Very possible America have prior knowledge of Japan attack and in some cases, silently assisted it without Japan knowing, to help give reason to enter the war.

[Lady Anesjka]

Long read but worth the 30 minutes.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Some have drawn comparisons and parallels with "Pearl Harbor and "9/11" (2001), also.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-was-warned-about-flight-schools/

This link leads to a web-page.  On the web-page is the title of the Thesis and a button which can be clicked to download the entire thesis.
https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1928/  

These are not the only articles.  They're merely among the first handful of results from my internet search.

  I feel it's possible.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Other sources, indicate that Japanese radio deception efforts may have played a part in the success of the Pearl Harbor attack.

The scale of Japanese radio deception in the days before Pearl Harbor
By R.J. Hanyok
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/veterans/military-history/2024/12/07/the-scale-of-japanese-radio-deception-in-the-days-before-pearl-harbor/  

[Asym]

The winners write post war history....  The truth? 

My opinion:   well, I suspect we knew the IJN and Japan were going to attack the US well before there was a direct confrontation....it was inevitable...   The way we treated Japan after WW1 and our insistence that "manifest destiny" only applied to white, European's only, sealed the deal.....

The Japanese believed that what Teddy Roosevelt's militaristic doctrine and concepts of Manifest Destiny, were the ideal warrior nation's doctrine...   WW1 dealt Japan a major blow by the way they were treated when the captured territories were divided up after the war and our refusing to treat their empire as "equal to our own" was what propelled a collision of empires and doctrines in WW2.    They needed - oil and respect  - and,  we denied both......   The Japanese believed SW Asia (and it's oil) and Australia were there's to take..... It was their Manifest Destiny to control SE and SW Asia...

Japan should have attacked the Panama Canal, occupied Panama and the sailed around the horn and taken the Falkland Islands and establish a base there and in Argentina..  Starved Hawaii out and in circled the forces there.   Different war than what we had.

Did we know.......we might be able to see what we wrote in 2046 or so.....  Till then, if I were to guess:  yes, we did and really didn't expect what actually happened....  We were that conceited....

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

From one of the comments below Drachinifel's video.

Quote

@enoughothis

2 years ago

I love the Orange on Blue fleet exercise where the US Navy simulated a carrier attack on Pearl Harbor and did pretty much what the IJN would do on December 7th. They looked at the result and said "Nah, it'll be fine."

US Navy Fleet Problems - Taking the ships out for exercise (I-VII)  

  
 

[Snargfargle]

The US knew it was going to eventually have to fight Japan as soon as it annexed the Philippines in 1898. War Plan Orange (1924) called for a retreat to the Bataan Peninsula and Corregidor Island in the event of a Japanese invasion. When the Japanese attacked the Philippines on December 8, 1941, this plan was implemented and U.S. and Filipino forces retreated to Bataan and Corregidor, where they held out until April 9, 1942.

All you have to do is to look at military contract dates to understand that the US knew a war was coming.

• B-17 -- 1936
• B-24 -- 1939
• F4F (Wildcat) -- 1935
• F6F (Hellcat) -- June 1941
• F4U (Corsair) -- 1938
• Fletcher-class DD -- 1939
• Iowa-class BB -- 1939
• Gato-class sub -- 1940

 

 

 

 

[Tricericon]

You made me read that absolute dreck, so now you have to read this.

Abstract

The article appears to be making the following contentions:
- (1) War starting between the United States and Japan was not a surprise to American leadership.
- (2) War starting with a Japanese surprise attack was not a surprise to American leadership.
- (3) The target of that sneak attack being Pearl Harbor was not a surprise to American leadership.
- (4) American leadership wanted as many Americans dead as possible for maximum outrage.
- (5) America provoked Japan into starting the war.
- (6) The conspiracy to provoke the attack and kill many Americans was small enough to remain undetected outside revisionist "historians" out to make a name for themselves, but large enough to include junior lieutenants, the Soviet ambassador, and British insurance outfits.

(1) and (2) are true and part of the well-accepted historical record. The article is pushing these true and accepted claims as rejected by the conventional narrative so they can "prove" them, and they hope that "proving" them will give credibility to their other contentions. The actual surprise was that Pearl Harbor was the target of the expected Japanese surprise attack.

