd probably vote that way after doing more research first. I just think that claiming there's a "generally accepted truth" or "historical consensus" is going too far.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I understand what you are saying, but there are still others of the same ilk that believe there's evidence the whole "moon walk" was a government set up, etc.
I mean there's even "evidence" from the last Presidential debate that Kerry had a "cheat sheet" in his pocket but that doesn't change the fact that he most likely did not.
I'm just sick of "revisionist historians" with biased agendas trying to pass of their paper thin consipiracy theories as truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, look, I'll lay out commonly-known facts. You're welcome to disagree with these.
Roosevelt and Churchill were corresponding as early as February 1940 about finding a pretext for bringing the Americans into the war. Roosevelt's presidential campaign insisted that he would NOT bring the Americans into the war, but his challengers all insisted otherwise; Gen. Johnson expressed the sentiment that "I know of no well-informed Washington observer who isn't convinced that, if Mr. Roosevelt is elected, he will drag us into war at the first opportunity, and that, if none presents itself, he will make one."
In the late summer of 1940, America broke one of the Japanese military codes; in September, the Axis signed a pact of mutual protection. A week later, the Secretary of the Navy asked Admiral Richardson to actively blockade all Japanese naval traffic in the Pacific, which Richardson refused to do on the grounds that it would constitute an act of war without Congressional approval (and, separately, that he felt the United States Navy could not do this effectively.) Richardson was relieved of command the following January, after complaining repeatedly about the Navy's failure to improve base defenses at Pearl Harbor.
By March of 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill were corresponding regularly about ways to provoke a German attack on American assets, thus bringing America into the war. Here's a snippet from Churchill's letters:
quote: The President had said that he would wage war but not declare it, and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces.
The United States Navy was taking over the convoy route to Iceland.
The President's orders to these escorts were to attack any U-boat which showed itself, even if it were two or three hundred miles away from the convoy....
Everything was to be done to force "an incident".
Churchill and Roosevelt even took to calling Hitler "Hider," mainly because the Fuhrer specifically ordered his Navy to ignore all provocations from the United States as long as the war with Russia was occupying the German military. The two eventually resolved that it would be far easier to provoke Japan, as it had numerous economic and geographic weaknesses that made it more vulnerable to strongarming.
In July and August of 1941, Roosevelt joined with the British and Dutch to embargo Japanese oil, a prospect considerably easier -- and less military -- than his earlier "close the Pacific" request. Japan, with no other source of oil, would be forced to attack or collapse -- as many people recognized; at this time, many isolationist politicians accused Roosevelt of inching the United States toward inevitable, undeclared war.
By late August of 1941, Congressman Martin Dies and the Secretary of War were providing regular reports to Roosevelt on the cracked Japanese naval codes, indicating that the Japanese were requesting troop strengths and positions for all American naval assets from their spies, particularly at Pearl Harbor. In October, the Japanese cabinet resigned en masse, to be replaced by an all-military cabinet led by General Tojo; this was widely seen as evidence that the former cabinet, who had counseled against striking the United States, had fallen out of favor.
In response to this, the U.S. Secretary of War wrote in his personal diary, "we face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure that Japan be put into the wrong and to make the first bad, overt move."
On November 25th, according to Secretary Stimson, Roosevelt convened a meeting with his military brass and informed them that he had been told by various sources to expect a Japanese surprise attack "as soon as next Monday."
There is absolutely no doubt that the Americans expected an attack on Pearl Harbor soon after finally rejecting the Japanese peace treaty proposal on the 26th; the British, on hearing the news that day, radioed to Churchill that "the Americans are finally getting around to the war."
A week later, the Japanese fleet -- which sailed on the 25th, the same day Roosevelt called his meeting -- reached Pearl Harbor.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Links please.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
1. Those facts are hardly commonly known. I certainly don't know them, and I'm betting the vast majority of those who have not willfully ignored history also do not know them.
2. They illustrate only that a case can be made for the idea that Roosevelt intended for Japan to attack - not that there is a consensus that this case is true.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Beyond quibbling over Tom's point, Sopwith's point was the one I would have made. The ties between Japan and Germany were much more clear than the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. edit: It's also not like the U.S. had a choice since Pearl Harbor destroyed our Pacific fleet.
The Japan/Germany analogy also misses the fact that Germany in 1941 there was no question that Germany was a threat, whereas no one in 2001 thought Iraq's military was a threat to anyone. Unless they had WMD, they were safely contained.
1920 Germany had more in common with 2001 Iraq than 1941 Germany.
[ October 06, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Those facts are hardly commonly known."
Sorry. I thought they were, at least among WWII historians. I'll agree that the American public probably isn't consciously aware of all this, since it's kind of central to our national myth about WWII that we were just defending ourselves.
