The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

[SpringHallConvert]

Please. Hitler merely declaring war was enough to get people to support completely destroying him. But somehow the Japanese actually trying, but failing, to attack Pearl Harbor wouldn't be. Yeah right.

Right. People supported destroying Hitler, historically speaking, because the Japanese had just succeeded in attacking Pearl Harbor, and Hitler was allied with the Japanese. If the Pearl Harbor attack had been spoiled in advance, then there would have been no galvanizing event to inspire the American people to support another long, grueling foreign war, as the American people were overwhelmingly isolationist at the time. Roosevelt was primarily re-elected by promising to keep the United States out of WW2.

Sorry, try again.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

No, I meant exactly what I said. The history of naval warfare disagrees with you. Hell, the history of any kind of warfare disagrees with you, as do basic frigging tactics. More things you have zero knowledge in.

Prove it. Make an argument (we both know you can't).

Humor me anyway with your "debunker" knowledge.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

That's exactly your "logic" leads. You can't even make an argument to as why I am wrong.

Sure I can.

You say: The history of Pearl Harbor is X.

I say: The history of Pearl Harbor is y.

You say: I don't need to prove x, but you need to prove y.

I say: Why do I have to prove y when you haven't proven x?

You say: Uh, just because, uh, the burden of proof is on you, but not me!

I say: Why is that? Why do you hold yourself to a different standard?

You say: Uh, just because, huh, the burden of proof is never on me, only on you!

I say: Ha, ha, ha! You fail!

 

[The Dark Lord]

Right. People supported destroying Hitler, historically speaking, because the Japanese had just succeeded in attacking Pearl Harbor, and Hitler was allied with the Japanese. If the Pearl Harbor attack had been spoiled in advance, then there would have been no galvanizing event to inspire the American people to support another long, grueling foreign war, as the American people were overwhelmingly isolationist at the time. Roosevelt was primarily re-elected by promising to keep the United States out of WW2.

Sorry, try again.

If your "theory" was correct, they would have declared war on Hitler the same day as they did on Japan. Instead it was Hitler that first declared war.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

If your "theory" was correct, they would have declared war on Hitler the same day as they did on Japan.

Why is that? Why would the United States declare war on Germany the exact same day as Japan? Germany didn't mount the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan did.

Instead it was Hitler that first declared war.

So?

My theory is still correct. At least until you can construct a reasonable argument against it, because this certainly wasn't one.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Sure I can.

You say: The history of Pearl Harbor is X.

I say: The history of Pearl Harbor is y.

You say: I don't need to prove x, but you need to prove y.

I say: Why do I have to prove y when you haven't proven x?

You say: Uh, just because, uh, the burden of proof is on you, but not me!

I say: Why is that? Why do you hold yourself to a different standard?

You say: Uh, just because, huh, the burden of proof is never on me, only on you!

I say: Ha, ha, ha! You fail!

Of course, you ignore the part where the accepted version has evidence and has thus met any reasonable burden of proof and if you want to refute it you need to show evidence that the accepted version is wrong and that you completely fail to do so.

I notice you didn't even attempt to refute how any defendant could get acquitted if your "logic" was valid.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Why is that? Why would the United States declare war on Germany the exact same day as Japan?

They would have if Pearl Harbor was enough to go to war with Germany.

Germany didn't mount the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan did.

Exactly my point. Somehow you think that Japan attacking the US was enough to get the US to go to war with Germany even though you don't think that Japan attacking the US would have been enough to go to war with Japan unless the proper amount of damage was done.

So?

So Hitler declaring war is what got us into war with Germany.

My theory is still correct. At least until you can construct a reasonable argument against it, because this certainly wasn't one.

You don't know what reasonable means.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Of course, you ignore the part where the accepted version has evidence...

Not really.

What evidence do you have that shows that the government was truly surprised on December 7, 1941? Where's your proof of this? I know the government says that they were surprised, but that doesn't mean they really were.

Are you going to solve this dilemma by supplying the necessary evidence, or are you going to keep trying to shift the burden of proof onto me?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

They would have if Pearl Harbor was enough to go to war with Germany.

Why? Based on what?

Exactly my point. Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was not enough to go to war with Germany. But somehow Japan actually committing an act of war would not be enough to go to war with Japan unless the proper amount of damage was done.

Now you're not making any sense.

So Hitler declaring war is what got us into war with Germany.

No, not really. Technically speaking, our government was already waging war against Germany in the Atlantic.

 

[tsig]

Sure I can.

You say: The history of Pearl Harbor is X.

I say: The history of Pearl Harbor is y.

You say: I don't need to prove x, but you need to prove y.

I say: Why do I have to prove y when you haven't proven x?

You say: Uh, just because, uh, the burden of proof is on you, but not me!

I say: Why is that? Why do you hold yourself to a different standard?

You say: Uh, just because, huh, the burden of proof is never on me, only on you!

I say: Ha, ha, ha! You fail!

