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.

 

Pearl Harbor Conspiracy

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
The great depression had taken its toll on everyone, Japan had 25% unemployment and if something was not done quickly, the Japanese nation would collapse. Japan invaded China in early 1930's, and the US sent supplies and soldiers and pilots and warplanes to help fight the Japanese. In July of 1941 Japan invaded modern Day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos ( indochina ). at that point US cut japan off from petroleum sales, and began practice maneuvers in the pacific closer to Japan. These actions angered the Japanese government, which decided to attack the US in response. Most of Japan's leaders knew a decisive strike was required, but it was simply not thought through as many posters stated.
If the entire fleet had been sunk it was still not enough..Pearl harbor could never be more than a short tactical victory, but a massive strategic failure.



The US had been fighting the Japanese several years before pearl harbor. This is not taught very much in history classes or books, but US marines, pilots, army and special units were fighting alongside Chinese in Northern China since the mid 1930's. Supplies were being flown from the west of China, through Russia and India. This is not the flying tigers, which became very famous in China, but were part of US actions during the mid 1930's in China to support their efforts against Japanese Invasion.
As Japan continued its invasion it spread to the south past Shanghai and into middle and southern China. In summer of 1941 the Flying Tigers were prominently attacking Japanese supply lines and air force. The Chinese could not pronounce the name of the air wing, but they loved the logo of the toothy jaws on the planes, so they called them the flying tigers.
General Chennault is still one of the most respected foreigners in China, he was commander of the flying Tigers.


I live in Northern China for the last 7 years , am an American citizen. Have been shown pictures of friends grandfathers with American soldiers and pilots, and told stories of how they saved the lives of many Chinese. The Flying Tigers hold a special place in Chinese history, there are pop songs, poems, ballads and references to them in many parts of China. Even in small villages, people find out i am American they insist on buying dinner and drinks and telling stories they were told by their grandfathers of American Soldiers that gave their lives to help the Chinese people.




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


The Hornet's torpedo bomber wing which was decimated, did have the effect of pulling the Zero fighters down close to the ocean surface. When the US dive bombers flying at high altitude arrived, there were few Zeros at that altitude, allowing the dive bombers to place well aimed hits. In the final analysis, the much vaunted Zero fighters failed to protect their carriers.

Yamamoto's plan was severely flawed. He split up his forces instead of concentrating them, invaded the Aleutians for no real gain, removing assets that could have been used at Midway. Nagumo was almost paralyzed by indecision. He could have launched the aircraft already spotted for the second attack on Midway Island at the US ships. He could have also moved Kido Butai WEST or SW away from the US fleet until he had better situational awareness. Remember, his aircraft had a longer range then the US aircraft, so he could have opened up the distance between the fleets. Of course this is Monday morning quarterbacking.

But I wonder why Japan needed to attack the US at all? They could have only invaded British, Dutch and French colonies saying they had the right being part of the Axis pact. They could have ignored the Philippines and the US altogether. I doubt the US would have declared war on Japan if the US was not directly attacked. The worst thing Japan could have done would be to attack Russia, forcing Russia to fight a two front war. Maybe FDR's hard line and economic sanctions did manipulate the Japanese into making rash decisions, or in other words a conspiracy to have a war with Japan.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The plan wasn't so much to start a war. Pearl Harbor was attacked to cripple the US naval fleet. Take out the ships, they can't be used against you or your allies until replacements are made. Back then, that was at least 2 years from lay down to completion. At a time when steel and other metals were a bit harder to come by.

You take out the ships and the support facilities providing fuel and ammunition, they aren't going to be delivering troops, planes or artillery support against you or your allies.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 



" If the US fleet had left Pearl Harbor to attack Kido Butai (the six Japanese carriers and escorts), they would not have settled in a harbor but lost forever at the bottom of the Pacific. "


I agree, however I bet if you were able to ask ANY of the troops/sailors/pilots that were there that day, I bet every last one of them would have rather taken the battle to sea then there in the harbor.


GREAT POSTS GUYS some GREAT food for thought!