(3) is false. Pearl was considered as a possible target, but and unlikely one as it was considered adequately defended. American and Japanese wargaming pre-event both expected the attacking force, in the event of a raid on Pearl under 1941 conditions, to suffer approximately 50% casualties. The American miscalculation was not realizing how lightly Japan rated her carriers and Japan's according willingness to sacrifice them to kill battleships. On the day, Kimmel was caught with his pants down preparing to counterattack, and Short was caught with his pants down by favoring sabotage defense over air defense [go read Zimm if you're interested in this part].

(4) and (6) are "not even wrong" because they depend on (3) being true. (3) is false.

(5) This is technically a matter of opinion, but to hold that opinion requires the author to not consider an embargo on war material to Japan justified by the aggressive (and, frankly, genocidal) actions of the Empire in China and Southeast Asia. I leave it to the reader.

Intro

That article is combination of conspiracy theories, red herrings, and that thing where there are ten thousand datums to shift through and a dozen point to the truth. There's almost no chance of drawing the correct conclusion, but there's just enough to keep conspiracy theorists who are ignorant (sometimes willfully) of the big picture supplied with ammo.

Note

I didn't realize until near the end of the point-by-point section the article is actually alleging (4). I did update previous points after this realization.

Let's go point by point. BTW, I'm going to end my commentary on every point that only supports (1) and (2) with "What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?":

The 1st McCollum Memo:
Suggestions that (A) Japanese military adventurism is bad and should be stopped, militarily if necessary (B) the state of public opinion in the US in 10/40 would not support the US being the aggressor (C) if there's going to be a war, it would be better for public opinion and posterity if the other guy fired the first shot... Where's the problem? (B) and (C) are facts. (A) is a very defensible opinion. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

The Detroit Times article:
A single newspaper's speculative reporting isn't a good basis for anything. In any event, FDR wanting to militarily intervene against the Axis isn't news... Was he wrong to want that? The proposal, if real, was never carried out. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

"The Navy knew who the Japanese spies were and did nothing about it":
Why replace the spy you know about with one you don't? This is very weak evidence towards Pearl-as-target because the Japanese will obviously be interested in the Pacific Fleet in any scenario. The "scouting reports" enabling targeting of the attack waves came from the Japanese consulate anyway.

"Grew warns Japan will launch a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor":
In his own telegram he says "My Peruvian Colleague told a member of my staff that he heard from many sources including a Japanese source...". Why should that have been believed by "the brass" over other, equally or better sourced reasoning indicating other targets?

The 2nd McCollum Memo:
He's just relaying what Grew said, this isn't independent evidence of anything.

Richardson's Replacement:
The statement "Adm. Richardson had been replaced in February 1941 because he was concerned that the Japanese would start a war by attacking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor" is false. Richardson was relieved for objecting to the rebasing of the fleet, but the primary concern was that the lack of oil in Hawaii vice California and the need to maintain a higher level of readiness would have negative impact on training and therefore the fleet's readiness for battle.

Japan tells Brazil, "war soon":
An imminent war between America and Japan was not news. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Roosevelt cutting off war supplies to Japan:
Roosevelt's escalation here is prompted by a Japanese escalation, the seizure of military bases in orphaned French colonies in Southeast Asia. Frankly, I find it easier to read this as FDR bending over backwards to delay a warlike action until his hand was forced. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Japanese spy ships seized:
See prior note on the reliability of a single period newspaper article. If taken as fact, the movements of the Pacific Fleet, based in Hawaii, were of obvious interest to the Japanese. The Americans did not need to assume Pearl Harbor was a target.

Lloyd's bomb insurance:
If there was a conspiracy among the US leadership to provoke Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, why bring a British insurance operation in on it? This was just a quick-buck stunt by Lloyd's.

Konoe's negotiations:
This section is preposterously slanted. The "humiliating concessions to Washington" in question were "stop killing the Chinese and give them and the French their land back". What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Commercial traffic cleared:
This is an obvious precaution to take in the event of likely war, and in no way requires foreknowledge of Pearl as target. The Japanese carefully avoided the shipping lanes anyway.

Chicago Tribune, flight surgeon:
Newspaper hearsay. This would have been reported in Japanese sources and was not.

