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

Pearl Harbor

Discussion in 'Pearl Harbor' started by Sailorboy05, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. Sailorboy05

    Sailorboy05 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have always wondered the conspiracy about Pearl Harbor! Was it plane luck that all 3 of our pacific fleet air craft carriers where not in Pearl Harbor during the attack; or did the govenment knew of the attack, and sent the carriers to save them knowing that the carrier would be the capital ship to carry a war with Japan? And what would have been the outcome of the pacific war had our carriers been caught in Pearl Harbor during the attack?
     
  2. Biak

    Biak Adjutant Patron  

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    6,749
    Likes Received:
    1,096
    Welcome to the forum Sailorboy05,
    The questions you ask have been beaten to death but look under the "Welcome Sailorboy05" (where you log in) click on the search and type Pearl Harbor.
     
  3. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    54
    Yes

    No

    Worse, but not fatal, as the Japanese made almost no effort to press home the advantage.
     
  4. mikebatzel

    mikebatzel Dreadnaught

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    406
  5. Carronade

    Carronade Ace Patron  

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    482
    Carrier Enterprise had been sent to Wake Island, which was within air range of major Japanese bases in the Marshall Islands, and was scheduled to be back in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7. Her task force was delayed by weather on the return trip but was within flying range of Oahu on Dec 7, a squadron of her scout bombers flew into the midst of the Japanese attack, and the aggressive Admiral Halsey sought to locate and engage the enemy.

    Lexington was delivering planes to Midway, almost directly on the route between Hawaii and the Japanese home islands. In fact Midway was attacked as part of the Pearl Harbor operatin - bombarded by two destroyers.

    Does either of those seem like a good way to keep our carriers out of danger? Lucky for us the Japanese chose to withdraw the way they came instead of taking a swipe at one or both of these American bases on their way home.

    Carriers were appreciated to be an important element of the fleet, but nobody at the time expected them to displace battleships as the primary capital ships. Even the Japanese who used carriers to seize an initial advantage expected the war to end with a decisive clash of battle lines.
     
  6. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    1,939
  7. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    In my opinion, there are many reasons this question keeps coming up.
    A lot of new info has been released over the years, and some
    things just don't add up. There were 10 different inquries and hearings,
    on the PH disaster. A lot of CYA went on, people were not sure if they
    could release what they knew (thinking is was still classified). So, in
    my opinion, the conspiracy (really more of a cover-up), took place after the disaster, not before.

    By the time the war was over, FDR who had fired Adm Richardson, for
    his repeated suggestions and concerns, about problems with the fleet being based at Pearl Harbor, was dead and a national hero. I'm sure many
    people felt, in was better for our nation, to forget about the disaster.

    The war and the Great Depression was over, people were in the mood
    to get on with normal life. I also feel, those that teach and write history
    tend to be some what to the left politically. FDR was and still is a hero
    to those on the left.

    My study of FDR, has found he put his politcal ambishion and gaining more power first and formost. When the US Supreme court bocked some of
    his New Deal programs, FDR sought to dilute the court's constitutional right to do so. He planned to add more members to the court, called
    court packing. This is the best example of FDR's lust for power!

    FDR had gone to far and didn't get away with it, but he tried. More
    reasonable people of the time, chose to maintain, the balance of power,
    that is in the US Constitution and is important to democracy in the USA.
     
  8. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    DogFather, what have you read on this. Because I get the strong feeling you've only read one, maybe two, books on this. I do see you posting the same questions in other forums and failing to support your arguments anywhere. So I'm curious, what's your mission with this conspiracy theorist campaign?
     
  9. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Agreed OP, this fellow has posted his pro-Stinnet (I think that is his only source) viewpoint before. Dogfather chooses to ignore the inconvenient facts that Stinnet has been discredited widely by historians of worth, and is proven to be nothing more than an extreme writer of fiction. Dogfather chooses to believe the novelist and ignore the history, probably out of some FDR hatred which does seem to have always existed.
     
  10. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I have never claimed FDR, had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack.
    On this or any other forum.

    I seek to inform people about, what FDR was really like. I have read a lot
    of material on the subject. Had college courses (long time ago), on WW1,
    Great Depression and WW2. I claim I understand FDR's politics and many
    books and documentries and not all that accurate, on what he was really
    like. People should know, there was a cover-up after the PH disaster.

    I will admit, I don't like the man. Moved our nation, to the left, in a big
    way. So I guess that makes me an FDR hater, or something like that.

    But all I have said about FDR is true. I have sighted books and documentires in the past. I have not done anywhere near the work
    you have done OP, I understand that.

    I had never heard of Adm Richardson, before I started reading posts, on
    this forum. I'm only as good as what I read. But I think the court packing
    is near....well treason. Trying to grab all the power he could, and taking
    advantage of the situation....The Great Depression, the US was in.

    So, now you all have it....I have confessed. :D
     
  11. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    DogFather, you'll understand, I hope, that if you come in here with classic CT dogma people will naturally give you that sobriquet.

    As for FDR, if you don't like him, that's fine. There are a "few" politicians I don't like. (The ones that are now breathing and the ones that are now not breathing.)
     
  12. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I have never used Stinnet as a source. I have read parts of his book,
    but that's all. I talked about the McCollum memo, which is in Stinnet's
    book, but a public document as well.

