Japan attacked Pearl Harbor

Discussion in 'History' started by mathman, Nov 19, 2013.

  1. Number1 Banned Banned

    Wall Street & London financed Japan's attack on China.

    Ron Chernow

    The official biographer for J.P.Morgan - From his book The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance.

    This is Thomas W Lamont senior partner in J.P. Morgan. One of the Jekyll Island Group who began the US Federal Reserve, which is as "Federal" as Federal Express.

    It wasn't by chance that Lamont dealt with the three future protagonists.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    The 1920s were a time of great prosperity and optimism. Nobody thought that there'd be another war so soon.

    Of course that's because nobody on our side realized just how much harm the Treaty of Versailles did to Germany's spirit. They were humiliated and impoverished. We even confiscated their patents and trademarks! There was no political or strategic need for this, it was simply the victors gloating over their victory and kicking the loser a few extra times.

    So it was not remarkable that they elected Hitler, whose only real draw was the fact that he made them proud to be Germans again. He was a great orator and a shrewd child of the 20th century who instantly recognized the value of the new technology of radio to a dictator.

    Of course he had no practical skills, particularly in economics. So when the Great Depression hit, it hit Germany much harder than the victors of WWI. We older folks still have stamp albums featuring German stamps overprinted in denominations of billions of Deutschemarks.

    As for Japan, Westerners simply didn't understand the "oriental mind" so we were clueless. Japan was determined to have its own Industrial Revolution so it could compete economically with the West. They needed steel, so the U.S. helpfully sold them our old subway cars, as the prosperity of the 1920s encouraged massive civic projects. But they also needed petroleum and wanted the Indonesian oil fields. By that time Americans had become suspicious of Japan's forward-looking, expansionist new leaders and decided to block their access to that resource. This was, arguably, the issue that led to Pearl Harbor.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    More than "arguably" - the real reason:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Yet the U.S. Intelligence knew ahead of time of the Japanese invasion , in time enough to save all those lives

    You bunch know this right ?
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    It wasn't Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor. It was space aliens. All the stories about Japan doing it were just a coverup.

    Ever seen a Japanese guy from the Pearl Harbor attack? Didn't think so. Did you ever ask yourself why?
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    It is my understanding that yes Army intelligence had cracked a coded Japanese msg that was reasonably specific with date and place, but like most thought an attack on so distant from Japan point as Pearl Harbor is, was not creditable and did not pass anything on to their rivals - the Navy intelligence agencies.
  10. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Fraggle, I think you'll find Germany's inflation problem was during the time of the Wiemar Republic, and that incident of staggering mismanagement was actually one of the things that led the German people to turn to Hitler to begin with.
  11. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    And that is, unfortunately, a significant factor with regard to revisionist history.
    There are very few prepared to acknowledge the difference between their own knowledge, and that of those who were there at the time.
    It is often forgotten or ignored that at the time, the Japanese were not regarded as being that great a threat.

    There is very little more annoying than the so-called "historian" who is unable to place himself in the shoes of those who were there at the time.
  12. NCDane Registered Senior Member

    (post #6)
    (post #9)
    This is not accurate. The US may have embargoed shipments of its own oil to Japan,
    but it did not block Japanese access to Indonesia, and did not threaten to block it,
    except perhaps implicitly.

    The US had no plausible naval deterrent in Asian waters, and it was clear that if there
    was war the US Army garrison in the Philippines would have all it could handle defending
    the islands. The only offensive potential the US had were its 34 B-17s. I do not believe
    B-17s sank a single ship during the war, but their ineffectiveness in that department
    was not yet established, so they were probably a significant psychological deterrent.
    However, having a silent psychological deterrent is not the same thing as voicing threat
    to block access.

    In fact a threat, if voiced, would have caused a political firestorm. The American Congress
    and people adamantly opposed war to save the Dutch and British homelands from occupation
    and independence-threatening assault, so it is implausible to suggest they would be more
    likely to go to war on behalf of their mere colonial possessions.
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2014
  13. NCDane Registered Senior Member

    This meme badly needs to be killed.

    The Nazis did not win a majority in any free and fair election. Even in the first one held (3/5/33) after Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on 1/30/33 they obtained a mere 43.9% of the popular vote and 44.5% of the Reichstag seats. Seats won by the Nazis and other extreme right-wing candidates combined would likely have not been enough to allow them to form a coalition majority were it not for voter suppression and confusion in the wake of the 2/27/33 Reichstag fire.

    Their 92% popular vote majority of 11/12/33 was due to outright fraud (90+% turnout and 90+% of the popular vote for the Nazis), and suppression of all opposition parties, who were not even on the ballot.

