• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FDR engineered the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US into WW2 !!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Q]What I don't get is why the first shot would have been by US forces, but we were still so unprepared that we only got a handful of planes off the ground It just doesn't make sense...[/quote]

The reason America was caught so unprepared was basically because there were a series of miscommunications. The mini-sub that was the first victim of the attack, however, the information relayed by the patrol boat was not handled properly. The first wave of japanese bombers and fighters WAS detected by American radar, but the radio operator reported it the formation was assumed to be a flight of American bombers due in. After that, the Japanese were extremely effective. American fighter planes were destroyed on the ground almost immediately. Then the Japanese concentrated on Battleship ROw and systematically destroyed the Pacific fleet. Only one ship actually got under way during the attack.

OK, so, that's why we left ALL our capitol ships in the Pacific fleet anchored together in Pearl?

Actually, not counting the loss of life, the loss of the Pacific fleet was not THAT horrible for the Americans. None of the carriers were there, only battleships 1/2 of which were scheduled to be decomissioned in the coming months. The 200 planes they destroyed at Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines were all antiquated anyway. The fleet the Japanese sunk at Pearl Harbor was antiquated, not ready or capable of fighting in the coming war. There were very few surface to surface battles of any signifcance during the war, and in the end the sinking of the Pacific Fleet only encouraged American manufactering and engineering to kick into high gear and build and design the new ships of the war.

The loss of life was much more damaging to America then the loss of the battleships of the Pacific Fleet.

Lastly, I can't believe Roosevelt actually knew about the attack. If he did and wanted to use the attack to draw america into the war he would have surely either warned Pearl Harbor or moved men away. The public would have been just as angered if only 200 men had died. It's for this reason i find it hard to believe he knew anything about it.
 
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Q]What I don't get is why the first shot would have been by US forces, but we were still so unprepared that we only got a handful of planes off the ground It just doesn't make sense...

The reason America was caught so unprepared was basically because there were a series of miscommunications. The mini-sub that was the first victim of the attack, however, the information relayed by the patrol boat was not handled properly. The first wave of japanese bombers and fighters WAS detected by American radar, but the radio operator reported it the formation was assumed to be a flight of American bombers due in. After that, the Japanese were extremely effective. American fighter planes were destroyed on the ground almost immediately. Then the Japanese concentrated on Battleship ROw and systematically destroyed the Pacific fleet. Only one ship actually got under way during the attack.

OK, so, that's why we left ALL our capitol ships in the Pacific fleet anchored together in Pearl?

Actually, not counting the loss of life, the loss of the Pacific fleet was not THAT horrible for the Americans. None of the carriers were there, only battleships 1/2 of which were scheduled to be decomissioned in the coming months. The 200 planes they destroyed at Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines were all antiquated anyway. The fleet the Japanese sunk at Pearl Harbor was antiquated, not ready or capable of fighting in the coming war. There were very few surface to surface battles of any signifcance during the war, and in the end the sinking of the Pacific Fleet only encouraged American manufactering and engineering to kick into high gear and build and design the new ships of the war.

The loss of life was much more damaging to America then the loss of the battleships of the Pacific Fleet.

Lastly, I can't believe Roosevelt actually knew about the attack. If he did and wanted to use the attack to draw america into the war he would have surely either warned Pearl Harbor or moved men away. The public would have been just as angered if only 200 men had died. It's for this reason i find it hard to believe he knew anything about it.[/quote]
Well if you think about it logically, wouldn't moving men away look suspicious?
 
You mean to tell me that you cannot get a sense of what kind of website 'whatreallyhappened.com' is after looking at the home page for about 10 seconds? Oy vey! 😕

Are you sure that FDR and Admiral Yamamoto weren't actually one and the same person? Hmmmm....
 
A lot of you guys don't seem to realize the mood of the whole nation at the time of Pearl Harbor. The US voters were dead-set against any involvement in the European war.....it was something like 75% or more against.

