Perl Harbor conspiracy theories
Stuart McGraw
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl.html
that gives a list of evidence and chronology
supporting the theory that FDR knew of and wanted
the Perl Harbor attack.
Now I'm sure this is one of many and that most
here consider them all bogus.
My question is, is there a *good* web site or
online resource specifically dedicated to debunking
the "facts" in these conspiracy web sites? By "good"
I mean one that takes the arguments seriously and
rebuts them with verifiable evidence as opposed to
hand-waving like, "that is too ridiculous to
consider" or "everybody knows..." non-refutations.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> My question is, is there a *good* web site or
> online resource specifically dedicated to debunking
> the "facts" in these conspiracy web sites? By "good"
> I mean one that takes the arguments seriously and
> rebuts them with verifiable evidence as opposed to
> hand-waving like, "that is too ridiculous to
> consider" or "everybody knows..." non-refutations.
Dunno of a website, but Lee's _Marching Orders_ in conjunction with Feis'
_The Road to Pearl Harbor_ have probably everything you'll need to
make up your mind. Some highlights, though not really new insights;
1) The US and UK absolutely knew the Japanese were going to attack the
British SE Asian possessions that week. They were monitoring both
intercepts, and doing recon on the Japanese fleet.
2) The US felt it was probable, though not definite, that the Japanese
would attack the PI; if they didn't, the Japanese would be leaving their
supply line open to US interdiction, but OTOH, the US (read: FDR) might
have a hard time getting Congress to declare war.
3) A week before PH, a "full warning of war" went out to ALL bases in
the Pacific, including Pearl and the PI.
Both Feis and Lee rely largely on intercepts. Lee concludes that there is
"probably" enough information in the intercepts to deduce an intended PH
attack, but that nobody at the time, and no agency, was qualified to put it
all together.
Mike
Alan
> My question is, is there a *good* web site or
> online resource specifically dedicated to debunking
> the "facts" in these conspiracy web sites? By "good"
> I mean one that takes the arguments seriously and
> rebuts them with verifiable evidence as opposed to
> hand-waving like, "that is too ridiculous to
> consider" or "everybody knows..." non-refutations.
Prados's "Combined Fleet Decoded"
Prange's "At Dawn We Slept"
Layton's "And I Was There"
These might be useful to you.
======
One thing you have to remember about Pearl Harbor, there was a great
deal of {well, for lack of a better phrase} "ass covering" by many of
those in positions of responsibility at the time. This clouded the
issue and probably lead to some of the theories that arose.
There were rivalries within the navy that existed before and persisted
throughout WWII. The intel team in Wash DC was jealous of the team in
Oahu. There was also an institutional rivalry for control of signal
intelligence, ONI {Naval Intelligence} versus ONC {Naval
Communications}. Both of these had a direct influence on the failure
that occurred.
Alan
Les
(stuff deleted)
> My question is, is there a *good* web site or
> online resource specifically dedicated to debunking
> the "facts" in these conspiracy web sites?
(rest of post deleted)
For a list of myths that are easily debunked, try:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/
The "Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings" site can be accessed from there,
but because I like copy-and-paste, try:
http://ibiblio.org/pha/pha/index.html
The link I just referenced has primary material that a lot of the
conspiracy theorists like to quote out of context.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:hg71c2$6fi$1...@aioe.org...
The Pearl Harbor attack site has already been mentioned.
I know of no site dedicated to a point by point rebuttal of the
various conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor.
There are just so many of them. There is one for the USSR
(spies told them), the Chinese (spies again) the British (code
breaking, I think there might have been attempt to also have
a spies based one), the Dutch, code breaking or one of their
submarines.
Then there are the many variations on who in the US knew and
how they knew. Spies, code breaking and traffic analysis are
used, in various combinations, using various messages and quotes,
members of the Senate and Congress are amongst those supposed
to have known before hand. And so on.
Where do you start?
The articles of Phil Jacobsen, who served in the intelligence service
in WWII, are some of the most detailed work in laying out the
radio intercepts side of the facts and how they contradict some of
the latest conspiracy claims. He does things like look at the serial
numbers of the IJN messages.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Alan
wrote:
> There are just so many of them. There is one for the USSR
> (spies told them), the Chinese (spies again) the British (code
> breaking, I think there might have been attempt to also have
> a spies based one), the Dutch, code breaking or one of their
> submarines.
The way I look at conspiracy theories, they fall into two classes,
"who knows" & "big secret". The "who knows" class can be dismissed
from our discussion since there is no way it can be proved or
disproved. I always look at the "big secret" class {which I think most
of the PHA theories are in} from the view of what would be required to
make it work?
As an example, let's look at the theory the Dutch code breakers in the
Netherlands East Indies intercepted and decoded a message designating
Pearl Harbor as a target and/or when the attack would come. FDR was
told and decided to suppress all knowledge of it.
