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

Log in or Sign up

Was FDR to blame for Pearl Harbor?

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

Page 12 of 13

OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Joined:

Jun 5, 2008

Messages:

18,343

Likes Received:

5,702

A-58 said:

Didn't the Japs bomb Darwin?
Click to expand...

They must have been atheists.

Seen recently: "I don't care about the Third World War, that's the Third World's problem."

Master Documentarian
Hyperwar Manager "Emeritus"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

OpanaPointer, Oct 10, 2009

#221
A-58 Cool Dude

Joined:

Nov 13, 2008

Messages:

9,023

Likes Received:

1,816

Location:

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

OpanaPointer said:

They must have been atheists.
Click to expand...

Who were atheists, the Japs or the Darwinese?

"On the Plains of Hesitation, lies the blackened bones of countless millions who,
at the dawn of victory sat down to rest, and resting died"....
(Adlai Stevenson to Harry Truman on discussing the pros and cons of dropping the big one, or so I'm told)

A-58, Oct 12, 2009

#222
Glenn239 Member

Joined:

Aug 21, 2009

Messages:

182

Likes Received:

9

Well that's because "tactics" are sexy and "logistics" are boring.
Click to expand...

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.

Research is too much work.
Click to expand...

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.

Glenn239, Oct 14, 2009

#223
OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Joined:

Jun 5, 2008

Messages:

18,343

Likes Received:

5,702

Glenn239 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I know when FTP-218 was put online, I digitized it. "Resources" simply require going out and finding the material.

Seen recently: "I don't care about the Third World War, that's the Third World's problem."

Master Documentarian
Hyperwar Manager "Emeritus"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

OpanaPointer, Oct 14, 2009

#224
Sloniksp Ставка

Joined:

Aug 23, 2006

Messages:

6,321

Likes Received:

460

brndirt1 said:

Yes, you continue to recycle Stinnett. And knowledgable people have spent years debunking him. Including these two gentlemen I will use. These are posts of theirs (not mine), and they take Stinnett apart.

The short answer is that Stinnett does not even mention in his book the most important documents available in the Crane Files at NARA regarding JN-25 -- documents that thoroughly refute his claim that JN-25 was being read before Pearl Harbor. The documents he does cite in supposed support of his confused, uninformed, and illogical arguments he provides such poor and unorthodox references to in his footnotes that those who have tried to find some of them at NARA archives have found it literally impossible to do so.

There is at least one instance in which a NARA file Stinnett cited did not contain anything like the document he claimed existed in that location. In other cases Stinnett has misquoted or grossly misrepresented the context of small quotations he has taken from archival documents. Thus true historians are distinctly unimpressed by the conspiratorial claim that "his" documents are being classified or reclassified as part of the grand "cover up." The crucial documents, cited in Cryptologia and Naval Institute Proceedings, are still available at NARA for any and all to see, and have been since at least 1999.

Much of Stinnett's work was done at the San Bruno section of the NARA, San Francisco, and from a study of those records, Stinnett simply does not know how to properly cite the documents at the NARA because of his way of making copies. He photographs them with his own camera and does not routinely ask for the stamped citations that reference activist routinely stamp on the back of a group of documents. In trying to find documents which he cited as being in files at NARA in San Bruno one fails to find them except one or two times where they were located in other files or in totally different series or in other creating offices. This is not a task that researchers should have to do when trying to verify other researchers' citations.

Sadly, Stinnett's work could have been good if he had let the documents speak to him, rather than having a pre-conceived agenda in which he tried to 'bend' history to his own thoughts.

Sincerely,

David Aiken, Shinjuwan Sakusen sensei.

(me again) David Aiken is a Director for the Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc. A non-profit study group founded by members of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association to carry the flag of Keeping the Record Straight by holding steadfast to the truth of the battle and dispel the myths that continue to crop up. I hope "Opanapointer" isn't David Aiken in disguise, I will feel foolish if he is.

