Was Pearl Harbor a False Flag?

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Sure

But it's not like Japan was just minding it's own business, the animal was rabid, and not content in it's own yard. It was roaming the neighbourhood killing everything.

Totally agree........................ Indeed Japan needed putting back in place and fencing into it's own yard, for the good of everyone both east asians and Europeans / Yanks. Some at that time would even say it needed putting down. That gross upstart of a Japanese beast was stepping on the toes of the order of the day and long term even that it was penned into its own island for eternity and permanently muzzled and castrated it did manage to show the way for other local animals to throw off the colonial yoke and illustrate that the white man could be beaten on the battlefield. But by roaming around in a yard controlled by the powers of the day japan was sure to be terminated as an animal that could eat from the bowl of the leading beasts of the day

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

And what they did in China was all made up. So were all the reports of Unit 731. They were just defending themselves from the Evil West and the oppression of the White Man and would never do anything like that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh no Japanese were totally out of control while at the same time they just wanted a slice of the cake................... They modelled themselves (modern Japan) on Britain being the small island off the mainland and wanted everything Imperial in the same manner, they wanted the economic model that had created the incredible wealth that Britain had obtained by doing what was to be copied by the Japanese in China etc. Britain had exterminated much off Australia's native population as well as nortn America's and the Japanes emodelled themselves on this economic model of Empire, plunder, exploitation.

Hey Zaph I'm no Japanese fanboy, indeed after they pretty much destroyed our Empire along with the French too in east Asia then if I'd been alive back then who knows how as a Brit I or any other citizen would feel about forcing the Japanese into a pretty much war of self destruction and the end of any overseas adventures bar localised car plants

Theres so many reasons US and Vatican were jealous of Japan.

Mostly technology and uncorrupted catholicism.

It's no coincidence US nuked just a few meters of THE largest Christian church in Asia!

Of course they needed to rush the timeline leading up to 1945. But even if they couldnt get Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, they still would have nuked Japan civilians, cause of the Christian threat to Vatican.

US is sitting aon thousands of nukes and they're getting old, real old.

There seems to be a push for false flags to nuke Iran, nowadays. It might be underwater.

a reply to: tulsi

In a word? No.

Pearl Harbor is one of the seminal events of WW2--for the obvious reason, it brought the United States fully into the war on the side of the Allies. Prior to the attack, the US had instituted a "short of war" strategy, complete with an undeclared war with German U-boats that had resulted in damage to one destroyer, and the sinking of another.

Japan required the resources of SE Asia, oil and rubber primarily, and to get them required the delay/destruction of the US Pacific and Asiatic Fleets. Thus was born the plan to attack Pearl Harbor. The brain child of Isoruku Yamamoto, and planned by Cmdr. Minoru Genda.

It was, in retrospect, a decision to commit suicide. Based on a false premise that the US would be unwilling to spend the lives necessary to break the Ribbon Defense the Japanese envisioned to defend their gains.

a reply to: FlyinHeadlock

they missed three aircraft carriers--Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga. But, more importantly than all of those was the Oil Tank Farm. Millions of gallons of fuel oil sitting unprotected were, somehow, missed. One more wave, and that would have gone bye-bye, and the war would have been fought, at least temporarily, from San Diego, and the West Coast. An addition of several thousand miles.

Another miss were the submarines, which began to, shortly after the attack, wreak havoc on the Japanese merchant fleet...even with the horrible torpedo's they were using at the time.

a reply to: kwakakev

Osaka was, most assuredly, not nuked.

Bombed heavily, yes. Incendiary bombs used on wooden cities will cause catastrophic damage--no recourse to nukes required.

a reply to: letni

What are you even talking about??

originally posted by: letni
Theres so many reasons US and Vatican were jealous of Japan.

Mostly technology and uncorrupted catholicism.

ive heard from Leuren Moret (on YT) that the Jesuits were behind nuking Japan in 1945 to target Christianity

and again on march 11th in 2011 for population reduction on Asia-Pacific cause more people live on those coastlines than the rest of the entire world.

its been a decade but maybe they're still final testing antidotes vaccines and bunkers for their families before a global bioattack debuts.

a reply to: tulsi

In grammer school I learnt US nuked Hiro & Naga to end WW2, which for US involvement started when Japan preemptively bombed Pearl Harbor killing around 2k military personnel in 1941.

