• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

Yes, I did. And I'm not disputing your skills in copy and paste. I disagree with the conclusions you draw.

I suggest you read At Dawn We Slept - it's a bit of a slog to get through it, but you'll find it enlightening.

Another good book that you'd find useful is Sea of Thunder.

Of course, both books are completely contrary to your beliefs, so you'll dismiss them out of hand, but in the faint hope...

You disagree with the conclusions I draw from that quote? That's interesting. What other conclusions should I draw instead? Spell it out for me. What do you think that quoted statement really means?
 
Let me see if I'm following this:

Historians say "the evidence says what happened was X"
One guy says "sooper seekrit evidence nobody has ever seen says what happened was Y"

And that sooper seekrit evidence has been kept concealed by every president since FDR.

That's the essence of the claim, right?

Can anyone explain to me why, for example, George Bush senior chose to make himself complicit in Roosevelt's conspiracy?
 
Let me see if I'm following this:

Historians say "the evidence says what happened was X"

All historians, or some historians?

Either way, someone can claim X happened, but that don't necessarily mean X actually happened. Historical hindsight is limited by the evidence the U.S. government has made available or admitted to.

One guy says "sooper seekrit evidence nobody has ever seen says what happened was Y"

False.

More like, "if X can't be proven, why not consider Y?".

And that sooper seekrit evidence has been kept concealed by every president since FDR.

Already addressed.

You're assuming presidents would have access to this information, as if presidents can, on demand, read through classified, top secret information whenever they feel like it.

Ha, ha, ha... so stupid.

That's the essence of the claim, right?

Can anyone explain to me why, for example, George Bush senior chose to make himself complicit in Roosevelt's conspiracy?

How would George H.W. Bush have been complicit? He was a teenager at the time, probably still in high school.

Can't any of you geniuses come up with a reasonable argument?
 
Boy, you lie like a rug!

From the McCollum memo:



Yeah, that sure sounds like a containment policy alright! Hey, let's lead Japan into firing the first shot!

Ha, ha, ha! You government truthers sure know how to shovel the B.S.!

Here's the last 2 points of the memo:
McCollum Memo said:
9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.
10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.

And here is the comment added by Captain Knox
Captain Knox's Comment said:
It is unquestionably to our general interest that Britain be not licked - just now she has a stalemate and probably cant do better. We ought to make it certain that she at least gets a stalemate. For this she will probably need from us substantial further destroyers and air reinforcements to England. We should not precipitate anything in the Orient that should hamper our ability to do this - so long as probability continues.
If England remains stable, Japan will be cautious in the Orient. Hence our assistance to England in the Atlantic is also protection to her and us in the Orient.
However, I concur in your courses of action we must be ready on both sides and probably strong enough to care for both.
D.W.K.

If all you get out of all that is the US wanted to start a war with Japan as soon as possible, I'm sorry for you. You're either lying or incapable of performing reasonable analysis.
 
Gosh, this thread is just a parade of government truther dumb!

Ha, ha, ha! Teenagers conspiring with FDR!

Ah ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
 
I cant find that citation for the original Hawaii Plan :( damn hate getting old. All I recall was the original plan was looking at actually invading the Islands as an option. I can find a time line for the major expansion of the Pearl facilities through the 30s but nothing indicating the Japanese took a real interest in these plans

So for now I will have to withdraw the comment

Do keep an eye out for it, please. :)
 
Looking at their options is one thing, actively attempting to provoke someone into conflict is another.

The McCollum memo points to a desire in our government to provoke Japan into firing the first shot. Since that is the case, why should anyone believe that our government didn't desire to have Pearl Harbor be the target of that first shot?

You know, Stinnett isn't the only senile old fool to write a book on Pearl Harbor. Just sayin'.
 
Good grief. What part of:

If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.

...Do you not get? Can you not decipher the English language? Do you not understand what that string of words means? Do you not understand what the word 'led' implies?

The McCollum memo constitutes a documented desire within our government to goad the Japanese into firing the first shot of the Pacific war. Pearl Harbor ended up being the target of that first shot.

Why should anyone believe that this was a surprise to our government when it happened? Because they said so?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
 
I love how government truthers are so convinced that the Republicans would sell the Democrats out on Pearl Harbor if they had the chance, as if the two parties are completely separate and in perfect competition with each other at all times.

All their beliefs seem to be based on either what the TV tells them or what the government tells them. There's absolutely no independent thought whatsoever.

Ha, ha, ha!
 
Because the U.S. government needed a shocking, Pearl Harbor-type event to rouse the inward-looking, war-weary American people into supporting another large, foreign intervention. None of the other Japanese moves had the same galvanizing power of a Pearl Harbor surprise attack.

How do you know this?
 
You've only read the one book, that's easy to spot. (Wild assumption on my part that you can read, of course.)

Maybe, maybe not. I've been told I have a bad case of arguing down at the level of my competition.

As for you, there's no indication you've read even one book about Pearl Harbor, since you haven't been able to argue anything in your own words, and the one factoid you did drop proved to be completely wrong. Did having your cohort correct you make you a little gun-shy, perhaps?

The opening post in the thread was so full of promise. I wonder, where did that bluster go so quickly?
 
Maybe, maybe not. I've been told I have a bad case of arguing down at the level of my competition.

As for you, there's no indication you've read even one book about Pearl Harbor, since you haven't been able to argue anything in your own words, and the one factoid you did drop proved to be completely wrong. Did having your cohort correct you make you a little gun-shy, perhaps?

The opening post in the thread was so full of promise. I wonder, where did that bluster go so quickly?

I won't argue down to your level, that's why you get so few responses to your demands.
 
I won't argue down to your level, that's why you get so few responses to your demands.

Says the guy whose second post in the thread makes fun of people with below average IQs.

I read your first two posts and came down to meet you at your level. Now you want to head back up to a higher level? Fine. You can start by summarizing and the explaining the relevance of the links you dropped and ran away from earlier.

Let's get this show on the road already.
 
Boy, you lie like a rug!

From the McCollum memo:



Yeah, that sure sounds like a containment policy alright! Hey, let's lead Japan into firing the first shot!

Ha, ha, ha! You government truthers sure know how to shovel the B.S.!

Must be a laughtrack.
 

Back
Top Bottom