pearl harbor possible conspiracy theory

when i was in high school, after reading george orwells 1984 i got this idea that the US government may have made a secret deal with japan to start a war which would be why such a large part of the US navy was not at pearl harbor during the attack. reading 1984 could make one think that way. now days i tend to go with the conventional idea of history. any ideas?

(btw im not one of those people who thinks 911 was a hoax)


[edit]16/07/2014:

im getting snide remarks and "make fun of me" postings so im adding a more detailed info of what im talking about:
orwell said the world would be divided into 3 superpowers and the highest levels of government would agree upon and pre-plan wars, and that the common folk would not know the true purpose of war which is: quoting george orwell:

if i remember correctly he also said war would be used to influence the thoughts and feelings of the common folk "plebeians" through patriotism.

1984 was a powerful book for me so when i learned that the pearl harbor attack was meant to cripple the US navy and but most of the navy wasnt there it made me suspicious.

 

A secret pact with Japan whereby most of the USN is saved from destruction is utter nonsense. What would Japan have to gain from this?

 

politicians have nothing to gain if they are tricked. Hitler pretended he was going to ally with japan and we know that was nonsense, if things went his way he was obviously going to turn on them.

[edit] removed question about does war boost the economy because that is off track and isnt in george orwells book.

 

But the question still stands. Why would Japan agree to this?

 

OK, that's enough for me. I know where this is going and have no intention of wasting my time further.

Enjoy this thread before its shut down.

 

ok, i guess you are saying that im wrong. well thanks for telling me. im glad you are so knowledgeable. have a good day.

[edit] i shouldn't have put the part about does war boost the economy, that wasnt actually my original thing, it was more about what i got from the book 1984.

if governments were much more subversive than we believe, the book 1984 goes into ways governments supposedly would control peoples thoughts.

 

I wouldn't, because you might not like the answer.

War practically bankrupted the British economy...So, I really would not ask them - and they were on the "winning" side. I highly doubt that the Germans or Japanese would give you a much better answer, as their economies were destroyed, as well as, their armies, navies, air forces, cities, factories, etc. The "cold war" imploded the Soviet economy. Giving that we Americans have been at "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan for way too long now, our economy should be over the moon - yet has remained dismal for quite some time now.

As always, there are two sides to every coin. You send most of your able-bodied men off to fight the war, and the job vacuum is filled by those previously unemployed, so you have very little unemployment - per se. However, the workers/consumers are quite restricted in what they can buy in a war economy, because very few durable consumer goods are being produced, and they also have to pay higher prices for durable goods that the can purchase, further the government will most certainly be raising taxes to finance the war. Then there is another hurdle to jump - Peace! What happens when all those able-bodied men come home expecting to have their old jobs back, when those positions have already been filled by someone else?

Probably not, but I doubt you believe that the Moon Landing was real...

Ummm, you do realize that the US did have more than one fleet don't you?

You also realize that a sizable portion of the Pacific Fleet was anchored in Pearl Harbor...It's just that the Japanese expended much of their anti-ship weaponry on the US battleships, and barely scratched the other warships docked there.(Alan Zimm covers this in great detail in his book "Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions")

When was this "deal" between the Americans and Japanese struck?
Was it in 1938, when the US instituted a non-binding "moral embargo" on aircraft produced for Japan?
Was it in 1939, when the "moral embargo" was extended to materials used in the manufacture of aircraft and aviation gasoline?
Was it later in 1939, when the US gave notice to Japan that it was cancelling the 1911 Commercial Treaty between the two nations - thereby removing the last legal barrier preventing a full embargo?
Was it in 1940, when what had fallen under the "moral embargo", was now fully embargoed?
How about later in 1940, when the embargo was expanded to include iron and steel scrap?

I can just imagine the terms to this "deal"

America: OK, Japan, here are our terms. One, we will let you attack Pearl Harbor, and we will not defend it, however, you can attack only our battleships, after all they are old and antiquated and we could really use some new ones...Sound good to you so far.
Japan: Yeah, great we get in the first shot with no retaliation.
America: Good, it's so agreed. Now, Two, we will give you roughly 6 months to kick the crap out of whatever territories you so desire. I have heard that Wake Island is a particularly nice spot for vacationing during Japan's winter months, and also that the Aleutian Islands are quite a grand place to stay during those hot summer months, and if you feel like taking the Philippines...Go for it, as we are giving them their independence anyway.
Japan: Hey, excellent, we are quite devoid of natural resources any way, now we can become just as self-sufficient as you in the United States!
America: Uhhh...No.
Japan: Well, almost anyway.
America: Fine, then we are in agreement. On to Number Three, after the aforementioned 6 months, we will proceed to kick the living crap out of your armed forces.
Japan: Now wait a minute.
America: Four, We will destroy your Army.
Japan: Now hold on a...
America: Five, we will destroy your Navy.
Japan: We don't...
America: Six, we will destroy you Air Forces.
Japan: never in...
America: Seven, we will utterly devastate your cities.
Japan: This is not what we agre..
America: Eight, and we will disband your government and form one that is in line with ours,
Japan: This is downright prepost...
America: And, finally, Nine, we will personally introduce you to the Sun Goddess...Twice.
Japan: Really? How?
America: You will seeeee...But only if you agree to our terms.
Japan: To personally meet the Sun Goddess twice! Yes, yes, a thousand times YES!
American: Good, it is agreed then, we will see you on December 7, 1941.

