What really happened in Pearl Harbor

Discussion in 'History' started by Overdose, May 6, 2004.

  1. Overdose From the steppes of Mongolia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    213
    I am sure many of you read already the conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor. I wonder how many of you believe in those theories and how many reject them.

    It is really strange how American radars in Pearl harbor couldn't find out that so many Zeros were closing in to Pearl H.

    A Japanese friend of mine told me that if the Japanese wouldnt attack Pearl Harbor Americans were going to attack Japan anyway

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    He also said that Americans pushed them to attack because of the oil ambargo on Japan. They were either going to loose everything because of the oil ambargo or attack and break the ambargo.

    Did Roosevelt know baout the attack before it happened and didn't do anything to prevent it, because US needed an excuse to join the war :bugeye:

    There are still many unanswered questions about Pearl Harbor.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    They had just installed the radar station at Pearl, and at the time it was only being turned on between 7:00pm and 7:00am. That morning the radar operator actually was delayed leaving his station and picked up the first wave of Japanese planes coming in. He called it in and was told that they were expecting a flight of B-52s arriving from the West Coast and that was probably them he was picking up.

    He's wrong. The Isolationists made up a majority in Congress. FDR could have never gotten a war resolution through.

    It is very likely they expected the Japanese to strike an installation in the Pacific, but the thinking was it would be either the Philippines, Guam, or that the Japanese might go straight for the oilfields in the Dutch East Indies. Most in the military didn't think the Japanese capable of sneaking undetected across the Pacific and striking Pearl.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    of B-52s arriving from the West Coast and that was probably them he was picking up.


    B-17's Spyke?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Did I say B-52s?!?
     
  8. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    I have read that the Japanese embasador sent messages that, while not outright saying an attack was eminent, pretty much told the Americans to leave Hawaii by Dec. 7.
     
  9. StarOfEight A Man of Taste and Decency Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    684
    I think a large part of the explanation is simply racism. Much like the Russians in 1905, we "knew" that the Japanese were an inferior people.

    I think that isolationism lingering from the First World War also contributed.

    As to whether or not Roosevelt allowed the attack to happen ... well, I think there's no question he was spoiling for war. Similarly, I don't think there's any question Bush was spoiling for war, pre-9/11. However, I'm not willing to believe conspiracy theories in either case.
     
  10. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    The Japanese also "knew" that they were a superior people. Everyone on Earth was inferior to them. Foreign devils.

    Overdose,
    What does your Japanese friend say about the atrocities they commited during the war? I have heard that the Japanese education system is seriously deficient in teaching the truth of the war.
     
  11. StarOfEight A Man of Taste and Decency Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    684
    Invert - agreed. Their "superiority" made them competitive, the United States' made it somnolent.
     
  12. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    The attack of PH was predicted in the 1920's, and the warnings were overlooked. The US had 20 years to prepare for the worst, and did nothing to prevent that attack from happening. PH was one of the greatest militaries coups in world history, although it eventually destroyed Japan, and her arrogance it proved the supremacy of the Aircraft carrier. Did FDR know? I am not sure, did FDR want to join the war effort. Surely, and thank god he did…
     
  13. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Pedicitions aren't really worth much though. (I'm assuming you mean military predictions and not psychic or something.) Just about every scenario is 'predicted' as happening by someone in the government. The problem is that we can't react to everyone and need to only act on the most credible.

    Saying we had 20 years to 'prepare for the worst' is misleading. At the time it was not considered the most likely scenario.
     
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Saying we had 20 years to 'prepare for the worst' is misleading.

    I personally don't believe that, predictions are what dictate military policy. The industrial development of Japan in that interim period was impressive, and Japan by 1935 had a carrier fleet. At least the US had 10-5 years to react to Japanese expansionism. I don't know the name of the American general who predicted the attack, but he predicted it accurately. Now you may try to absolve the gov'ts inaction as “Pedicitions aren't really worth much..." but it's no excuse for the ineptitude of the military in the US. PH was obviously a rich target by the late 30's and Japan was no backwater. PH could have prevented, but that's beside the point.
     
  15. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    What would you have suggested? Had Pearl Harbor too been fortified, another target would have been picked. The fact is that we had troops on other islands which at the time seemed more likely to be attacked. The predictions from 20 years previous were probably not even in the mind of those dealing with the situation... as 20 years is a long time and the situation changes.
     
  16. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    What would you have suggested?

    To implement his findings... here's why:

    Had Pearl Harbor too been fortified, another target would have been picked.

    No single target in the Pacific had the importance that PH had. The US could have been neutralized should the Japanese have attacked when the carriers were there, and possibly change the fate of the war. No other military target would have jeopardized the US' position is dramatically. The Japanese attacking the Philippines like they did would have forced the US into war, but the US would not have lost any important or vital assets. PH had no compare out there in the Pacific, apart from San Diego in California.

    The predictions from 20 years previous were probably not even in the mind of those dealing with the situation.

    That's exactly the problem...

    as 20 years is a long time and the situation changes

    Yes it did change, the situation only got much worse, and the warnings got much more poignant.
     
  17. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    To implement his findings
    But what were his findings? What did he suggest?
    The US could have been neutralized should the Japanese have attacked when the carriers were there, and possibly change the fate of the war.
    What would have been done in PH that wouldn't have resulted in a LARGER concentration of forces there?
    The Japanese attacking the Philippines like they did would have forced the US into war
    But this is what they thought was more likely. They didn't think Japan would go so far and directly attack the most difficult target (apart from the mainland).
     
