Today is Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day - So remember this:

Half a century later, many historians now agree that Pearl Harbor was a deliberate act: by OUR government. Yes, the Japanese army did bomb Pearl Harbor - but history has provided evidence that our government deliberately provoked attacked, was aware of the approaching Japanese fighters, and hid this info from our military commanders in Hawaii. WHY did they this?! Because popular support to escalate involvement in the war was thin at best - and our government needed a pivotal event to turn popular opinion and draw us into the war. (Don't get me wrong - we did a GOOD thing by confronting Hitler. I'm merely commenting on the deception used to initiate our involvement).

Now, half a century later...our leaders called for another pivotal event...a "new Pearl Harbor" as the PNAC described it. And they got it on 9/11. Ironic?

Mainly because I wasn't alive before, during, or even 30 years after Pearl Harbor was attacked. So I don't know. And I doubt I ever will.

But, 9/11 is much different. I saw what happened before, I saw Bush's rise to power, I lived though his struggles before 9/11. And I saw his incompetence, his unreadiness, and his unwillingness to do anything at all unfold before my eyes.

And I saw, and was aware of, his motive.

Everybody was.

Everyone knew we would be at war with Iraq during *'s Presidency. The Onion Knew it! Seth McFarline (creator of Family Guy) knew it!

It has always been the case, we are but another resource to be consumed.

bomb Brazil.

Instead, we went after the folks that did the bombing (laying aside of course the information you mention).

"Many historians"?? BS. I am a professional historian and my area is 20th Century US foreign policy. MOST real historians, as opposed to wing=nuts who think watching the "History Channel" is the same as 6 or more years of graduate school, agree that the "FDR Knew" idea is old, stale RW propaganda. The books that argue otherwise rely in general on 2 sets of documents, 1) cables not translated until 1942, 2) fake transcripts of an interview with a German officer that were created by holocaust deniers in an attempt to slander FDR.

May I suggest you visit the PI, they love people like you over there.

And I won't say welcome to the Du, but I will say welcome to my ignore list.

bye bye.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html

In order to believe that Roosevelt knew about the coming Pearl Harbor attack but kept mum, you have to believe he had better information than any of his subordinates in the government or the military--information that since has been destroyed, since no one has been able to find it. Moreover, you have to believe that Roosevelt was willing to sacrifice most of the Pacific fleet, and possibly one of the most important American naval bases in the Pacific, probably crippling American operations against Japan for the next two years (by which time the Japanese would likely have taken over the Pacific and begun operations against the American West Coast) in order to gain public support for a measure the public already supported by a two-to-one margin. You also have to believe that Roosevelt--who had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy, who always claimed that if he hadn't gotten into politics he would have liked to have been an admiral, whose first campaign song for President was "Anchors Aweigh" (before being replaced by the more appropriate and upbeat "Happy Days Are Here Again")--would countenance the deaths of thousands of U.S. sailors for a few extra votes in Congress--again, for a measure that many observers felt would pass easily.

If you're willing to believe that, I've got some great information on the Vince Foster murder I'm willing to sell you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

points with self righteous hyperbole, what else is new...I think the weed is affecting your ability to deal with reality...

*eyeroll*

Not conjecture, proof. Woody provided sources and expertise. Could you please educate the rest of us as to how the proof of complicity is established?
The Professor

given the insulting and repellent nature of what that comment responded to....

Not just recycled right wing craziness, but ancient recycled right wing craziness at that....

Meanwhile, here's something for sane DUers to think about for Pearl Harbor day...