I'm sorry but that didn't happen at all, by the time the US nuked those cities WW2 was over, it was just US vs Japan, and the fight continued even after that, it ended later on when the Japanese learned Russia was coming over from the other side and they could not keep a fight anymore

The nukes did not end WW2, it ended months before the nukes were sent, in May 6/9 1945 :/

Also there was no need to hit Nagasaki, that was just a test and a power show, by the time it happened everything was basically over. That was a bad one and history shows it. Too bad

Problem is that some of this stuff starts based on wrong or misleading knowledge, so after that then you can't have a real perspective of history :S

a reply to: Malisa

In May? Really.

Odd. My father was fighting on Okinawa at that particular time. So, too, were a couple of my mothers brothers...

The war was hardly over. There was still fighting going on in China. In SE Asia. Not to mention Okinawa.

Preparations were well underway for the whole scale invasion of the Home Islands in late '45, early '46. Operation Downfall was the name of the plan.

The war did not end until the bombs were dropped, the Soviet Union declared war, and invaded Manchuria. Then, and only then, did the Japanese accept the reality. Even with those three events, it took the direct intervention of Hirohito, then the emperor of Japan to prevent continued fighting.

a reply to: seagull

Even after the two nuclear strikes there was the Kyujo coup after the Emperor indicated that he was ready to sue for peace. And another smaller incident after the Emperor did sue for peace.

Could it have ended without nuclear strikes? Probably. How much longer it would have lasted and how many more casualties on both sides is an open question.

a reply to: seagull

Russia today occupies part of Japan or what was Japan back in the day. No nukes and the Red Army would have taken the rest walk in the park style. They had the manpower plus the inustrial production to take on the japanese and beat them in addition to which Stalin was more than willing to sacrifice millions to take Tokyo and the West knew it too, something after WW1 they were pretty much unwilling to do.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The invasion of the Home Islands would have been, in a word, bloody. On both sides.

I've read estimates of upwards of a million casualties on the Allied side. Wounded and killed.

On the Japanese side, the numbers would have been virtually genocidal--millions.

So, yes, the Nuclear strikes were not necessary to end the war. Either invasion, or continued unrestricted submarine warfare and blockade would have done the job eventually... Eventually being the operative word. I've never even read a guess as to how many civilians would have died of disease, and starvation, had the Allies used that tactic. Millions? More?

As horrific as they were, the two strikes saved lives in the end. Though many with 20-20 hindsight will say otherwise.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Those northern islands were not anywhere near as defended as the southern islands would have been. Honshu in particular.

Walk in the park? No, not even remotely.

a reply to: seagull

So you believe Japan could have fended off the Soviets in the late 1940's?

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Didn't say that. I disagreed with your "walk in the park" assessment.

The results of an invasion, whether by the US/Britain, or the Sovs, or both would have been a foregone conclusion.

However, not without a great deal of bloodshed. The Japanese would have, in no way, rolled over. The history of the Pacific war prior to it would be evidence of that.

Tarawa/Betio. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. ...and a host of other places where the Japanese died virtually to the man, and took as many with them as they could.

Now translate that to the Home Islands with a huge population of civilians, many of whom would fight, a large military presence, and you've the makings of a blood letting that would have dwarfed anything Europe saw, outside of the Eastern Front...and a match for that.

a reply to: seagull

It always amazes me that people seem to think that Operation Downfall would have been a cakewalk. They literally had to burn out Japanese soldiers in the island hopping campaign and as you noted they fought to the last man.

There was zero reason to think that invading the home islands would have been any different.

a reply to: tulsi

Just an FYI it was Truman that authorized the bombing NOT FDR. FDR started the program that developed the bomb however

For the love of god everyone please STOP saying Japan was nuked. I swear 15 different posters in this thread has said that. The USA dropped ATOMIC bombs not NUKES - here, read up on it.

time.com...

Dorian SOran