    A book I have used as a source is: Pearl Harbor Countdown: Adm James Richardson By Skipper Steely

    On pg 158, the book talks about how USS Saratoga, was able to hide a
    a storm system, for a few days and then attack PH. This was just one
    of a number of simulations, suggesting PH, could be attacked by a
    carrier force. Adm Richardson and other navy men, tried to inform
    FDR about this danger. But FDR keep the fleet at PH any way, fearing
    we would look weak, if our fleet withdrew.
     
  13. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    I can provide similar scenarios for Seattle, San Diego and the Panama Canal. So what?

    And reading ONE book is a seriously bad way to get into a debate around here.
     
  14. Kevin Kenneally

    Kevin Kenneally Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    13
    Pearl Harbor and the actions of the US Navy and Command Authority will be discussed for many years to come. Until ALL the facts are revealed from the classified files, we (the people who want to know) will continue to wonder.

    But then again, National Lampoon did throw a "German Attack at Pearl Harbor" theory out there in the late 1970s.... :eek:
     
  15. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    What, if anything, do you think, might be both as-yet unclassified and damaging to the mainstream belief that there was no conspiracy (on the US side, anyway)?
    With a degree of plausibility that matches all the other CTs.
     
  16. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    The "so what" is, Pearl Harbor is much closer to Japan, than Seattle, or
    the Panama Canal. There was no way a Jap carrier force could make it,
    all the way across the Pacific without being spotted. But getting to PH,
    was easier. In a harbor, that is vunerable to attack, you don't put
    a lot of high value targets....that's just sound defensive strategy.

    The Brits sunk Bismarch and did major damage to the Italian fleet,
    at the Battle of Taranto, with carrier based, torpedo bombers.
    Swordfish torpedo bombers, obsolete and slow, yet effective biplanes.

    The Japs had better torpedo bombers and some of the world's best
    pilots and 11 carriers. I have often wondered was the fleet bait?

    There was no sound military reason, to base the fleet at PH. The fleet
    was slow and had little anti-aircraft weaponry. They would have been
    slaughtered, if they took on a Jap carriers strike force.
     
  17. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    "I have often wondered was the fleet bait?"

    One of the most absurd ideas floated by the CTists. We'd need dozens, if not hundreds of people willing to sacrifice the battlefleet, and the people on it, for an "excuse" to start a war that going to happen soon anyway. This is pure slander to all the people who were supposedly willing to casually commit murder for political purposes.

    "There was no sound military reason, to base the fleet at PH."

    Again, you're relying on one person's opinion of the events, without having any proper background on the events.
     
  18. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Don't think anybody figured we be hammered so hard. The US knew an
    attack was coming, and people would be killed. That's not "murder".

    At the very least, FDR failed to listen, to his very able commander
    (Adm Richardson), fired him instead (well strongly suggested retirement).

    Next, Nimitz turned down this coveted command (few people know this), and some people on this forum, have tried to deny this fact.
    Nimitz's son said in a 1996 History Channel interview, his father knew
    something was up, I have seen this interview.

    Adm Stark, also used some poor judgement and was relieved of command,
    a few months after the war started. The Brits had made torpedos work
    in shallow water, passed this info on to the US Navy, but Kimmel never
    heard about it. Plus all the buzz, in Washington, was the attack would happen, in the Southwest Pacific.

    I think nets could have protected the fleet, and the BBs shouldn't have been double parked. This made a extra wide and very easy target
    for bombers, and this is how they sunk USS Arizona, with all those men
    on board. These things in my opinion, were Kimmels fault.

    The Germans made nets work, protecting Tirpitz. So, she could be a
    fleet in being. The Brits had to keep a couple capital ships busy, in
    case Tirpitz moved to attack a convoy. Tirpitz was not sunk until
    near the end of the war. So nets could protect against torps.

    So, not all I'm saying comes from one source. All the pieces fit. FDR was
    a ends justify the means type of guy. I have studied FDR, from a number
    of different sources.
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    We had nets that would have worked. They weren't judged necessary because the harbor was so shallow. However I've seen evidence that if the attack had occured a month or so later they may have been in place.
    To your mind perhaps. Like I told another poster on another thread "we aren't buying".
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  20. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    "Don't think anybody figured we be hammered so hard. The US knew an
    attack was coming, and people would be killed. That's not "murder"."

    Weak rationalization of a bad idea. FDR could have ambushed the Kido Butai and would have looked very clever. No need for a crap shoot with the outcome. "Just let it happen" is lame, very lame.

    "At the very least, FDR failed to listen, to his very able commander
    (Adm Richardson), fired him instead (well strongly suggested retirement)."

    Richardson complained about logistics. He testified he was not concerned about an attack. Whiney admirals get replaced.

    "I think nets could have protected the fleet, and the BBs shouldn't have been double parked. This made a extra wide and very easy target
    for bombers, and this is how they sunk USS Arizona, with all those men
    on board. These things in my opinion, were Kimmels fault."

    The net issue is covered at my sight. Look it up. It was not FDR's choice, Kimmel approved. So now you'd need to get Kimmel in the conspiracy. Good luck with that.

    As for double parking, CTists have claimed that was deliberate to make it harder for some BBs "to get out in time". The fact of the matter is that the layout prevented the inner BBs from getting torpedo hits.
     
    brndirt1 likes this.

Share This Page