"February 2005 marked a milestone, of sorts, for America: Since the 9/11 attacks, we fought the war on terror for 41 months -- the same length of time it took our grandparents' America to go from being attacked at Pearl Harbor to winning World War II in Europe.
Except for American troops, whose heroism has spanned the generations, our time does not stack up well by comparison. By May 1945, the United States had rallied the world to crush fascist totalitarianism and was hosting 50 allied nations to charter the United Nations. By February 2005, by contrast, the United States had splintered the world's resolve to stamp out Islamic totalitarianism, weakened the United Nations, and damaged historic alliances. Three and a half years into the war on terror, no V-E Day is in sight, unless Bush counts his reelection as a victory over France.
Perhaps the most dispiriting contrast between then and now is closer to home. In the wake of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, FDR transformed a struggling, isolationist nation into the greatest economic and military power on earth, laid the groundwork for the most dramatic explosion of middle-class opportunity in history, and unleashed a spirit of sacrifice and responsibility we have prized for 60 years since. In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush has corroded America's economic engine, mismanaged the military, concentrated wealth, and fostered an ethic of debt and irresponsibility that will force our children to sacrifice for 60 years hence. "

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253281&kaid=85&subid=65

Then and now...tremendously different impacts on the social and economic fabric of America.

reflecting the fundamentally different outlooks of the progresive Democratic party versus the xenophobic fundamentalst GOP.

Wonderful to come on DU to read how e-e-e-evil Democrats are, isn't it?

...a Pacific Theater WWII veteran himself. He uses excellent documentation to prove that we had broken the Japanes military codes by 1940, and were well aware of where the Japanese fleet was located prior to December 7, 1941. Additionally, we knew what the Japanese fleet was going to do.

He also goes into great depth about the McCollum 8-Point Memo adopted by FDR, a plan that set the stage for provoking the Japanese attack on our assets in the Pacific.

If you're as good an historian as you say you are, you'll take the time to find this book and read it cover-to-cover.

FDR had been trying to get the U. S. into WWII in Europe since the fall of Poland in 1939. But he ran into a stonewall with an isolationist Congress, and the American public. Many of the top U. S. industrialists like Ford actually supported Nazi Germany's early war efforts. Herbert Walker and Prescott Busch actually made loans to Nazi Germany from 1934 until their bank, the Union Bank, was shut down in 1942. FDR needed an excuse to get us into WWII, and provoking Japan was the avenue he chose when all else failed.

I've learned during my 35+ years of historical study that history is not a static discipline. It is constantly changing as new facts are found and addded to the known historical database. I'm surprised you haven't learned that lesson.

Oh, by the way, I've been a registered Democrat for almost 35 years, so you can save the "You're a Freeper", or "You'll be more welcome at PI" comments.

I thought it was really poorly researched and the conclusions were extraordinarily tenuous. It looks to be a book in search of isolated facts to support a pre-existing belief.
The Professor

I've reviewed it, critiqued it, followed the citations, and have come to the same conclusion every notable historian of WWII has.

Stinnett added nothing new to an age-old debate pushed primarily by those seeking to damage the reputation of FDR. He consulted a lot of documents others had not cited in their attempts to prove this conspiracy, and unfortunately a lot of readers have come to the errneous conclusion that "new documents" equates to new evidence or even proof. This is not the case. The documents he cites and holds up as damning say nothing that was not already known about the overall situation. At *most*, they show misjudgment on the part of several military and political leaders, an inability or possibly stubborn unwillingness to see the true nature of the threat from Japan, and a command and control system that was fundamentally broken on several levels.

The oft repeated ironic refrain in peer reviewed journals discussing Stinnett's work is that in his zeal to prove his own theory, he makes mistake and after mistake in interpretation worse than those made by the individuals he accuses of conspiracy.

Saved me from trying to do it while at work.

And I agree with you 100%. My USN Navy grandfather who fought in the Pacific also thinks it's bull -- and he couldn't stand FDR.

Succinct and to the point. Thanks. I'd been debating whether to post a reply similar to your or not.

... and you voiced a deep-rooted resentment on my part; that is, it appears that anyone who watches three episodes of Band of Brothers followed up with a weekends worth of "Cool Battles Dramatized to Intice Commercial Sponsors" on the the History Channel becomes an expert on the war.

and not to start a thread-hijacking or a flame war, but your user name strikes me. Would you say that the following is also a tin-foil RW myth? "Woodrow Wilson's administration was openly hostile to black people. Wilson was an outspoken white supremacist who believed that black people were inferior." (History textbook "Land of Promise" quoted in "Lies my teacher told me")

and I answered off line.

