Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb (1 Viewer)

[Ganesh]

No, I did not ever suggest FDR lay out all intelligence before Americans. Otherwise, you're simply wrong. He most certainly sought an avenue to persuade Americans and knew a sucker punch from Japan was the means. He fired the commander that opposed moving the pacific fleet to the port that the Navy concluded was unsuitable at the time, and then moved the fleet (save the ACC's that couldn't be sacrificed) to provide the easy target.

Complete nonsense. Pearl Harbour was chosen as a base long before those times, as it was strategically placed halfway across the pacific, and was recognized as an asset going right back to the days of sailing ships. It was an ideal location, and quite defensible. The fact that the Japanese were moderately successful in their attack concerned slack military preparedness, and the benefit of surprise, and not geography.

 

[Chagos]

Complete nonsense. Pearl Harbour was chosen as a base long before those times, as it was strategically placed halfway across the pacific, and was recognized as an asset going right back to the days of sailing ships. It was an ideal location, and quite defensible. The fact that the Japanese were moderately successful in their attack concerned slack military preparedness, and the benefit of surprise, and not geography.

.......and it (the fleet in large parts) was placed there so as to have a quicker response capacity to Japanese shenanigans than the further away San Diego would have offered. Primarily (but not solely) to come to the Philippines' aid, should that prove necessary.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, I did not ever suggest FDR lay out all intelligence before Americans. Otherwise, you're simply wrong. He most certainly sought an avenue to persuade Americans and knew a sucker punch from Japan was the means. He fired the commander that opposed moving the pacific fleet to the port that the Navy concluded was unsuitable at the time, and then moved the fleet (save the ACC's that couldn't be sacrificed) to provide the easy target.

:bs:bs:bs:bs:bs

 

[Montecresto]

FDR was walking a tightrope between isolationists that knew only that they they didn't want to get involved in another war, and those more informed who realized their was little choice. A fascist world dominated by Germany and Japan would eventually become a mortal threat to the US, and that threat was better dealt with earlier than later. His policy was not to provoke Japan, but to try and tamp down some of their militaristic efforts, ideally to turn them to a more accommodating policy, and if not then to at least hold the line until the US was ready to face the music.

Isolationist was a derogatory term used by hawks to diminish opposition. War isn't the only avenue of engagement, and 80% of Americans were opposed to another world war.

 

[Montecresto]

:bs:bs:bs:bs:bs

Total irrefutable FACT!

 

[Jack Hays]

Total irrefutable FACT!

Four falsehoods before 1000 AM.

 

[Montecresto]

Four falsehoods before 1000 AM.

Facts demonstrable long before today.

 

[Montecresto]

Complete nonsense. Pearl Harbour was chosen as a base long before those times, as it was strategically placed halfway across the pacific, and was recognized as an asset going right back to the days of sailing ships. It was an ideal location, and quite defensible. The fact that the Japanese were moderately successful in their attack concerned slack military preparedness, and the benefit of surprise, and not geography.

In the years following the arrival of Captain James Cook, Pearl Harbor was not considered a suitable port due to shallow water.

As the Japanese military pressed its war in China, security concerns caused the U.S. to begin taking defensive measures. On February 1, 1933, the U.S. Navy staged a mock attack on the base at Pearl Harbor as part of a preparedness exercise. The attack "succeeded" and the defense was deemed a "failure".

This mock attack was known as Fleet Problem XIV.

This is the reason that the PF was stationed at SD, and the reason the PFC angrily went to Washington and confronted FDR.

 

[Jack Hays]

Facts demonstrable long before today.

Sorry, but no. Outdated, obsolete revisionism.

 

[Ganesh]

In the years following the arrival of Captain James Cook, Pearl Harbor was not considered a suitable port due to shallow water.

As the Japanese military pressed its war in China, security concerns caused the U.S. to begin taking defensive measures. On February 1, 1933, the U.S. Navy staged a mock attack on the base at Pearl Harbor as part of a preparedness exercise. The attack "succeeded" and the defense was deemed a "failure".

This mock attack was known as Fleet Problem XIV.

This is the reason that the PF was stationed at SD, and the reason the PFC angrily went to Washington and confronted FDR.

The harbour was dredged out and was used as a base for some time.

The mock attack "succeeded" because....why? It was a surprise? If so a surprise at San Diego would likely have been deemed a success also. The issue was an active air defense, not geography. In fact, the shallow water at Pearl Harbour was considered a plus. It was thought that torpedoes could not be dropped by air in such conditions, as they would strike the bottom after launch.

Given the dire political situation at the time, movement of forces westward in the Pacific made perfect sense.

 

[Montecresto]

The harbour was dredged out and was used as a base for some time.