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Expired
Personally I believe the Japanese were lured into attacking Pearl Harbour.
But before we condemm Churchill and Roosevelt, perhaps we need to imagine a world where Hitler is in control,and Stalin is his only threat , holed up in Siberia.

edit on 10-9-2011 by Dr Expired because: spellin


The Japanese had already considered a proposal to attack Pearl Harbour way back in 1929 (see my post page 1)
The first warning to USA came in 1940 way before signals noticed a fleet moving across the pacific

Whether this was considered retaliation for the US suppprt to China is perhaps a motive however the expansion plans for the Japanese empire would have been conducted over many years - they are patient and perfectionists

which means - blaming Churchill and Roosevelt for luring the US into the war, you would have to find us something pre 1929 to support that hypothesis

more likely the plan formed in 1929 hinged on the right opportunity presenting itself - and with expansion plans for south east asia and australia on the board it is logical to take out the base and supply facilities in Hawaii first



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Highlander64
 


Step by step there's a host of genuine, truthful reasons that are gradually starting to surface nowadays. I was born 1946, and feel more than lucky for such a priviledge to have happened. WW2, 55,000,000 Human Beings were Killed and the majority were Innocent, Unarmed Civilians. As time went by I felt anger at such a seemingly stupid war killing too many Relatives, some laid to rest in a foreign country in a Military Grave. I felt sad when I learned about Hiroshima plus Nagasaki...... But recently I have learned even more, and now realise how had that war run another 12 months or so, then Japan would have Blitzed either Europe or the USA with Nuclear bombs. Why do i now say this???? check the following and see how you then feel.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by steaming
 



I will have a look at your vid however it remains that in the last months of the pacific war the Japanese had reached rock botom in terms of resources

whether it was local or only regional reduction of resources, or combined with allied intervention in their supply chain, the Japanese forces were faced with lack of thing slike ammunition for rifles ships and planes

the kamikaze missions were born from a non-existence of bombs and relied on the pilot crashing into a ship.

in a war fueled by the expansion of useable real estate I doubt the Japanese would nuke anything - it goes against the teaching of their venerated 'book of 5 rings" and their revered chinese war handbook used by the Samurai, "the art of war" by Sun Tsu

It also goes against their culture and appreciation of nature

abriged quote from Sun Tsu - "it is better to conquer a country with all of its resources and infrastructure in place than to destroy them by warfare"



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by steaming
reply to post by Highlander64
 


Step by step there's a host of genuine, truthful reasons that are gradually starting to surface nowadays. I was born 1946, and feel more than lucky for such a priviledge to have happened. WW2, 55,000,000 Human Beings were Killed and the majority were Innocent, Unarmed Civilians. As time went by I felt anger at such a seemingly stupid war killing too many Relatives, some laid to rest in a foreign country in a Military Grave. I felt sad when I learned about Hiroshima plus Nagasaki...... But recently I have learned even more, and now realise how had that war run another 12 months or so, then Japan would have Blitzed either Europe or the USA with Nuclear bombs. Why do i now say this???? check the following and see how you then feel.
www.youtube.com...


Actually, there wasn't a snowball's chance in *ahem* of the Japanese blitzing Europe or the US with much of anything in 1945. Give them another twelve months, and they'll be lucky if there's a Japanese nation to surrender to the Allied Powers.

For one thing, even if the Germans had managed to deliver a huge supply of uranium to Japan, the Japanese would still have to enrich it (not a trivial process...just ask the folks at Oak Ridge), fabricate a device (oddly, this is the easiest part, assuming you have the materials), and then deliver the device. Even if you clear that first pair of hurdles, the last one is a killer. The Japanese didn't have a bomber with sufficient payload *or* range to reach meaningful targets in the US or Europe, never mind a bomber with both sufficient payload *and* range, so air delivery isn't an option. The Imperial Japanese Navy was also pretty much out of business...there's a reason they threw the Yamato away on a suicide run to Okinawa. They were almost out of ships, well trained pilots, and fuel.