While I agree the case against FDR is weak, aren't you the guy who once argued on these boards -- against all documented evidence and the consensus of most professional historians of the period to the contrary -- that Woodrow Wilson was not racist?

In other words, just because someone argues a point you disagree with, that you really cannot fathom, doesn't make that person crazy, worthy of scorn and insults; it makes that person someone you disagree with.

Professor Pot? Pleased to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

...for today is my birthday.

At the time, the Imperial Army and Navy were separate fiefdoms, cooperating, but with no true commander in cheif (except the emperor, who was effectively a rubber stamp for what the Army & Navy commands had already hashed out among themselves).

If you really want to draw parallels to current events, a bunch of agressive, groupthinking ideologues (who also happen to personally profit) listening to the intelligence they want to hear, ignoring facts that might deflect them from their desired course, managing to push their agenda surprisingly long on sheer boldness, but not having the real reserves to sustain it....

Remember the only Democrat the conservative wingnuts hate more than Bill Clinton is FDR, and they're trying to erase him from history. They've been spewing this crap for decades, and it's not anymore true now than it was then.

nt

but most do not.

than DUers celebrating Pearl Harbor day by repeating what the nutcase right wingers used to say about FDR back when Truman was president...

"many historians now agree"
Name two.

...aren't we onthe same team here? You'd never know it.

That's not hostile. It's requesting corroboration. Why are you finding this so difficult, if you're sure of the facts? Please provide the context for the rest of us, so we can make an informed decision.

You're being mighty defensive about a simple request.
The Professor

...only because of Woody's brash comment and not welcoming me to DU and ignoring me...simply because he doen't agree with my post. Seems childish. But perhaps I'm just senitive.

So, that's two folks you were with whom you were unwilling to exchange views.

Since you didn't address their points, or answer any of the questions in search of supportive evidence, it seemed defensive.
The Professor

...I do not vouch for their credibility. Perhaps that is the subject for further debate. But if I am called to task to state sources - so be it.

George Morgenstern - Pearl Harbor: The Story of a Secret War
Charles A. Beard: President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War
John T. Flynn: The Truth about Pearl Harbor

The other two i haven't read. The Flynn book is about as credible, to me, as Gerald Posner's "Case Closed". Lots of personal speculation masquerading as fact.
The Professor

both Beard and Flynn were prominent in the isolationist movement...and Morgenstern was a darling of the holocaust denial crowd.

And only Beard could actually be called a historian, the other two are crackpots.

So I take it from this you can't name two.....

I am sorry if I have offended your hero. And I understand how badly you want to be right.

feel free to go on.

So I guess this means you STILL can't name two. (For a laugh, let's see you name two BESIDES the ones who have been mentioned here by other DUers).

If I name two - will you go away? Or should I refrain - just so you can feel vindicated. Either way, I think my point has been lost on you. And we've drifted way off course here. I'm not interested in diluting my objectve any further. That's ok...I suppose nobody can win them all. Myself included.

Isn't a liberal somebody who is so open-minded, he won't take his own side in an argument?

But we meet at last, or no doubt again, MrBenchley. Since you perhaps never peruse the lounge, you may not have seen your party :party: thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4390759

neither wof which I would consider historians are:

Stinnett (and his book "Day of Deceit") - a lot of sloppiness in his book...blanket statements about ambigous "facts"

Gannon (and his book "Pearl Harbor Betrayed") - a better read a little bit more plausible...more so in the treatment of Kimmel and Short and their need for troops/ships

Gannon is Kimmel's grandson, and Stinnett has no academic credentials whatsoever....

Gannon is at least a historian at the University of Florida, but his specialty has been early settlements in Florida.

We couldn't possibly be any WORSE off than are now.

Most probably brought to you by the cabal who tried to illegally overthrow the US government.

about FDR's name really being Rosenfeld and the news that he had syphillis and not polio...

