Did Roosevelt want Pearl Harbor?

[Jacek]

From the American historian H.E. Barnes´ article " Rauch on Roosevelt" I would like to bring a little fragment, including a few sentences from Eleanor Roosevelt´s memoirs.

Did Roosevelt know well in advance that Japan will attack USA in some way? Did he want it? Were Kimmel and Short responsible or was it HQ who deliberately withheld the info?

In short: Did Roosevelt and people behind him want Japan to provide an excuse for entering the war, as Hitler avoided all provocations?

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

I believe that this scenario has been extensively debated in otrher forums int he past and certainly I have read suggestions that FDR did indeed know about the attack on Pearl Harbor. I suggest that it was a wide-held belief that a Japanese attack was inevitable but it was anticipated that it would be againt the Phillipines. Against that the Japanese submarine activity in the Pacific has been cited as evidence that Pearl Harbor was the main target.

I am trying to wrack my brains as to whether the British alerted the Americans to Japanese interest in the British air attacks on Taranto Harbor. The Japanese reputedly asked the Germans for detailed information on the attack. Such attention must have been obviously intended to gain experience on attacks on another naval harbour.

[Jacek]

It was, at least, a very probable target, no matter whether they investigated Taranto or not.

And it was not properly defended (too few patrol airplanes - repeatedly pointed out by Kimmel, also during the subsequent investigation, I believe).

Nor was the base alerted when HQ intercepted the Japanese message, afaik. I have read about something 15 hours between the intercept and the attack.
Is it true that Marshall used a commercial radio to alarm Pearl, without any urgency, instead of using a military channel? I am asking, not accusing.

I don´t doubt that the subject was up before, but I´m new here and would like to hear a qualified voice on this.

It looks like a setup to me. If so, why was FDR so keen on entering the war against 80% of population (last pre-war Gallup with a clear question yes/no to war was in July ´41. Several months earlier the % against was 95)?

[sapper740]

Originally posted by Jacek
It looks like a setup to me. If so, why was FDR so keen on entering the war against 80% of population (last pre-war Gallup with a clear question yes/no to war was in July ´41. Several months earlier the % against was 95)?

Why is it people need to affix culpability to those in power at the time of war through outlandish conspiracy theories? I've heard all the conspiracy theories regarding FDR and the beginning of WW II. Did FDR want to help save Great Britain from the Nazis? Absolutely yes! Would he have sacrificed American lives by not acting on good intelligence? Absolutely not! We all know the mistakes made immediately prior to Pearl Harbor by an isolatioist America, buts that all they were....mistakes!
Its the same misplaced, suspicious nature that has led to people accusing Pres. Bush of having prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks; and to accusing Pres. Clinton of deliberately delaying the launch of the Cruise missile that would have killed bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Question...why is it that only American presidents are accused of collusion in the great events of history? What about P.M. Chamberlain waving his "peace treaty" and declaring "Peace in our time!" immediately prior to the German attack on Poland? What about Von Ribbentrop's secret visit to London? What about the lack of air cover while Canadians were being slaughtered in Dieppe, or being sent to Hong Kong without a snowball's hope in Hell of stopping the I.J.A.? Conspiracies?...No!, just mistakes by politicians more interested in posturing and appeasing than taking decisive action.
Anyway, let's save this forum for the collecting and restoring of military history and not turn it into an Oliver Stone fan club!
I'll step down from my soap box now.

[Crewman]

Originally posted by sapper740
What about the lack of air cover while Canadians were being slaughtered in Dieppe,...

Though Dieppe raid was a kind of "friendly war crime" against the Canadians the air cover over misfortune assault troopers was not so poor. For instance, I would say that perhaps it was the most beautiful card of the Canadian-Polish wartime friendship. For the Polish Air Force fighter squadrons air cover in aid of the Operation Jubilee was the most intensive operations in WWII, a little more intensive even than during Normandy invasion.

