On October 7, 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memo to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the following scans). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.

The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. The public was told that it was a complete surprise, an "intelligence failure", and America entered World War Two.

This memo, which proves that the government of the United States desired to lure Japan into an attack, was declassified in 1994. It took fifty years for the truth about Pearl Harbor to be revealed.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/index.html

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
On October 7, 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memo to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the following scans).

So far, so good.


Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.

It doesn't say that in the memo, but ok. :D


The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan into attacking the United States.

It did nothing of the kind. It was a detailed and quite accurate assessment of the political and military situation in the Far East.


This memo, which proves that the government of the United States desired to lure Japan into an attack....

I read the memo 500...I didn't interpret the emphasized sentence in the memo the same way you, and the writers of that website, do...

While this does say that the US planned to enrage the Japanese into attacking us, there is nothing here that says that the US left all those boats out there on purpose and willfully ignored intelligence to force Japan's hand, which is what is implied when the phrase, "Pearl Harbor was allowed" is used as a topic title.

With the advent of the Freedom of Information Act it has become clearly apparent that FDR knowingly and willfully provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor in an attempt to get the United States into WWII.

Roosevelt had been ignoring the non-intervention act in Europe for years, actively sending aid to Great Britain. He did the same in the East when he had the United States government support Clarie Chenault and the Flying Tigers who fought against the Japanese in China. The United States also sent its entire B-17 production to Manila, a location that made it clear their future target would be the Japanese homeland. In addition, American Cruisers and Destroyers were deployed to sail in Japanese home waters.

If these provocations were not enough, Roosevelt insulted the Japanese by refusing to meet with Ambassador Konoye and instead meeting with Churchill in a calculated diplomatic slap in the face. Roosevelt also froze all Japanese assets in July of 1941, thereby making it impossible for them to purchase oil or medicines. It was known by the Japanese that Douglas McArthur had ordered 250 detailed maps of Tokyo and the surrounding area in preperation for a future attack.

The machinations of FDR were admitted when in April of 1945, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said, speaking of FDR, "While engaged in this series of complicated moves, he so skillfully conducted affaire as to avoid even the appearance of an act of aggression on our part."

FDR was both an Anglophile and a Sinophile and he knew that since 88% of the American people were against entering the war the only way he could get the country involved was to manipulate Japan into attacking.

Originally posted by Frogger
Rooseveldt had been ignoring...
Rooseveldt insulted the Japanese
Rooseveldt also froze all Japanese assets

Roosevelt, as in Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Roosevelt, as in Franklin Delano Roosevelt.


Thank you, Evakian.

I've always found it odd that none of our carriers were there that day--Dec 7. They were off on an exercise.
Whatever the true story is, a bunch of 17 and 18 year olds woke up and died that day.
Has anyone been to the USS Arizona memorial? It is quite impressive...oil still comes up from the water.

Whut you talkin' bout, Evakian? I don't see no Rooseveldt in my post.


I went back and edited it. Teddy Roosevelt originally spelled it Rooseveldt in the Dutch manner. FDR, his younger cousin, never did. Thanks for the correction.

Originally posted by rendova
Has anyone been to the USS Arizona memorial? It is quite impressive...oil still comes up from the water.

That damn US military polluting our oceans again!

Originally posted by rendova
I've always found it odd that none of our carriers were there that day--Dec 7. They were off on an exercise.


It would be more odd had it been the other way around. At the time, battleships were still considered the focus of the fleet.

Been there, rendova. I was most impressed by the respectful silence of the crowds. I was also surprised at the number of Japanese tourists who were there.

do you honestly think the 500lbguerillas of the world would have condoned the US attacking Japan to stop the attack on pearl harbor? LMAO, hell no!! Yet these dip shits come on here and say we allowed pearl harbor to happen, like they would have wanted us to preemptively attack Japan to stop it. I can see it now, the poor little Japanese fleet peacefully sailing in the pacific is wiped out by the aggressive US fleet. don't blow smoke up our ass guerilla, you are an America hater first and foremost, you will find the angle to attack from when all the smoke has cleared.

Originally posted by rendova
I've always found it odd that none of our carriers were there that day--Dec 7. They were off on an exercise.


