Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the gears-of-war dept.

David Swanson, author of "War is a Lie", writes via CounterPunch:

The facts [of the Pearl Harbor story] do not support the mythology. The United States government did not need to make Japan a junior partner in imperialism, did not need to fuel an arms race, did not need to support Nazism and fascism (as some of the biggest U.S. corporations did right through the war), did not need to provoke Japan, did not need to join the war in Asia or Europe, and was not surprised by the attack on Pearl Harbor. For support of each of these statements, keep reading.

[...] Churchill's fervent hope for years before the U.S. entry into the war was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter World War II in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry and assisting in the targeting of submarines as it had been doing. On December 7, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew up a declaration of war on both Japan and Germany, but decided it wouldn't work and went with Japan alone. Germany quickly declared war on the United States, possibly in hopes that Japan would declare war on the Soviet Union.

Getting into the war was not a new idea in the Roosevelt White House. FDR had tried lying to the U.S. public about U.S. ships including the Greer and the Kerny, which had been helping British planes track German submarines, but which Roosevelt pretended had been innocently attacked. Roosevelt also lied that he had in his possession a secret Nazi map planning the conquest of South America, as well as a secret Nazi plan for replacing all religions with Nazism. The map was of the quality of Karl Rove's "proof" that Iraq was buying uranium in Niger.

And yet, the people of the United States didn't buy the idea of going into another war until Pearl Harbor, by which point Roosevelt had already instituted the draft, activated the National Guard, created a huge Navy in two oceans, traded old destroyers to England in exchange for the lease of its bases in the Caribbean and Bermuda, and--just 11 days before the "unexpected" attack, and five days before FDR expected it--he had secretly ordered the creation (by Henry Field) of a list of every Japanese and Japanese-American person in the United States.

[...] On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as "the Marshall Plan". In fact we don't remember it at all. "We are preparing an offensive war against Japan", Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.

[...] Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R-MT), the first woman ever elected to Congress, and who had voted against World War I, stood alone in opposing World War II [...] found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference [of August 1941]. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been "cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade". Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the catchy slogan "Kill Japs! Kill Japs!") had given instructions to him and others to "shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea".

The article is very detailed and shows repeatedly the duplicity of those who have claimed that the strike on Pearl Harbor was a "surprise".


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BenJeremy on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:05PM

    by BenJeremy (6392) on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:05PM (#438806)

    Well, for somebody with absolutely no knowledge of naval logistics, you sure knocked that one out of the park, as in, you are willingly ignorant and seemingly proud of it.

    While the US did make motions to provoke the Japanese into action, they did NOT anticipate the attack on Pearl Harbor. There were far less critical targets they'd have willingly sacrificed than pretty much the entire Pacific fleet; the Japanese decision to attack Hawaii was political miscalculation. I'm sure the thought at the time was that Japan would attack somewhere much closer (i.e. more foreign, allowing non-Americans to take the brunt of the attack), which was why the fleet was holed up at Pearl Harbor in the first place.

    As for provocation... they didn't do a lot, and it didn't take much. The Japanese high command was pushing to attack the US far earlier, before any overt provocation. The war was inevitable, and an earlier start put Japan at a disadvantage; Germany sought to get Japan looking west toward the Soviet Union - from their perspective, it was the worst possible outcome, even if the Japanese were successful in their goals of smashing the Pacific Fleet.

    Ultimately, Japan misjudged the US' ability to recover and just what sort of resources it could bring to bear in war. The losses in Pearl Harbor certainly solidified public opinion, far more than a smaller attack on a land farther away might have, but the US government didn't need unanimous support, they only needed to swing a small percentage.