So few of the people who used to peddle this crap in the 1950s actually advertised their substance abuse, though....(snicker)

It's my understanding that this issue is no where near as settled among historians as you suggest.

I'll try to provide you some links. May take me some time...but I post.

Just to calrify - I never said this issue was settled. Nor, will it ever be? Will 9/11 be settled? JFK? Not likely. Hey, we can't even settle the evolution / creation debate. How are we going to settle this. So much has been lost to time.

My point here is NOT to split hairs with our resident "historians" here on DU. Rather, my objective was to draw attention to the parallels between Pearl Harbor and 9/11. And I still feel Pear Harbor Remembrance day is an appropriate occaision for such analysis. Whether our gov't lied to us 60 years ago is (or not) not the intended point. The point IS that they DO lie. And the more people who question what is widely accepted to be the "truth" about such issues, the better off we all be.

I just don't think your statement that "many historians now agree that Pearl Harbor was a deliberate act: by OUR government" is anywhere near accurate. From what I've seen "many" historians do not agree on this at all.

BTW, as an old timer here at DU I've seen many heated debates and arguments and flame wars about 9/11, JFK, intelligent design, etc. This is a discussion forum, so I think these are fair game. I always take umbrage, however, whenever someone on any side makes broad, unsubstantiated claims.

For the record, I have suspicions about what really happened on 9/11; I think there was more than just a "lone nut" behind JFK's murder (Thom Hartmann provides some interesting new info on this, BTW); for me, the theory of evolution is grounded in scientific process while creationism is mythology (which does NOT mean it's bunk, it just means the creation story is attempting to explain something that science really isn't interested in); and based on my study I'm not convinced that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose.

The reason I asked for sources is I'm certainly open to seeing arguments from historians who say that FDR did let it happen, however much I doubt their validity at the moment.

Many right-wing FDR haters have revved up yet another campaign to shove this idea down our throats, but their numbers are small.

The vast majority of reputable historians agree that this theory is based on truths and half-truths requiring selective interpretation.

I am greatly disturbed to see this idea being pushed here. I am even more disturbed the OP is getting "Greatest" recommendations.

I should have phrased my first sentence differently. I had no idea I'd evoke such flaming over this issue. the forum will not permit me to edit the original post to read "Some historians"...in hidsight, the difference in semantics would have saved a lot of aggravation and kept the discussion true to its intended topic...the plausability that 9/11 was more than just a "terrorist attack". Oh well....

Conspiracy Posts tend to get lots of "Greatest" nominations. Sometimes I wish DU would have an "Ungreatest" Nomination feature as well. :-)

Limbaugh last year. Sorry, but you've been watching too many hours of the History channel. Ironic? No. Disruptive? Yes.

I am glad for this thread. I think most viewers probably expect the History channel to show accurate history, or they would be watching the historical fiction channel, and even most historic fiction readers expect to get accurate history when they read.

Of course, neither TV nor books are necessarily accurate. I like a thread like this, it allows arguments to be made. Before reading this thread I thought that LIHOP for FDR was currently accepted and I thought that was ironic because that was what my grandfather strongly believed in 1942.

Of course, we have politics muddying the historical waters. So we will never know one way or the other, but if Limbaugh brings that up, then he has less grounds to dispute LIHOP for 9/11.

I enjoy the History Channel but it is only as accurate as the many different companies that produce its videos (including a lot of UFO shows it seems). Some are better than others and more than one produce pure crap. PBS's "American Experience' has much higher standards and even it makes me wince at times.