There were three carriers in the Pacific Fleet at the time Pearl Harbor was attacked. The Saratoga was on the west coast undergoing overhaul. The Enterprise was delivering aircraft to Wake Island and had left Pearl Harbor on Nov.28th. The Lexington had been at Pearl Harbor until Dec. 5th when it sailed for Midway Island to deliver more aircraft.

Thank you Frogger, I will be able to sleep well now. :D

And to es--anytime. ;)

I've been to Hawaii 6 times, and to the Arizona 4.

I don’t know very much about if the U.S. planned to enrage the Japanese into attacking the U.S. but whether or not it was “planned”, it certainly wasn’t very surprising that the Japanese did attack considering that the U.S. had blockaded the Japanese from their import resources in South-East Asia. The U.S. was slowly strangling Japan and so a Japanese reprisal shouldn’t be criticized out-of-hand.

The fact that they attacked without first declaring war might be criticised, but then again the Japanese probably didn’t think they stood a chance against the U.S. in a standard “toe-to-toe” engagement.

The Americans broke the standard warfare rules themselves when they refused to wear uniforms against the British. Were they wrong? I don’t know. I suppose it depends upon how you look at it.

Originally posted by Catch 3


The Americans broke the standard warfare rules themselves when they refused to wear uniforms against the British.B]

It wasn't so much that the militia refused to wear proper uniforms, as they didn't have them to begin with. These soldiers were poor and self -equipped as well. They also frequently didn't have shoes--please see Valley Forge.

Unless you mean the Continentals?

we need to file a complaint with the UN against the Iraqi insurgents for not wearing uniforms. Maybe then the UN will come in and put the smack down and put an end to all this nonsense. why didnt we think of this earlier?

we need to file a complaint with the UN against the Iraqi insurgents for not wearing uniforms. Maybe then the UN will come in and put the smack down and put an end to all this nonsense. why didnt we think of this earlier?

Travh: *poking around forums*
Travh: "Hey, someone said uniforms!"
Travh: *checks posting handle*
Travh: "Liberal!!!" *proceeds to post off-topic garbage, thinking he's fighting the good fight for America*

whyt dont you read what the guy said masterbater, he wasnt makign some innocent comment, who knows, mayb eit was even enough to get you pissed

Nowhere did they say that breaking the traditional rules of engagement was wrong.

No matter your feelings for WW2 Japan, you have to admit they pulled off a brilliant strategy with a surprise attack against the US. Being that they were pretty evil at the time, I don't think it was too much of a mental leap at the time to think that they might attack without declaring war. I'm not quite sure what statement you are trying to make with the whole insurgents thing. Or do you think that they are complaining about American's not wearing uniforms? Are you defending the Iraqis here? Americans? Because nobody was attacking them, except the Brits. I'm going to stop short of insulting you here, because I honestly don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Originally posted by Catch 3
I don’t know very much about if the U.S. planned to enrage the Japanese into attacking the U.S. but whether or not it was “planned”, it certainly wasn’t very surprising that the Japanese did attack considering that the U.S. had blockaded the Japanese from their import resources in South-East Asia. The U.S. was slowly strangling Japan and so a Japanese reprisal shouldn’t be criticized out-of-hand. The embargo was a response to Japanese aggression in East Asia. They had occupied Manchuria in 1931, coastal China in 1937, and Indo-China in 1940. On November 26, 1941, Secretary of State Cordell Hull gave Japan the final U.S. offer: the embargo would be lifted when Japan withdrew from all occupied territories. The Japanese government chose the alternative of war.

As this decision was simply an extension of Japan's previous policy of aggression how is it 'out-of-hand' to criticize the attack on Pearl Harbor? Were previous acts of aggression justifiable as well?

Japan's occupation of Manchuria was a response to the Russian occupation of Mongolia. Russia was in a position to attack the Japanese home islands and Japan wanted to create a buffer zone.

The United States provocations went far beyond just asking them to stop aggression. Roosevelt wanted war and he manipulated events to get it.