Hearst reporter:
"War imminent" and "Manila likely target" were not news in October '41. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Japan tells Panama "war soon":
Yes, everyone knew America and Japan were at the brink of war in late '41. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Cassidy fortifications:
Yes, the United States had recognized the base was a possible target for attack in the event of war, and also the most likely direction of the attack.

Cassidy notes on alert:
These were war warnings, not "Pearl Harbor will be attacked" warnings as the article implies.

State department notes Japan will probably attack:
Yes, everyone knew America and Japan were at the brink of war in late '41. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Grew and Hull note that Japan will start the war with a sneak attack:
As noted, starting wars with sneak attacks was standard operating procedure for Imperial Japan. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

They knew Japan's fleet was at sea:
This is misleading, as the Japanese carriers were still believed to be in the home islands. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Condition 1:
Washington issuing orders prioritizing sabotage is evidence against the notion they knew about an incoming raid, no?

Australian intervention:
Japan had already made the decision for war. Hull was correct. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Editorialist says Japan might start a war:
You think? What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Honolulu Star-Advertiser:
There's no "Hawaii" or "Pearl Harbor" following the word strike. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Martial law:
This was an anti-sabotage/espionage measure, not an indication an attack was expected on the base.

The carriers were away:
-----
This section is badly wrong.

The escalating tension was driving carriers flying reinforcements to island airbases (Enterprise was not a patrol mission). Enterprise would have been in Pearl but was delayed by heavy seas. Had she been able to follow orders she would have been in port. Saratoga was undergoing refit on the West Coast.

The entire Pacific Fleet (except for all of the carriers, and the battleship Colorado, but I guess they don't count) was in port because Kimmel, having received a war warning, intended to take immediate offensive action once the Japanese opened hostilities. Only California, undergoing an inspection, was not in condition to quickly go watertight.
-----

Kimmel gave leave to the sailors on Dec 7th:
Technically, at the end of Friday the 5th, expecting the war immediately and not wanting to go on the offensive with tired pilots and sailors, Kimmel stood down from the state of high alert that been maintained for the preceding weeks. Had the Japanese attacked on Nov 30th they'd most likely have been badly defeated.

Kimmel hungover:
Evidence beyond rumor or it's cow excrement.

Well known in the Pacific Japan firing on US ships:
Newspaper rumor mill grist. No factual basis. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Japanese leaving Panama:
Yes, everyone knew America and Japan were at the brink of war in late '41. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Robert D. Ogg:
Newspaper rumor 40 years later is barely evidence. If we accept it, why should that have been believed by "the brass" over other, equally or better sourced reasoning indicating other targets?

Stockpiled supplies:
"attack" not "attack on Hawaii". The medicos supported the main battlefleet. People were going to be hurt no matter where the war started.

No reconnaissance:
See previous note about Kimmel standing down on the 5th.

Nets down for maintenance:
Surely evidence against an expected attack? Or is the argument that they not only wanted an attack but wanted it to kill as many Americans as possible?

Johan Ranneft:
This account is hearsay related to a conspiracy theorist's book.

Wright sees something:
May or may not have seen something, may or may not have been Enterprise, may or may not have been radioed in. Nothing here.

Hawaii radar:
This is well documented as a low-level screw-up. The privates were running the radar outside "normal business hours" for practice. They detected suspicious contacts, but were unable to convince their superior by telephone that it wasn't the aerial reinforcements due in from California. In order for this to have been part of a conspiracy, junior Lt. Kermit Tyler had to be in on it. How large is this supposed conspiracy supposed to have been?

"The court historians say it wouldn't have mattered":
No they don't. The Opana radar thing is seen as a tragic screw-up by a junior officer. A scramble order at 7:05 would have seriously disrupted the attack.

Soviet ambassador:
Coincidences happen. Why would the Soviet ambassador's presence have any effect on anything?

