The Truth About Pearl Harbor: A Debate [Did FDR know about Japan's plans in advance?]

“What do you mean ‘the spectre of Germany that absolutely wanted to finish the job’?”

I mean the spectre of a Germany that wouldn’t settle for winning a war of national independence or obtaining regional dominance. Rather, a Germany bent on dominating all of continental Europe. Which might seem like paranoia, if Germany had not TWICE started what we call “world wars” to achieve that end.

“The leaders of the ‘partial’ united Germany thatresulted from frances war in the 1870’s actually were hesitant and feared taking back the German areas from france.”

Granted, it took some time. 40 years of building up colonies, battleships, alliances, guns, and bombs. But come 1914, they weren’t afraid anymore. I call it “biding their time”.

“Do you really believe that they wanted gay Parie?”

Yes, I do. That’s why they invaded France.

Might I assume the other is LBJ and JFK? Have you any of that little thing called “evidence” that no one’s ever found concerning his guilt?

It's not November so I'm not going to argue too much about this but:

The House Committee on Assassinations found at least four shots and therefore a conspiracy. Here's four we have evidence for:

1. Bullet into the back of JFK
2. Bullet into the curb under triple underpass
3. Bullet to the trim of the limo
4. Bullet into JFK's head.

That rules out Oswald.

There were more bullets than that but those four we can definitely see evidence of.

LBJ's close aquaintances have come out in the last few years and verified it was LBJ's men that did it with cover from the CIA and FBI. It was for the Dominoe Effect theory regarding Vietnam.

"A. Wilson's administration knew at the time of her sailing that she had tons of munitions, aka contraband. That made her a legitimate target in a war zone."

Let's deal with this part first: Germans did officially provide fair warnings to passengers on the Lusatania:

"NOTICE!
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, D.C. 22nd April 1915"

Second, what was the "contraband"?
Answer: some small arms ammunition, but this was not why Germans sank the Lusatania.

"She had aboard 4,200 cases of cartridges, but they were cartridges for small arms, packed in separate cases... they certainly do not come under the classification of ammunition. The United States authorities would not permit us to carry ammunition, classified as such by the military authorities, on a passenger liner. For years we have been sending small-arms cartridges abroad on the Lusitania.
—New York Times, 10 May 1915[36]"

The reason for sinking the Lusatania, according to the German government was:

"The following day the German government issued an official communication regarding the sinking in which it said that the Cunard liner Lusitania "was yesterday torpedoed by a German submarine and sank", that the Lusitania "was naturally armed with guns, as were recently most of the English mercantile steamers" and that "as is well known here, she had large quantities of war material in her cargo".

These charges were immediately denied:

"Dudley Field Malone, Collector of the Port of New York, issued an official denial to the German charges, saying that the Lusitania had been inspected before her departure and no guns were found, mounted or unmounted.
Malone stated that no merchant ship would have been allowed to arm itself in the Port and leave the harbor.
Assistant Manager of the Cunard Line, Herman Winter, denied the charge that she carried munitions:"

And what has been found in recent dives?

"A dive team from Cork Sub Aqua Club, diving under license, discovered 15,000 rounds of the .303 (7.7×56mmR) caliber rifle ammunition transported on the Lusitania in boxes in the bow section of the ship.
The find was photographed but left in situ under the terms of the license.[68]
In December 2008, Gregg Bemis discovered a further four million rounds of .303 ammunition and announced plans to commission further dives in 2009 for a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck."

So, what exactly was it that "Wilson's administration knew at the time"?

"I bought Fronkinds “The Peace To End All Peace” about twenty years ago"

I have read and have that book here, along with:

Margaret MacMillan's c2001 "Paris 1919 -- Six Months that Changed the World"

and Christopher Catherwood's c2004 "Churchill's Folly -- How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq"

Here's the important point: all of these books are highly critical of US, British and French diplomacy at the end of the First World War -- and with some justification.

However, and it's a big however: the REAL reason, the core reason that Versailles did not produce a more peaceful Germany was NOT because of it's supposedly "harsh terms."
The real reasons were because Germans in their hearts and souls did NOT believe that:

Germany had started the Great War. The truth is, Germany DID start the war, but no German believed it. and
Germany had LOST the war. The truth is, Germany had been utterly defeated, but again, no German believed it.

For an utterly DEFEATED nation, the Versailles treaty was more than fair and just -- and this is proved beyond any possibility of doubt by the very peace terms GERMANY imposed on nations it had defeated, such as Belgium and Russia.

But Germans did not think they had started the war, did not think they had been defeated, and they were mad as h*ll about it. What it all proves is the unlimited power of a really Big Lie.

“The House Committee on Assassinations found at least four shots and therefore a conspiracy.”

They reached their conclusion based on an audio recording of four “BANG”’s, but that evidence has been so thoroughly discredited that even most respectable (and I use that term loosely) conspiracy theorists have abandoned it.

“That rules out Oswald.”