Originally posted by Frogger
Japan's occupation of Manchuria was a response to the Russian occupation of Mongolia. Russia was in a position to attack the Japanese home islands and Japan wanted to create a buffer zone.Frogger, in 1931 the Soviet Union was in no condition to threaten Japan. With what, their Navy? It would have been Tsushima all over again. And have you ever measured the distance from Mongolia to Japan? The Japanese invaded Manchuria for raw materials, natural resources, markets, and land. I'm surprised that you, of all people, would defend Japanese imperialism.

Roosevelt wanted war and he manipulated events to get it. There is no question that Roosevelt wanted the U.S. in the war. There is also no question that the government of Japan brought us into the war by attacking Pearl Harbor. They were not forced to do so.

there is no way japan attacked manchuria because stalin moved into mongolia. Japan wnated resources and manpower from China, so they took it as part of the co prosperity sphere or whatever the hell they called it

I've been to the USS Arizona Memorial. Very amazing thing to go see. I felt something when I was on it. Very impacting. The oil was amazing as well.

As for this thread, I think that whatever helped the United States (IE: get our population motivated) and involved in the war in Europe was done for the greater good of the world community.

Originally posted by rendova
It wasn't so much that the militia refused to wear proper uniforms, as they didn't have them to begin with. These soldiers were poor and self -equipped as well.
You're probably right.

Originally posted by Travh20
we need to file a complaint with the UN against the Iraqi insurgents for not wearing uniforms.
Regular soldiers did wear uniforms - but it's no longer a conventional war anyway and I doubt that any international body of advisors would impose such rules on a people who are protecting their own country against an illegal army of invaders.

Originally posted by sedan
As this decision was simply an extension of Japan's previous policy of aggression how is it 'out-of-hand' to criticize the attack on Pearl Harbor? Were previous acts of aggression justifiable as well?
Frogger states it well enough.

I do agree with you that "previous acts of aggression" should not be ignored but then we'll be here all day long on who struck the first aggressive act and we'll probably get nowhere and end up blaming it on Eve and that damned apple.

In any case, it is fair to say that a small island state such as Japan has always been dependant upon its' import possibilities or it will perish before very long. The U.S. on the other hand, could always get by without the equivalent import necessities and it is, therefore, more difficult for an average American citizen to appreciate Japan's precarious position, though American rulers knew exactly what was at stake for Japan and the U.S. used that knowledge as leverage against the Japanese in order to boost its' American import.

What you've written about Japan's previous aggression is too true, of course. Japan has had a history of treachery that is sometimes unparalleled, although I'm just not certain it has to do with the thread. But maybe you can convince me.

Originally posted by Catch 3
Japan has had a history of treachery that is sometimes unparalleled, although I'm just not certain it has to do with the thread. But maybe you can convince me. I think the point of departure came when you compared Pearl Harbor to the American Revolution. And yes, you are right about Eve and the apple; U.S. occupation of the Philippines comes to mind.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sedan
[B]I think the point of departure came when you compared Pearl Harbor to the American Revolution.

Yes, both were "shots heard round the world.":)

Originally posted by Catch 3
You're probably right.

Of COURSE I'm right!
I was THERE!!

Actually, I have 7 6x grandpas who fought in this thing. Most were militia, 2 Continental. These guys were cool. I love reading about them, what they went through. They really did leave bloody footprints in the snow at Valley Forge.

"Ready to ride and sound the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm
For the country folk to be up and to arm..."

As for this thread, I think that whatever helped the United States (IE: get our population motivated) and involved in the war in Europe was done for the greater good of the world community. So you are argueing that the ends justify the means...But not only that, you argue in favor of allowing unsuspecting soldiers to be slaughtered as a propaganda tool rather then the president taking political heat for what may have been an unpopular decision. Maybe you want to rethink that...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
So you are argueing that the ends justify the means...But not only that, you argue in favor of allowing unsuspecting soldiers to be slaughtered as a propaganda tool rather then the president taking political heat for what may have been an unpopular decision. Maybe you want to rethink that...
That's exactly what I meant, actually. Thanks for typing it out again.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
So you are argueing that the ends justify the means...But not only that, you argue in favor of allowing unsuspecting soldiers to be slaughtered as a propaganda tool rather then the president taking political heat for what may have been an unpopular decision. Maybe you want to rethink that...