Japanese break relations timing:
Yeah, communications to Hawaii were not as reliable back then. The missing message wouldn't have changed anything. What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Citations

Prange, At Dawn We Slept
Zimm, Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions

[Snargfargle]

"1" is Pearl Harbor, "2" is Midway. That's probably the point where the leadership of Japan started to think "oopsies." At the end of WWII, the US Navy had 6,768 ships, including 28 fleet aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort aircraft carriers, 72 cruisers, 232 submarines, and 377 destroyers. This was 70% of the total combined naval power of the entire world. The US military also had 300,000 planes at the end of WWII. Tanks and mobile artillery platforms produced: 88,816. Rifles and carbines: 12 million.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Snargfargle

[Admiral_Karasu]

Well.. following the US oil embargo, Japan really had only bad options to choose from. The 'oopsie' moment probably should have become a lot earlier. The oil embargo was the result of the Japanese incursion into French Indochina, which again was mandated by the war in China. It's a chain of events which gradually reduces the number of options that are available to you to the point where the events take their own course. One miscalculation paves the way for the next one.

[Snargfargle]

Japan didn't understand the mentality of Americans, thinking that if they gave isolationist America a "bloody nose" it would then sue for peace. Unfortunately, Americans tend to take affront to being insulted and will usually respond with an overwhelming show of force. Other countries have made the mistake of thinking Americans to be peace-nicks. America is one of the most warlike nations on Earth. Live close enough to us, possess something we want, be mean to our friends, or just generally piss us off, and we will attack you. We even fought a war against ourselves... twice.

[Admiral_Karasu]

The politicians and the top brass have always had a knack of getting regular people into a lot of trouble. This.. would be my 'recollection' from the war time, my illustrious contribution to the war effort.

[Admiral_Karasu]

@Tricericon I dug up some background reading. As for Admiral Kimmel's case, there's definitely something fishy about his orders and the situation, but take note that clearing Admiral Kimmel's reputation effectively means conceding that FDR and Washington were plotting against the US to facilitate a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to realize their plan to force the US into war. (Personally I believe this to be the case.)

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011/december/missing-clues-and-cracking-codes-pacific-war

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1995/august/special-report-resurrecting-kimmel-case

https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-001/h-001-1.html

https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/20/2003550771/-1/-1/0/DOCID_3177591_SEALED_OK.PDF

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

For me, this topic is interesting and educational.
 

[HogHammer]

7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

For me, this topic is interesting and educational.

The entire period of WWI, the actions by nations between and WW2 are very interesting.  There was a lot of signaling between the periods that no one really paid attention to - nations feeling slighted, not respected, and impossible terms to deal with.  There are some great books covering this entire time frame that help fill in the pieces.  I think most of the focus from a historical perspective has been on Germany; however, what happened in Japan during this period, and who was really pulling the strings at the time, is fascinating and only lightly touched on.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-001/h-001-1.html

Very interesting.

[Wolfswetpaws]

12 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

The US knew it was going to eventually have to fight Japan as soon as it annexed the Philippines in 1898. War Plan Orange (1924) called for a retreat to the Bataan Peninsula and Corregidor Island in the event of a Japanese invasion. When the Japanese attacked the Philippines on December 8, 1941, this plan was implemented and U.S. and Filipino forces retreated to Bataan and Corregidor, where they held out until April 9, 1942.

All you have to do is to look at military contract dates to understand that the US knew a war was coming.

• B-17 -- 1936
• B-24 -- 1939
• F4F (Wildcat) -- 1935
• F6F (Hellcat) -- June 1941
• F4U (Corsair) -- 1938
• Fletcher-class DD -- 1939
• Iowa-class BB -- 1939
• Gato-class sub -- 1940

How much of these aircraft and ship designs were a result of the normal course of development, though?
(And possibly as products for export to friendly nations as well as planned use by the U.S.?)
Along with development of doctrines for their use?

Also, prior to 1941, wars had been initiated in "far off" places (as far as the "American Public" was concerned, eh?) and an isolationist preference to avoid getting entangled too much in foreign affairs still seemed prevalent (in my limited understanding and recollection of various sources).
It would have taken something big, to motivate the USA to join a "world war".
As history demonstrated, something big did happen, and not everything went "according to plan" for anyone (from what I can discern).  

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

How much of these aircraft and ship designs were a result of the normal course of development, though?
(And possibly as products for export to friendly nations as well as planned use by the U.S.?)
Along with development of doctrines for their use?