  18. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    But what were his findings? What did he suggest?


    Well firstly that PH was vulnerable to a Japanese air attack in the 1920's. Now I don't know the specifics personally about what he proposed but I would fathom it would have included more air protection for the base.

    What would have been done in PH that wouldn't have resulted in a LARGER concentration of forces there?


    A large AB near the base, with a large number of planes, and the most advanced fighters the US had at the time. The Americans did have air defense but not nearly enough, also a Early Warning system like the Radars, and should have been manned 24/7 with proper crews...etc.

    But this is what they thought was more likely. They didn't think Japan would go so far and directly attack the most difficult target (apart from the mainland).

    But that thought process was not, and is not justifiable when the threat of attack was being discussed in the 20's. Yes of course it was American exceptionalism that blocked the US from doing what it was supposed to do correctly. But that's still not excuse, and the generals who didn't do anything because of an ideal, they should be chastised for their ignorance. In the military you are supposed to prepare for the worst, not the best. Japan would have given a second thought to attacking PH if it was defended adequately.
     
  19. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Yes, it was... in the 1920's. I guarentee you that Pearl Harbor had more air protection then it did in the 1920s, more plans, and more miltary in general. It wasn't seen as a likely threat.
    They were still very experimental at the time and didn't exactly have a stellar track record.
    Well, no. You have to pick and choice what you prepare for. If you prepared for the worst then you wouldn't have any resource to deal with all the other little threats, which could easily add up to become the worst. You don't go and reinfornce one island because a 20 year old report says so, when you have several other islands which could easily be attacked.
     
  20. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    guarentee you that Pearl Harbor had more air protection then it did in the 1920s, more plans, and more miltary in general. It wasn't seen as a likely threat.

    I doubt PH had air protection in the 20's at all; airplanes were still in their infancy. But by the 30's surely the region had an air presence. But it was not capable of defeating a growing Japanese threat. I don't understand how Japan was not seen as a threat? Japan was seen as a threat to almost everyone by the post-war period. Her economy boomed, industry boomed, by 1931 when the military took over something should have popped into the heads of the Americans. After 1937 there was no question that the Americans just did not care enough. Even immediately before Dec.7/41, the Americans could have done something significant to boost the defenses of the port while the “peace talks” were going on in Washington. I consider a country with carriers, an expansionist policy, and going south into what was traditionally mini-Americana a threat don't you?

    They were still very experimental at the time and didn't exactly have a stellar track record.

    Granted, but it doesn’t mean that more could have been pumped in.

    You don't go and reinfornce one island because a 20 year old report says so, when you have several other islands which could easily be attacked. /i]

    This island is not like the other islands, are you going to arm Howland Island like a fortress and leave Oahu virtually defenseless? I don't think so, that was the most important naval asset the US had in the Pacific. There is no compare to PH, it being surrounded by water, and with its closest defense installation being Midway; the Island was poorly defended.
     
  21. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    It was Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific Fleet before Kimmel, who complained that the fleet should be moved back to the West Coast rather than remain at Pearl Harbor. FDR had ordered the fleet to Pearl from the West Coast in 1940, despite Richardson's protests. He disobeyed direct orders on a couple of instances and was replaced. His concern was that in naval exercises in 1932 and 1938, Pearl had been successfully invaded by air attacks. The problem for Richardson though, was that it was not just a matter of hurting FDR's feelings; hardly anybody else among the Navy brass believed the Japanese posed a threat to Pearl. The belief was that the Japanese would strike US installations in the Far East, and the fleet would be in a better position to react from Pearl before the Japanese could then move on the oil reserves in the Dutch East Indies. And most naval officers underrated Japanese capabilities. Just because in exercises the US showed that they could successfully strike Pearl, didn't mean the Japanese could do it. They also didn't believe the Japanese could sneak a fleet large enough to carry out such a raid across the Pacific.

    Two other important points to consider is, one, FDR was a navy man. A former Asst. Sect. of the Navy, he loved the navy and didn't give a squat about the army. If he was actually willing to sacrifice US forces, it would seemingly have been army forces in the Philippines rather than the Pacific Fleet, which he had thought of as his own.

    Two, the navy's oil reserves at Pearl were significant. Why risk losing them? As it was, the Japanese were supposed to hit them with the aborted 3rd air wave. If they had been lost, US naval actions would have been hampered considerably for a while. It would be absolutely foolish to take such a gamble with your oil supplies.
     
  22. rainbow__princess_4 The Ashtray Girl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    286
    Well basically some planes flew in and blew up some ships... meanwhile in Darwin, Australia, some planes flew in and blew up hundreds of people... Peal Harbor being miles away out to sea and Darwin ACTUALLY BEING ON THE MAINLAND. So of course the Americans doing the idiotic thing at the time make a big deal about it, so public opinion makes them attack Japan (to save their own skins might I had)... while in Australia they lie and say it was no biggie so that they can hold up Australia morale...
     
  23. rainbow__princess_4 The Ashtray Girl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    286
    Yeah he knew and let it happen, but it wasnt for that reason. The point was he saw it as his chance to fill Australia with 5 million American navymen and marines (thats the figure they gave us at school) so that they could feed off our dwindling food, petrol and fabric and building materials and well goddamn everything supplies and take half our women home with them as brides to work on their cattle ranches. AND at the same time make it look like we owe them!
     

Share This Page