So let's say that FDR did know about the impending Japanese attack, or practiced some measure of coercement to get the japanese into war. With the strike of the imperial fleet at Pearl Harbor, the US had reason to go to war, and a good convincing reason for those Americans that didn't want to. Our economy, having suffered the crushing blows felt by the Great Depression, was jumpstarted, troops deployed around the globe to aid in the effort. China, The Phillipines, the Rhineland, Great Britain and France, pockets of Africa, and other places around Europe and Asia were all being tormented by the Axis powers...crimes perpetrated at places such as Dachau, Auschwitz, and Nanking. We came to the world's aid, and turned the tide of the war against the Nazi and Italian regimes, and Japanese imperialists also. The war process was accelerated so that much suffering could be ceased and many lives could be stopped from a gruesome fate. It also led to a great deal of diplomatic influence around the globe after war, and we've still great allies out of Germany, Italy, and Japan...all three of which are now members of the G7. And led us into a prosperous next decade and a half of growth and expansion---"the baby boom" falls into that category.
I do not mean to justify the supposed actions of FDR...there are certainly other ways to have acted that would have been less drastic, different modes of operation that weren't so clandestine and betraying, but the trigger of Pearl Harbor was beyond enormous...it changed the world in many, many ways for the next century and we are still feeling the aftershocks it has caused. As Overdose mentioned earlier it would have "been for the greater good for the world community", so i do not see these actions, whatever their immoral status, as fully incorrect and worthy of total villainization.

Those who argue that FDR was right in lying and manipulating public opinion to get us into World War II are often the same people who argue that GWB is wrong because he lied and manipulated to get us into Iraq. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in their thinking.

Originally posted by sedan
I think the point of departure came when you compared Pearl Harbor to the American Revolution. And yes, you are right about Eve and the apple; U.S. occupation of the Philippines comes to mind.
I didn't compare Pearl Harbour to the American Revolution: I compared breaking the rules of engagment - the Japanese versus the Americans.

.... but while on the subject of Adam and Eve - I suppose that the snake/devil is represented by the CIA, the apple represented by the Iraqi oil fields, Eve is represented by George Dub-ya and Adam is represented by the poor, common, American soldier. Yep, that's just about right too, Saddam had nothing to do with it.

Of course, WMD's were the red herrings but that's another fable which we'll get to next time, children

Originally posted by rendova
Of COURSE I'm right!
I was THERE!!

Actually, I have 7 6x grandpas who fought in this thing. Most were militia, 2 Continental. These guys were cool. I love reading about them, what they went through. They really did leave bloody footprints in the snow at Valley Forge.

"Ready to ride and sound the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm
For the country folk to be up and to arm..."

Well ........... "A vivid imagination, you surely have,
If I didn't know you, I'd say you were mad,
With mem'rys like that, you must be in clover,
But if you were "there", then I was at Dover!"

Originally posted by Frogger
Those who argue that FDR was right in lying and manipulating public opinion to get us into World War II are often the same people who argue that GWB is wrong because he lied and manipulated to get us into Iraq. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in their thinking.
One difference. Iraq wasn't a threat. Nazi Germany was. Big difference. Thanks, though.

Originally posted by Frogger
Those who argue that FDR was right in lying and manipulating public opinion to get us into World War II are often the same people who argue that GWB is wrong because he lied and manipulated to get us into Iraq. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in their thinking.

I doubt that if it was irrefutably proven that he "lied" and "manipulated public opinion" (thorough evidence cited please?), that those would still be considered morally correct actions. If you think I am being an apologist for wrongdoings because they had positive results, you'd be mistaken.
Also, Imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany were grave threats to many countries security, particularly our allies at the time. They were perhaps not direct threats to us, but for us to sit idly as the conflict raged would be beyond the greatest shame.

Originally posted by Frogger
Those who argue that FDR was right in lying and manipulating public opinion to get us into World War II are often the same people who argue that GWB is wrong because he lied and manipulated to get us into Iraq. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in their thinking. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this. Is it OK if Roosevelt and Bush lied? If not, do you think Roosevelt should have been impeached? Should Bush be impeached if it is proven he has lied?

