It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America Bombed Her own Ships?....Pearl Harbour Revisited

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Hi there, you have a very staunch view on all this; are you an armchair expert??? Or where you actually there I.E: Did you fight in WW11?

It would be interesting to say the least, if you hadn't.

I base this thread from comments that were made to me as a child by my Grandfather. Interestingly, there seems to be quite a few posters that are experienced enough say that they have heard or are indeed in the know enough to say: "Yay or nay", because they have heard the same story from close friends/family members, that are past service personnel.

You see xpert11; sometimes it pays to use intuition; do you think that subjects aren't censored before they are printed?
......look what happened with Salmin Rashdee's (sic) Satanic Verses; bad example; which did eventually get published (to piss Islam Off).
My point is there are many tomes that don't get published because the ideas presented are not friendly to the publishing countries Govt.

There is indeed a list of 'Banned Books'.
Don't believe everything you read. Read, ponder, then make your personal logical deductions-taking into account those that may have an eyewitness account.

Do you disbelieve what the firemen the went into the WTC, had to say about that day......who where you going to believe?
God knows, it took the US govt. long enough to release the tapes!
I guess you'd think the Govt. had nothing to hide????Or are you a govt. parrot academic looking for a govt. grant???
Its a shame when people champion causes for money- like selling your soul




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Well I hardly believe everything everything that appears in the history books aside from other historical events being off topic you are trying to distract people from the basic factual eras you have made . So you point out that FDR did what he was told just to send the debate into circles .

How about offering some actual insight into your views ?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Hi Hemi,
just a quote from the OP:



One tale that my grandfather told many times to me growing-up, was that America allowed her own ships to be bombed during WWII; giving her the 'green-light' to enter the war.


Note the 'America allowed' part.
The thread name was a little controversial; newspaper headlines are not considered crimes either.


I'm with you on this Kris. I'm in general agreement with the thread.
There is a big difference though between "America bombed" and "America allowed". That was my point.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 





Well I hardly believe everything everything that appears in the history books aside from other historical events being off topic you are trying to distract people from the basic factual eras you have made


xpert11, How is it that you can be so sure that everything you have learned/believe, is FACT.
As Ford said: All history is Bunk.
I guess this will make you quite 'upset', that I've posted this? No?

[edit on 11/19/2009 by KRISKALI777]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
The United States bombed it's own ships? What pray is your evidence of this? Or that they allowed Japan, for some unfathomable reason, or reasons; to do so?

Really? Do you realize that the Pearl Harbour attack is one of the most looked at events of the Second World War? I personally own half a dozen works that research the event, from both sides of the Pacific. How many govt. officials would have had to be in the know? Military officers of impeccable character would have had to have known. Long time officers had careers destroyed that day, they would have had to have been in the "know"...

I think maybe you need to go back and take a longer look at this...

True there was some evidence that the Japanese were up to something...that much was known... Intelligence officers "knew" something was coming down the road at them...they didn't know where, or when. Suspicions? Oh, yes...lots of them. Hawaii, the Philippines, even California and Panama.

Remember, America was just beginning to shrug off a bout with isolationism and still recovering from the Great Depression. The mindset of the military and their civilian overseers was still very much peace at almost any price... Japan had been at war in China for several years already, and were vastly more ready for war than were their American counterparts...

On one side, you've got a country still reeling from the Great Depression though recovering; with a military that is still a generation behind the best the world has to offer militarily (though blind to that in regard to Japan). On the other, you've got a nation rabidly imperialistic who is fighting a war in mainland Asia against China, and preparing to head south into Indochina and Micronesia, with Australia ripe for the plucking (in their eyes), as well.

With this in mind, Japan knows that to do this, all they need do is delay the US Navy long enough to conquer the areas wanted, then sit back behind "the ribbon defense" of atolls and island fortresses.

How to do it, though?

The Brits, oddly enough, showed how to do it, in 1940 with an attack on Taranto against several Italian battleships. They used two aircraft carriers and succeeded in sinking and damaging four modern Italian battleships.