Why were the Dutch the only ones to intercept and decode the message?
{If the message was intercepted by other countries, but not able to be
decoded, it should still be in some archives somewhere.} How many
people were in between the Dutch code breaker who decoded the message
and FDR? {There must have been a number of Dutch officials in Java who
would have had to see the message and decide what to do about it. A
coded message sent from Java to DC. [This message could also be
archived somewhere.] Then more Dutch in DC who would have had to see
it. Then there are the US officials in DC.} Is it possible {how}that
all of these people could be directed to suppress their involvement?
As time went on, is it possible that all of these people decided to
take their knowledge with them to the grave? If one or more of them
are supposed to have told their story, where is the documentary
evidence? {ie Either one of the messages, affidavits, verifiable
personal correspondence or something, then evidence showing the person
was in a position to know.}
Or, in short, just saying, "The Dutch knew and told FDR", isn't enough
for me. How does the theorist know? Where are the links in the chain?
Alan
OWKtree
that even if a message in a broken code was intercepted it might not
have been decoded and translated in a timely manner. The Japanese had
an agent in Hawaii collecting information on the USN Pacific fleet and
Pearl Harbor installations. His reports were being sent in a broken
code, but the messages were not given priority and thus sat in a
translator's IN basket until well after the attack took place. An
indication that the Japanese might be considering a strike on Pearl
Harbor, yes, but the data was not available in a timely manner to be
recognized and acted on.
The limited resource of Japanese-English translators were being used
on what was considered higher priority items such as the series of
diplomatic messages.
- Kurt
WaltBJ
> I came across the following web page
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl.html
> that gives a list of evidence and chronology
> supporting the theory that FDR knew of and wanted
> the Perl Harbor attack.
SNIP:
A good factual book about Pearl Harbor was written by
an Army judge advocate named Clausen. He was specifically
empowered by Secretary of War Stimson and given subpoena
powers and carte blanche travel authority to find out what really
happened.
His name and the subject should enable you to find the book
in a library somewhere.
Walt BJ
Tracy White
> online resource specifically dedicated to debunking
> the "facts" in these conspiracy web sites? By "good"
> I mean one that takes the arguments seriously and
> rebuts them with verifiable evidence as opposed to
One of the better ones, oddly enough to some, is wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate
Scott M. Kozel
All that verbiage, over 10,000 words, and the rebuttal is really very
simple, mainly that the presence of an IJN naval force with 6 aircraft
carriers, less than 200 miles from Oahu, was an act of war and would
have warranted all U.S. measures to fight that battle in as effective a
manner as possible.
If they knew they were coming, Oahu air forces are ready, B-17 scouts
locate the task force, and at least 3 USN aircraft carriers are deployed
on the flank.
There would be nothing but downsides to deliberately lying prostrate to
the attack.
David H Thornley
> There would be nothing but downsides to deliberately lying prostrate to
> the attack.
>
That's why all the conspiracy theorists are at pains to explain why FDR
(or, in some cases, Churchill) wanted it to happen.
Typically, they misread the Tripartite Pact (Stinnett does so, then
quotes it correctly in the notes), and assume that Hitler was going
to abide by a signed treaty. Alternatively, they assume that Hitler
was going to declare war on the US, and that it was possible for
FDR or Churchill to rely on that.
They gloss over the fact that a successfully resisted attack would
be just as good for getting us into the war, and would likely not
inflame public opinion against Japan as much (and FDR wanted to
fight Germany, not Japan, so he had to be careful not to get the
public too anti-Japan at the expense of being anti-Nazi).
Alternatively, they could disregard FDR's actions and statements
before war broke out, and figure he wanted a war with Japan for
some unknown reason.
You'd think that pointing out the gaping holes in these arguments
would be sufficient to refute them, so my conclusion is that
Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists are not worth trying to convert,
and that the only benefits of refutation are in more or less public
forums, for the benefit of innocent bystanders.
The Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorist that I thought the most sane,
rational, and made the most sense was motivated by injustice done
to spirits on the astral plane, among others, and thought Kimmel
should be the Celestial Cincpac. She actually had reasons (not
that I think Kimmel has a better claim than Nimitz as Celestial
Cincpac, whatever that is exactly).
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Scott M. Kozel
>
> They gloss over the fact that a successfully resisted attack would
> be just as good for getting us into the war, and would likely not
> inflame public opinion against Japan as much (and FDR wanted to
> fight Germany, not Japan, so he had to be careful not to get the
> public too anti-Japan at the expense of being anti-Nazi).
Also: If the U.S. had broken the IJN code, it wouldn't matter whether it
was eventually revealed to the world that the U.S. used code-breaking to
find the schedule and plan details of the attack.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> 2) The US felt it was probable, though not definite, that the Japanese
> would attack the PI; if they didn't, the Japanese would be leaving their
> supply line open to US interdiction, but OTOH, the US (read: FDR) might
> have a hard time getting Congress to declare war.
