The main point of the OP was to assess weather or not it would have been strategically advantageous or the slightest bit sensible to allow it to happen. Nothing posted thus far can dispute the fact that no reasons (none logical) exist to enable PH to be a successful attack. The attack alone would have had a similar outcome as fighting back would have. Sure the conspiracy theorists can trot out opinions perceived proof but anyone who believes in ghosts does the same exact thing and as leopold states hindsight is always 20/20.
Not knowing much about history... 80% of the US was isolationist, they didn't give a hoot about Europeans killing each other. Even FDR ran on the promise of "not entering the war", when campaining. FDR needed a direct, overt hit with casualties and a loss as a result. So let's say PH gets a 3 hours warning. They are fully prepared when the planes show up on the radar they get off of the ground there is a decent air battle and the Americans might even shot down more Japs than lose planes. No major damage to any ships. The US won!! Try to get Americans to enter the war on that!!!
Something is seriously distorted with your perspective. Look at the time line of the war: http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1940.htm Most Americans had European heritage, especially at the time. I think you are forgetting that. The point is that they would have certainly entered the war after getting attacked regardless of a counter attack. Under the circumstances and the Nazi Blitzkriegs there was no choice and i dont think PH had to even occur at all.
Nope I didn't Again, study history and read up on the general feeling of the Americans about the European war. Not to mention there was a large German heritaged or sympatizer population, so it is not so obvious why the US should enter the war on England's behalf. Helping out Stalin also wasn't a popular opinion. Again STUDY history, it would do you . For weekend homework, read: http://www.harwich.edu/depts/history/HHJ/iso.htm And it is obviously a false point. There were small skirmishes with German U-boats earlier without any serious outcome. Several high ranking officers noted that the entry against Germany goes through entering the war against Japan. Germany declared war a few days later and that sealed their fate...
almost 70 years later you can find whatever you want regarding 'feelings' and who can dispute your or someone else's feelings? you cannot dispute the fact that the attack alone was enough to declare war by the U.S so there was no motivation to keep it a secret. Japan declared war on U.S about an hour after PH attack.
I know about FDR's campaign promise of not striking first, but I'd really like to know where you got the 80% number.
I am not sure you are actually making here a point. The question is what if the Japs pull back in the last moment because they realize they had been discovered and expected? FDR couldn't risk that. Or the other version when there is an equal fight with let's say 300-300 deaths on both sides? What if it is a big win for the US chasing the Japs back to their carriers? There is most likely a declaration of war against Japan, but Germany might try to stay neutral. Also a big loss signaled weakness towards the Germans who were more inclined to enter against the US. There is a link in my previous post... I read the 80% somewhere else, but that link is a good start...
I found this interesting debate, this is from the author of Day of Deceit: "So this is the situation that faced President Roosevelt in September and October 1940. Americans wanted nothing to do with Europe’s wars, and even though German submarines were sinking our ships, or attacking our merchant ships and war ships in the North Atlantic, that didn’t arouse the American public at all. There was a huge isolation movement in this country led by Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, the Hearst newspapers, and others. And while Americans realized that there was danger from Hitler, they considered that Europe’s war, and they were fed up with World War I, the payments that were not made for U.S. participation." http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=28 For John from the Q&A part: Audience Member #3 Two things. I don’t first of all understand the logic behind General Marshall alerting the press. What would be the need for that? The other part—couldn’t the same propaganda aim by Roosevelt been accomplished if they had discrete air defenses and actually had a trap for the Japanese, and downed a bunch of planes? We could have still had the public outcry and upset. Robert B. Stinnett Yes, that’s a question that many asked me about. Wasn’t there some other option that the President could have done? But you see, they wanted a clean cut, clear act of war—overt act of war, that would unite the country. This is what they saw that was needed to bring the country together. Charles Lindbergh was our great hero, and 80 percent of the people followed him, stay out of Europe’s war. The other option would have been, perhaps as some had suggested, we could have attacked the Japanese fleet in the North Pacific. But they didn’t want that because it could have been seen that we’d started the war. They wanted a clean cut act of war, overt act of war.
