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: 7
27
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


I am not sure how far how far I should go without going off topic . This is where I would beg to differ from the history books . IMO Isoroku Yamamoto was as good as the fanatical system of indoctrination allowed him to be . Such idealogical driven society's don't usually produce the brightest minds . Yamamoto understood the application of force very well which to me suggests that he was in the very least a very good tactician much like Yama#a . Rommel was a brilliant tactician who understood that Germany had no chance of competing against American industrial output .

Arguable a lack of someone with a senior rank in the Japanese military who understood logistics was a greater handicap .

[edit on 10-12-2009 by xpert11]




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


There were several war warnings issued, all in November '41 I believe, by the War Dept. General Short, and Admiral Kimmel, were directed to take all actions they deemed necessary to protect the Islands... They did so. But you can't keep soldiers and sailors, especially in peacetime, on alert indefinitely.

A peacetime mindset, and bad timing on the war warnings, and viola, you've the makings of a disaster... But as poedxsoldiervet rightly pointed out, it could have, and should have, been much worse.

Think about this, if you will...

The war warning is spot on target, Dec. 7th. The Pacific Fleet sorties to fight the oncoming Kido Butai, north of the Hawaiian Islands, led by the pride of the Pacific Fleet, the Battleship USS Arizona...

They are in deep water, facing modern fleet carriers, 6 of 'em, carrying the most modern lethal fighter in the world at the time...the A6M md. 0 fighter, and two attack planes fully as capable as anything the US had. The US? 3 modern carriers, Lexington, Enterprise, and Saratoga...with Grumman F4F wildcat fighters, which while certainly capable aircraft, were really no match for the Zero... An attack bomber in the Douglas SBD Dauntless, arguably the best dive bomber in the world, and last and least, the Douglas TBD Devastator, easily the worst aircraft the US navy has ever been saddled with...

Experienced pilots flying the best aircraft in the world, four hundred plus of them... versus much less experienced pilots flying aircraft that are at best a generation behind...

The fight would not have been good for the United States Navy... IMHO. As bad as it was, Pearl Harbor was a blessing in disguise.


For what its worth, my Dad's cousin (here we go again) roomed with the son of Admiral Paulus P. Powell, at either Harvard or Duke just before Pearl Harbor. I don't remember.

Sometime after the attack he contacted my 2nd cousins room mate and told him that he had been under "house arrest", along with Knox and Forrestal, the night of Dec 6th due to a message from Australia received by Admiral Powell. This message was received Dec. 4th.

There may have been another from Hawaii on the 6th regarding info from the new radar facility on the island, which caused the "house arrest". That message was also received by Admiral Powell

SOURCE


This is the story as I have been told all the way back to the 1950's.

And yes, the Navy did consider it a blessing in disguise.

The only comment on the Tonkin Gulf Incident is I helped a good friend haul all his gear off the USS Maddox, DD-731, in 1967 and I asked him about what happened as he had worked in CIC. He said that even the crew had no firm idea of what had happened due to the islands in the area. He said damage supposedly caused by the North Vietnam "PT" boats was most likely from the Turner Joy.

To "Lyin' Lyndon" it didn't matter. It could have been monkeys throwing coconuts. We were going to war, no matter what.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Oldnslo]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


I really don't think it's all that off topic. It aids in understanding the background events, and the personalities involved, leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Yamamoto was an ardent nationalist, that much is obvious from his writings that survived his death. But I really don't think he was a fanatic. He was a competent strategist, though a little too in love with himself, and officer...who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Japan couldn't win a war of attrition.

I am perfectly willing to delve as far into this as you'd like to go. The topic is endlessly fascinating for me.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Oldnslo
 


Interesting link. Not sure I buy into it, though...

So many people had to keep the secret, and many of these men are above reproach. Adm.'s Kimmel and Richardson. Gen. Short and Bradley. Sec. Knox and Forrestal... and many others a bit further down on the food chain...do you honestly think Adm. Halsey or Fletcher would have remained silent? Adm. Nimitz would have found out about it later in the war...and no way does he remain silent. Too many honorable men would have had to know, and most wouldn't have remained silent. This is, of course, MHO, and I've been wrong before...



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I don't believe the US bombed their own ships, nor do I believe FDR had foreknowledge of the attack. It makes zero sense.
I find the war against Japan to be a fascinating subject, there are dozens of great books that describe not only Pearl Harbor, but the entire campaign
These kind of "theories" sound convincing to those that haven't studied the war, but the real story is much more interesting.
Thanks to Seagull for intelligent posting! If anyone is interested I can recommend some books on the Pacific war. To simply write off all histories as "written by the victor" or as propaganda is ridiculous! The war was decades ago, many, many sources have been consulted, including the Japanese.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Oldnslo
 


Interesting link. Not sure I buy into it, though...