The mock attack "succeeded" because....why? It was a surprise? If so a surprise at San Diego would likely have been deemed a success also. The issue was an active air defense, not geography. In fact, the shallow water at Pearl Harbour was considered a plus. It was thought that torpedoes could not be dropped by air in such conditions, as they would strike the bottom after launch.

Given the dire political situation at the time, movement of forces westward in the Pacific made perfect sense.

I've already proved that to be false.

 

[Montecresto]

Sorry, but no. Outdated, obsolete revisionism.

You're opinion, proven wrong however on multiple occasions.

 

[Chagos]

I've already proved that to be false.

You're opinion, proven wrong however on multiple occasions.

You realize that proof and belief need not have anything to do with one another?

Right?

 

[Chagos]

In the years following the arrival of Captain James Cook, Pearl Harbor was not considered a suitable port due to shallow water. ...........................

what you fail to address is the problem of shallowness being acted upon as early as the 1870s.

 

[joG]

Read more @: Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

People are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

Why doesn't that surprise me in you? But you are quite right that it should never be forgotten. It should be held up as a case of what must be done, must be done.

 

[Montecresto]

what you fail to address is the problem of shallowness being acted upon as early as the 1870s.

It was just to demonstrate that the Harbor was recognised as problematic a very long time ago. Once again, this is why the pacific fleet was in San Diego at the time, and not Pearl Harbor. This is also why the commander of the pacific fleet was outraged when ordered to move his fleet to PH, and why he traveled to Washington to confront FDR. He was fired and his replacement of course did move the fleet. Funny thing, he became quite the scapegoat too.

 

[Chagos]

It was just to demonstrate that the Harbor was recognised as problematic a very long time ago.............

Whereupon the problem was addressed.

The fleet wasn't stationed in Pearl despite a problem of some 70 years prior that was long since solved. I already pointed out why it was there. As have others. If you want to ignore that as not being in line with your beliefs, there won't be much point in repeating anything.

 

[Montecresto]

Whereupon the problem was addressed.

The fleet wasn't stationed in Pearl despite a problem of some 70 years prior that was long since solved. I already pointed out why it was there. As have others. If you want to ignore that as not being in line with your beliefs, there won't be much point in repeating anything.

Whatever dude, your repeating yourself here, and, you had to truncate my post to make your point.

The Congressional Hearings, memoirs of diplomats and military officers, and other inquiries provided enough evidence to allow a serious student of the attack to obtain a fairly clear picture of what had happened. George Morgenstern, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Chicago who had served as a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps during the war, combed through the available material and wrote what remains today perhaps the best account of the episode, Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War, published in 1947 by the Devin-Adair Company.

Morgenstern, who was by then working as an editorial-page editor for the Chicago Tribune, rattled the defenders of Roosevelt's innocence. Subject to severe attack by some, or simply given the silent treatment, Morgenstern's scholarship won plaudits from others who were not partisans of the Democratic political establishment. The venerable Charles A. Beard stated that his book would long remain "a permanent contribution to the quest for an understanding of the tragedy of Pearl Harbor." A former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Asiatic Fleet, Admiral H.E. Yarnell, said that the author "is to be congratulated on marshaling the available facts of this tragedy in such a manner as to make it clear to every reader where the responsibility lies." Georgetown University historian Charles Callan Tansill felt that Morgenstern "discloses with great ability the lessons of secret diplomacy and national betrayal."

Morgenstern opened his book with a description of the Japanese attack, and noted that a 1932 U.S. Navy exercise showed that Pearl Harbor was open to air attack by carrier based planes. An entire chapter was devoted to the question of why the fleet came to be home-based at Pearl Harbor from May 1940. The author cited the testimony of the former commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral J.O. Richardson, who, in October 1940, protested Roosevelt's decision to move the fleet from the protected waters of the American west coast to the vulnerable base at Hawaii. Richardson was relieved of his command four months after his meeting with FDR and was replaced by Rear Admiral Kimmel.

 

[Chagos]

Whatever dude, your repeating yourself here, and, you had to truncate my post to make your point.

I'm as proficient at repetition as you are.:2razz:

As for truncating your post, I did it to make for brevity, seeing how not everybody wants to read things three of four times.

I also see little point in dwelling on a work that's nearly 70 years old, when far more current research results have long since been available and continue to be.

Maybe you should start a thread in the conspiracy forum.

 

[Jack Hays]

You're opinion, proven wrong however on multiple occasions.

You have never provided an answer to Giangreco by anyone.

 

[Ganesh]

Morgenstern opened his book with a description of the Japanese attack, and noted that a 1932 U.S. Navy exercise showed that Pearl Harbor was open to air attack by carrier based planes. An entire chapter was devoted to the question of why the fleet came to be home-based at Pearl Harbor from May 1940. The author cited the testimony of the former commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral J.O. Richardson, who, in October 1940, protested Roosevelt's decision to move the fleet from the protected waters of the American west coast to the vulnerable base at Hawaii. Richardson was relieved of his command four months after his meeting with FDR and was replaced by Rear Admiral Kimmel.