Even if your four points prove four bullets—and that all depends on the dubious “bullet to the trim of the limo” point—it wouldn’t mean Oswald was ruled out. He still could have made the fatal shot(s).

“There were more bullets than that but those four we can definitely see evidence of.”

I wonder why you insist there are more bullets if these are the only ones for which we (supposedly) have evidence. Oh, but you referred to “definite” evidence. What is the indefinite evidence for other bullets? Do tell.

“LBJ’s close aquaintances have come out in the last few years and verified it was LBJ’s men that did it with cover from the CIA and FBI.”

Oh, I see. Confess on their deathbeds, did they?

“It was for the Dominoe Effect theory regarding Vietnam.”

Why do you think LBJ believed in it any more than the hawkish Kenned?

“and
•Germany had LOST the war. The truth is, Germany had been utterly defeated, but again, no German believed it.”

They had good reason to believe so, since the allies decided not to invade. Rightly so, in my opinion. No need to carry on death and destruction when the enemy is ready to surrender. However, even if those who surrendered knew they lost, it doesn’t follow that it felt like a loss to the German people. How could we lose, they’d think, if we laid waste to France and Russia all those years while no foreigner touched our soil? Nonsense!

Come to think of it, does it really feel like we lost the Vietnam War? I know we did, intellectually. But in my gut I know that aside from the 57,000 or whatever people who died, the lost prestige, and all the money wasted, we didn’t lose much. Relatively speaking. That is to say, it wasn’t like what happened to Germany and Japan in the recent past. That’s what losing a war is supposed to look like. earth is salted, your women raped, etc.

Ours was a limited war with limited aims. North Vietnam had no way to hurt us except insofar as we sent people over into harm’s way. Normally, you don’t get to go on as if nothing happened. Germany was in one of those kind of wars, or so it thought. They had reparations to pay in the end, of course, and ended up foolishly wrecking its economy over them. But in 1918 their national monuments weren’t demolished. Their leaders weren’t hung. How easy it was to pretend as if their loss somehow wasn’t real. Because in many ways, it wasn’t.

"... But how to conceal that war? On January 21, 1940, Roosevelt spoke with Edwin 'Pa' Watson - tall, bluff, overweight, and a general from Alabama, Watson was one of the White House secretaries - asking to see a packet that, in 1915, President Woodrow Wilson had ordered concealed in the archives of the Treasury Department. The packet contained the bill of lading, undoctored, of the British ship Lusitania, sunk by a German submarine off the coast of Ireland. When the British published the bill of lading, it contained only civilian goods; the original, however, as Wilson knew, listed contraband. Watson sent F. D. R. the document along with the following ...

Roosevelt had the original - a carbon copy actually, since the true original had gone down with the ship - bound in a leather case. Roosevelt was studying how a previous president, his mentor, had covered over his own route to war." A Time for War: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Path to Pearl Harbor, Robert Smith Thompson, Prentice-Hall Press, New York, NY, 1991, page 198.

" ... 4,200 cases of small-caliber rifle ammunition (amounting to 10-1/2 tons of explsoives), 1248 cases of shrapnel shells and 18 cases of fuses. ... was carrying even more munitions than this, that the ammunition in reality totaled six million rounds, and the 323 bales listed as raw furs were in fact a volatile type of gun cotton that exploded when brought into contact with water." American Heritage 'Seafarers Series' 'The U_Boats', Douglas Botting, editor, 1979, page 26.

Yup, the Imperial German Embassy, placed a NOTICE! "TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Altantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; ..." This warning in fact appeared in the New York newspapers adjacent to the shipping schedule for CUNARD liners from May 1st to June 4th.

So ... the Wilson's administration knew at the time ... was her was carrying contraband.

"Please consider adding Timothy Wilford's Pearl Harbor Redefined to your list of Stinnett and Victor.

Thanks for your suggestion. I see that Victor lists Wilford's book in his bibliography, though did not notice any specific references to it in Victor's notes.

Stinnett's book is copyright 2000, Wilford's 2001, so there could be no direct link from Stinnett. I should mention that Stinnett's book includes over 120 pages of references and copies of original documents, so for anyone who really wants to get down into the nuts and bolts of this, Stinnett's book might be a good place to start.

Finally, Wilford's book is a bit on the pricey side -- $35 -- so I think before spending that much, I'd want to devote more time to learning as much as possible from Stinnett & Victor. They both have much more to say than I have yet committed to memory. ;-)

"How easy it was to pretend as if their loss somehow wasn’t real. Because in many ways, it wasn’t."

Thanks for a great post -- well said!

I would only quibble, if that's the right word, with your analysis of our defeat in Vietnam. I'd say it was a real defeat and had real consequences that we suffer from to this day. Indeed, we may not yet have seen the worst of it.

How so, you ask?

Oh, how quickly we forget... First of all, Vietnam was only tangentially about the Viet Cong, the NVA, Ho Chi Mihn and all that. That was just the military battle, which Americans had finally won, by the early 1970s.

But what Vietnam was primarily about was the political war: radical leftist Democrats declaring war against America and winning!