For Aiken’s bona fides, see:

David's Corner

And another post from the now deceased Phil H. Jacobsen who worked in the field, at the time:

Stinnett appears to infer that the release of the Crane (Indiana) Naval Security Group Depository records was due to his FOIA requests. In fact, the declassification of these files was only awaiting the completion of Archives II at College Park, Maryland as there was insufficient space in the Washington, D.C. or Suitland NA facilities. Stinnett fails to mention that these files were "opened up" to a select number of other researchers besides himself including for one, Stephen Budiansky.

Stinnett claims that David Kahn, Edward Drea and Stephen Budiansky have ties with NSA that taint their views, but provides no proof of such bias. I know for a fact that Kahn refused a position with NSA's Center for Cryptologic History so he would be free to write anything he wished in his book, "The Codebreakers." I can assure everyone that neither Budiansky nor Drea have any ties to NSA that would affect their writings. Yes, I was assigned to NSA from 1957-1960 as a new Ensign (LDO) but even I am not beholding to NSA for any reason either.

As to the withholding of certain Crane (RG38) documents, my experience from many NA visits including the last one in September this year shows that relatively few such withdrawal requests are in evidence and I saw no indication that these few withdrawals were for any significant historical documents in the Pearl Harbor arena. Furthermore, Stinnett admitted he freely had a year's access to these documents and made thousands of copies of the documents he thought were significant to his revisionist conspiracy theory. I note he does not identify any specific document that has been "withdrawn." Therefore, I see little for him to complain of except to pound on his unsupported claims of continuing cover-up. It has been reported that some of the withdrawals are temporary by NSA's Center for Cryptologic History and other DOD historical studies and that they will be returned when those studies are completed.

It is Stinnett and not Kahn who "rewrote" a U.S. Naval Communications (sic) [Intelligence] Summary prepared by Commander Rochefort ..." I had better put in those extra two periods that Kahn neglected to add undoubtedly for space reasons or I will be also be accused again of violating journalistic ethics. As you will see when I am finished, Stinnett had to really resort to extremely small nit picks to even begin to accuse his critics of making errors.

Stinnett is the one who is guilty of completely rewriting Rochefort's Comint Summary of 25 November 1941 that he most vigorously attacks Kahn for. On pages 162-163 of "Day of Deceit, he says:

"The first to ignore Yamamoto's silence order was Vice Admiral Nagumo. As he departed Hitokappu Bay at 6:00 A.M. on 26 (Tokyo time) HE HELD EXTENSIVE RADIO EXCHANGES WITH JAPAN'S CENTRAL PACIFIC COMMANDER AND THE SUMBMARINE FORCE COMMANDER. THEIR THREE-WAY CONVERSATIONS WERE INTERCEPTED BY STATION H OPERATORS AT MIDMORNING ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25. (Emphasis added).

Joseph Rochefort revealed the Nagumo broadcasts directly to Admiral Kimmel in the Communications (sic) [Intelligence] Summary dated November 25 but delivered to the Admiral the next morning. "COMMANDER CARRIERS WAS IN EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE SUBMARINE COMMANDER AND CENTRAL PACIFIC FORCES. (Emphasis added) (note 43) Rochefort's source was the intercept operators at Station H, WHO OVERHEARD NAGUMO USING THE AKAGI'S RADIO TRANSMITTER AND COORDINATING WAR TACTICS WITH VICE ADMIRAL SHIGEYOSHI INOUE, JAPAN'S CENTRAL PACIFIC COMMANDER (FOURTH FLEET), AND VICE ADMIRAL MITSUMI SHIMIZU, COMMANDER OF JAPANESE SUBMARINES (SIXTH FLEET). .... NONE OF THESE "EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATIONS" INTERCEPTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED BY US CENSORS." (Emphasis added).

However, when you actually look at Rochefort's Communications Intelligence Summary for November 25th 1941, you see nothing whatsoever to support Stinnett's egregious allegations. First of all, if Rochefort intended to report such activity by Nagumo as the main actor in such "extensive communications", he would have put that entry under the heading of "Combined Fleet" which Nagumo and his carriers fell operationally and administratively under. However, the actual words that Rochefort used in that summary were:

GENERAL (This section usually contains significant activities by entities not covered by other regular sections like, Combined Fleet. These particulars are omitted for clarity.)