Yamamoto, commander of the Imperial Japanese Navy, saw this and had a brainstorm...

Six aircraft carriers, several hundred aircraft... viola, no US navy...

When the smoke had cleared, the US battleline had been savaged. It's Pacific airforce virtually eradicated...and many sailors and airmen, soldiers and marines killed...

Had the powers that be in Washington known before hand of an attack on Pearl Harbour, would they not have been better served by warning the commanders on the scene in time to defend themselves? The war would still have started... An unsuccessful attack is still causus belli, every bit as much as a successful one...

They knew, yet they didn't know... Too many trees kept them from seeing the forest, if you will...

Oddly how history parallels, isn't it? Much the same thing occured in the runup to the Trade Center attack.

Too much information, not enough skilled readers to interpret the info...


Excellent post Seagull, you know your history. Sorry I didn't read this thoroughly earlier. I like your statement regarding an unsuccessful attack being just as effective. But I think that would have shortened the war and derailed the plans of the bankers. There was a lot of power and wealth to be redistributed with a prolonged war.

You mentioned the US was recovering from the Great Depression and had a dated military. One way to jump start a recovery would be to employ a large segment of the country rebuilding a fleet. Even without most of our fleet the Japanese would not have invaded the US. In my opinion they didn't have the manpower. You also mentioned the various fronts they were already fighting on. We lost many lives at PH and so the need was now there to enlist the country. So now you've got employment and industry jump started. And... the New Deal was not working.

I'm curious as to what you think of those angles?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 



I would be an arm chair reader . My Pa was a digger who served in WW2 and my other Grandfather was Nazi slave labour . You also have to take the views of those veterans who don't agree with your Granddad in equal measure. While I will always respect the views of those who served in WW2 the problem remains that Pearl Harbour conspiracy's just don't add up . Look if you were to ask me about WW2 conspiracy's I would always mention Rudolf Hess flight to Britain . But just like the Tokyo War Crimes Trial few people care about Hess motives when he took off from Germany . When people aren't interested books and DVD's don't get sold that is why we get off baked Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory's that are sometimes of entertainment value .


If you put a gun to my head and you told me to come up with just what the archives could be hiding my guess based on my historical knowledge I would say that Japanese diplomats knew more about then the attack then they ever let on . That would be my intuitive guess . Of course the notion is not with out its problems but it would be one hell of a smoking gun all right !
But alas such a notion is purely speculative and unlikely .


reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


Why would I get upset ?
Well bogus tales tend to be inconsistent or implausible . For instance take the sinking of the HMAS Sydney various conspiracy theory's were put forward to explain the outcome of such an unequal encounter . Shock horror upon the discovery of the wreck the official given account given by the German survivors proved to be true . There were no survivors from HMAS Sydney and the German version of events was consistently the same for over sixty years . So just sometimes the historical record is correct .

As for what can be considered fact no one in there right mind would deny how strong the isolationist movement was and yet I am expected to believe that this movement didn't matter and that puppet masters who failed to swing peoples views on this were responsible for the US entry into WW2 .


[edit on 19-11-2009 by xpert11]

[edit on 19-11-2009 by xpert11]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Hi Hemi,
my assumption (many may disagree) when you are more knowledgeable and experienced; and you are in position of leader and trusted; It is your duty to give guidence and advice in honest and good faith; be a shepherd to those less informed and in need.........Uphold Christian values (if thats what one may call it)- If indeed, one is a christian nation!
Essentially, show care and compassion for their countrymenm/women........LOL; snap out of K.Kali; thats Govt. war-play, Role play, BullS@$T!!!!


Cheers Hem.....



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Hi Hemi,
my assumption (many may disagree) when you are more knowledgeable and experienced; and you are in position of leader and trusted; It is your duty to give guidence and advice in honest and good faith; be a shepherd to those less informed and in need.........Uphold Christian values (if thats what one may call it)- If indeed, one is a christian nation!
Essentially, show care and compassion for their countrymenm/women........LOL; snap out of K.Kali; thats Govt. war-play, Role play, BullS@$T!!!!