Any coastal area would have been vulnerable to air attack from carriers, not just Hawaii. The US at the time also tested the Panama Canal Zone against air attack, as even the distances involved did not, in opinion of the time, make it immune. California would definitely not have been completely secure, and indeed some thought an air attack on the west coast imminent. Pearl Harbour had air defenses, and hence was secure as a forward base.

 

[Montecresto]

I'm as proficient at repetition as you are.:2razz:

As for truncating your post, I did it to make for brevity, seeing how not everybody wants to read things three of four times.

I also see little point in dwelling on a work that's nearly 70 years old, when far more current research results have long since been available and continue to be.

Maybe you should start a thread in the conspiracy forum.

You jumped in with empty pockets so perhaps that's what you ought to do. And if fresh material is inferior, then why take what's available today, maybe two hundred years after the fact, what happened will be even clearer. :roll:

 

[Montecresto]

Any coastal area would have been vulnerable to air attack from carriers, not just Hawaii. The US at the time also tested the Panama Canal Zone against air attack, as even the distances involved did not, in opinion of the time, make it immune. California would definitely not have been completely secure, and indeed some thought an air attack on the west coast imminent. Pearl Harbour had air defenses, and hence was secure as a forward base.

No, it was not secure, as the bitch slapping from Japan would demonstrate. The commander of the pacific fleet at the time, Richardson, would have infinitely more knowledge than you, whoever you are.

 

[Jack Hays]

Morgenstern opened his book with a description of the Japanese attack, and noted that a 1932 U.S. Navy exercise showed that Pearl Harbor was open to air attack by carrier based planes. An entire chapter was devoted to the question of why the fleet came to be home-based at Pearl Harbor from May 1940. The author cited the testimony of the former commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral J.O. Richardson, who, in October 1940, protested Roosevelt's decision to move the fleet from the protected waters of the American west coast to the vulnerable base at Hawaii. Richardson was relieved of his command four months after his meeting with FDR and was replaced by Rear Admiral Kimmel.

Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Military planning

Preliminary planning for an attack on Pearl Harbor to protect the move into the "Southern Resource Area" (the Japanese term for the Dutch East Indies and Southeast Asia generally) had begun very early in 1941 under the auspices of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, then commanding Japan's Combined Fleet.[SUP][40][/SUP] . . .
Over the next several months, pilots trained, equipment was adapted, and intelligence collected. Despite these preparations, Emperor Hirohito did not approve the attack plan until November 5, after the third of four Imperial Conferences called to consider the matter.[SUP][45][/SUP] Final authorization was not given by the emperor until December 1, after a majority of Japanese leaders advised him the "Hull Note" would "destroy the fruits of the China incident, endanger Manchukuo and undermine Japanese control of Korea."[SUP][46][/SUP]
By late 1941, many observers believed that hostilities between the U.S. and Japan were imminent. A Gallup poll just before the attack on Pearl Harbor found that 52% of Americans expected war with Japan, 27% did not, and 21% had no opinion.[SUP][47][/SUP] While U.S. Pacific bases and facilities had been placed on alert on many occasions, U.S. officials doubted Pearl Harbor would be the first target; instead, they expected the Philippines would be attacked first. This presumption was due to the threat that the air bases throughout the country and the naval base at Manila posed to sea lanes, as well as to the shipment of supplies to Japan from territory to the south.[SUP][48][/SUP] They also incorrectly believed that Japan was not capable of mounting more than one major naval operation at a time.[SUP][49][/SUP]
Ever since the Japanese attack, there has been debate as to how and why the United States had been caught unaware, and how much and when American officials knew of Japanese plans and related topics. Several writers, including journalist Robert Stinnett and former United States rear admiral Robert Alfred Theobald, have argued that various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force the U.S. into war via the so-called "back door". However, this Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory is rejected by mainstream historians.[SUP][50][/SUP][SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP]

 

[Ganesh]

No, it was not secure, as the bitch slapping from Japan would demonstrate. The commander of the pacific fleet at the time, Richardson, would have infinitely more knowledge than you, whoever you are.

No, you are either avoiding, or failing to understand the point. Yes, Japan had some success at Pearl Harbour. If it was San Diego, it could have been the same thing, if degree of surprise, and lack of preparedness on the part of the US was the same.

Assigning infinite wisdom to an authority figure, and then not questioning various factors that can in fact be examined in the light of recorded knowledge, and present analysis, is a poor way to come to rational conclusions about history.