COMBINED FLEET - (This is the section where Nagumo's Commander Carriers, which was later determined to by CinC 1st Air Fleet, as well as First and Second Fleets information would be located. There are many examples, that are too numerous to mention here, in November and December 1941 of entries appearing here to describe when Nagumo as Commander Carriers/CinC 1st Air Fleet was observed either sending or receiving messages.)

CHINA - (Nothing in this summary)

AIR - (Omitted for clarity)

THIRD FLEET (Nothing in this summary)

FOURTH FLEET - CINC. FOURTH FLEET IS STILL HOLDING EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMANDER SUBMARINE FLEET, THE FORCES AT JALUIT AND COMMANDER CARRIERS. HIS OTHER COMMUNICATIONS ARE WITH THE THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH BASE FORCES [within his jurisdiction in the mandated islands.] (Emphasis added.)

It is crystal clear that Rochefort is talking specifically about and only about the unusual activity of CinC Fourth Fleet, Admiral Inoue's "extensive communications" with six different entities, of which Nagumo is only one. In the radio intelligence parlance of those days, Inoue originated messages to those six entities. Most likely these messages were only seen of the Tokyo Fleet broadcast. Most likey, the message to Nagumo indicated by Rochefort was received by Nagumo through the Tokyo broadcast and it was not necessary for him to transmit to obtain this message from the Tokyo broadcast. Stinnett specifically stated that Nagumo sent messages from the Akagi's transmitter even to Admiral Shimizu, CinC Sixth Fleet [submarines] but when you read the actual summary from which Stinnett bases that allegation, there is nothing in the summary saying that Nagumo was in communication with Shimizu. It is Inoue who is doing all the talking to the six other entities. Thus, it is Stinnett who misquotes Rochefort in his effort to advance his predetermined revisionist conspiracy agenda and Kahn was right.

Stinnett is and was dead wrong as is clear to any objective observer who has access to the document Stinnett claims is his source. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

There is an old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That works in spades when one has a revisionist historical agenda. Unbelievable, Stinnett who claims to be a self-appointed expert in this field, erroneously asserts that Rochefort Communications (sic) [Intelligence] Summary of 25 November 1941 reflects Japanese naval communications activity of 26 November due to time zone changes and the International Date Line. However, even a neophyte researcher in this field would have noted that the major Japanese radio call sign changes of 1 November and 1 December 1941, where Japanese communications used Tokyo -9 time zone, were reflected in Rochefort's summaries of the same dates [1 November and 1 December] instead of on 31 October and 30 November 1941 which would have been the case if Stinnett allegations were true. Furthermore, all U.S. naval intercept logs, intercepted messages, supervisor's reports and Comint Summaries used Tokyo -9 time zone to avoid confusion and errors in converting Japanese naval activity that used Tokyo time to any specific U.S. time zone. This is just another example of the hundred or so errors in Stinnett's book and his subsequent writings.

As to John Toland's reference to "Seaman Z," the allegations attributed to Robert D. Ogg were thoroughly debunked by Commander Irvin Newman's interview of him. See RG457 SRH-255 NA, College Park, Maryland. Ogg admitted that he did not know the source of the radio transmissions for the bearing he plotted for his superior, Hosmer. Furthermore, Ogg stated that they came from two DF stations, one in San Francisco and one "about 100 miles down the California coast." The only DF station in the San Francisco area was at the Farallon Islands off the coast in the Pacific Ocean and the only DF station down the California coast was some 300 miles generally southeast of San Francisco at Point Arguello. When plotted on a DF tracking chart, the bearings from those two locations towards Japan or the Northeast Pacific Ocean would appear as almost parallel lines due to the NW/SE orientation of the California coastline. Thus, no real fix or transmitter location in the North Pacific Ocean could be made from those two supposed locations from transmitters in the alleged locations.

