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. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I'm not mistaked about Lend-Lease or any other post. Lend-Lease
    was primarily foreign aid to help keep,our soon to be allies, in the war. I mentioned it, because it's a good example, of Roosevelt's manipulations of the time. Manipulations that would help led the US into WW2.

    It was not an even exchange, of one thing for another. The name Lend-Lease itself, was misleading and designed to be that way.

    As far as getting paid back, some WW2 loans may have been worked out, over the decades since WW2. But that's not the same thing as being paid back and there is a big difference. So Clint, you need to do some more
    reading, if you don't understand this.

    I think it was a good idea thing FDR helped our future allies. What I don't agree with, is the way FDR lied to voters, in order to get reelected in 1940.

    It has taken a long time,but the truth has finally come out!
     
  2. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,649
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Alabama
    I don't think he used the words "worked out". He said "paid off." Clint, do you have any source for this?

    I think they were our then current Allies. We had not too long previously finished a large war together.
    This conspiracy claim has been around a long time.

    What do you suppose he do, sit back and wait until the war comes to us and Army is still miniscule and and our allies defeated? I don't like FDR, mainly because of his domestic and economic policies, but he was on the mark with his attempts to prepare the US for the coming war and it was coming to us.
     
  3. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,816
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    How would the US get into the fight with Germany by getting attacked by Japan? On December 8th, FDR asked congress to declare war on Japan and Japan only. The Germans weren't in on it (sorry Bluto). Germany, Italy and Japan signed a defensive alliance only, with members coming to the aid of other members who were attacked by foriegn powers. Japan bombing Pearl Harbor did not fit this criteria. Hitler, being the brilliant military genious he was did the warring world a favor and declared war on the US on December 11th, as did Italy. Germany and Italy were by no means treaty bound to enter into combat operations on behalf of Japan and their actions at Pearl Harbor.

    Now, my opinion is that the US would've eventually been drawn into the European war sooner or later, but at that time, FDR and the US were only at war with Japan.
     
  4. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    4,610
    It's the biggest fail of the Back Door To War fantasy that the US didn't use the excuse of Pearl Harbor to get into the war in Europe. If all that death and destruction had been winked at by the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would have had to be in on such a conspiracy, why wasn't it used for "the secret purpose" put forth in those silly theories?
     
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    Indeed we sent them some old DDs that weren't worth much more to us than there scrap value and got some very useful bases out of it.
     
  6. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    4,610
    Fifty World War I era destroyers in exchange for the capability to extend air coverage for our ships by about 1/2 million square miles? How is that fair? ;)
     
  7. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I never said anything about conspiracy. I don't believe FDR, knew in
    advance, about the Pearl Harbor Attack. There is no way that could
    have been kept secret all these years. As it turned out, confronting
    confronting Imperial Japan was the right thing to do. And FDR knew
    this would likely led to war, even though he had promised the American
    Public, not to persue a war. But FDR looked for a reason, to join in the
    war, in both the Atlantic and Pacific.

    I think FDR was more concerned about his legacy and continued political
    power, than anything else. His economic policies of the Great Depression
    had failed, unemployment comming into the election of 1940, was about
    15%, yet the tax burden on the American People had tripled.

    Winning a major war, would change all that. FDR was an ends justifies
    the means type of guy.
     
  8. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,649
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Alabama
    I wrote the following post on another forum in response to the allegation that the US "pulled one over" on the UK in the destroyer for bases deal. While that assumption is not the basis of your statement, my comments do address the proposed inadequacies of the ships themselves.

    The ships given the British had been, for the most part, little used by the US and had been mothballed in like-new condition. There are examples of machinery problem affecting some of the ships, but nothing out of the percentages that would have been expected from another representational group of ships. The sea-keeping difficulties mentioned in my post are a result of the design (the ships were very wet forward in rough seas) and not due to neglect.
     
    mikebatzel likes this.
  9. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    4,610
    The inter-war policy of the USN, as I understand it, was to rotate ships through active and ordinary status, giving each ship time to be tested and repaired as needed by the crews and shipyards. Those ships should have been in very good condition for their age.
     
  10. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    954
    well if were talking destroyer deal... yes we wanted and for a time needed them. but to the british and more so churchill it was the act that mattered just as much ...the show in his mind of future american intent. and on this side of the pond and at that time intent and words mattered to us here. the destroyer deal treaty was posted by me in stump last week if anyones interested. whos bluto popeye..
     
  11. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    4,610
    There was never any real doubt that we wouldn't leave England to her own fate. The attitude in the US was that Hitler was an ape that needed to be caged. As he grew more menacing, the threat became more real. By Dec. 1, 1941, Gallup polls indicated that 86% of Americans knew we'd have to "do something about Hitler." (Source is the Gallup compiled polled for that year, you can find them in any good library.)
     
  12. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    954
    the doubt though was perceived to be in germany though. anyhow ill leave you to your debate. seems a little inscestuous to me.
     
  13. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    4,610
    Hitler had dismissed the US as a "nation of mongrels". His declaration of war on Dec. 11th, 1941, was the second major stupid he did that year.
     
  14. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    954
    wheres the door... it was not the perception that churchill had though . he wanted the germans in 1940 to be as sure as he of this. his six volumes are littered with his own words on the matter. as too their finest hour. im not doubting anyones sincerity here i actually think you all need to stand back a little as you all seem to be on the same page with the whys and not the whats being the problem . ill get me coat.121
     
  15. OpanaPointer

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

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    4,610
    It's not dogma for me, but long study. I bought Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in 1964, and the events, persona and motivations of the war have been my interest ever since. You might take a look at my sig for some of the research I've done.
     
  16. macrusk

    macrusk Proud Daughter of a Canadian WWII Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,803
    Likes Received:
    558
    Location:
    Saskatoon
  17. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    954
    creditable stuff op. ive followed your posts and threads with interest and glee many times. im failing here though to understand w hat you are seemingly in disagreement with me about. perhaps you would like to explain where we differ? and as for research no one on here is or should be above questioning be it factual of which you are undoubtedly impressive or reasoning which is addittionally impoortant. i also think the horses mouth matters and in this case churchill provides that particular horse. but no one is questiooning your credentials. i do i/t but i cant spell for toffee....
     
  18. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,816
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
     
  19. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    That's Congressman Blutarsky to you
     
  20. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,816
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Actually, it was "Senator and Mrs. Blutarsky, Washington DC."

    Go take out the garbage....
     

Share This Page