CLICK TO SUPPORT
PEARL HARBOR ATTACKED

 


Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

1 members are viewing this topic
>Guest

Page 1 of 3123>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Did FDR really know?, Did Roosevelt really know of the Japanese attack before it t< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
sameer420 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Apr. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 13 2001,11:23  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I have been researching this issue for a while now and have gotten many different opinions.  

Did President Roosevelt really know of the Japanese attack before it actully took place at Pearl Harbor?
 
I am asking this because historians know the most about Pearl Harbor and I would like their opinion on this matter.
Regards

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
Masahiro Washio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 13 2001,11:49 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Only the said person (President Roosevelt) knows it.
President Roosevelt died before the end of a war.
The truth is darkness.

There is a means only to guess it from the left fact as for us.

I think that he knew.
But, the most people in here don't think that he knew.


Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 3
Ken Hackler Search for posts by this member.
Moderator-Historian
Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 421
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 14 2001,1:15 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

You've touched on a subject that will get a lot of responses from many people on both sides of the argument.  For myself, based on the facts and not on the evidence twisted by the revisionists, no - he did not know.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Larry Jewell Search for posts by this member.
Historian
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 14 2001,6:44 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If he knew, why did he do nothing?  Many, many things could have been done to reduce the damage done in the attack, none of which would have "scared off" the Japanese.  If he'd been able to say, "Our expert intelligence staff discovered the nefarious plan and our mighty military met and defeated the agressor!" why would he "just let it happen"?  Japan decided Sept. 6th to go to war with us, a failed attack at Pearl Harbor wouldn't have changed that.  Japan's BEST scenario during war games was 1/3 of their carriers sunk.  

Yoshikawa Takeo sent no messages after noon on Saturday.  The scout planes were only to advise how much resistance the attackers would meet, not to call off the attack.  They would not have noted that all the AAA was manned and ready.  They might have noticed the fighters circling at max altitude to get that first blazing dive at the enemy.  They might have noticed that destroyers were anchored 100 yards east of BB Row in a tight line that made torpedo attacks agains the big boys impossible.  They would not have known that the ships were buttoned up tight, manned and ready for damage control, battle casualties, and gunnery.

I once asked a person how many people would have to know that FDR knew, unless an angel whispered the news in his ear.  He said, "everybody knew, and now they're lying about knowing."  Amazing.

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 5
Masahiro Washio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 15 2001,10:18 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I thinkCFDR wanted war participation.
Militaristic countries was invading other countries in Europe and Asia.
It was American justice to stop them.
But, most American people didn't hope for the war.
FDR operated public opinion skillfully for the participation in a war.
Even diplomacy provoked Japan very much.
"Hull note" is virtually declaration of war from America.

Washington was negligent,didn't warn to Pearl Harbor.
Probably, FDR underestimated Japanese military strength.
"Even if Japan attacks,we can be repulsed easily."
It was the miscalculation of FDR.

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 6
Larry Jewell Search for posts by this member.
Historian
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 15 2001,11:11 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yes, FDR wanted to go to war.  We were needed to stop fascism.  He stated publicly many times that the US was the last chance freedom and democracy had in the world.  He would have been one of the world's greatest fools if he hadn't wanted to destroy the political systems that were threatening the peace of the world.  Luckily we've only Quisling, Laval and the like to show what happens when you cave in to a bully.

Most Americans didn't want a war.  Soldiers and sailors especially hate war, we're the first to die.  But, like a visit to the dentist, sooner or later it's going to have to be done.  When the pain is too great, the tooth comes out.  The  polls so often quoted are notable for one thing, you never hear all the question, nor all the questions for that matter.  You can ask "Do you think we should get involved in the European War"? and get a very strong negative count.  However, during the same poll, ask "Do you think we'll eventually have to do something about Hitler"? and you'll get a high positive.  Selectively quoting polls is like doing that to anything else, it's a matter of giving some information and withholding some.  The bias of the sender gets in the way when things are left out of the original.

"Even diplomacy provoked Japan very much."

