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

Was FDR to blame for Pearl Harbor?

Discussion in 'Pearl Harbor' started by DogFather, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,787
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    They must have been atheists.
     
  2. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,334
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Who were atheists, the Japs or the Darwinese?
     
  3. Glenn239

    Glenn239 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    9
    Logistics are slippery, not boring. Defining the art of the possible within the context of operational strategy is what separates the professionals from the also-rans. Logistics, being a murky and specialized subject that hinges on all sorts of doctrines and capabilities unknown outside a small secretive circle, tends to act as a flash point for opposing viewpoints in strategy as one side underestimates the value of some risky strategy that strains logistic resources, and the other loosely cites logistic difficulties to fob off every dropped opportunity of the entire war.

    A lack of resources certainly hinders any effort. For example, the 1944 US Navy’s logistic manual for ship fuel consumption charts only recently became available. No such resource will ever be produced for say, the Japanese Navy. Without such material, the process of defining exact capabilities becomes too nebulous.


     
  4. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,787
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    I know when FTP-218 was put online, I digitized it. "Resources" simply require going out and finding the material.
     
  5. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459

    Its interesting that the arguments above questioning the credibility of Stinnett sound virtually the same as the ones raised by Glantz when questioning the validity of "Icebreaker". It seems both of these authors try to pass their messages through the "one source states" or "several soldiers claim" funnel which immediately get shut down by true historians that point to documents which discredit such foolish arguments. Misquoting and/or misrepresenting quotes and facts seems to be the "bread and butter" for these individuals; who with easy reading coupled with easily explained problems tend to sway the more gullible of readers...
     
  6. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,787
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    The "authors", if I may use that term, of these books count on the reluctance of the reader to do fact checking. So they can blithely tell lies without worry because they assume they won't get challenged. And when they do get challenged it's too last, some poor schmuck has a copy of the book and thinks he's in receipt of a divine revelation.
     
  7. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,625
    Likes Received:
    997
    The "talk radio" version of history.

    Nice to see criticizm of Glantz. I am always skeptical of information that only one person is privvy to.
     
  8. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,787
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    The "revelation of the Great Secret" or "Great Discovery". Snake oil merchants used it in the 1880s. Probably on the ancestors of the "authors" in question.
     
  9. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,625
    Likes Received:
    997
    The use of the Urimm and Thummim to translate historical documents has been in question for the last 170 years and is the basis for most of my skepticism.
     
  10. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    484
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    Actually the other way around, the reference is to Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus" which deconstructs the writings, or depending on your point of view, ravings, of "Viktor Suvorov", who claims Stalin manipulated Hitler into starting WWII and was planning a pre-empting invasion of Germany in 1941.
     
  11. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,625
    Likes Received:
    997
    Uh.....no. Please read the post in the context of the thread and refrain from correcting my intentions or interpetations, in the future, unless your post is the one I am interpetting
     
  12. rebel1222

    rebel1222 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    4
    "Serious students of this topic know that FDR was trying to avoid war with Japan".

    That sir, is a ridiculous statement.
     
  13. JagdtigerI

    JagdtigerI Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    209
    No....

    can we move on now?
     
    formerjughead likes this.
  14. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,625
    Likes Received:
    997
    I second that motion.

    Do we have a third?
     
    A-58 likes this.
  15. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,334
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Thirded.

    Closed.

    The ayes are above the no's. Let's head for the bar....
     
  16. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,787
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    You just proved my point. Have a nice life.
     
  17. rebel1222

    rebel1222 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    4
    Moving on... You certainly have not provided anything to dispute the evidence linking FDR's implementation with the McCollum memo and his probable pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor. I'm done with this thread. I cannot convince you, and you cannot convince me otherwise. Since you simply have to have the last word in, I'll let your upcoming display of arrogant sarcasm be the last shot over the bow.

    Roll Tide....I'll buy the first round fella's
     
  18. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,334
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    "Roll Tide....I'll buy the first round fella's" (Quote by rebel1222)

    Well, he can't be all that bad if he's buying rounds now.

    THAT'S A JOKE....HA....HA....HA

    No but seriously, any ice cold draught for me please....
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    You do seem to have this turned around. You are the one with the rather extrodinary claim so the burden of proof is on you. So far all of your arguments have been at least countered if not proven fallacious.
     
  20. rebel1222

    rebel1222 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    4
    If you'll ready back thru, you'll see where I provided the page, doc numbers of the evidence from the investigation transcripts. FDR's implementation of the McCullom memo was clearly demonstrated and is in the record.
     

Share This Page