Since Hosmer was interested in the location of Japanese commercial ships, it is most likely that such bearings from whichever DF stations were involved were Japanese commercials ships not the Kido Butai. Apparently, Stinnett recognized his problems with the Toland/Ogg reports from the Newman interview so he changed the DF station locations in his paperback version of Day of Deceit. Now he says they were from Station T, Pt. St. George several hundred miles North of San Francisco and a mysterious "Station X" which he claims was the commercial Mackay Radio Station at Half Moon Bay some 50 miles south of San Francisco. However, RG38 records indicate that Station X was a Canadian DF station located on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Again, Stinnett is wrong.

A review of Station H supervisor’s reports, penciled notes on TESTM reports, and Rochefort's Comint summaries for 1941 show that Station Cast is almost invariably referred to as "Cavite." This is obviously a hangover from the many, many years the station was at Cavite and the fact that its military administration was still at Cavite. Thus, when Stinnett lambasts Budiansky for such a picayunish nit pick, Budiansky is in good company. It is clear that Stinnett is desperate to find something to complain about in the reviews by Kahn, Budiansky and Drea and will stoop to any lengths to achieve that end.

It is Stinnett and not Drea who does not understand cyrptanalytic terminology. I note throughout the book and even in his various speeches and writings Stinnett improperly uses the term "Cryptographer" for those U.S. naval personnel working on Japanese naval codes when he should use "Cryptanalysts." Cryptographers construct codes or work on code of their own country while cryptanalysts try to break existing codes usually of foreign countries.

As Budiansky thoroughly discussed in his article, "Too Late For Pearl Harbor" in the December 1999 issue of U.S. Naval Proceedings, official OP-20-GYP-1 records show zero decrypts of JN-25B (Stinnett's "5-num" or AN-1) code and cipher combination by any U.S. naval entity before December7th 1941.

Then Lieutenant John "Honest John" Lietwiler was only discussing his basic code value and overlying cipher value recovery process. Commander Rudolph Fabian testified before the Pearl Harbor Congressional hearings under oath and noted that just before the outbreak of hostilities, "We (at Station C) had established liaison with the British unit at Singapore. We were exchanging values, both code and cipher recoveries, but we had not developed either to the point where we could read enemy intercepts." See; Secret Allies in the Pacific by Roland H. Worth, Jr. p. 105.

As one can see, Fabian spoke directly to actual decrypts while Lietwiler was talking about code and cipher recoveries. OP-20-GYP-1 records show that the U.S. Navy had only recovered some 3,900 basic JN-25B book values out of the total of over 55,000. I had the experience of working for "Honest John" Lietwiler in 1946 and 1948 at Bainbridge Island, Washington. Since I had been at Guadalcanal and he was later evacuated to Melbourne, we often had small conversations about the pre-war and early war years. Lietwiler was quite surprised by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and felt quite disappointed that they had not been able to decrypt JN-25B in time to be of help to the Navy ships and personnel prior to December7th, 1941. So Stinnett is wrong again when he claims Station C was decrypting JN-25B messages.

As a matter of accuracy, Stinnett is wrong again when he states that Lietwiler was the "commanding officer" of Station Cast. First, that entity was headed up by a simple Officer-in-Charge and the command was the District Communications Officer at Cavite. More importantly, it was Fabian not Lietwiler who was the military and administrative head of Station C. Lietwiler was sent out to relieve Fabian, but Fabian's wife was confined to a sanitorium for a lung ailment and he was allowed to stay on. Even though Lietwiler was senior to Fabian, by agreement Fabian, who was not a cryptanalyst nor a language officer kept on as the OIC thus freeing Lietwiler who was both a cryptanalys and language officer to continue the work on JN-25B code and cipher recoveries and Purple diplomatic decrypts and translations. So once again, Stinnett is wrong.

It is abundantly clear from official records and the personal testimonies of many naval analysts that there were no decrypts of JN-25B (5-num - AN-1) until the first one was made by Rochefort's Hawaiian group in January 1942.

OP-20-GYP-1 records show all the contemporary decrypts with assigned numbers starting with #1 in January 1942 by Hawaii.

I find it extremely interesting that virtually all the arguments against Skinet
All text in italics are other author’s, not my own.
Click to expand...

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...