To sell a book you need something to write about. Bring something new to the table even if it is fiction. that is an opinion and how would he know anyway?
Because unlike you, he studied the timeperiod? You know John, at one point you DO have to start to study on your own. I can give you 100s of links but if you don't care or want to use them you will never get your answers. How would he know? Show me contemporary newspapers writing about huge demonstartions about why we don't help Europe? On the other hand Lindbergh gave a public speech about isolationism and he got nothing but cheers. So go ahead and start to dig if you don't believe me. Google is your friend...
You seem to not be able to discern good from bad. That is, linking to something or finding an opinion that backs your own does not "prove" anything, nor does it ameliorate or remove other contradictory facts.
It's quite possible FDR could have provoked and been aware of an imminent Japanese attack, and not realized what was actually launched - underestimated what was coming.
Knowing you may be attacked and being able to do anything about it are 2 separate issues. If someone is determined to attack you there is not a lot you can do to stop it. The attack on Pearl Harbor was not a stand alone event where Japan bombed Pearl and waited to see what happens. Within hours there were bombings at Manila, Singapore, Guam, Midway, and Wake. The invasion of Luzon began on Dec 10.
True. Not true. Sure, you will be attacked but there is PLENTY you can do about it. Specially when we are talking about the military. True, but it is not a backing up your argument above. Actually B-17 bombers were sent away from Manila so they wouldn't be destroyed on the ground. That is something you can do about an attack, for example. Just got the book The Pacific War written in 1982. Although the author didn't have access to certain documents he makes some good guesses why things happened the way they did.
People can google 24hrs. a day, read books supporting their errors and remain ignorant because they are just reinforcing their own beliefs, that is what conspiracy buffs do. The main premise of this thread is to show that PH could have been a failure for Japan and there was no reason for a conspiracy. What was the reason Canada declared war on Germany September 10, 1939.
OK, let's try one more time, s-l-o-w-e-r: I bet I already mentioned the "backdoor war entry". FDR wanted to help England and wanted to enter the EUROPEAN war, but even though there were skirmishes with German U-boats, the US public just wouldn't go for it. But if Japan is cornered and there is an attack from them the US has to go to war against Japan and because of the Japanese agreement with the Germans, Germany has to declare war on the US. Then what can FDR do if the Germans want to fight the US??? But!! If the Americans beat the shit out of the Japs at PH the Germans might NOT declare war on the US, and since the US doesn't have any reason to war with Germany, they migh got boggled down in the Pacific. So in plain English they wanted the Germans to act as they did. A victory at PH would have endangered that. Any other questions? It is kind of tiresom to repeat the obvious...
So dont repeat it because you are not really saying anything interesting or sensible. The Germans did not have to declare war on the U.S. for U.S to get involved. They did not declare war on Canada either and Canada declared war on them in 1939. You know that was before Pearl Harbor dont you?
Even if the US had sustained minimal losses at Pearl what happened in the Philippines would still have occurred. Japan had decided on taking possession of US territories in the Pacific.
Because that was when the war started. Canada is not a democratic republic like the U.S then or now. Canada runs an elected Dictator(basically yes we do if it's a majority government). Every 3-5 years we vote for a possibly new dictator, or perhaps a weak minority government. There are check and balances but nothing like the U.S has. It's you Americans who get all hung up on "foreign entanglements" and have to make up excuses to put the beats on someone. Shit, beating the shit out of the German army was a Canadian pastime from WWI. We had to get in #2 and prove we could do it as our own country this time, instead of a Dominion. The reasons are way more similar to our sister country Australia, than the U.S. The U.S Government barely resembles the Canadian Government at all. WWI was our "Revolutionary war". WWII our war of unification.