Cheers Hem.....


I follow you there. And more than that I think FDR didn't give a rats you know about the American people and so I would take the Judeo/Christian ethic right out of the equation. That's injected to keep you and me in line, not our presidents. FDR winced publicly at these tragedies he was orchestrating, he was a good actor. The man was an elitist, he was backed by the Bilderbergs, his policies extended the depression and no, I'm not a fan.

Salud Kris......



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


That could indeed be what happened. Historical research is rife with such discoveries...

However, as I said in my first post...this is one of those events in history that is looked at through a microscope by historians. A historian that comes up with something that's actually "new" has made his or her reputation forever... Nothing in all my readings of the event, and the aftermath, lead me to the conclusion that there was a nefarious plot to allow the attack to proceed. Now that doesn't in any way mean that FDR or Churchill didn't take advantage of it...they were afterall two of the most astute politicians of their, or any, time.

There is, of course, nothing like a good war to jump start your economy...however, there's no guarantee you're going to win it. Right there is a major knock against a plot to deliberately allow a war to start. What happens to your economy if you lose?

I've no doubts that there were politicians who used the war to further an agenda, or agendas. That's what politicians do. I just don't think Pearl Harbour was part of that agenda, save as an excuse/reason...

So we're in agreement in a way, we just part ways at the attack itself.

[edit on 11/21/2009 by seagull]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


That could indeed be what happened. Historical research is rife with such discoveries...

However, as I said in my first post...this is one of those events in history that is looked at through a microscope by historians. A historian that comes up with something that's actually "new" has made his or her reputation forever... Nothing in all my readings of the event, and the aftermath, lead me to the conclusion that there was a nefarious plot to allow the attack to proceed. Now that doesn't in any way mean that FDR or Churchill didn't take advantage of it...they were afterall two of the most astute politicians of their, or any, time.

There is, of course, nothing like a good war to jump start your economy...however, there's no guarantee you're going to win it. Right there is a major knock against a plot to deliberately allow a war to start. What happens to your economy if you lose?

I've no doubts that there were politicians who used the war to further an agenda, or agendas. That's what politicians do. I just don't think Pearl Harbour was part of that agenda, save as an excuse/reason...

So we're in agreement in a way, we just part ways at the attack itself.


I am a work in progress Seagull. I'm always open to corrections and that's why I sought your input. Your posts are always appreciated by me. The one inconsistency I see in the accepted story is why nearly every ship at anchor in one place? If that was a safe tactic, why the need for a navy to begin with? If there's even a remote possibility of going to war you act accordingly. There was no significant scouting or warning system. These ships ran maneuvers and so a dual purpose could have been served. There were far better minds running the navy than mine and as I said this was "all your eggs in one basket". A child knows better and I can't believe the navy brass did not. I think they were over-ridden and prevented from doing the smart thing.

I am of the opinion that over time facts change and/or are lost as needed by the controllers of the world. For example, there was a recent report of a board of ed in Texas that was voting on who to continue to study and who to delete from history textbooks. I've always thought of history as an ever-expanding compilation with new things being added without lopping off the old. Of course there are just so many hours in a day for teaching history. But from what little I recall of the report Al Einstein was on the out list and Steve Jobs on the in list. That's a not so subtle example but more subtle deletions could occur over decades. Joseph McCabe was famous for tracking and outing both the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia for deleting, distorting and pasteurizing their historical entries back in the 1940's and 50's. These were highly esteemed sources then as you know.

My thoughts on the possibility of losing the war was that it was insured by the control of oil among other resources. Rockefeller supplying for both sides. The Germans and at the end the Russians were out of oil. That insured that the Germans lost and the Russians didn't proceed into France and Britain at the end of the war. Patton was on to the communist threat. He spoke out but they eventually silenced him. Beyond that, if we lost the war I think the international bankers would have made lemons into lemonade. If we win, they win. If we lose, they win. Look what's happening today with the US economy. There are bankers that are making off with billions taking advantage of the country losing. I think the international bankers had equivalent control of governments and economics then.