 

but i do believe the moon landing was real, i get pissed off by people who claim its a hoax.

i also believe that 911 was not a hoax and the buildings fell down not by demolition but because being hit by a giant plane would tend to do that.

are you saying all this stuff and you havent even read the book im talking about? i guess its an important book, in high school many kids have to read it. do you like the rock group pink floyd? many of their albums were affected by george orwells writings.

 

Yes, I have read Orwell's "1984" a long time ago, but don't remember it being required reading when I was in high school during the late 1980's.

Yes, I have enjoyed listening to Pink Floyd over these many years - more for David Gilmour's guitar, than Roger Waters' lyrics, and I finally saw them live in 1994 at Philadelphia on their Division Bell tour. As for "many of their albums were affected by george orwells writings." AFAIK, only "Animals" was. "The Wall" has been a matter of much debate, and is open to a great many interpretations.

Further, in "1984", the vast majority of the public are quite poor and much of the globe devasted, and it is only the top elite that, shall we say, are well off. That defeats you statement about war being good for the economy.

 

Most of the fleet in the pacific was at Pearl. The only reasons that the carriers were not is the Saratoga was in dry dock in San Diego and the Lexington and Enterprise were delivering planes to Wake and Midway. This is something that Kimmel would decide not Washington. The Enterprise was only a few hours from Pearl and just missed the attack.

 

Very impressive!!

 

Yes & No.

Carriers - No: 4 out.
Battleships - Yes: 8 in, 1 out.
Heavy Cruisers - No: 2 in, 10 out.
Light Cruisers - Yes: 6 in, 2 out.
Destroyers - Yes: 30 in, 23 out.
Submarines - No: 4 in, 15 out.
In: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-2.htm
Out: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/non-ph.html

 

i guess that depends on ones stand point, an interesting scene in one of the greatest WWII movies "Schindlers list", is when he says he has found the secret to successful business and his girlfriend says "what is it, luck?" and he says "no, war."

in real life all of his following business ventures after that failed and he died penniless, although he was revered for having saved so many jews.

but as i said in my second post, when i questioned is war good for the economy was going off track, i dont think that is in orwells book, i have gone back to that post and removed that part before more people waste time on that.

my post was about the book 1984 and i dont think Orwell speaks of that, it is about how supposedly the highest levels of government would make such deals in war to control plebeians.

i am just reminded of the movie "inglorious basterds" which is fiction but the way it ends is interesting, the nazi made the secret deal to allow the attack so he would be recorded in history as the hero.

"the wall" came after "animals" but still talks about thought control. i learned a lot of david gilmores guitars solos when i was in the high school rock band.

actually that sounds a lot like a comic version of how Hitler would have described what plans he had for them later on.

 

That's the actual transcript from the meeting. Afterwards they had a few pints and sake :cheers:

 

if a deal is secret it doesnt need to have anything to do with known political situations.

you just described a deal where the politician(s) looking to take advantage of the other reveals his entire intentions, politicians never do this.

if you say "we will destroy your army, navy and airforce" the other person(s) will say "no, we dont like this deal." politicians never tell thier intentions if having plans to get the best of a deal or take advantage of one another.

but according to george orwell, such a deal is not even made for that reason, here is what george orwell claims is the purpose of war, quoting george orwell:

 

Oh, golly, following the conspiracy logic here is worse than tracing the more obscuring details à la Stinnett or even some of the meandering postings of some of our, shall I say "more imaginative" visitors.

And while I'm certainly glad that some have had opportunity to read Orwell's 1984; I, too, have read it, had to read it, in high school, lo more than 45 years ago . . . it was considered a politically and socially responsible and enlightening tome of which all should be familiar. I wouldn't read it now even if someone were to pay me even lots of money to do so. I can be very mercenary, but for certes, not that mercenary.

Some of the rebuttal posters here have been very gentle and tactful in trying to point out the disconnects in this latest attempt to conjure up, at best, some sort of alternative history or, at worst, another broad brush Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Industry smear of unnamed, but highly placed individuals; I suspect the latter, not the former.

