Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Mother of all conspiracies

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It's a rather old story (although with variations). Of course, surely an undeclared surprise attack by Japan would have been more than enough for Americans to rally behind the war regardless of the initial outcome of the raid on Pearl Harbor so why would FDR needlessly sacrifice ships?
 
Indeed, it is an old story, thoroughly debunked any number of times. the problem with any analysis of the situation is that there was SO MUCH information coming into US hands that determining the wheat from the chaff was quite difficult. many of the specific claims made on the cited page are erroneous (like saying of the midget subs " that a training program then under way included towing them from Japan to positions off the Hawaiian Islands, where they practiced surfacing and submerging." This is absolutely absurd. These were secret Japanese weapons. they wouldn't tow them thousands of miles into US waters so they could "practice surfacing and submerging" which they could do in Japanese home waters just as readily! The japanese Striking Force engaged, of course, in complete radio silence during their transit to PH, and so the claim that "US and Britain monitored the Japanese attack fleet all the way to Pearl Harbor" is patently a lie. This web page is a joke.

In any case, the story is ridiculous on the face of it. There was absolutely no need for an American defeat at PH to serve Roosevelt's needs, and indeed the losses ther forced him, very much against his will, to allocate to the Pacific forces he very much wanted to deploy against the Germans. He could have had a smashing victory (presumably, with 4 USN CVs surprising 6 japanese ones who had sent their planes against PH) and gotten the US into the war against Germany as well.

Although, since it was Germany who declared war on the US and not the other way around, I am not sure how this conspiracy was supposed to have helped Roosevelt in his desires to get at Germany!
 
True.....Sort of

There is evidence that he was provoking Japan but he never expected them to strike Pearl Harbour, he expected them to attack Manilla. FDR who I think was America's greatest president of the last century, he did want to enter WW2, he set up things like the "Arsenol of Democracy". When fighting for his third term he deliberately got a vice-president who supported war (his previous did not) and could carry on after him. He was not a traitor yes he got the US involoved in a war but surely in this case the ends most certainly justify the means.
 
Clarke Field.

The Japanese success their is much more surprising than the audacious Pearl Harbor raid.

In many respects incompetence was the common factor of all western far eastern commands in this period.

Roosevelt felt that America had to enter the war, and he was certainly pressurising Japan-but I suspect he thought they'd cave in, leaving him free to push through a declaration of war on Germany within a few months and concentrate on crushing the Reich. The "Germany first" doctrine pursued once Germany had declared war could be seen as evidence of this, pushed through as it was despite the opposition of some senior American officers.
 
Originally posted by Threviel
What do you guys think of this then?


It is a document that in essence says that US knew about Pearl Harbor and that FDR was a traitor that ordered a lowering of the defences in early December.
Is this believable?
Click to expand...

FDR had been trying--since the beginning of his presidency--to get congress to allocate more funds for naval warships. He also knew that the US was inevitably going to enter the war very soon and probably could have got a declaration of war without PH.

Deliberately allowing the Pacific Fleet to get hammered would be assinine considering his previous track record. This theory has been refuted time and time again, but it is the type that appeals to producers such as Oliver Stone and conspiracy fans.
 
Last edited:
Re: True.....Sort of

Originally posted by Sheilbh
There is evidence that he was provoking Japan . . .
Click to expand...

Considering the times, you could substitute "not appeasing" for "provoking" with no loss of accuracy. And it's not like most of the provocations were kept secret from the American public. He (and a good chunk of the American public) may have thought war was inevitable, but there's a huge gap between that and knowing about Pearl Harbor.
 
Was the topic of this string intended to attract WFHermans?;)
 
Originally posted by Lucidor
Was the topic of this string intended to attract WFHermans?;)
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. Where is our resident conspiracy theorist at the moment anyway?:)
 
Originally posted by Agelastus


Quite possibly. Where is our resident conspiracy theorist at the moment anyway?:)
Click to expand...


In the neighbourhood.:)

I do not believe in the conspiracy, seems a bit far fetched to me.
 
Re: Re: True.....Sort of

Originally posted by joak


Considering the times, you could substitute "not appeasing" for "provoking" with no loss of accuracy.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I also don't believe that denying metals and oil to a dictatorship engaged in expansionist wars is "provoking". I think FDR learned the lesson from Europe that if you appease the militarists, they just come back at you stronger, later.
 
I don't believe that FDR sacrificed the US Pacific Fleet either. There were too many steps in the information flow at which individuals could have taken some initialtive and could have shown a brief spark of brilliance, but instead did the human thing.

In retrospect, given the history of Japan's attack on the Russians in 1904 (and did they also surprise the Chinese in 1894?), and given the tense situation with the negotiations in Washington, one would think that Roosevelt, Kimmel, Short, Hart, and MacArthur would have been on full alert.

But underestimation of a potential enemy's capability and intentions was not limited to the US. I wonder who here is able to do a comparison of the damaging attack by the 3rd Reich on the USSR on June 22 to the Japanese attack on Hawaii and the Philippines on December 7. Stalin was as blind as Roosevelt and company, and his subordinates showed as little initiative and alertness.

I'm really surprised, though that at Pearl Harbor the USN didn't attempt to save the crew of the Arizona by cutting into the hull. I think the USN had the capability to attempt this, although it would have been a risky operation. I've seen statements that Roosevelt had a role in this decision not to attempt a rescue. Is that just more bull droppings from the conspiracy crowd???
 
Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
The problem is that the tenno was no dioctator. He had not enough influence to be one. not selling is one thing, forcing others not to sell is a different story.
Click to expand...

Okay, militarist oligarchy then. Who did the US *force* not to sell? I don't believe there was a blockade, Japan's Navy was too powerful to do it, even though it was probably deserved.
 
I remember seeing something on it last winter I think. I'm quite sure it was 100% fiction, but anyway, it might be relevant here :)

Basically, they said a submarine sent a transmission on a Japan military convoy heading for Pearl Harbor, a day or two before the attack, but the report got misplaced by the Communication officer.

If this was true it wouldn't surprise me. I just can't see an American President sacrificing so many lives and equipment just to enter the War. Even if they had been alerted, this could have given them a sufficient excuse to enter war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back