Patton was convinced at the end that the war to eliminate Germany from control of Europe was so that the Russians could take control. The Germans being the only European nation that could have stopped the Russians. Once the war ended Stalin ruled over a significant portion of Europe using the gulags in much the same way Hitler and the Nazi's used the gas chambers. Official reports say that around 3 million died in the gulags. I don't believe Lenin or Stalin were worried about accurately tracking their atrocities and their totals after those decades rivaled those of the Nazi camps. Those millions of murdered Soviets and Eastern Europeans were not worth our going to war over. Or so we've been lead to believe. Patton saw it coming and knew differently.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Hemisphere]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Thanks for the complement. It's returned.

In the instance of the Pacific Fleet being in the same place, at the same time, you've got to remember, then as now, it was an all volunteer force. You've got to keep the kids happy. That means, when in Hawaii, the beach, luaus, etc..., peace time routine. The powers that be knew a war was looming, only one hopelessly out of touch with reality would have thought otherwise, in the Pacific; that's the primary reasoning behind moving the PacFleet from San Diego, to Pearl Harbour, in the first place. Closer to the areas of concern...

Given that it was still peacetime, it's really not all that surprising that the Fleet would be in Pearl over the weekend. Especially running up to the Holidays... Work the ships and crews during the week, tie 'em up over the weekend... Kinda like you and I do... Not smart, if you're expecting a war, but understandable if you look at the era.

As for the scouting and warning systems... Radar, for the US military, was still very much in its infancy. No one really knew what it could, or should, do... The scouting is something else entirely, no real excuse for the lack, other than, again, peacetime conditions... Though that's not much of an excuse.

Though you might want to look into budgetary concerns. Congress was still very much of an isolationist mindset, and the recovery from the Depression was still ongoing. Gasoline costs money, paying pilots flight pay, paying the crews of those ships, etc... I'm sure budgetary constraints played a significant role.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 



Patton was convinced at the end that the war to eliminate Germany from control of Europe was so that the Russians could take control. The Germans being the only European nation that could have stopped the Russians. Once the war ended Stalin ruled over a significant portion of Europe using the gulags in much the same way Hitler and the Nazi's used the gas chambers. Official reports say that around 3 million died in the gulags. I don't believe Lenin or Stalin were worried about accurately tracking their atrocities and their totals after those decades rivaled those of the Nazi camps. Those millions of murdered Soviets and Eastern Europeans were not worth our going to war over. Or so we've been lead to believe. Patton saw it coming and knew differently.


Patton wasn't alone is believing that, trust me...

There is some evidence to back that thinking, though just as much that refutes it as well... I'm inclined to agree with you, and Patton, in at least part of this. My guess is that during the Yalta conference, perhaps even Casablanca, there was a quid pro quo established as to areas of control post war...given by Roosevelt and Churchill to keep Stalin from perhaps working some sort of deal with Hitler... As unlikely as that seems, given the raw hatred between Germany and the Soviet Union, the first alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union was just as unlikely.

I'm seeing this as kindly as I can...obviously.

When all your choices are bad, in terms of dealing with the Soviet Union and Stalin, you take the least bad choice... That least bad choice was giving the Sov's Eastern Europe...and partitioning Germany. The Western Allies rebuilt West Germany as quickly as they could to establish a buffer. The Warsaw Pact was established for much the same reason.

You are, of course, welcome to pick this supposition apart at your leisure...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Thanks Seagull. Those posts were interesting and made much sense. The budgetary concerns of course, why didn't I think of that? Then having the fleet closer to the possible enemy, there's logic there. And of course no one expected the Japanese to attack without first declaring war. That wouldn't be cricket! Nothing is "cricket" as we now know and all is fair in love and war.

I doubt if our fleet was still in San Diego that the Japanese would have attacked in this manner. They would have been stretched by the distance with the chance of being caught and cherry picked going home by even a token contingent stationed at Pearl Harbor. So, this might have been more wrong place at the wrong time as the history books have claimed than a planned exposure.