Vietnam was lost to America when our radicals took over Congress and cut off all funding to support the South Vietnamese. Well, duh! With unlimited support from Russia and China, the NVA soon mounted a conventional invasion -- with tanks and all -- which overran the South.

And what were the consequences? Well aside from millions who died or fled the countries, there were revolutionary outbreaks in many other countries of the third world.

More importantly, Americans in our disgust next elected Jimma Carter the Elder (we now have Jimma Carter the Younger), as our Apologizer In Chief, and he spent four years on his knees apologizing to every two-bit tin-horn dictator he could find -- i.e., in Panama.

But arguably Carter's most important apology went to the mullahs & ayatollahs of Iran, and that brought down the Shah. And soon we will be facing the nuclear weapons that are ayatollahs' natural response to Carter's apologies.

So, just as we continue to benefit today from the courage and leadership of America's "greatest generation," we will continue to pay and pay for our defeat in Vietnam.

One more point:

"They had good reason to believe so, since the allies decided not to invade. Rightly so, in my opinion."

I'm sure you know there were voices at the time which warned direly against letting the Germans off the hook too easily. Among Americans the most notable was General John J Pershing, who (iirc) predicted in 1918 that unless the allies marched all the way to Berlin, the Germans would come back for round-two in twenty years. He was only off by a few months.

"So ... the Wilson's administration knew at the time ... was her was carrying contraband. "

A few points:

First, the definition of "contraband." The fact that small arms ammunition was carried on the Lusatania was not denied at the time. It was only denied that this constituted "contraband."

Second, the Germans in their official statement on why the Lusatania was sunk did not mention anything specific except that she was "armed with guns" (that was untrue) and "had large quantities of war material in her cargo" which could only refer to the small arms ammunition.

Third, nothing has been found in the wreck of the Lusatania which would add to that list of "contraband" small arms ammunition.

Finally, since the Germans very publicly warned the ship and its passengers before they sailed, I'm not sure how it matters what the Lusatania was actually carrying, or whether that met some strict definition of "contraband."

The bottom line is: Germans did not win friends or influence people in America by sinking ships with American passengers.

“Among Americans the most notable was General John J Pershing, who (iirc) predicted in 1918 that unless the allies marched all the way to Berlin, the Germans would come back for round-two in twenty years.”

Yes, but how many predictions do people make that never pan out? Pershing, I doubt, could have anticipated why Germany would live to fight another day. There was the “stab in the back” thing, yeah. But moreso, it was the depression, brought on by France’s aggression and Germany’s stupidity. Then there was the insane ideologue dictator thing, brought on by the depression among other things.

There was a way to set Germany on the right path, and it didn’t involve killing thousands more of their citizens. That was to encourage their economy. Treat them like a friend. Like we later treated West Germnay. Help them grow their exports, which truly was the only way for them to pay their reparations (if they ever were going to pay them). No inflation, no depression, no political turmoil and leadership weakness, and there’s nothing for Nazis to exploit. Who cares about who stabbed who in the back when times are good?

Of course, all this depends on world leaderes knowing how to act, and they don’t. They would screw up their economies roughly as bad as Germany’s in short order. All I’ll say is that even if invasion was the only way to put down Germany’s bellicosity, you can always invade in 1938 anyway.

Like I said it's not November and I'm not going to waste my time with a "cover your ears and eyes" type out of season arguing every specific detail. People that believe their government no matter what see nothing anomalous about the events surrounding Kennedy's death, if they've even looked at them. Those of us that are more sceptical about those that seek ultmate power can see the cover-up, and from there can see what a scoundrel Johnson was and then see evidence of his earlier murders, especially of Marshall. We know that Oswald coundn't make those shots, and that all the funny business in Dallas pre-assassination adds to conspiracy.

Being a crossfire situation with at least four shooters there were probably more than four shots. Look up Jim Braden. He was arrested in the Dal-Tex building.

Oh, I see. Confess on their deathbeds, did they?

You don't know of McClellan?

Why do you think LBJ believed in it any more than the hawkish Kenned?

Johnson's first act was to escalate Vietnam. You don't know much about this stuff do you? It amuses me when people criticize others on subjects in which they know next to nothing about.

Your bottom line is not my bottom line.

Shrapnel shells are not small-bore rounds, for example.

That the Wilson administration concealed their knowledge of the specifics of her war materiel cargo is unquestionable - the term of art then - contraband.

That that denial persisted for over a half-century is clear. Only actions external to the US government's position caused the truth to the revealed.

The parallels with Pearl Harbor, some 68 years on, are there as Hoehling, Farago, Stinnett, Wilford, Willey, Victor. ... , etc., and repeated denials of pointed FOIA requests show.

And, to add, Wilson "did not win friends" in Britain when he did not act to have a declaration war against Germany in 1915. More on that path perhaps when the remaining Admiralty files on the SS LUSITANIA are released?

And, finally, FDR recall did not pursue a declaration of war having several "incidents" in the Atlantic either. Did Stark talk too much?

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.