Sedan

I am a member of the camp that says we should never have invaded Iraq but now that we are there we must stay and finish the job.



I am not a member of the camp that runs around saying impeach and convict the president. Presidents twist and manipulate facts in order to lead the country in the direction they wish it to go. Thgis is not something peculiar to FDR and Bush the Younger. Kennedy did it, Lyndon Johnson did it, Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt did it. Hell, if you check closely enough I'll bet every president did it.

It is a fact of political life that most elections in the U.S. are won by either a plurality or a very small majority. Whichever party occuupies the White House their is a sizable minority who wishes it wasn't there. In order to get what they think is the best thing for the country presidents often shade the truth. This may not be the ideal way of things but it is reality.

Roosevelt wanted the U.S. to enter WWII. He wanted it for a couple of reasons. He wanted it because he was an anglophile who was afraid England would be defeated. He wanted it because he liked the Chinese and disliked the Japanese, a people he viewed as competitors for spheres of influence. He wanted it because it was the only way he could see to get us out of the depression. He wanted it because he was wheelchair bound and being a wartime president would give him an aura of manliness.

Bush wanted us in Iraq because he felt it was the next logical step in his war on terrorism. He wanted us in Iraq because he felt the job hadn't been finished the first time around. He wanted us in Iraq to avenge his father. He wanted us in Iraq because he felt insulted by Hussein's constant thumbing of his nose at us.

I think both presidents distorted facts and manipulated events in an attempt to sway the American people. I don't think either of them deserved impeachment.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frogger
[B]Sedan





I am not a member of the camp that runs around saying impeach and convict the president. Presidents twist and manipulate facts in order to lead the country in the direction they wish it to go. Thgis is not something peculiar to FDR and Bush the Younger. Kennedy did it, Lyndon Johnson did it, Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt did it. Hell, if you check closely enough I'll bet every president did it.


Abraham Lincoln certainly did it.

In FDR's time, the world didn't need the Hitlers, Tojos and the other Axis stars any more than the world needs their 'reincarnation' in the fanatics of the Middle East voices of this time. FDR certainly pushed us into WWII, thereby taking the fight to the enemy, much the same as we're having to do now.

Frogger

Thank you for your clear reply.

Here is an FDR quote from Richard Overy's Why the Allies Won p. 262: "'I am a juggler,' he told a group of businessmen in 1941, 'and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does ... I am quite happy to mislead and to tell untruths if it will help to win the war.'" My first thought when I read this was 'NO WAY could a President say this today and survive politically'. But then I looked again and wondered 'Why would he say something like this in the first place, and in such a casual off-hand way?'

FDR is noted for his personal charm, often described as 'disarming'. In this instance he is actually making light of his dishonesty by being honest about it. Very clever: all the teflon of Reagan and the viscosity of Clinton put together in one package.

Where Nixon failed and Bush is failing is precisely this: being dishonest anent their dishonesty.

Those who argue that FDR was right in lying and manipulating public opinion to get us into World War II are often the same people who argue that GWB is wrong because he lied and manipulated to get us into Iraq. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in their thinking. Theres a vast difference between mutual defense and wars of agression. But hay if you want to try and compare the two...

"Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
--Hitler

OD - no what I wrote was distinctly different (from what I got) you think its OK for the president to sacrifice soldiers for PR I do not. I think the mutaul defense is justified. I think the US had enough reasons to go to war without Pearl Harbor. The difference is that FDR did too, he just didn't want his approval to slip and offered up a bunch of stiffs in uniforms to ensure it.

am not a member of the camp that runs around saying impeach and convict the president. Presidents twist and manipulate facts in order to lead the country in the direction they wish it to go. Thgis is not something peculiar to FDR and Bush the Younger. Kennedy did it, Lyndon Johnson did it, Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt did it. Hell, if you check closely enough I'll bet every president did it. Ahhh...I'm glad you admit that demockracys a joke and we have nothing but a series of dictatorships with better PR.

I am a member of the camp that says we should never have invaded Iraq but now that we are there we must stay and finish the job. and finishing entails? How long is acceptable?