I hope others picked up on this thread because of what you offer. Thanks again and Happy Thanksgiving, I'll talk to you soon.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
The anniversary of the attack that launched our "official" entry into the Second World War. Though we'd already been involved in a hot "cold" war with uboats for several months already. With a destroyer sank (USS Rueben James), and another attacked in the Atlantic Ocean.

American flyers, unofficially of course, were also fighting in China, and with the Brits in Europe, as well...

Pearl Harbour was the event that launched America's flight into superpowerdom, and later, hyperpowerdom... One can't help but wonder what might have been if the attack, and thusly the "excuse", had never happened... We are, of course, assuming that Hitler wouldn't have done something so incredibly stupid to get America involved.

Does Roosevelt survive politically the aftermath, and relative ineffectiveness of his policies, of the Depression? Isolationism possibly keeps America out of Europe just long enough for Hitler to consolidate his power?

Does the war in the Pacific happen in the early 40's, or is it delayed several years? It's a fascinating thought...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
First off, a moment for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice this day so many years ago. You have not been forgotten.

Here's what I understand of the military mind in that era. Battleships were fast becoming an obsolete weapon on the high seas. Being replaced by the mighty aircraft carrier. It is still evident today. Look at a carrier group formation. Every ship is around the most "important" vehicle. Where does the admiral of the carrier group reside? Where is all the tactical weapon systems tied into? Like I said, the battleship was quickly becoming a vessel of importance, but not the determining factor in winning a battle at sea.

My grandfather was XO (executive officer....2nd in command) of a minesweeper in the Pacific theater of WWII. His ship, along with the carrier he was assigned to was shipped out of Pearl, two weeks before the attacks happened. I do believe there were reasons that "important" vessels and such be removed from that threat of danger. We (America's military) responded the best way to "information" that America might be attacked.

Again, I am of the attitude that no human life is sacrificial. And the countless military as well as civilian lives lost on this day should be honored much as any life that be taken prematurely be honored in a humble and respectful way.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
sorry to break the news to you but we would of never had to attack our own ships to enter that war

its basically common knowledge japan was attempting to wipe out our navy in 1 hit and failed.

have fun with the tin foil hat.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Gakus
 


You are likely quite right. However, "common knowledge" has been wrong before...
.

The Japanese did indeed launch a surprise attack upon the Pacific Fleet, but much of the reasoning behind that attack was one of "we have no choice". Economics, as much as anything, drove the decision making process. Oil imports from the US to Japan had been slashed, Japan needing another source wanted the Dutch Indies, but to get them had to remove the major impediment that the US Navy represented... Thus the reasoning for the attack on Pearl Harbour was born.

Economics. Amazing how things never change.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Economics. Amazing how things never change.


If its not to far off topic I would like to address your point .

Do you think that had FDR not placed sanctions on Japan war would have not broken out in the Pacific ?
Put another way Japan desire for " living space " would not have been an issue . I hold the view that Japan mistake was declaring war on the US they had they only declared war against the British and the Dutch it would have been a very differnt picture . IMO if Japan wasn't so lacking in decent strategists this is what they would have done .

Well that is just my ten cents .



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


I think the Pacific War was, if not inevitable, certainly likely, even without the sanctions levied by the US govt. due, at least in part, to Japans actions in China.
When it would have happened, I honestly don't know... Congress would not have looked at Japan moving into the Dutch east indies as a causus belli, it would have taken something somewhat more drastic, at least in 1942...

The Japanese had a more than decent strategist, before he fell in love with himself, in Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto. He was against the war from the get go, even though he was, himself, as ardent a nationalist as any of the warhawks in the Japanese govt. He was much more a realist then they were, however. He knew that Japan stood no chance against the industrial power of the US.

The PTB in Japan at the time, thought they had no alternative, and signed figuratively, and literally, their death warrants by launching an attack.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777

WWII: Pearl Harbour; Australian Intelligence informed he U.S.military to the presence of the Japanese, 3 days before the attack.


I can confirm this. My grandfather was in the Australian Signals Corps that made the discovery and reported it.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join