Also, prior to 1941, wars had been initiated in "far off" places (as far as the "American Public" was concerned, eh?) and an isolationist preference to avoid getting entangled too much in foreign affairs still seemed prevalent (in my limited understanding and recollection of various sources).
It would have taken something big, to motivate the USA to join a "world war".
As history demonstrated, something big did happen, and not everything went "according to plan" for anyone (from what I can discern).  

Part of the question is, why would the US been spending money in case there was to be war at the time when most nations had been cutting down their budgets. The thirties wasn't exactly an affluent time for the US either. I admit, I haven't looked for any exact figures or comparisons with the other powers. At some point, too, there would have had to been a doctrinal shift for the US Navy which still in the 1920s would have considered the Royal Navy as their potential adversary in war.

[Snargfargle]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

prior to 1941, wars had been initiated in "far off" places (as far as the "American Public" was concerned, eh?
It would have taken something big, to motivate the USA to join a "world war".

The major fighting of the Spanish-American War took place less than 250 miles from Florida.
Pancho Villa attacked Camp Furlong, New Mexico in 1916, which led to Pershing's expedition.
The last battle of the Indian Wars was in 1918 in Arizona.

US military involvement between WWI and WWII.

• 1917–1922: Cuba, 1918–1919: Mexico, 1918–1920: Panama, 1918–1920: Russia, 1919: Dalmatia (Croatia)
• 1919: Turkey, 1919: Honduras, 1920: China, 1920: Guatemala, 1920–1922: Russia, 1921: Panama and Costa Rica
• 1922: Turkey, 1922–1923: China, 1924: Honduras, 1924: China, 1925: China, 1925: Honduras, 1925: Panama
• 1926–1933: Nicaragua, 1926: China, 1927: China, 1933: Cuba, 1934: China, 1937: China
• 1940: Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, – Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana. US troops were sent to guard air and naval bases obtained under lease by negotiation with Britain.
• 1941: Greenland was taken under protection of the United States in April
• 1941: In November, the President ordered American troops to occupy Dutch Guiana
• 1941: Iceland was taken under the protection of the United States, without consent of its government replacing British troops, for "strategic reasons."
• September 1941 -- The US Navy began attacking German submarines.
• October 31, 1941, sinking of USS Reuben James -- the Neutrality Act was partly repealed -- the US was in an undeclared war with Germany

 

 

Edited December 9, 2024 by Snargfargle

[Asym]

6 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Part of the question is, why would the US been spending money in case there was to be war at the time when most nations had been cutting down their budgets. The thirties wasn't exactly an affluent time for the US either. I admit, I haven't looked for any exact figures or comparisons with the other powers. At some point, too, there would have had to been a doctrinal shift for the US Navy which still in the 1920s would have considered the Royal Navy as their potential adversary in war.

On gosh, that is simple in answer to what is bold above:  to make a fortune !  Money !!! 

It was inevitable.   Again, Japan looked, talked, fought and their foreign policy was a copy of TR's "carry a big stick" dogma...  Their version of Manifest Destiny some say.  An American warrior (TR) whom carved the US by force and set the stage for all that came next....  TR was their model,  warrior statesman.

In reality, it will take till 2046, when.....and if......the WW2 documents declassify.  I don't think they will....  Please, remember that cute movie saying:  "follow the money" and you'll get the idea that HUGE fortunes were made making the weapons to kill people.....  As in what we call the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) as Eisenhower alluded to in 1961.  Oh my !  It's soooooo much more than you'd believe.

I am not sure many of you have had the chance in the 60's through the 1980's to "explore" just "how much stuff" we create for defense....  There are places in the littoral regions of the East Coast where you simply can't fish, sail or visit...  The stories my Dad's friends told about what they experienced:  an entire section of land (a square mile) with stacked aircraft waiting for salvage.  One friends family in New Jersey had the entire nose section of a B-24 as a club house for the neighborhood boys in the 1960's....

  imagine a square mile - just like this !

We have had older friends with "full barns" of engines in their WW2 metal, air tight containers...  Another friends dad ran his lumber mill in NC using PT boat engines he bought for $50 a Ton:  brand new in 1946.... 

