Nothing "new" has come out. Just the same old crackpot theories about Pearl Harbor that make no sense to anyone who can think straight.
Mike, I have said this over and over. As for it being a "sneak attack" well, since it was done BEFORE the Japanese had told America it had declared war, I think to most people that would qualify as a "sneak attack." But to an apologist for Tojo, like you, I am sure it means that America actually technically had "attacked" the Japanese fleet first by firing back at the planes on December 7. You just said that you admit that messages were sent to commanders that said that "war was imminent." Well, what more do you think FDR and the Pentagon should have done? They told the appropriate generals and admirals that they could expect war to start at any moment. Did you want FDR to go to Pearl Harbor, hold Kimmel's hand, and tell him to send out more planes and ships to look for the Japanese in case they might attack at any moment? They expected each respective admiral and general to make the appropriate plans to prepare for immediate war, and to take steps to prepare to be attacked. At Pearl Harbor, those commanders did NOT prepare adequately. End of story.
And furthermore folks, we apparently objected to Japan murdering Chinese and Koreans, along with Phillipinos and anyone else who objected to them taking over their coutries, by the bushel, because we were racially biased against Japanese? Yeah, right. So we opposed the Japanese naked aggression because we did not like slant-eyed Japanese.
Thank you, guys. What you've just posted, all of you, has been very informative. I'd like to read both of the books you guys talk about. Thanks Cotton and Mike!
On a final note, I read not too long ago that to this day, US Naval vessels do NOT operate on a 5 and 2 schedule where they are in port every weekend, whether it is peacetime or war. That is a result of the Pearl Harbor attack.
Is it actually possible that a liberal apologist such as yourself goes against the grain of liberal condemnation of Harry Truman's decision to end the war with Japan by wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Had it not been for the nuclear annihilation of those 2 cities it has been estimated that up to a million American and allied forces lives would have been sacrificed during an invasion of Japan. And any idiot who wants to claim that we used the ultimate weapon against the Asian people of Japan out of racial reasons might want to look at the history of the firebombing of Dresden. More white Aryan Germans of the "Master Race" were killed in Dresden using conventional weapons than the number of Japanese who lost their lives in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. A lot of us Baby Boomers might never have been born if our fathers would have lost their lives during an invasion of Japan. My own father served in the Navy aboard a destroyer in the Pacific theater and would have been involved in an invasion. I'm sure that a lot of you had fathers who also might have been a casualty of an invasion that Harry Truman prevented from happening by unleashing "The Big One."
CB, do you even bother to read an entire post? Or do you just take selected parts for your gratification and justification? In answer to your question about the A-bomb, which I knew would come up, there are two schools of thought as well. One is that it was the only way to get the Japanese to surrender and the other that it was unnecessary. I happen to believe it was a little of both. A very good book on this is "Downfall" by Richard B. Frank. Even though the Japanese had begun sending peace feelers through the Russians as early as Feb. 1943, the Allies rejected anything but Unconditional Surrender. The Japanese wanted to keep the Emperor in power but the Allies rejected it. They eventually got it anyway after I believe Cordell Hull suggested to Truman to let the Japanese people decide what kind of gov't. they wanted.. In his book, Frank talks about how the Japanese prepared for the invasion and that they were determined to resist, making the dropping of the A-bomb inevitable. There is also proof that Truman dropped it as a warning to the Russians, to help control Stalin. I don't know why it is so hard for people to accept that the leader of this country found himself in such a position so that he was left with no choice than but to engineer a way to get us into a war that needed to be fought and the American people did not want to get involved in. Does that mean he started the war? Of course not. Does that make me or anyone else an apologist for Tojo or Hitler? No. Is it wrong for me that somehow I point out that our allies behaved in much the same way our enemies did? I guess so , to some people. I guess these same people don't mind being misled and lied to about their gov't. Well I do. Politicians wonder why we distrust them. It is because of stuff like this and Watergate and the Iran Contra deal and so on ad nauseum. Maybe, just maybe, when the people we elect start trusting us enough to tell us the truth and stop putting their personal goals first, we just might begin to start trusting them. I forget the exact quote, but Hitler once said something to the effect of' It is good for us that the people are so stupid." You reckon that is why he sent the intellectuals to the concentration camps?
After you have read the books, come back and tellus what you think. You're welcome I assume the two books you are referring to are "At Dawn We Slept" and "Day of Deceit". It is important that you read "And I Was There" andd the follow up book to At Dawn--.
CB, if you care to do a little research on this subject, you'll find that even the Bugs Bunny Looney tunes cartoons during the war were racial in tone. But don't take my word for it, Use your brain and go to the library and do a little research.