------
Storm, the reason I'm bringing up my point -- rather than just pointing out the existence of a mutual protection pact and leaving it at that -- is that I find the parallel actually rather interesting. If you make the case that FDR saw the need for the U.S. to enter a war despite overwhelming popular opposition to that intervention, and that he felt the only way to do this was to provoke an attack on American soil, you're left with what I think is an intriguing question: whether WWII was "worth" the deception. And if it was, who's to say that Bush was not equally justified in misleading the American public on the case against Iraq?
[ October 06, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was aware of all of them.
But the conclusions are intermixed with the facts there.
And this is hardly damaging to the contention that we were defending ourselves. Japan did attack first.
Dagonee
[ October 06, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, I think you're splitting hairs, here. Our mythology does not consist of "we defended ourselves from a bully who punched us after we insulted his mother;" our myth is "we were sitting around one day, minding our own business, when this bully came out of nowhere and viciously bitch-slapped us."
As my point was that we knowingly provoked Japan into a first military strike so that we would have a pretext for war, your concession on that issue would seem to be, well, a concession.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm, the reason I'm bringing up my point -- rather than just pointing out the existence of a mutual protection pact and leaving it at that -- is that I find the parallel actually rather interesting. If you make the case that FDR saw the need for the U.S. to enter a war despite overwhelming popular opposition to that intervention, and that he felt the only way to do this was to provoke an attack on American soil, you're left with what I think is an intriguing question: whether WWII was "worth" the deception. And if it was, who's to say that Bush was not equally justified in misleading the American public on the case against Iraq?
No, I get that. I wasn't dismissing your argument, just saying that even beyond your argument, the analogy between Japan/Germany and Iraq is very strained, imho.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I think you're splitting hairs, here. Our mythology does not consist of "we defended ourselves from a bully who punched us after we insulted his mother;" our myth is "we were sitting around one day, minding our own business, when this bully came out of nowhere and viciously bitch-slapped us."
Maybe I'm just too well educated, but this has never been my impression of the myth.
quote:As my point was that we knowingly provoked Japan into a first military strike so that we would have a pretext for war, your concession on that issue would seem to be, well, a concession.
No, your point wasn't just that this is what happened, your point was that this was the "agreed truth" and my first comment on this was directed solely at that.
You can accuse me of hairsplitting, but you're the one who used a historical analysis to ridicule your political opponents, and instead of proving that analysis simply assumed the mantle of authorities you didn't deign to cite.
And I haven't conceded I agree with this interpretation. I said if I had to form an opinion on it I'd likely go that way, after more research. Why haven't I formed an opinion? Because it's a controversial issue whose importance is not great enough for me to do the research to make an informed decision.
Dagonee
[ October 06, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Because it's a controversial issue whose importance is not great enough for me to do the research to make an informed decision."
Except it's NOT really controversial. What I posted up there are accepted facts. There are, in fact, considerably more documents available from both Roosevelt's and Churchill's correspondence that make their intentions more explicit; I haven't included it here because I don't exactly have reference materials at work. *grin*
While there is controversy about whether or not Roosevelt deliberately hung out Pearl Harbor as bait, there does not appear to be any controversy -- as far as I can tell -- among historians on the issue of whether or not Roosevelt ultimately intended to enter the war through the expedient of a Japanese attack. While there are those who insist otherwise due to what I consider a misguided desire to preserve that national myth, their objections rely purely on interpretation -- that, for instance, while Roosevelt's actions are completely in keeping with the motivations stated to Churchill and Stimson, that his stated motivations were not actually the reasons behind his actions, and that he had "purer" and more idealistic reasons that we kind of have to take on faith.
You seem upset that I am pointing out that certain facts are, in actuality, facts. You also seem upset that I am pointing out that these facts lead to an obvious conclusion. But I will offer up in my defense that the logic here is this: "Roosevelt said he wanted to do this. He told someone else he would do this. His actions are completely consistent with what he said he wanted to do and what he said he would do. Ergo, it is safe to assume that when he did what he said he would do, he did it for the reasons he said he would do it."
[ October 06, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: The two eventually resolved that it would be far easier to provoke Japan, as it had numerous economic and geographic weaknesses that made it more vulnerable to strongarming.
That's the claimed fact I would like to see the letter sources for please.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I'll see what I can do from here. Google is my friend. I'll be pulling from Internet sources, though, so you'll have to vet 'em for tin foil yourself.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:Why haven't I formed an opinion? Because it's a controversial issue whose importance is not great enough for me to do the research to make an informed decision.
Strangely it is important enough for you to disagree vigorously and repeatedly to someone who has.