FDR wanted to get the US involved, at any cost except losing votes. Far as I'm concerned nothing was beneath the man. There is plenty of creditable evidence to suggest he knew exactly what was coming. And he also knew it would take something like a Pearl Harbor to change the anti-war mood of the nation. Losing a few planes or ships wouldn't do it. Loss of the entire Pacific fleet would. The whole sad truth about this will be revealed someday.

You can see many similarities with the Pearl Harbor incident to the situation we are in today.....no-one really wants war. Unless Bush finds a smoking gun, or makes one, a large percentage of the population today does not want war, same as in the late 30's. early 40's.
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
You mean to tell me that you cannot get a sense of what kind of website 'whatreallyhappened.com' is after looking at the home page for about 10 seconds? Oy vey! 😕

Are you sure that FDR and Admiral Yamamoto weren't actually one and the same person? Hmmmm....

No, because I actually read sh|t instead of assuming that what it might say is false.

rolleye.gif


Go to hell.

nik
 
America was not involved in a war in Japan, we didn't have advanced radar and spy networks and we did not have the japanesse code "purple" cracked. The intelligence we did have indicated an attack was eminent, but NO one in our government believed they would attack Pearl Harbor. It was as inconcievable then as 9/11 was. 1930-40's were a different era, nations didn't just attack each other. They declared war, withdrew the diplomats then attacked. WWII changed that and america was unprepared for that change in tactics.

Yea the radar guy on pearl saw the planes coming in, but you know what? That radar had been installed 3 months prior and not one single millitary commander believed it worked.

FDR didn't "engineer" us into anything, the Japanesse forced the hand.
 
No, because I actually read sh|t instead of assuming that what it might say is false.
You mean to tell me that, in the name of reserving judgement, you actually must buy the National Enquirer and read everything in there BEFORE being able to determine that its a heap of incredible bullsh-t, because fantasticly absurd headlines reading "Bush Belonged to a Baby Eating Cult!" isn't quite enough information for you to make a decision?

Or, rather, you're just a maleable-brained mush head who hasn't the intelligence to spot a sham when he sees one? Maybe its just youthful stupidity. I suppose we can give you a few more years. After all, I once believed in vampires and space aliens at one time. Granted, I was SEVEN YEARS OLD, some folks require more time for their brain to firm up, I guess.
 
McCollum memo Oct 1940

President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations..


In January 1941, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto began planning for a surprise attack on the US Navy at Pearl Harbor.

Damn shame that the planning for the attack had begun before the actions of the memo were even implemented. It rather shoots down another nice conspriacy theory.



 
I was told in my high school junior year history class that a delcaration of war came some time soon before the attack on Pearl Harbor began, and that the US translator was slow in translating and reporting this message making Pearl Harbor seem like a surprise attack. That class is the only place I have heard this however. 😛

PS: Live 120 years by drinking water from a magical plastic mug?!?! ONLY $70!!! :Q:Q
rolleye.gif
link from artbell.com
 
I have heard both theories (FDR engineered or knew) about the attack on Pearl Harbor, from usually reliable sources. FDR had tried everything to get us involved in WW2 in Europe, and all he had achieved was a loss of votes. Lend-lease was in trouble, the Senate wanted to end it. Germany was doubting our neutrality and threating to sink our shipping. FDR was in danger of losing the next election. Anyway, our children will have the answers when the paperwork is finally opened (2045, I think). Lynn
 
I sure don't think FDR engineered the attack, but there seem to be quite a few incidents of missed/overlooked/misinterpreted bits and pieces of information and various intelligence reports.

I don't claim this site to be 100% accurate, but is interesting none the less.