    The seeds of global conflict were sown long before 1941. The mismanagement of Germany's WWI defeat and the rise of Communist Russia meant war would happen. Mismanagement came from both hawks and doves who overplayed their hands in reaction to the other side's actions in diplomacy.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:38PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:38PM (#438818)

    Somebody, at some higher level of command, could clearly have divided the Pacific Fleet so that it wasn't pretty much entirely docked in a single harbor at one time - the Pacific is a big place. Not doing so is a simple invitation to something like a "surprise attack." The only tactical reason to concentrate forces that much would be for a surprise assault on a heavily defended target, which clearly wasn't happening anywhere near Pearl Harbor.

    Was there a conspiracy to galvanize the American people into action, get the political support to build a new modernized fleet and enter the War in earnest? That I can't say.

    What I am saying is that: either our Naval command took a willful and needless risk with their concentration of assets, or maybe there is something to the conspiracy theories. With the reliable information I have access to, either option is possible.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by BenJeremy on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:37PM

      by BenJeremy (6392) on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:37PM (#438858)

      You are ignoring one important point: As far as the US was concerned, both militarily and politically, Pearl Harbor was NOT a practical target of attack.

      The US military underestimated the ability of the Japanese (and their willingness to gamble) to commit to such a long range, ambitious attack. On the political side, it was thought the Japanese would move on US territories or allies closer to their own islands; the thought was they'd invade, rather than purely raid a strategic target. Invasion of Hawaii would have involved a lot more buildup and capture of islands to operate from.

      In short, the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't considered a possibility for very good (even if ultimately wrong) reasons.

      The reason it worked was because it was an audacious, bold move that ran counter to all conventional wisdom. For many reasons, it could have fallen apart... had the US fleet elements been out on maneuver, for example, or the Japanese fleet been spotted and plotted with enough intell (more than one stray report or two) - perhaps things might have turned out differently. Even on a war footing, the idea of an attack on a remote base was unthinkable before Pearl Harbor.

      The insanity of the tactic was the very reason they retaliated with the air raid over Tokyo - using bomber not designed to be launched from Carriers on a one-way mission, sputtering along on fumes before they even finished crossing the China Sea to land on the mainland. The US answered tit-for-tat because the maneuver was so over-the-top, that it demanded a response in kind.

      Tactics changed as a result of both of those raids. The Aircraft Carrier was brought to the forefront as the game changer it was. Naval artillery was no longer the deciding factor in battles between fleets. Before 1941, naval commanders still thought ships would slug it out (witness Germany's and Britain's lack of carriers). As a naval weapon, aircraft were more of an oddity before the 1940s, more of an extension of a ship's crows nest, rather than a means to deliver destruction to a dreadnaught.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:49PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:49PM (#438864)

        It was a bold move, and it may be an indication of the Japanese military's tactical brilliance far outshining their strategic/political competence.

        I know there was plenty of second guessing, dissent at the time about the best deployment of the fleet. The question of: "was this particular option taken deliberately as part of a larger political plan?" is probably impossible to answer... I am virtually certain that such plans were formulated and discussed - whether they were ever brought to the President's attention, and whether or not he was acting out one of those plans, there's probably not enough evidence remaining to ever answer that question.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:46PM

    by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:46PM (#438822) Journal
    Pearl Harbor was surprised, FDR was not.

    Japanese military channels had not yet been broken, but their diplomats had been, and their cables were being intercepted and decrypted in near real time. He knew that they had finally given up on diplomacy, he knew to expect attack that morning. He didn't have the target, no, that was in the military cables, but it was obvious that Pearl was high on the list of likely targets. But this information was not shared with the commanders on the ground in Hawaii.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @09:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @09:42PM (#438880)

      Yup. By Pearl Harbor Day, USA's boffins had unraveled the secret of Japan's diplomatic code machine. [google.com]
      The claim [google.com] by Henry Stimson is simply bullshit.
      USA.gov had a pretty good idea what its adversary was up to.