>
> 3) A week before PH, a "full warning of war" went out to ALL bases in
> the Pacific, including Pearl and the PI.
One thing troubling about this issue is that no one talks about the
MacArthur in the Phillipines being unprepared. While many people did
not expect an attack on Hawaii, they did expect one in the
Phillipines. If memory serves, the Phillipines were attacked _after_
Pearl Harbor, so MacArthur certainly should've known war had come.
Yet I understand that his planes were tied down very close together
and he wasn't prepared with an adequate defense. (Ted Morgan's "FDR"
explores this.)
Rich Rostrom
> Yet I understand that [MacArthur's] planes were tied down very close together
> and he wasn't prepared with an adequate defense.
IIRC, there was a lot of thrashing about.
The P-40s at Clark Field were scrambled
soon after the news of Pearl Harbor came
in. Most of them were back on the ground
refueling when the Japanese struck.
As for the B-17s: there was a plan to
strike at Formosa with them. Then that
plan was cancelled; the Japanese had
not yet attacked the PI, and there was
a thought that maybe the Japanese would
consider the PI a separate neutral nation.
That seems utterly ridiculous in
hindsight - but the alternative was to
assume that the Japanse _would_ attack,
and it was clear the the PI defenses
were far from sufficient. So a Japanese
attack meant conquest and disaster. If
forces from the PI bombed Formosa that
would become inevitable; if not, this
other outcome at least remained possible.
This illusion held for only a few hours,
but it was a critical delay. Later it
was decided to disperse the B-17s to
fields outside Luzon; but in the frantic
thrashing of the first day of war, the
orders to do this weren't given. Thus
the B-17s were also caught on the ground.
These failures were serious - but not
really comparable to the situation in
Hawaii.
Louis C
> MacArthur in the Phillipines being unprepared. While many people did
> not expect an attack on Hawaii, they did expect one in the
> Phillipines.
Yes, but that's not going to deter the conspiracy theory enthusiasts
because, after all, FDR (or whoever the vilain of the day is) couldn't
have known that his air defense commander was incompetent, now, could
he? Problem solved.
> If memory serves, the Phillipines were attacked _after_
> Pearl Harbor, so MacArthur certainly should've known war had come.
MacArthur knew war had come and had made preparations for that. His
fighters had taken off but the Japanese were late, so the fighters
were largely refueling when the actual raid struck. US bombers were
still on the ground, waiting for favorable weather & contact reports.
This is a summary, of course, the actual situation was a bit more
complex.
Try this post from the group archives:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/msg/b42fa6abeff01d8c?hl=en
...as well as a good discussion in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/daba01f02461e854/3e14a0ec33125248?hl=en%03e14a0ec33125248
> Yet I understand that his planes were tied down very close together
> and he wasn't prepared with an adequate defense. (Ted Morgan's "FDR"
> explores this.)
Had MacArthur been in charge of the Hawai air defenses, he probably
would have got the sack and the US war effort might have been rid of
him, though maybe he would still have made a pain of himself by
lobbying in Congress that he'd been set up by Roosevelt. In any event,
MacArthur's incompetence didn't hurt his career, but as the US was
rich enough that it could afford to have a MacArthur around and still
win the war, no harm done.
LC
WaltBJ
The plan to ready the PI for war was expected to be complete in March
1942. Alas.
The planes in the Philippines were vulnerable because the services had
not yet reached the 'time is money' do-it-now state. But - they 'were
working on it.' The plan was to fully disperse them amidst other
bases. Note that no one expected Zeros to accompany the Japanese
bombers; the one-way distance was too great - the US thought.
MacArthur did not dispatch a raid to Formosa because he did not yet
have an official declaration of war by the USA.
The above I learned reading a fine book on Pearl Harbor by Roberta
Wohlstetter entitled "Pearl Harbor - Warning and Decision." Stanford
University Press, ISBN 0-8047-0597-6 (Hbk) ISBN 0-8047-0598-4 (paper).
I have ready many books concerning Pearl Harbor and this one tops them
all including Clausen, vide supra.. Note - she states Clausen was a
bit gullible. It also confirmed my professional opinion of Admiral
Turner in War Plans - read the book and learn.
Walt BJ
Louis C
> MacArthur did not dispatch a raid to Formosa because he did not yet
> have an official declaration of war by the USA.
The USAAF official history disagrees.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/I/AAF-I-6.html
In short, Brereton asked for authorization to launch a strike, and by
the time he received it Japanese bombers were overhead. According to
who you ask, MacArthur dallied, his chief of staff blocked
transmission of the request, or Brereton himself didn't ask until it
was too late. But uncertainty regarding an actual state of war doesn't
seem to have been much of a factor.
LC