    Now, there is no reason to doubt Hitler would have won large majorities in the wake of the 1936-1939 bloodless victories of the Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss and the Sudetenland annexation. But those victories were not originally enabled by legitimate Democratic process in 1933.
  14. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg and was able to get a Reichstag majority in coalition with the Nationalists (Von Papen).
  15. NCDane Registered Senior Member

    I said he was appointed.

    "Appointed" is not the same same as "elected", and neither is "able to get a... majority" if the majority was enabled by fraud (viz the Reichstag fire).

    I know some people are still holding our for Van der Lubbe, a mental defective, strolling into what must have been a very oddly completely unlocked, unguarded Reichstag building and setting enough fires to immolate it all by himself. Baloney.
  16. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    In reply to the Topic, "why did Japan...
    This is fascinating material for a Topic!

    I personally feel, based on established credible material, that Japan was left with little choice in engaging in warfare with America. Since Japan had been systematically denied

    access to the "raw" necessities of an industrial nation (to compete on an equal footing) by America and England, they were left with poor choices to ensure economic survival.

    It must be remembered that Japan is one of the very few countries in the World with virtually no natural resources available. Even wood was considered a "precious commodity",

    as well as writing paper. No oil, no iron ore, no coal of any significance, none of the "noble metals", and most crucial of all, very few hectares of arable land for food production.

    An expanding population base demands more food...with no way to meet the need.

    But why Pearl? Why such a foolish strike? Everyone in the higher levels of government and the military knew in advance there was no way to prevail against America in terms

    of a military conflict. It was an automatic "given" Japan would surely lose in any protracted war with America, or even England.

    What do I think happened?


    The decision to strike at Pearl was more of a "political" statement than an actual intent of all-out war...I think it was felt by Japanese strategists that a "bold, swift strike" at

    U.S. naval forces in "home" waters would prove that Japan was a force to be reckoned with as a military power, and that by proving Japan would fight to maintain their

    presence as the "leader" of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", America would "back down" from a long war in the Pacific.

    A strike designed to cripple our Navy by attacking only military targets, such as warships, would "leave the door open" for negotiations of a quick settlement of hostilities, and

    gain Japan the right of "eminent domain" of the far Pacific. A quick blow...and Japan gains what it wants.

    What else could explain a "swift strike" and then a complete refusal to exploit it? Why where there no plans for invading and holding tens of thousands of civilians hostage so as

    to ensure future negotiations? The answer seems clear. Japan felt it would be too much provocation, that it would be seen in America as playing "dirty pool" using civilians

    as a "shield held by cowards" and provoke an all-out response. This would also, at least in part, explain why a 2nd. and 3thd. air strike was not carried out, when Japanese naval

    air forces could have easily done so at little risk. It would cause America to "lose face" and compel the U.S to avenge our Navy's "honor".


    This is the "why" of the attack on Pearl Harbor...so I believe, based on history.

    (Thanks for reading!)
  17. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Hitler was appointed on Jan. 30, 1933. The Reichstag fire was on Feb. 27, 1933.
  18. NCDane Registered Senior Member

    I do not understand your objection.

    The last unambiguously free election was 11/6/32.

    The 3/5/33 election results were tainted by the aftermath of the Reichstag fire.
  19. mathman Valued Senior Member

    My objection is that Hitler became Chancellor by perfectly constitutional (German) means before the fire. His party was by far the largest in the Reichstag and was able to put together a majority - the usual procedure in any multiparty parliament.

    He used the fire (which very likely was set by Nazis) to consolidate his power, converting being Chancellor to being dictator.
  20. NCDane Registered Senior Member

    I agree that Hitler's appointment was constitutional, and I am perfectly aware
    of usual procedure in the Weimar parliamentary system, where the head of the
    government was APPOINTED by the head of state, who had a real choice in the
    matter. In other parliamentary systems the head of state may not possess real
    discretion, as in constitutional monarchies.

    Being appointed is not the same thing as being ELECTED, and I think that is an
    important distinction to make, because election confirms personal popular support
    missing from appointment. Hitler never personally won any office by election. IIRC
    he actually ran for office only once, for president in 1932, when won ~30% of the
    1st round votes and ~37% of the 2nd round votes.

    I thought I made it clear enough that that was what I was saying.
  21. mathman Valued Senior Member

    I can't understand the point about being elected. Germany had a parliamentary system and the chancellor was appointed by the president. The chancellor had to be confirmed by the Reichstag.

    The only national office that was elective was president. The president had little choice about who he appointed. It had to be someone who could command a majority.

Share This Page