-
I'm sorry I only have meta-commentary to offer. I'm just sad to see Tom facing off against this battery of non-arguments. It's not that I'm so absolutely sure he's right--like, Dag, I just don't care enough to do the research--but it is pretty damn clear, and galling, that no one disagreeing with Tom has so far been willing or able to engage him on a level. Tom says A, because of B; Dag says not-A, nyeah nyeah. Tom says Y, because of Z; CStrom says prove it, buster. Dag's and CStrom's own claims and evidence: nowhere to be found. Why do you bother, Tom?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Thanks Tom.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Except it's NOT really controversial. What I posted up there are accepted facts.
Accepted facts do not mean any possible conclusion drawn from those facts is equally accepted.
I have already given links demonstrating that, in fact, the conclusion you are proposing is highly controversial and hotly debated.
[ October 06, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Strangely it is important enough for you to disagree vigorously and repeatedly to someone who has.
Because Tom is using it as the basis of a criticism of his political opponents, and the criticism doesn't just rely on the accuracy of Tom's assertions but the claim that they are "agreed truth."
And this is clear evidence you don't understand what the argument is about: Not whether Tom's claims about FDR's actions are true, but whether those claims are "accepted truth."
In other words, I have formed an opinion on whether FDR's provocation is accepted truth, and that is what we're disagreeing about.
quote:I'm sorry I only have meta-commentary to offer. I'm just sad to see Tom facing off against this battery of non-arguments. It's not that I'm so absolutely sure he's right--like, Dag, I just don't care enough to do the research--but it is pretty damn clear, and galling, that no one disagreeing with Tom has so far been willing or able to engage him on a level.
I'm disagreeing with Tom about the general acceptance of these ideas, not the ideas themselves. To date, we have each presented the exact same amount of evidence about that level of acceptance.
quote:Tom says A, because of B; Dag says not-A, nyeah nyeah.
Except Tom didn't say "A." He said, "A is the accepted truth." I didn't say "Not A." I said "A is not accepted truth because people disagree about it." And I certainly didn't say nyeah nyeah.
quote:Tom says Y, because of Z; CStrom says prove it, buster. Dag's and CStrom's own claims and evidence: nowhere to be found.
Tom provided no evidence of his claim that I am disputing. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
quote:Why do you bother, Tom?
Why do you bother? You barge into a dispute you've demonstrated zero understanding of, utterly mischaracterized the statements made by both sides, and act as if Tom is being put upon for being asked to backup an assertion he made.
Dagonee
[ October 06, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Since Tom might not, I spent hours pouring over documents...and by that I mean used Google for some ideas.
It doesn't take much to find stuff on the internet. True, you can find just about anything but it wasn't hard to find things that seemed to make sense. One can say a person is jumping to conclusions based upon the facts, but I didn't find anything that said "Roosevelt DID'T blockade Japan." Why he did it? We can never truly know for sure, but the evidence supports provocation.
A number of articles show that the Freedom of Information Act is what really brought the conspiracy to real light. People dug in the national archives and found that we knew the Japanese codes and knew what was going on in the Pacific.
I think it would be neat if someone would approach Tom's larger question...did the eradication of the Nazi/Japanese menace justify the means? And can/will the same thing be said of Bush and his means to get us into war in the Middle East?
For me, I can't see that happening. Saddam and Hitler are completely different threats. Hitler was actively marching all over Europe and conquering countries and countries that we normally like quite a bit. Saddam sat in his palace and made idle threats while he murdered his own population. He is evil, he is nasty but was he of the world-changing variety. Had Hitler gone unchecked, the world would be a VASTLY different place...or so Philip K. Dick would have us think. I seriously wonder how different the world would be if yet another middle east despot still sat in power. He was a nasty cuss, to be sure, but nastier than anyone else on his block? World-changing nasty? One can definitly argue that Osama (remember him?) changed the USA forever and he still runs free and his network has claimed responsibility for carnage since our own attack on 9/11/01. It would be like instead of fighting all the Axis in WWII and instead focused on one province in Italy and left the rest of the world to deal with the remaining threat. No doubt Italy was among the bad guys, but they certainly weren't at the head of the class.
Do others on here feel that Bush and his deceptions to get us into Iraq could be worth it in the end (if we "win" and leave Iraq better in the long run...which is faaaar from determined, even with elections coming up. If they fairly elect someone who wants to shoot the US, are they better off? Are we?).
fil
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tres, none of the links you posted really indicate substantial argument among historians. The CNN link quotes a single dissenting historian, Norman Polmar, whose only cited objection is that the Pearl Harbor commanders received a "war warning" occasioned as a result of Roosevelt's meeting on the 25th; while this is true, that warning specifically listed the Philippines and other American Pacific islands as potential targets; Hawaii was not indicated as a likely target. (More importantly, Polmar is only dissenting here from the view that the Navy hung Hawaii out to dry, and not from my larger point.)