So reality is a he said/she said game?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

So reality is a he said/she said game?

Why, is that all you got from that?

 

[The Dark Lord]

Not really.

What evidence do you have that shows that the government was truly surprised on December 7, 1941? Where's your proof of this? I know the government says that they were surprised, but that doesn't mean they really were.

Are you going to solve this dilemma by supplying the necessary evidence, or are you going to keep trying to shift the burden of proof onto me?

Read the inquiries in you want to learn about the evidence. Unless you can refute them, they stand. You vague insinuations that they might be lying is not a refutation.

I notice you still haven't addressed that your "logic" would lead to nobody ever being convicted of a crime.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Why? Based on what?

It is your theory that they let Pearl Harbor happen so they could go to war with the Axis including Germany. So it only follows that after they let it happen that's what they would do.

Now you're not making any sense.

I cleared up my wording before you responded.

No, not really. Technically speaking, our government was already waging war against Germany in the Atlantic.

So was Pearl Harbor necessary or not.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. John Beardall, Jr. was indeed aboard the Raleigh, but he survived both the attack and the war. However, this is a point I've brought up before. If FDR knew the attack was coming, then Captain [edit: later Rear Admiral] Beardall knew the attack was coming, because he was the one who provided FDR with Magic intercepts. So why didn't Beardall Sr. warn his son to get a weekend pass (as so many others did) or just arrange to have him transferred elsewhere?

Yeah, my bad. He could have been killed. The idea that FDR and Co. would casually kill over two thousand Americans to get into a war in the Pacific that MIGHT get them into a war in Europe, and establish a drain on resources needed to fight that European war, by starting off with a defeat when a win or draw was quite possible is the most absurd thing about this mythology.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How does this scenario make any sense? If the United States had laid a trap for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and sprung it before the Japanese could mount their strike, then the cream of the Japanese Imperial Navy would have been in total ruins and the war would have been effectively over before it even started. Had this occurred instead of the "surprise" attack at Pearl Harbor, it's very unlikely that the American people would have supported a total war policy against Japan and the other Axis powers.

You can back up that "very unlikely" with evidence, of course. No? I didn't think so.

Roosevelt had to have his Pearl Harbor event to justify full American entry into that war. Nothing less than an "unprovoked, surprise attack" and a few burning battleships would have sufficed to accomplish that.

Start a war with a defeat and have people like you harping at him 70 years later. OR start with a victory and be even more of a hero. I know some people would call for the defeat, but not the sane ones.

You are utterly unprepared to argue your side of this.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Yeah, my bad. He could have been killed. The idea that FDR and Co. would casually kill over two thousand Americans to get into a war in the Pacific that MIGHT get them into a war in Europe, and establish a drain on resources needed to fight that European war, by starting off with a defeat when a win or draw was quite possible is the most absurd thing about this mythology.

Why? We already know Roosevelt was the kind of scumbag who would allow the building and operating of concentration camps, in which thousands of American citizens were caged like animals, so why would anyone assume he was above sacrificing 2,000 American servicemen to get into a war to save England and the Soviet Union?

Here, let me break it down for you:

President of a nation with concentration camps = scumbag, no questions asked.

Scumbag = The kind of person who would allow the killing of his countrymen to get into a war.

The kind of person who would allow the killing of his countrymen to get into a war = The kind of person who would imprison his countrymen for their ethnicity

The kind of person who would imprison his countrymen for their ethnicity = Scumbag

We've come full circle here. Catching on yet?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

You can back up that "very unlikely" with evidence, of course. No? I didn't think so.

Sure, just as much evidence as you can provide of our government truly being surprised by the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Start a war with a defeat and have people like you harping at him 70 years later. OR start with a victory and be even more of a hero. I know some people would call for the defeat, but not the sane ones.

Do you have any evidence that shows that the American people would have supported a total war policy against Japan had the attack on Pearl Harbor been thwarted?

You are utterly unprepared to argue your side of this.

Right, that's why your side is losing this debate so far.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did you read that link I gave you? All forty volumes? And have you read the Gallup Polls for 1939-1941? Read all the editorials in the NYT, Chicago Trib, LA Times, the Dallas and Miami papers? No, you haven't. I have. Have you read the Congressional Record for those years? Do you know which Congressmen voted for expansion of the Navy and which against? No, you don't. You watch one hour-long show on The Conspiracy Whacko Channel and you think you can support your side of this?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why? We already know Roosevelt was the kind of scumbag who would allow the building and operating of concentration camps, in which thousands of American citizens were caged like animals, so why would anyone assume he was above sacrificing 2,000 American servicemen to get into a war to save England and the Soviet Union?

This is what I mean by utterly unprepared. You're not even a good troll.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

I have only a passing interest in Pearl Harbor and WW2, and I'm utterly destroying the government truthers' "expert" in this thread.

Surely you guys have somebody better than what you've put forward so far? Right? Right?