Text
 
this is bull...next thing you know someone will publish something that says that Bush "engineered" the attacks on the World Trade Center. Utter crap
 
"engineered" and "provoked" are two completely different things. I suggest you change your thread title to reflect the fact that FDR did not plan the attack on Pearl Harbour

Sure, the US government "engineered" the WTC attacks by supporting the state of Israel and attacking Iraq in 1991!
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
No, because I actually read sh|t instead of assuming that what it might say is false.
You mean to tell me that, in the name of reserving judgement, you actually must buy the National Enquirer and read everything in there BEFORE being able to determine that its a heap of incredible bullsh-t, because fantasticly absurd headlines reading "Bush Belonged to a Baby Eating Cult!" isn't quite enough information for you to make a decision?

Or, rather, you're just a maleable-brained mush head who hasn't the intelligence to spot a sham when he sees one? Maybe its just youthful stupidity. I suppose we can give you a few more years. After all, I once believed in vampires and space aliens at one time. Granted, I was SEVEN YEARS OLD, some folks require more time for their brain to firm up, I guess.

No, see, I've read the national enquirer before. I know it's contents are exaggerated and twisted. I'd never read anything about this site or even heard of it before. That's why I actually read it and wanted to know more information about it. I'm sorry that I'm not an UberKnowItAll like you to magically *know* that this site was bunk.
rolleye.gif


Now would you, please, SHUT THE GODDAMN MOTHERFSCK UP

nik
 
Originally posted by: Shiva112
this is bull...next thing you know someone will publish something that says that Bush "engineered" the attacks on the World Trade Center. Utter crap

Already happened. By a congress woman, no doubt. The same lady that wanted Juliani to take $30mil from the middle east to help rebuild New York.

nik
 
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
"engineered" and "provoked" are two completely different things. I suggest you change your thread title to reflect the fact that FDR did not plan the attack on Pearl Harbour

Sure, the US government "engineered" the WTC attacks by supporting the state of Israel and attacking Iraq in 1991!
rolleye.gif

If you look at the parent site that the article was taken from, the subtext of the article reads "The Smoking Gun of Pearl Harbor : The memo that proves FDR engineered the attack." The point of this thread was not to spread rumored or imagined propaganda like the parent site's intent. It was to ask for confirmation about the site's validity.

Don't people read threads anymore before blindly posting?

nik
 
The point of this thread was not to spread rumored or imagined propaganda like the parent site's intent. It was to ask for confirmation about the site's validity.
Well I think you got your answer, no?

Its just such a shame you even had to ask in the first place. Another victim of public education.
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The point of this thread was not to spread rumored or imagined propaganda like the parent site's intent. It was to ask for confirmation about the site's validity.
Well I think you got your answer, no? Its just such a shame you even had to ask in the first place. Another victim of public education.

Homeschooled TC? 🙂
 
Homeschooled TC?
Me? Kinda, I was raised by wolves. 😛

I'm just glad I was educated before the internet age, where our information came from books written by historians who spent a decade or more of their adult lives doing serious scholarship, often sponsored by respected universities or historical societies, instead of some 'alternative media' website run by an anti-establishment demagogue who wears pro-drug legalization T-Shirts and pops Paxil from a PEZ dispenser for an antisocial personality disorder and couldn't hope to attract an audience any other way.

The information superhighway has an unseeming supersystem of information sewage running underneath it.
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The point of this thread was not to spread rumored or imagined propaganda like the parent site's intent. It was to ask for confirmation about the site's validity.
Well I think you got your answer, no?

Its just such a shame you even had to ask in the first place. Another victim of public education.

Thankfully, I didn't get public education.

nik
 
I'm just glad I was educated before the internet age, where our information came from books written by historians who spent a decade or more of their adult lives doing serious scholarship, often sponsored by respected universities or historical societies, instead of some 'alternative media' website run by an anti-establishment demagogue who wears pro-drug legalization T-Shirts and pops Paxil from a PEZ dispenser for an antisocial personality disorder and couldn't hope to attract an audience any other way.
And yes that is the longest run-on sentence I've written in at least...two or three days.
 
Back
Top