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: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:23PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:23PM (#438848) Journal

    I'm not saying that it's impossible to think that we just got caught with our pants down

    It's important to note that there WERE high-level people before December 7th who made precisely the argument you're making here, i.e., that Pearl Harbor was a bad place to have the whole fleet stationed.

    Of course, that fact can be used by either side to support their arguments -- to the conspiracy fans, obviously these warnings went unheeded because these high-level folks weren't "in the game" and didn't know the real strategy. To the "normal history" side, a more rational reading is that there actually WAS dissent on this issue, thus making it clear that views were mixed and those who criticize in hindsight might have valid points.

    "Hindsight is 20/20" and all that. There were all sorts of reasons why Pearl Harbor was convenient logistically for various plans the Navy clearly WAS considering at that time. Was the risk ignored? Maybe. Was it ignored deliberately? That seems to be a REALLY bizarre view (to me), if for nothing else than that the decision to concentrate that you're criticizing PALES in comparison to the military incompetence that would involved in planning the conspiracy plot. The U.S. wants to begin an aggressive war by destroying or disabling almost all of its fleet in the region? The idea that any senior military commander would think that plan was a good one is pretty outlandish. What if Japan failed to make a large enough scale attack on Pearl Harbor to convince the American public to join the war? Then you're facing whatever losses of ships, without public support to necessarily churn out new ones... and you still have a highly aggressive enemy in the Pacific who could plan bigger attacks at any moment.

    If FDR just wanted to get the American public riled up enough to join the war, it seems pretty likely his military strategists could have come up with a much better plan that minimized losses better.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:33PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:33PM (#438856)

    The U.S. wants to begin an aggressive war by destroying or disabling almost all of its fleet in the region? The idea that any senior military commander would think that plan was a good one is pretty outlandish.

    There's a reason that a politician is commander in chief of all armed forces.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @02:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @02:28PM (#439974)

    IF the attack wasn't big enough? Simple, wait for a bigger one, try to lose even harder. Or just sink a few by yourself and blame whomever you care to blame.