I subscribe to "Discover" magazine and enjoy talking about its articles with friends, but if I were to argue about what "scientists say" with a real Ph.D. in physics and I was spouting stuff that was the scientific equal of "FDR knew" I'd expect to get my head handed to me on a plate. A Ph.D. that is active in his field (back me up here ProfGAC!) not only spent the intellectual equivalent of boot camp getting the damn degree, but they then have to keep up the same level of study the rest of their career to stay up to speed. I did my Ph.D. classwork in the early 80s and haven't slowed down since. You have to read journals, books, articles, reviews, talk with your fellows, write, attend conferences and argue(1). As for my tone toward the original post, well I have little patience with an amateur who read one book (which was rejected by peer review as garbage) and he's telling me that the earth is flat and only 6,000 years old. Sorry. Not buying it. Asking what 2=2 equals gets a respectful answer; telling me bluntly that 2+2 equals 5 does not.

BTW, some liberals may be able to argue every side, but I'm a liberal because I believe that we all have responsibility as a community to take care of one another. To me, the right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc, is FAR more important that if a walmart stockholder receives an extra dollar in his dividend. That's why I am a liberal and a Democrat. Tolerant? SURE. The original poster has every right to stand on a rooftop and yell his opinion, but being tolerant of it doesn't mean I can't stand on my rooftop and tell him he's full of crap.


1.(side note: I LOVE every minute of it, to me, heaven is a library with an archive)

you cannot believe many of the books you read either. History is probably not as testable as physics or even economics, and since I have an MA in economics I feel I can hold my own against an econ prof, and I found much of graduate school to be an excercise in regurgitation and a$$-kissing more than it was about scholarship. I did some of my best learning outside of classes, and found teaching to be a major learning process. I have met many PhDs who are not infallible even in their own field.

I cannot always trust peer review either. I had a paper which one prof encouraged me to present at a Western Social Sciences conference in Portland, and I also submitted it to a student paper contest. There were supposed to be two prizes, but for some reason, they only awarded one. My theory was that some wanted to give me the second prize but others were adamantly against it, so they compromised by not giving a 2nd prize. But that is a conspiracy theory which I never tried to confirm. :tinfoilhat: Anyway, my paper received a very bad peer review, so bad, in fact, that it was never even published in a journal. Was it a bad paper? I cannot read it now without wanting to do major re-writing, but it was hammered, or really dismissed offhand, because it was critical of their conventional shibboleths.

After graduate school I got the journal for a year, and I almost wrote a paper called "Kiss Noise" which would research (or document) how every article in the journal made sure to quote the editor's book, but also how they twisted it to mean opposite things, depending on the author. I doubt if that would have been well received either. I love scholars, but to me profs do less than graduate students for ten times the pay and without the need to pass any tests (other than the test of grant-writing or publishing). So I have been there, and would love to keep more active in research if I was not beset by the need to earn my living by mopping floors.

I would try to encourage the amateur, as apparently they do have an interest in the field and would benefit from a reading list you could give them on the matter, but you did provide that link. Prof. Ragatz might have suggested a few books.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He was six years old, and he and his sisters were playing outside when the planes came over and started dropping bombs. Their neighbor came over and got them into the basement, and they never woke up his stepmom, who slept through the whole thing. Her main rule was never to wake her up on Sunday morning, and they didn't break it.

Where was his dad? He was the chief on the USS Minneapolis with the fleet looking for the Japanese Navy to the south. They knew they were going to be attacked some time soon, but they thought it was by sea, not air, and from the south, not the north. The battleships were in harbor, but the rest weren't for good reason.

Many died that day in noble service of our country. Please talk with those who were there and who survived with memories full of screams and bombs before spouting some conspiracy theory.

That doesn't prove it wasn't the product of a conspiracy. It just proves it was a tragedy. As was, Pearl Harbor - of course. :-(

According to my dad, everyone knew that the Japanese were going to attack Hawaii long before Pearl Harbor was attacked. They knew, but they didn't know how or when.

Same thing with the WTC, in a way. We knew it was a target, had even been hit before, but we didn't know when or how it would get hit again.

It's not just right-wingers who believe Pearl Harbor was a Roosevelt
LIHOP to drum up support for the war--that belief seems pretty wide
spread among left-wingers too. I'd thought it was pretty widely
accepted. What does Howard Zinn think? I wish I knew.

Thanks for raising the issue, and welcome to DU!