Now, fast-forward another twelve months, and further assume that we didn't use nuclear devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody in his right mind (except Douglas MacArthur) really wanted to attempt an invasion of the Home Islands...the casualty estimates for those operations would scare the Devil out of a good night's sleep. The other alternative was "B&B"...bombardment and blockade. Plans were already being drawn up to completely cordon off the Home Islands...shoot down anything that flew, sink anything that floated, bomb or shell anything that was still standing, and poison the rice paddies. After a few months of that, *any* military operation is going to be impossible, never mind one that reaches all the way across the Pacific, or all the way to Europe....and the casualty count will make the nuclear option look like the most humanitarian operation in history, with the possible exception of the Berlin airlift.

The sad truth is that the last several months of the Pacific war were (at least in terms of the outcome), pointless. The USN was already cancelling aircraft carriers and cruisers in large numbers, and winding down aircraft production because the ships and planes wouldn't be needed. The problem was that, until Hiroshima and Nagasaki drove the point home, the Japanese simply wouldn't accept defeat.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 

But I wonder why Japan needed to attack the US at all? They could have only invaded British, Dutch and French colonies saying they had the right being part of the Axis pact. They could have ignored the Philippines and the US altogether. I doubt the US would have declared war on Japan if the US was not directly attacked. The worst thing Japan could have done would be to attack Russia, forcing Russia to fight a two front war. Maybe FDR's hard line and economic sanctions did manipulate the Japanese into making rash decisions, or in other words a conspiracy to have a war with Japan.


Originally, the Japanese plans were oriented more southward than eastward (There's some discussion of this in Shattered Sword, in fact), The main friction between the US and Japan was the Philippine Islands. We weren't inclined to give them up, since naval bases there allowed the US to project power all the way across the Pacific, There was also the issue of pride...those were US protectorates, and we weren't inclined to give up territory to any country. When we looked at the Philippines, we saw American soil, and a valuable naval and air base. When the Japanese looked at them, they saw a huge threat to their expansion into Indochina. American forces based there could oppose Japanese operations, should they desire...and even if they didn't directly oppose a Japanese conquest, they put an American force in perfect position to interdict the flow of resources from Indochina to the Home Islands. Given the value both sides placed on the Philippines, some form of conflict was inevitable, and Japan had no diplomatic or economic leverage. That left them two options: Give up on expanding their sphere of influence (not acceptable), or fight the Americans and hope for the best.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Can say my grandfather was an XO of a minesweeper that left Pearl 2 weeks before the attack. Notice there were no carriers in the harbor. The battleships were an atiquated relic in the Navy at that time. They did have the firepower, but as the Navy was realizing, a remote launch vessel for airplanes was the key to win a maritime war. Planes could be launched from hundreds of miles away from a target, where a battleship would require a ten mile distance.

Also, most surface naval maritime vessels require Dog Zebra on most hatches that connect important compartments. A quick summary of Naval terminology is discussed here



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by saabster5
Can say my grandfather was an XO of a minesweeper that left Pearl 2 weeks before the attack. Notice there were no carriers in the harbor. The battleships were an atiquated relic in the Navy at that time. They did have the firepower, but as the Navy was realizing, a remote launch vessel for airplanes was the key to win a maritime war. Planes could be launched from hundreds of miles away from a target, where a battleship would require a ten mile distance.


I'm glad that your grandfather missed this particular party.

The fact that the carriers weren't in harbor at the time of the attack doesn't really prove much, in and of itself. After all, there was at least one minesweeper that wasn't in port (your grandfather was on her, in fact), and there were several cruisers, destroyers, and support vessels that were in port. Does that imply that minesweepers were the 'future of the fleet' (since they were at sea during the attack), while cruisers, destroyers, fleet oilers, and ammunition supply ships were (along with the battleships, per supposition) expendable? No...it simply means that some ships were in harbor, and some weren't.