      The Original Submission was edited down quite a bit for TFS (with the remainder not making this page) and the article is significantly longer that that.
      Those mention USA's interruption of Japan's trade in petroleum and other raw materials.
      Those actions were purposely antagonistic.
      To believe that USA would think that Japan would put up with that for very long is simply naive.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:20PM

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:20PM (#438844)

    one of the things I've heard brought up frequently as proof, or at least a strong indication, supporting that the US knew there was going to be some kind of attack ,and that Pearl Harbor was a prime target, was that the majority of the ships in the harbor were old and no longer state of the art, and there was a strong push to replace them but no money. Another big point is made by pointing out that the newer aircraft carriers in the Pacific were far enough South of Hawaii to be out side the range of a possible attack on PH, so far that they could not have provided any kind of aid even if there had been a days warning of the attack.

    I'll agree that the conspiracy theories linking the Kennedy assassination to the Girl Scouts are beyond credibility but sometimes there is a theory that accounts for more of the facts than the official versions.

    And the more I learn about major events that are used to change National policies and political/military powers the less I trust the official and main stream media reported version of those events.

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by BenJeremy on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:49PM

      by BenJeremy (6392) on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:49PM (#438865)

      Everybody loves a conspiracy theory. There is certainly truth that the US was egging on the Japanese, but they expected Midway to be a more likely target than Hawaii.

      It's a simple matter of logic and practicality. Battleships weren't obsolete, either... and naval command would NEVER sacrifice them. They were great ground pounders, able to support sea landings or punish coastal areas (if you know geography, you'd also realize people concentrate near bodies of waters, making them juicy targets in a time of war)

      The US expected invasion, rather than a bold raid at extreme range. For all intents and purposes, no military commander at the time would have given credence to the idea that the Japanese could manage an air raid at such extreme range. As I said in another comment, the Dolittle raid was our response, because an audacious attack called for an even more audacious reply. The Japanese were expected to take islands closer to their homeland, and Hawaii was considered to be safe enough, buffered by the anticipated move to invade (which would have also triggered US declaration of war).

      Two things really...

      1) Pearl Harbor was a purely destructive raid - the US thought they'd see escalation first.
      2) Pearl Harbor was thought to be out of range of potential attack.

      Even given some sort of direct intelligence of a pending attack, it probably would have been ruled out as a false lead, due to the low probability of it.

      In any event, neither the military, nor the White House wanted the Japanese to destroy most of the Pacific Fleet. You don't start a chess game by sweeping away all your pieces except for your king and a few pawns.

      • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday December 08 2016, @11:47PM

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Thursday December 08 2016, @11:47PM (#438928)

        You bring up some good points worth considering.

        And your right that you don't start a game of chess by sweeping away everything but your King. However, chess is about making strategic sacrifices, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was not the opening moves of the game.

        The truth is the general public will never know exactly what was known and unknown by the governments involved, records have been altered and/or destroyed, witnesses have either died keeping their silence or met with accidents after starting to speak out. It is the same with all the major events of History that changed the direction of the world, The Reichstag fire, the J.F.K assassination, Oswald's murder, Bobby Kennedy's shooting, Oklahoma City bombing, 9-11 and all the rest. The complete truth may be out there but it will never reach the ears of the masses. And the fact is that most of them don't even care.

        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 09 2016, @04:26AM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday December 09 2016, @04:26AM (#439015) Journal

        "Battleships weren't obsolete..." Is probably one of the most significant understatements of this thread. The very fact that something like that needs to be said here shows many people are arguing from complete ignorance of what naval tactics were like and the relative perceived value of ships in 1941. Carriers did not yet have the reputation that would make them so much more valuable... Battleships were still thought of as a core part of the fleet. (To be sure, there were some bullish air force leaders who believed that carriers would become the decisive element in future naval warfare, but no navy admiral in 1941 would have just decided to save carriers and give up on everything else.)

        And as for those "missing" carriers, IIRC at least one of them was actually supposed to be in Pearl Harbor the day before attack and was only slowed down by unexpected weather.

        It simply amazes me how much some people just "want to believe" and don't bother to check out whether random rumors can be substantiated or even make any sense.