I got to visit Tobyhanna AD:   or any of the other massive storage facilities all over the US:  think about the Indiana Jones ending scene:

In reality, the isles were 60 or more feet tall, steel shelves with a narrow gauge rail system running between the isles and it looked like the picture above.  That they had stacked, where I was, were WW1 GP large tents, stacked 6 high in their wooded boxes.  Strategic storage, just in case.  Remember, Tobyhanna was between two major nuclear targets in PA so........they were hardened and stocked - just in case.... 

There are depots you can't visit.  There are depots in abandoned Salt Mines.... The MIC produces insane amounts and war, for the US,  isn't about moral equivalency or the American way, it's about MONEY......making vast amounts of money.....

Eisenhower discovered that and it broke his heart....  BTW, his Library in Abilene Kansas is a great visit !  And, to make it even sweeter for me, they have an M48A5 on display and it was one of the tanks the Armor Center tested at Fort Pickett VA in the 1980's !!!  I kept the "VIN numbers" of the tanks I served on and wa-la !  This was one of them !!!!  Small world some times....  And, sad to see her rusting....  What a really fun tank and they were like a 1950's vehicle:  so simple, yet so capable...  Gosh, miss those days.

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

The major fighting of the Spanish-American War took place less than 250 miles from Florida.
Pancho Villa attacked Camp Furlong, New Mexico in 1916, which led to Pershing's expedition.
The last battle of the Indian Wars was in 1918 in Arizona.

US military involvement between WWI and WWII.

• 1917–1922: Cuba, 1918–1919: Mexico, 1918–1920: Panama, 1918–1920: Russia, 1919: Dalmatia (Croatia)
• 1919: Turkey, 1919: Honduras, 1920: China, 1920: Guatemala, 1920–1922: Russia, 1921: Panama and Costa Rica
• 1922: Turkey, 1922–1923: China, 1924: Honduras, 1924: China, 1925: China, 1925: Honduras, 1925: Panama
• 1926–1933: Nicaragua, 1926: China, 1927: China, 1933: Cuba, 1934: China, 1937: China
• 1940: Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, – Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana. US troops were sent to guard air and naval bases obtained under lease by negotiation with Britain.
• 1941: Greenland was taken under protection of the United States in April
• 1941: In November, the President ordered American troops to occupy Dutch Guiana
• 1941: Iceland was taken under the protection of the United States, without consent of its government replacing British troops, for "strategic reasons."
• September 1941 -- The US Navy began attacking German submarines.
• October 31, 1941, sinking of USS Reuben James -- the Neutrality Act was partly repealed -- the US was in an undeclared war with Germany

 

 

Yeesh!  That's more than I remeber learning about in school history classes.  🙂

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Asym said:

On gosh, that is simple in answer to what is bold above:  to make a fortune !  Money !!! 

It was inevitable.   Again, Japan looked, talked, fought and their foreign policy was a copy of TR's "carry a big stick" dogma...  Their version of Manifest Destiny some say.  An American warrior (TR) whom carved the US by force and set the stage for all that came next....  TR was their model,  warrior statesman.

In reality, it will take till 2046, when.....and if......the WW2 documents declassify.  I don't think they will....  Please, remember that cute movie saying:  "follow the money" and you'll get the idea that HUGE fortunes were made making the weapons to kill people.....  As in what we call the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) as Eisenhower alluded to in 1961.  Oh my !  It's soooooo much more than you'd believe.

I am not sure many of you have had the chance in the 60's through the 1980's to "explore" just "how much stuff" we create for defense....  There are places in the littoral regions of the East Coast where you simply can't fish, sail or visit...  The stories my Dad's friends told about what they experienced:  an entire section of land (a square mile) with stacked aircraft waiting for salvage.  One friends family in New Jersey had the entire nose section of a B-24 as a club house for the neighborhood boys in the 1960's....

  imagine a square mile - just like this !

We have had older friends with "full barns" of engines in their WW2 metal, air tight containers...  Another friends dad ran his lumber mill in NC using PT boat engines he bought for $50 a Ton:  brand new in 1946.... 

I got to visit Tobyhanna AD:   or any of the other massive storage facilities all over the US:  think about the Indiana Jones ending scene:

In reality, the isles were 60 or more feet tall, steel shelves with a narrow gauge rail system running between the isles and it looked like the picture above.  That they had stacked, where I was, were WW1 GP large tents, stacked 6 high in their wooded boxes.  Strategic storage, just in case.  Remember, Tobyhanna was between two major nuclear targets in PA so........they were hardened and stocked - just in case.... 