It's hard to do diplomacy when the other side is flat-out lying.  One message I've seen said, in essence, "Okay, tell them we'll get our troops out of Indo-China, but don't tell them it will take 20 years."  (I'll have to dig it out of the "Magic Background to Pearl Harbor".)

"Hull note" is virtually declaration of war from America. "

Hull's note said "stop your militaristic expansionism."  There  was no declaration, no ultimatum.  The Japanese chose to select this as a cause celebre', but it was actually a request to a theoretically rational government to give the whole region a break and stop invading people.

As far as the lengendary "underestimation" of the IJN goes, here's what we knew about the enemy fleet:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/45-41.html

No military man can look at that without wondering how the devil we're going to cope with that armada.

Here's a listing of _all_ naval forces:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/forces.html

Here's the USN at Pearl Harbor:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/ph-ships.html

and here's the rest of the USN in the Pacific:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/non-ph.html

Bluster was common, and something of a morale builder, but the people that were going to have to deal with the IJN and IJA were not stupid and knew there would be a long road ahead of them.

Larry J

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 7
Larry Jewell Search for posts by this member.
Historian
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 15 2001,1:12 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Just to make sure we're on the same page, here's the "Hull note" I think you're referring to:

Document Handed by the Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador (Nomura)

[WASHINGTON], November 26, 1941.

OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BASIS FOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN

SECTION I

Draft Mutual Declaration of Policy

The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan both being solicitous for the peace of the Pacific affirm that their national policies are directed toward lasting and extensive peace throughout the Pacific area, that they have no territorial designs in that area, that they have no intention of threatening other countries or of using military force aggressively against any neighboring na­tion, and that, accordingly, in their national policies they will actively support and give practical application to the following fun­damental principles upon which their relations with each other and with all other, governments are based

(1) The principle of inviolability of territorial integrity and sovereignty of each and all nations.

(2) The principle of non&#8209;interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

(3) The principle of equality, including equality of commercial opportunity and treatment.

4) The principle of reliance upon international cooperation and conciliation for the prevention and pacific settlement of con­troversies and for improvement of international conditions by peaceful methods and processes.

The Government of Japan and the Government of the United States have agreed that toward eliminating chronic political instability, preventing recurrent economic collapse, and providing a basis for peace, they will actively support and practically apply the following principles in their economic relations with each other and with other nations and peoples

(1) The principle of non&#8209;discrimination in international com­mercial relations.

(2) The principle of international economic cooperation and abolition of extreme nationalism as expressed ram excessive trade restrictions.

(3) The principle of non&#8209;discriminatory access by all nations to raw material supplies.

(4) The principle of full protection of the interests of con­suming countries and populations as regards the operation of international commodity agreements.

(5) The principle of establishment of such institutions and arrangements of international finance as may lend aid to the es­sential enterprises and the continuous development of all coun­tries and may permit payments through processes of trade consonant with the welfare of all countries.

SECTION II

Steps To Be Taken by the Government o f the United States and by the Government of Japan

The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan' propose to take steps as follows

1. The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan will endeavor to conclude a multilateral non&#8209;aggression pact among the British Empire, China, Japan, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, Thailand and the United States.

2. Both Governments will endeavor to conclude among the Ameri­can, British, Chinese, Japanese, the Netherland and Thai Governments an agreement whereunder each of the Governments would pledge itself to respect the territorial integrity of French Indochina and, in the event that there should develop a threat to the territorial integrity of Indochina, to enter into immediate consultation with a view to taking such measures as may be deemed necessary and advisable to meet the threat in question. Such agreement would provide also that each of the Governments party to the agreement would not seek or accept prefer­ential treatment in its trade or economic relations with Indochina and would use its influence to obtain for each of the signatories equality of treatment in trade and commerce with French Indochina.

3. The Government of Japan will withdraw all military, naval, air and police forces from China and from Indochina.

4. The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan will not support—militarily, politically, economically—any government or regime in China other than the National Government of the Republic of China with capital temporarily at Chungking.

