Jamie_B Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 [size=4][font='times new roman', times, serif]Todays is [color=#333333]National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day[/color] [color=#333333]My 2nd favorite President after Lincoln. I am curious though some folks believe that we let this happen in order to have justification to enter the war. Not sure I believe that, but what do you think?[/color][/font][/size] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VqQAf74fsE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1354883789' post='1189373'] [size=4][font=times new roman', times, serif]Todays is [color=#333333]National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day[/color] [color=#333333]My 2nd favorite President after Lincoln. I am curious though some folks believe that we let this happen in order to have justification to enter the war. Not sure I believe that, but what do you think?[/color][/font][/size] [/quote] The sinking of the Reuben James had already provided plenty of justification. Realistically we'd been at war in the Atlantic for months before Pearl Harbor. Afterwards I think a conspiracy theory was comforting to some, compared to the reality of grossly underestimating an enemy. More recently I think people look at how our military operates now and project that into the past, when in fact we were much more naive and security was ridiculously lax. Our counterintelligence programs were in their infancy before WW2, where they existed at all. A lot of them were created during WW2. Japan kept up negotiations in DC even as their task force was moving into position in order to disguise their intentions. The Pacific was considered of secondary importance & we thought Hawaii was relatively safe. We didn't have the air power there to conduct effective reconnaissance, let alone mount a spoiling preemptive attack had the Japanese fleet been discovered. The defense of Pearl was geared towards a larger strategy of defending the islands from amphibious assault. We didn't even have torpedo nets in place, which were pretty standard elsewhere, and the Japanese spies working out of their consulate a few miles away knew it. They also knew that drills at sea were conducted on such a set schedule that our capital ships would be in harbor on Sundays. They had mapped out almost every military installation on the island and had developed a grid system they were using to communicate the location of ships in port. They had access to information that even a non-military US citizen wouldn't have today. So yeah, the idea that it was "allowed to happen" gives us way, way too much credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 There were some disconcerting signs there that you could say were overlooked, but not on purpose, and certainly I don't think anyone in the administration had an inkling that an attack of the scale of Pearl Harbor was in any way imminent. So yeah, agree with Dub on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I'm inclined to disagree. I think the US snookered Japan with the embargoes on raw materials, etc... in order to force the US into the war. I do think they knew an attack was coming but perhaps not at Pearl. In any case, if you look at the prior presidential election campaign between Roosevelt and Willkie, both were "internationalists" generally opposed to the isolationist (Taft) crowd. IIRC, Roosevelt walked the tightrope stating that the US would not enter the war in Europe, [i]unless attacked. [/i]Given the alliances of the time, Japan sufficed as provocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1354893506' post='1189414'] IIRC, Roosevelt walked the tightrope stating that the US would not enter the war in Europe, [i]unless attacked. [/i] [/quote] Obviously Pearl Harbor was of a different scale, but we'd already lost over 100 sailors in 2 different attacks by German u-boats. I don't know if that was common knowledge at the time considering that it's not exactly well-known even today, but it seems like sinking a USN destroyer should've been sufficient. I suppose a good comparison would be the USS Cole bombing vs. our reaction to 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1354893506' post='1189414'] I'm inclined to disagree. I think the US snookered Japan with the embargoes on raw materials, etc... in order to force the US into the war. I do think they knew an attack was coming but perhaps not at Pearl. In any case, if you look at the prior presidential election campaign between Roosevelt and Willkie, both were "internationalists" generally opposed to the isolationist (Taft) crowd. IIRC, Roosevelt walked the tightrope stating that the US would not enter the war in Europe, [i]unless attacked. [/i]Given the alliances of the time, Japan sufficed as provocation. [/quote] Didn't we embargo/raise tarrifs on raw materials like steel and oil at least in part because they were cornering the market on those things, so to speak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Whatever the official story was....I believe the truth to be different. Not sure if I'm all the way on board with "it was allowed to happen" but I sure the hell wouldn't put it past my government to do such a thing as justification for carrying out already laid plans. Wouldn't be the first time and certainly wasn't the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.