Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

John T. Flynn blames Pearl Harbor catastrophe on FDR

Discussion in 'Pearl Harbor' started by DogFather, Sep 14, 2010.

  1. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Put in plain terms the tragedy of Pearl Harbor was the dark fruit of three incredible blunders. First in importance was the manner in which the crisis was managed. The second blunder was the bottling of the fleet in Pearl Harbor. The third was the stripping of the defenses of Pearl Harbor. It was Roosevelt who personally managed the whole crisis. It was Roosevelt who bottled the fleet in Pearl Harbor. It was Roosevelt who stripped the base of its defenses. First then, let us look at the crisis as it developed in Washington. Let us see it now in the light of the facts which this government has hidden and which I will now reveal publicly for the first time.

    Source: The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor

    The fleet served very little purpose, being at PH. Other than
    maybe bait. The fleet sure worked for that purpose!

    Those battleships were not ready for war, just like Adm Richardson, tried to tell FDR. After the attack, those ships
    were refitted, with anti-aircraft weapons. And in some cases
    all new main battery. They were no ready for war, against a
    Japanese carrier strike force. Not even close!

    I believe Flynn, was able to accomplish more. He had less to
    work with than Stinnett, but still got the job done!
     
  2. ULITHI

    ULITHI Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Oh boy, this is going to be fun to watch!
     
  3. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan

    Well let's see.

    How so?

    It wasn't bottled up.

    The defences of PH were hardly stripped. Indeed they were being built up.

    Sounds pretty much like rubbish to me.

    Wrong.

    In what sense? Some had been rebuilt they were being upgraded. True their manning was at a fairly low level on that particular morning but that's hardly FDR's fault.

    I believe you will find AA suites started getting upgraded before the war. Surely it accelerated during the war both because it was apparent that the threat was greater and it was relativly easy to do while the ships wer ebeing repaired. What battleships by the way were fitted with "all new main battery"?

    On the contrary if they had been maned, water tight, and at sea there is every chance they would have give a very good account of themselves. They certainly were better prepared for such a war than Force Z and the British had been at war for a couple of years already.
     
  4. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,301
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    Who has the dart gun? Please lay to the Pearl Harbor Forum, we have need of your services.
     
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,301
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    [​IMG]
     
    lwd and ULITHI like this.
  6. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,733
    Likes Received:
    2,249
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I think I'll just don my tin hat and hunker down here in my foxhole to avoid the shrapnel.:D
     
  7. ULITHI

    ULITHI Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Awwww common, I just sat down to lunch. No retuned salvos yet? I was looking forward to this! :(
     
  8. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,301
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    Gotta have something to work with. A lame OP doesn't get many posts.
     
  9. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    USS California was totally rebuilt: From Wiki

    On 25 March 1942, California was refloated and dry-docked at Pearl Harbor for repairs. On 7 June, she departed under her own power for Puget Sound Navy Yard where a major reconstruction job was accomplished, including improved protection, watertight compartmenting, stability, antiaircraft battery, and fire control system. Her original twin funnels were combined into a single funnel faired into the superstructure tower as with the newer South Dakota class. The original 5 in (130 mm)/51 cal guns of the secondary battery and the 5 in (130 mm)/25 cal guns of the anti-aircraft battery were replaced by 16 5 in (130 mm)/38 cal guns in new twin mountings. Her appearance was nearly identical to that of Tennessee and West Virginia, which were rebuilt after the Pearl Harbor Attack to resemble South Dakota-class battleships. Like her sisters, she was a virtually new ship built on the bones of the old.
     
  10. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I personally am going to put on my "tin-foil" lined watch cap and stay out of this one. Soooo many flaws, I'll leave it to OpanaP to take down the DogFather (again).
     
  11. ULITHI

    ULITHI Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico

    She was sunk at the southern end of battleship row and needed fixing. They also decided to re-vamp her a bit. They killed two birds with one stone. To suggest that the battleships (especially the California) were ill prepared for combat is not correct in my opinion. You can make this argument maybe with some of the battleship admirals who were not really "war leaders", but not the ships IMO.

    You might want to read Battleship Sailor by Theodore Mason if you have not. California had one of the strictest captains and group of officers that drilled the ship so much it gave her the reputation as one of the toughest battleships in the Pacific to serve on (at least in Mason's opinion).
     