There are depots you can't visit.  There are depots in abandoned Salt Mines.... The MIC produces insane amounts and war, for the US,  isn't about moral equivalency or the American way, it's about MONEY......making vast amounts of money.....

Eisenhower discovered that and it broke his heart....  BTW, his Library in Abilene Kansas is a great visit !  And, to make it even sweeter for me, they have an M48A5 on display and it was one of the tanks the Armor Center tested at Fort Pickett VA in the 1980's !!!  I kept the "VIN numbers" of the tanks I served on and wa-la !  This was one of them !!!!  Small world some times....  And, sad to see her rusting....  What a really fun tank and they were like a 1950's vehicle:  so simple, yet so capable...  Gosh, miss those days.

Yes, but you are talking about Eisenhower and the MIC, none of that in my opinion is applicable in the 30s environment. FDR is probably the last real US president, he wouldn't have given a hoot about if some industrialists were hoping to make money if it wasn't aligned with his own policies (collateral benefits). Remember the 'buck a year' jobs? His concerns at the time would have been economic recovery (which would align with an increase in military spending bringing about investments and jobs BUT... spending on civilian industries would have been more effective for this purpose) and preparing for war. However, there's only two instances where most nations would opt to spend on war preparations, either they are planning to start one themselves, or they know they are going to be facing an attack somewhere in the very near future.

[Tricericon]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

clearing Admiral Kimmel's reputation

I'm not interested in "clearing Kimmel's reputation", I'm just contesting the claim that alcohol was a factor. Especially since his key mistakes were all made well before the 7th.

43 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

the US Navy which still in the 1920s would have considered the Royal Navy as their potential adversary in war.

The US Navy considered Japan their most likely future opponent from the end of the Spanish-American War, with Japan's desire to own the Philippines as the likely flashpoint. This focus intensified after WW1.

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 minute ago, Tricericon said:

The US Navy considered Japan their most likely future opponent from the end of the Spanish-American War, with Japan's desire to own the Philippines as the likely flashpoint. This focus intensified after WW1.

 

Well, I'm not so sure about that, at least this is the first time I see a reference to something like this. At the time of the Spanish-American war, IIRC, Japan was involved in the 2nd Sino-Japanese war and occupied by the Korean question. It seems a little unlikely they would have had their eyes on the Philippines. Even in the thirties, Japan only more or less managed to get mired in China, as some say even at the peak of its military power Japan could not conquer China which was at its historical low point at the time. In other words, Japan had seriously overreached already prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Got any sources I could see?

[tocqueville8]

I've always found it demented to believe that FDR, a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy who famously collected naval manuscripts (so, it's fair to say, someone who loved the Navy), would sacrifice seven battleships (and 2400 military personnel) just to have a pretext to go to war with Japan.

I mean...sure, war was likely, there was the oil embargo, the ongoing conflict in China, then the Fourteen Part Message, etc. Fine. Roosevelt probably did want to go to war. But who would plan to get off to such a bad start? People like to point at the nature of the war in the Pacific and say: "see! those slow battleships were going to be useless anyway, it's the carrier that became the decisive weapon!", and that's kind of true, but it's not really an argument. Plenty of crappy tanks, airplanes and rifles were used in WW2, and those BBs that were floated from the bottom of Pearl Harbor still contributed, in the end.

Why not set up some kind of much less costly incident? Why not be prepared for the attack, have public opinion (rightfully) incensed at the Japanese, but also protect the BBs and shoot down some of Japan's best pilots? And not risk the fuel tanks (for what they were worth: I gather their importance might've been exaggerrated) and other infrastructure?

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 minute ago, tocqueville8 said:

Why not set up some kind of much less costly incident? Why not be prepared for the attack, have public opinion (rightfully) incensed at the Japanese, but also protect the BBs and shoot down some of Japan's best pilots? And not risk the fuel tanks (for what they were worth: I gather their importance might've been exaggerrated) and other infrastructure?

What would you suggest could have flipped the public opinion on the side of war and against Japan?

How much crucial losses did the US suffer in the material sense in the attack. One battleship at the final tally? The carriers, as you know, were out at sea during the attack.