The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Sloniksp, Oct 14, 2009

#225
OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Joined:

Jun 5, 2008

Messages:

18,343

Likes Received:

5,702

Sloniksp said:

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...
Click to expand...

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.

Seen recently: "I don't care about the Third World War, that's the Third World's problem."

Master Documentarian
Hyperwar Manager "Emeritus"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

OpanaPointer, Oct 14, 2009

#226
formerjughead The Cooler King

Joined:

Dec 29, 2008

Messages:

5,627

Likes Received:

1,006

OpanaPointer said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.

formerjughead, Oct 14, 2009

#227
OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Joined:

Jun 5, 2008

Messages:

18,343

Likes Received:

5,702

formerjughead said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Seen recently: "I don't care about the Third World War, that's the Third World's problem."

Master Documentarian
Hyperwar Manager "Emeritus"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

OpanaPointer, Oct 14, 2009

#228
formerjughead The Cooler King

Joined:

Dec 29, 2008

Messages:

5,627

Likes Received:

1,006

OpanaPointer said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.

formerjughead, Oct 14, 2009

#229
R Leonard Member

Joined:

Oct 15, 2003

Messages:

1,128

Likes Received:

780

Location:

The Old Dominion

formerjughead said:

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

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.

I wonder what this button does . . .

R Leonard, Oct 14, 2009

#230
formerjughead The Cooler King

Joined:

Dec 29, 2008

Messages:

5,627

Likes Received:

1,006

R Leonard said:

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.
Click to expand...

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

formerjughead, Oct 16, 2009

#231
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.

rebel1222, Oct 17, 2009

#232
JagdtigerI Ace

Joined:

Apr 13, 2008

Messages:

2,352

Likes Received:

209

DogFather said:

Was FDR to blame for Pearl Harbor?
Click to expand...

No....

can we move on now?

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

JagdtigerI, Oct 17, 2009

#233

formerjughead likes this.
formerjughead The Cooler King

Joined:

Dec 29, 2008

Messages:

5,627

Likes Received:

1,006

JagdtigerI said:

No....

can we move on now?
Click to expand...

I second that motion.

Do we have a third?

formerjughead, Oct 17, 2009

#234

A-58 likes this.
A-58 Cool Dude

Joined:

Nov 13, 2008

Messages:

9,023

Likes Received:

1,816

Location:

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Thirded.

Closed.

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

"On the Plains of Hesitation, lies the blackened bones of countless millions who,
at the dawn of victory sat down to rest, and resting died"....
(Adlai Stevenson to Harry Truman on discussing the pros and cons of dropping the big one, or so I'm told)

A-58, Oct 18, 2009

#235
OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Joined:

Jun 5, 2008

Messages:

18,343

Likes Received:

5,702

rebel1222 said:

"Serious students of this topic know that FDR was trying to avoid war with Japan".

That sir, is a ridiculous statement.
Click to expand...

You just proved my point. Have a nice life.

Seen recently: "I don't care about the Third World War, that's the Third World's problem."

Master Documentarian
Hyperwar Manager "Emeritus"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

OpanaPointer, Oct 18, 2009

#236
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

rebel1222, Oct 18, 2009

#237
A-58 Cool Dude

Joined:

Nov 13, 2008

Messages:

9,023

Likes Received:

1,816

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....

"On the Plains of Hesitation, lies the blackened bones of countless millions who,
at the dawn of victory sat down to rest, and resting died"....
(Adlai Stevenson to Harry Truman on discussing the pros and cons of dropping the big one, or so I'm told)

A-58, Oct 18, 2009

#238
lwd Ace

Joined:

Jul 24, 2007

Messages:

12,322

Likes Received:

1,245

Location:

Michigan

rebel1222 said:

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....
Click to expand...

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.

lwd, Oct 19, 2009

#239
rebel1222 Member

Joined:

Aug 18, 2009

Messages:

102

Likes Received:

4

lwd said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.

rebel1222, Oct 19, 2009

#240

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 12 of 13

Share This Page

Hello and welcome to the WWII Forums!
Sign up and join the discussion!