Your "Who Lost Pearl Harbor" link only offers evidence to discount the premise that Roosevelt himself specifically knew of the time and place of the Japanese attack, and actually goes so far as to pretty much concede his motivations -- although it does a lot of insulting "conspiracy theorists" for guessing and speculating about the president's intentions.
Finally, your "Case Closed" link pretty much takes as a given that Roosevelt expected a Japanese attack, but complains 1) that one author named Stinnett failed to properly footnote some of his sources and 2) that conspiracy theorists tip-toe unconvincingly around not placing the blame for the deaths at Pearl Harbor at Roosevelt's feet if he did indeed know about them, and argues that this amounts to "Holocaustomania."
In other words, it's pretty much like I said: the controversy is over whether Roosevelt intended Pearl Harbor to be a specific target. As far as I'm concerned, we'll never know the truth about that one, and I don't think it matters much.
[ October 06, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Why has no one mentioned the "Prophet Billy" angle yet?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tres, none of the links you posted really indicate substantial argument among historians.
Tom, it offers substantially more evidence of disagreement than your evidence of agreement - which is no evidence and no quotes.
If you need more evidence, here are some links I found (each of which continues to say the issue is controversial, not agreed upon) that include names of articles and authors that dispute claims that FDR intended for the U.S. to be attacked by Japan. I don't have access to many academic journals, unfortunately.
The first link doesn't seem to be workign for me - the host can't be resolved.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Oh, well... here's the relevant stuff:
quote:The first category is what we can call conspiracy theories. Pearl Harbor abounds in such theories.
One such theory says that President Roosevelt knew the Japanese attack was coming and -- because of an overweening desire to see the United States in the war -- did not warn the Army and Navy commanders in Hawaii. Readers are referred to the following articles to get both sides of this particular dispute: Edward S. Barkin and L. Michael Meyer, "COMINT and Pearl Harbor: FDR's Mistake," International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 2, no. 4 (Winter 1988): 513-531; and Edwin C. Fishel and Louis W. Tordello, "FDR's Mistake? Not Likely," International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 5, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 360-372.
For a discussion of the latest entry into the "FDR-knew" sweepstakes, see John C. Zimmerman, "Pearl Harbor Revisionism: Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit," Intelligence and National Security 17, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 127-146, a "Review Essay" focused on Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Free Press, 1999).
A second conspiracy theory accuses British Prime Minister Churchill of knowing that the Japanese fleet was on the way to attack Pearl Harbor but not warning Roosevelt. The reason suggested for Churchill's action was a belief that the America's joining with England was the only way that Hitler could be defeated. The central work in this category is probably James Rusbridger and Eric Nave, Betrayal at Pearl Harbor: How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Old Tappan, NJ: Simon & Schuster, 1992). Rusbridger was a prolific -- and often sensationalist -- author on intelligence matters. Nave is regarded by some as the father of British codebreaking in the Far East. Based largely on Nave's memory decades after the fact, the book contends that both the British and the Dutch intercepted -- and read -- a radio signal sent to the Japanese carrier force on 25 November 1941. That message is supposed to have revealed the position and likely destination of the Japanese fleet. The authors assert that Churchill received this message -- and deliberately withheld it in order to ensure that the United States would be attacked and thereby brought into the war.
The assertions in the Rusbridger and Nave book were greeted with some enthusiasm by the popular press, but were rejected almost universally by historians and intelligence experts. In the main, the book is based on hearsay and bits and pieces of information presented as evidence. The central argument in the book violates all that is known about the history of British and American cryptology. Briefly stated, the Japanese code that Rusbridger and Nave claim the message was sent in had not by all credible evidence -- and that evidence is voluminous -- been broken in 1941. In addition, the recently released minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) for 1941 do not support the revisionist suggestion that Churchill had and withheld foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. See Richard Aldrich, "British and American Policy on Intelligence Archives: Never-Never Land and Wonderland?" Studies in Intelligence 38, no. 5 (1995): 18.
To show that conspiracy theorists are committed to equal opportunity for friends and nonfriends alike, a third theory gives Stalin knowledge of the Japanese plans. Like Churchill, he is supposed to have so badly wanted the United States in the war against Hitler that he withheld that information from the Americans.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xap, that excerpt still seems to relate to whether FDR knew of the specific attack, not if he wanted to provoke an attack.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Bill O'Reilly![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This one in particular is amusing, since the generally accepted truth is that Roosevelt deliberately provoked Japan into attacking so that he would have a more popular pretext for getting involved in the European theater -- and that this decision proved nearly disastrous for the USA. Do Republicans really want to be making this parallel, especially since they have to stretch so far to make it in the first place?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)