So many people had to keep the secret, and many of these men are above reproach. Adm.'s Kimmel and Richardson. Gen. Short and Bradley. Sec. Knox and Forrestal... and many others a bit further down on the food chain...do you honestly think Adm. Halsey or Fletcher would have remained silent? Adm. Nimitz would have found out about it later in the war...and no way does he remain silent. Too many honorable men would have had to know, and most wouldn't have remained silent. This is, of course, MHO, and I've been wrong before...


Oh I agree with you but I had been told this since I was a little kid from a "reliable" source, and thought this information should be included. It's got nothing to do with you being right or wrong.

I believe Kimmel and Short were more concerned about sabotage than anything else. That's why Gen. Short kept all his aircraft bunched up trying to protect them. Both knew something was up but no firm intelligence as to where, when, and how. Yet they were prosecuted after the attack and the above mentioned officer's, to the best of my knowledge, did little to stand up for them. Kimmel and Short were just following orders, and took the fall for doing so.

Military officers keeping secrets, secret. The nerve of them.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Yeah Yamamoto was cultural differnt from most of his compatriots because he thought about tomorrow. Outside of Western Culture people don't necessary think about tomorrow in Japan I think this was because of its rapid transformation from feudal to industrial society . Yamamoto still deserves applause in the history books for being clued into the possibility's offered by Air Power. The trouble many commanders grasping the concept of Air Power is akin to how elder power have trouble learning to use a PC today .

Coming back to the attack on Pearl Harbour those who rely on hindsight when looking at this period that the strike was the product of three rather bright minds Yamamoto , Genda and Fuchida . The rest of the IJN wanted a big gun battle some where around the mandated islands north of the Philippines . The real tragedy is what unfolded hours after the attack on Pearl Harbour in the Philippines . What baffles me the most is how the believes can advocate historically baseless Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory's and not hold MacArthur to account for the consequences of his divided loyalties. Unlike Kimmel and Short MacArthur never had to face the burden of history .

The Japanese planned the air strikes on Clark field to take place at the same time at the same time as the raid on Pearl Harbour only to have there planes in Formosa grounded for a short period of time due to bad weather . My best take on what happened next is that MacArthur divided loyalties lead him to indecision , he didn't know if a B-17 strike should be launched against shipping in Formosa or if he should keep the Philippines neutral . Subsequent events meant that MacArthur never had to explain his wider role in the mess that unfolding mess that was a part of the Japanese master plan .



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Oldnslo
 



I believe Kimmel and Short were more concerned about sabotage than anything else.


That's it in a nutshell. There was more than a little racial bias in the fear of saboteurs, IMHO... There was a fear, baseless as it turned out, that some of the Japanese born citizens would rise in rebellion of some sort. So far as I am aware, there was not one act of rebellion by a Japanese American in the Pearl Harbour area. There was one incident on one of the outlying islands where a Japanese pilot crashed, and with an accomplice terrorized the community until a fellow islander killed them.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


MacArthur has, IMHO, been given far more credit than he's due. He's not remembered with great fondness by many veterans of the Philippines in 1942...I know my father has little use for the man.

His loyalties do, in hindsight, seem divided. In that we are agreed. Politics played a huge roll in his avoidance of answering for the fiasco at Clark Field on the opening day of the war...whatever else he was, he was a master politician.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


Knowing a WWII vet/ Pearl Harbor Survivor, He said there was talk of an attack at any moment by the Japs.



" Japs " is an offensive term. Why do you guys use it Yanks?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Indeed a heft price was paid from for the racial prejudice and ignorance shown towards the Japanese . Since everybody thought that the Japanese couldn't shoot straight , see at night and that there planes were third rate copies of western ones , even if there had been fore knowledge of what was to come one would have believed it . Now a real scandal was the eighty percent failure of torpedoes fired by USN Submarines . Oh and its get worse the same failure to test out weapons properly or at all was repeated in future conflicts .



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Redneck from Hell
 


In point of fact, I don't... Because it is a derogatory term, and the war has been over for some little time now.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Of course, that racial stereotyping went the other way, too... With as little justification.

WWII in the Pacific was a war unlike anything the US had fought before, or for that matter since... There was a genuine hatred in large sections of the public for the Japanese. My father who fought in the Pacific Theatre has, to this day, little use for the Japanese. Due in no small part to the behaviour of the Japanese military towards opponents...

So the bias went both ways, and both sides were shocked on numerous occasions when the stereotypes were shattered.




top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join