  12. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,301
    Likes Received:
    1,860
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,285
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    And, your point is?

    Of the many battleships in service at the time of Pearl Harbor, only three received major reconstructions: the California, Tennessee, and the West Virginia(of these three, two incurred major damage at Pearl Harbor and one had minor damage at Pearl Harbor. Four battleships received partial reconstuctions: Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, and Pennsylvania(of these four, one had major damage from Pearl, one had minor damage at Pearl, and two were not at Pearl). Those battleships that received no major reconstruction work: New York, Texas, New Mexico, Mississippi, Maryland, and Colorado(of these, only the Maryland was at Pearl Harbor, during which she received minor damage).

    As was US Navy policy, most ships received upgrades and reconstruction work when they came back to the States after incurring battle damage that necessitated the ship's return to a major port to fix.

    I would also add that DogFather apparently has been unable to find an objective source with which to support his opinions. John T. Flynn was one of the poster boys for anti-Roosevelt feeling in America during the 1930s and 1940s. So, it is hardly surprising that he has written an article blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor. As such this article should be taken with a grain of salt. That grain of salt should weigh about several thousand tons.
     
  14. ULITHI

    ULITHI Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    That salvage link OP posted is very interesting. I never knew that the California might not have sunk if the crew had not abandoned her because of the Arizona oil slick fire.

    Also, Its interesting that old reciprocating engines like on the Nevada were more resistent to sea water than California's electric ones.
     
  15. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    503
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    And the main battery, you know, the big guns, the 14 inchers, not the AA suite, was replaced, as claimed, when? Or did I miss something? Or was the main battery a C cell somewhere in the bilges? Sit, Wiki, stay. Good dog.
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,285
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    They are probably thinking of the main guns removed from three of the four turrets on the USS California. Which was done to lighten the ship prior to raising her off the harbor bottom.

    Now, were these guns replaced or were they refurbished and put back aboard ship?

    Edit: I would think the California's 14-inch guns were just refurbished, since they were placed back aboard ship before she sailed back to the States to begin her overhaul.
     
  17. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    The point is, these ships were not ready for war. They had to be totally
    rebuilt, to get them ready for war. This was a fact Adm Richardson, pointed out to FDR, during a lunch, that they had in Oct, 1940.

    Even though this was true and a very important fact to consider. FDR,
    then fired Richardson, thus ignoring reality.
     
  18. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,301
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    Totally rebuilt? Explain.
    I'm sure you've done your research and can give us the minutes of that lunch, yes?
    The "ignoring reality" part is strangely relevant.

    You say "Even though this was true" but don't give any support for that. (Flynn is not support, btw, his bias is too obvious for a serious person to give him any time at all.)
     
  19. Falcon Jun

    Falcon Jun Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Hmmm ... aside from the observations of the other posters here, I'd like to add one more:

    "And, we must ask, why was Short told to alert against sabotage while MacArthur in the Philippines was told to alert all out against instant attack?"

    Well, all I can say is based simply on logic. Mac's position in the PI is a lot closer to Japan and therefore more vulnerable to a direct attack.
    If I am not mistaken, the guys in PH were given a series of war warnings and the most important one was sent on the day of the attack on PH. Unfortunately, it was sent through commercial means, which was not fast enough.
     
  20. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,301
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    Short's estimate that sabotage was the most likely means of attack was based on the number of Japan-born residents on the islands. No acts of sabotage were reported for the whole war, IIRC.
    The message was sent via the RCA telegram system. The "atmospherics" were killing the smaller Army and Navy transmitters (20 Kw vs. 40 Kw for RCA, I think.) The message might have arrived very near the time of the attack but for one small error in D.C. Rufus Bratton forgot to tell the message center to mark it "Urgent", so it went routine priority. The best thing I can say about that is that Bratton must have thought the urgency was clear and he didn't need to say "Urgent". The pencil-pushers in the message center didn't know the "big picture", so they didn't do anything they weren't told to do.

    BTW, CTers often claim the message was sent via RCA to "make sure it didn't get there in time". If this was the case, why send it at all? The "conspirators" only had to wait a few hours and it would have been moot. ("Oh, we had planned to send it, but it was overcome by events!")

    Send it via RCA made sure it would get through. Bratton's error isn't mentioned because CTers don't get into the matter deep enough to have any legitimacy in regard to research.
     

Share This Page