5. Both Governments will give up all extraterritorial rights in China, including rights and interests in and with regard to interna­tional settlements and concessions, and rights under the Boxer Protocol of 1901.

Both Governments will endeavor to obtain the agreement of the British and other governments to give up extraterritorial rights in China, including rights in international settlements and in concessions and under the Boxer Protocol of 1901.

6. The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan will enter into negotiations for the conclusion between the United States and Japan of a trade agreement, based upon reciprocal most&#8209;favored&#8209;nation treatment and reduction of trade barriers by both countries, including an undertaking by the United States to bind raw silk on the free list.

7. The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan will, respectively, remove the freezing restrictions on Japanese funds in the United States and on American funds in Japan.

8. Both Governments will agree upon a plan for the stabilization of the dollar&#8209;yen rate, with the allocation of funds adequate for this purpose, half to be supplied by Japan and half by the United States.

9. Both Governments will agree that no agreement which either has concluded with any third power or powers shall be interpreted by it in such a way as to conflict with the fundamental purpose of this agreement, the establishment and preservation of peace throughout the Pacific area.

10. Both Governments will use their influence to cause other govern­ments to adhere to and to give practical application to the basic politi­cal and economic principles set forth in this agreement.

(PEACE AND WAR, UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 1931-1941,  UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE  WASHINGTON: 1943)

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 8
Ken Hackler Search for posts by this member.
Moderator-Historian
Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 421
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 16 2001,9:38 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"I thinkCFDR wanted war participation.
Militaristic countries was invading other countries in Europe and Asia.
It was American justice to stop them.
But, most American people didn't hope for the war.
FDR operated public opinion skillfully for the participation in a war.
Even diplomacy provoked Japan very much.
"Hull note" is virtually declaration of war from America.

Washington was negligent,didn't warn to Pearl Harbor.
Probably, FDR underestimated Japanese military strength.
"Even if Japan attacks,we can be repulsed easily."
It was the miscalculation of FDR. "

Mr. Washio,

Yes, FDR was smart enough to see that the U.S. would be involved, and there was no way to stay isolated in a world at war. The insanity in Germany, Italy, and Japan was such that everyone would sooner or later be involved.

I take offense at your comment that "even diplomacy provoked Japan." Would you care to explain the duplicity with which the Japanese government was conducting negotiations, all the while knowing that a decision for war had already been taken?

Japanese attrocities in China caused the embargo. The embargo caused the Japanese government to search madly for a new source of fuel for its war machine. (The choice to quit killing people in China doesn't seem to have been considered)

Diplomacy by the U.S. did not provoke Japan. The facts are very clear.

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Masahiro Washio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 17 2001,10:12 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Mr. Ken Hackler.

Please don't take offense.
I am glad at the conversation with you.

Japan in those days was insanity certainly.
Because Japan was insanity, Japan got angry at the American diplomacy.

I think that FDR is very smart, too.
But,Japanese attack was very convenient for FDR.
Public opinion of America became one.
If war begins by halves,then a war counter movement may have happened.
The acquisition of the budget may have been difficult, too.
FDR becomes pledge violation.
FDR may have yielded to both the next election and the war.

It was too convenient for FDR.
I doubted it,Yamamoto danced in the written story by FDR.

At that time, China was civil war .
Chinese were doing war, too.
The war is still on now, too.
The relations of China and Taiwan are bad.
Japan waged war against China certainly.
But Chinese killed Chinese ,too.
It is strange to make all responsibility Japan.

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 10
Larry Jewell Search for posts by this member.
Historian
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 17 2001,10:45 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

"But,Japanese attack was very convenient for FDR. "

It was a disaster for the Allies.  We now had to fight a global war with limited resources.  The _last_ thing we needed was a war in the Pacific.

"Public opinion of America became one. "

Irrelevant to the discussion as to FDR baiting Japan into war.  Japan had decided on Sept. 6th to go to war if the Allies didn't do exactly what they said.


Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
24 replies since Apr. 13 2001,11:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 3123>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Did FDR really know?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code




Spring into Action Banner