As for the battleships being 'antiquated relics', as I've said before (in this very thread, in fact), that's easy to say from the vantage point of a comfortable chair seventy years in the future. In late 1941, the issue wasn't nearly as obvious. The 'pro air' faction could point to the British raid on the Italian fleet at Taranto in November 1940, and to "Billy" Mitchell's exercise against SMS Ostfriestland in July 1921. On the other hand, the 'pro battleship' faction could point out that what happened at Taranto (and even Pearl Harbor) wasn't an accurate test, since the ships were caught by surprise, and that SMS Ostfriestland hadn't been maneuvering, or shooting back. Both sides were right, to a degree. The real nail in the coffin for the battleship was the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales on 10 December 1941. She was a modern ship, underway, and prepared (as best she could be) for air attack. The best proof that battleships weren't considered obsolete at the time of Pearl Harbor, though, is the fact that the three leading navies in terms of air power all completed several battleships either just before Pearl Harbor, or in the years following. The US commissioned the South Dakota class (four ships) in 1942, two of the Iowa class in 1943, and two more in 1944. The Royal Navy commissioned the 5 ships of the King George V class between 1940 and 1942, and the Japanese commissioned Yamato and Musashi in 1941 and 1942. That's a LOT of effort put into something that was considered obsolete.

Also note that Pearl Harbor was the first time any navy had demonstrated the ability to mass multiple carrier air groups into a single, massive, integrated strike force. The doctrine (just like battleship obsolescence) is obvious NOW, but certainly wasn't obvious THEN.



Also, most surface naval maritime vessels require Dog Zebra on most hatches that connect important compartments. A quick summary of Naval terminology is discussed here


Actually, the article at the link you posted points out (correctly) that material condition Zebra isn't the normal condition for a ship.


Condition ZEBRA provides the greatest degree of subdivision and water-tight integrity to the ship. It is the maximum state of readiness for the ship's survivability system. Condition ZEBRA is set: Immediately and automatically when general quarters is sounded; When entering or leaving port in wartime; To localize damage and control fire and flooding when the crew is not at general quarters; and At any time the CO deems the maximum condition of survivability should be set.


Since the US wasn't at war, and the battleships weren't planning to leave port on 7 December, it shouldn't be any surprise that condition Zebra wasn't set.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Sir,
By reading both your apperntly knowledged lines of detail, and recently learning of the German U boats , - U-864 plus U-234. I simply have such lines as that viewed via 'Discovery (plus present youtbe), and whilst reading en.wikipledia ref said Murcury (Supposedly referred to as 'Red Mercury', which Norway are now trying to figure out how to make such safe etc. In zones of pre-sunk U-864 which by the way was 90 metres in length. I also read the following;
www.nytimes.com...

Are we now having fresh 'Propaganda dished out???? or how serious could the said Japanes next move have become ???? Germany is said to have also tried to export Jet engines to Japan in both U-864 and U-234.

Wonder if the full Truth will ever be delivered to the Historical surface ???

Thanks for all explained so far



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Meant to reply to this thread days ago... Oh, well, better late than never...

Pearl Harbor, both the attack and the run up to it are some of the most researched and looked at events of WWII. For a conspiracy of this magnitude to have occurred would have taken the consent, and/or acquiescence of some of most powerful men in not only the civilian govt., but the military as well. Gen. Short, Adm. Kimmel, as commanders on site would most assuredly been in the know. Are you seriously suggesting that both men would be willing to destroy their careers in order to help instigate a war with Japan? A war that was inevitable for a host of reasons...

A whole host of other movers and shakers would also have to have been involved as well. Most rather farther down the food chain in terms of rank. Most, if not all the code breakers in Pearl Harbor (remember, it's going to be some of their friends and colleagues that are going to die...), and elsewhere, would be involved.

Did Roosevelt and Churchill take advantage of this event? Hell yes, they did. They'd have been insane not to... Whatever else they may have been, both were consument politicians.

Tactically, Pearl Harbor was brilliantly conceived, and brilliantly executed for the most part. Strategically? It was insanity writ large. Japan, while a technologically advanced nation, was in no way capable of defeating a nation with the industrial capacity, and population of the United States. It was a fools gambit. ...and they paid dearly for it.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join