Posted on 12/07/2009 7:25:33 AM PST by oblomov
Nope and still nope...
During the period that FDR ordered US Navy actions in the Atlantic which were acts of war by international law (e.g., convoying), several "incidents" somehow happened - say USS GREER, USS REUBEN JAMES, ... and FDR cried "Germany is the aggressor" ...
However, Stark, before the Congress, ... lets it slip that the US Navy fired first. FDR is not happy. No further action is taken by Congress ... they know a bit more of the character of FDR by then.
So ... moving on. Cannot Hitler to take the bait, FDR attempts for "incidents" are shown to be a fraud, ... so on even more, on 26Nov41 is said to US Pacific Fleet ... "This is a war warning. ... Allow Japan to take the first overt action ..." Or, make sure that the entire world cannot question who fired the first shot.
A minor point, but an important point, FDR (as well as Churchill) knew days before the Pearl Harbor attack,that Hilter would declare war on the US if the Japan started a war against the US.
So, 'ems are just some of my dots - you may connect them differently. Please have at it.
Oh, yes, Stark was a great supporter of "Europe First" ... but that is another path ("Stark: The Architect of Victory")
“where Vietnam had no resources worth fighting over”
The French were there because of the rubber trees. And we were there, to some degree, because the French had been, I think.
Not to change the subject, but I just read an interesting article on the LA Times that suggested that one of the midget-subs got her fish off and possibly sank the Oklahoma or hit the West Virginia. NOVA is apparently doing a program on it.
“I always wondered had he not declared war on the US, what would have happened.”
There’s no doubt. Once we were in we were in. They could have pointed to some American tourist who got stuck in Poland and didn’t even die but was moderately inconvenienced for justification. To be in the war was to be in the war. There would never have been a seperate war for Japan.
You could be right. I know the events leading up to the Spanish American War and the fakery related to Tonken Bay has demonstrated we seem to have a propensity to “make up” things to get us involved militarily. So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised if the same circumstances/thinking couldn’t exist in 1941. The Lusitania could have been a sucker punch too.
A. Yes, Wilson and his administration knew she was carrying contraband - making her a legitimate target in a declared war zone.
B. After a British underseas film crew released photographs of her cargo - yup, tons of munitions, the US government "found" the original manifest "behind an old file cabinet." - in 1975.
C. The British Admiralty still to this day has not released all of their SS LUSITANIA material.
D. Where were FDR and Churchill during the SS LUSITANIA sinking?
Finally, just a note ... research the "Zimmerman Telegraph" as the trigger for the US entry into WW I.
I’m not a “9/11 was an inside job” type of guy, but now I’m starting to wonder—given our track record.
This post of mine may take 5, 10, even 20 or more F5’s ( or refreshes ) to pull up, but it’s still here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b07b4310a74.htm
Pearl! Dec. 7, 1941- what really happened?
Culture/Society News
Source: various websites
Published: 5-20-01 Author: the heavy equipment guy
What a better world this would be today if a Taft had been elected in ‘14 or ‘40.
Hitler was fooled into declaring war on us.. From what I heard Japan promised Hitler they would invade the Soviet Union..
But they briefly occupied the Aleutian Islands...
No....
Right. I meant ‘12 or ‘40, Thanks!
Sure, I think we would have been involved in WWI no matter who was President, as for the later Taft he wanted to ignore the Soviet threat...
“Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.”
Japan was not attacked. Hitler could have refused to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, but chose to jump in anyway, ignoring not only his WWI experience of a two front war but taking on both the rest of Europe and the U.S. to boot.
Probably not, but my point is that there was no certainty. If it was just a matter of letting Pearl Harbor happen, why didn't FDR ask for a declaration of war against Germany on Dec. 8, instead of waiting until after Hitler's declaration on Dec. 11?
This could have been interpreted that Germany would render assistance as they had with Italy against Libya. Furthermore, what if Ribbentrop was speaking without authority? What if Hitler backed out?
I am not saying the idea that letting the Pearl Harbor attack go forward was not possible, simply that it would have been a gamble and no guarantee of war with Germany.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Never wondered how the Japanese didn't find any of the carriers at Pearl? Weird coincidence. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.