Best regards

C.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by Crewman
Though Dieppe raid was a kind of "friendly war crime" against the Canadians the air cover over misfortune assault troopers was not so poor. For instance, I would say that perhaps it was the most beautiful card of the Canadian-Polish wartime friendship. For the Polish Air Force fighter squadrons air cover in aid of the Operation Jubilee was the most intensive operations in WWII, a little more intensive even than during Normandy invasion.

Best regards

C.

Strictly speaking, you're correct. However, the original plan called for both an aerial and naval bombardment of the port before the actual assault, but when the original RUTTER operation was scrubbed and lter reconstituted as JUBILEE, both were conspicuous by their absence.

For the record, I concur with Sapper's assessment of conspiracy theories. They breed like rabbits whenever something goes wrong.

[Crewman]

Originally posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball
For the record, I concur with Sapper's assessment of conspiracy theories. They breed like rabbits whenever something goes wrong.

Normal. The victory has great number of the "fathers", fiasco is an orphan :


Best regards

C.

[Jon Skagfeld]

Originally posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball
Strictly speaking, you're correct. However, the original plan called for both an aerial and naval bombardment of the port before the actual assault, but when the original RUTTER operation was scrubbed and lter reconstituted as JUBILEE, both were conspicuous by their absence.

For the record, I concur with Sapper's assessment of conspiracy theories. They breed like rabbits whenever something goes wrong.

Typo, Sunray?

Of course you meant RUTTER?

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by Jon Skagfeld
Typo, Sunray?

Of course you meant RUTTER?

Surely you jest, Pronto... that's what I typed.

[Jon Skagfeld]

Isn't it amazing what the Moderator's edit function can do?

Originally posted by sapper740
Why is it people need to affix culpability to those in power at the time of war through outlandish conspiracy theories?

Quite so.

What about P.M. Chamberlain waving his "peace treaty" and declaring "Peace in our time!" immediately prior to the German attack on Poland?

Neville Chamberlain comes in for a lot of flak about that but in fact was doing just what you can see happening in today's recent history, shuttle diplomacy as we now call it; go and talk to the agressive parties and try to avoid conflict by dialogue.

What about the lack of air cover while Canadians were being slaughtered in Dieppe,

We've been here before, the Dieppe raid was simply a one man, go it alone and get covered in glory, exercise. Lord Louis Mountbatten (formerly Battenburg) used a tenuous link to Churchill in order to enforce great secrecy with the excuse that he had been directly commanded by WC. Therefore Mountbatten's operation was kept from the Joint Chiefs and not only precluded any cross-service co-operation (air cover), but also then lacked any intelligence about the enemy disposition, or the beach topography.

Mountbatten himself was bomb-proof being of close royal connection although strong rumours abound that one senior officer did lay him out in the mess with a substantial punch in the gob when the truth came out after the fiasco.

Anyone else would have been court marshalled and probably jailed for such a devious skirting of official channels but LLM got away with it; not helped by a TV interview in the 60's when LLM stated; "I have never made a mistake in my life."

R.

[Jacek]

Conspiracies take place.

People with high intelligence and low morale have conspired against other people in the course of history. That is a fact. How come that newer history should be an exemption?

Shaking hands on people trying to find out why strange and consistent mistakes were/are being done, and pointing accusing fingers like "conspiracy theorists" is futile, self-misleading and may be even dangerous.

It is not the best discussion standard to criticize somebody for asking questions concerning some still mysterious and very portentous decisions and actions, by ascribing to him some other, obviously absurd "theories" which he has never uttered. Is it?
By closing our eyes to some uncomfortable facts which are glossed over in official history books or current media we are blinding ourselves.
IMO.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Gentlemen,

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you all that the primary focus of this forum is the friendly exchange of information and opinion related to the activities of the Canadian and Commonwealth armies of WW2.

While we all tolerate a certain degree of divergence on our topics, some topics such as this will be better served in other forums, Tanknet being one of them (I'm also one of their Administrators ).

With this in mind, and as well to keep things around here civil and in context, I am closing this topic and would kindly request that topics such as this be refrained from in future unless there is a direct bearing upon Canadian and Commonwealth military activities.

Thank you,

THE MANAGEMENT