So, I shall be a bit more blunt . . .

To even rise to the level of further discussion the OP need to provide specific and definitive answers to the following questions:

Who in the United States government, United States military or naval establishments, or any other arm or agency of the United States of America negotiated and finalized your “agreement”? Be very specific, name names of chief negotiators and, where possible, the names of their staff members. Provide documentation accessible to the readers here supporting your identifications.

Who in the Japanese government, Japanese military or naval establishments, or any other arm or agency of the Imperial Japanese Empire negotiated your “agreement”? Be very specific, name names of chief negotiators and, where possible, the names of their staff members. Provide accessible documentation supporting your identifications.

When and where were your identified participants negotiating your “agreement”? Be very, very specific, provide specific locations and timeframes (That means you can’t say “on the planet Earth, sometime before December 1941. It means places, preferably identifiable buildings, but I’d settle for cities, and dates, real calendar dates.) Provide supporting documentation or references which would unquestionably verify the presence of the individual or individuals identified above at the times and places at which theses negotiations transpired.

When was the final agreement concluded? Who signed it, American and Japanese? By what authority? Be specific. Name names and titles.

What exactly was in the text of this “agreement”? Be specific, cite clauses fully so that we might draw our own conclusions.

Now, please allow me to digress and explain how history works, this is Basic Rule #1 . . . "would have," "could have,"should have," the ever popular "might have" and any other possible combinations even to include inserting the word "not" before the word "have" mean absolutely nothing. All are totally and eternally trumped by "did" and "did not." Also you need to understand that saying something along the lines of "the negotiations and agreement were secret, there is/was no record" or any formula similar to or nearing those words is a non-starter. Basic Rule #2 . . . the lack of evidence of the occurrence of an event or events does not in any way shape or form become evidence of that event. That is you cannot take nothing and proclaim it to be something.

If you cannot answer with supported specificity the questions posed above, then why do you even bother posting? Are you expecting correspondents here to do your research for you? Are you expecting to see, "OMG what a revelation!!"

Good luck with either of those outcomes. There is no point to the discussion of an event which did not occur. If you wish to play that game, try again in the alternative history section . . . maybe someone will bite, but I wouldn't advise holding one's breath.

Bottom line is that the fevered casting about for theories without a single, solitary, shred of evidence other that what one might surmise, or imagine, from reading a work of fiction (in this particular case a work of fiction not even remotely related to the object of the fantasy) is nonsense and

- - wait for it - - -

- - here it comes - - -

unworthy of further comment.

Suggest you read history, not novels.

Let the chips fall where they may.

 

One cogent point that has been overlooked is the Japanese world dominance in Godzilla movies after the war. The Japanese are a subtle people and this may have been the goal all along, and only attainable if their entire nation was bombed and burned to the ground.

 

Oh, dash-it-all, how could I have forgotten that. So, it was a plot after all.

 

Of course...It was all explained in "Die Hard". It was a plot to flood the United States with tape decks.

 

godzilla movies were probably caused by trauma from the war, some of the scenes look like mass evacuations of an impending an air raid.

for takao, just uploaded to my youtube account, the 1980's new york radio station WPLJ's edit on "the wall" this is the version that new york kids heard in the 80's, i also graduated high school in the 1980s. from a cassette when i transferred my music to the digital age. some DJ merged all three parts into one song, part one where hes angry about his fathers death in WWII, and the second part with "we dont need no thought control", and the last part which i dont know but sounds cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riI6OZQJvMg

the only meandering i did was when i stupidly forgot that Orwell claimed war is not to boost economy but to keep the economy down to prevent the toppling of hierarchy,

no i dont have any evidence, only that the pearl harbor surprise attack was supposedly well planned ahead of time for the purpose of crippling the US navy and by some coincidence much of the us navy wasnt there, and the only other thing is the quote from orwell which i find more and more fascinating each time i re-read it.

it must be a good feeling to be absolutely certain that you know exactly how everything in history went down. to be able to know everything without a doubt must feel comforting. maybe the reason i feel safer to retain some doubt about things because i would never have believed a rumor that someone as honest and even needy as cynthia could have cheated on me and years later found that she actually had. not that it mattered much, i was just amazed at how humans have the capacity to be tricked. interesting coincidence just now when i pulled up youtube is this video of romanian scam artists in london and makes me feel good about my capacity to doubt things.

well its good your encouraging me to shut up about this because debating something on a thread where every single person says im wrong would be waste of time.


in leaving this thread i would ask people to read Orwells quote more than once because it took me like 3 times to really understand the depth of such a claim.