|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 7, 2019 16:52:07 GMT -6
Unfortunately, he revealed his hand this past Friday and went fully overboard with crazy ideas about the Pearl Harbor attack. He referenced Operation Snow by John Koster repeatedly, as well as an "Anglo-American establishment" that somehow was responsible for WWI and WWII, and continued to push everyone in class to read Day of deceit. When I brought up some of the issues with Stinnett's work he got very snippy, and is now flooding my school email's inbox with links to several questionable sources and authors.
I looked some of said authors up, at least one is an accused Nazi-sympathizer and another is a noted Holocaust denier. Even more terrifying is that both of them are sources for all of the assigned reading books from the class.
knowing the truth yourself is good enough - if people have so called facts i know are wrong i let them keep talking while smiling and nodding, because everybody is entitled to believe what they want and i'm not interested in wasting my own time convincing them otherwise it's a shame that he is in a position to push his own propaganda on the unsuspecting and uneducated, but the people who are truly interested in the subject already know or will learn the truth, and because you asked us it seems like you are truly interested so keep it up! Good Post. We need to keep this kind of attitude on this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by zedfifty on Apr 9, 2019 4:02:39 GMT -6
Or... you could simply approach the prof and ask how he feels that book contributes to the topic of Japanese strategy, operational doctrine and tactics, as you have read it and don;t see the connection?
Unfortunately, he revealed his hand this past Friday and went fully overboard with crazy ideas about the Pearl Harbor attack. He referenced Operation Snow by John Koster repeatedly, as well as an "Anglo-American establishment" that somehow was responsible for WWI and WWII, and continued to push everyone in class to read Day of deceit. When I brought up some of the issues with Stinnett's work he got very snippy, and is now flooding my school email's inbox with links to several questionable sources and authors.
I looked some of said authors up, at least one is an accused Nazi-sympathizer and another is a noted Holocaust denier. Even more terrifying is that both of them are sources for all of the assigned reading books from the class.
Nazi-sympathizer, Holocaust denier -- not David Irving, I hope.
Do you have literary talent? If so, you can make your paper into a heavily-veiled satire. The professor will read want he wants to read, and you get to keep your dignity. On the other hand, this could backfire badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on Apr 9, 2019 21:41:03 GMT -6
Update for those who care or are interested.
I approached the head of my department (who is also my advisor, small school) about my concerns with my professor. He recommended that I contact the head of the social sciences department with them. I did so, and received word back that I am evidently not the only student who had reported their concerns to the department over this particular professor, and that they were debating whether or not to start an investigation into his teaching methods and coursework. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2019 9:42:03 GMT -6
Update for those who care or are interested.
I approached the head of my department (who is also my advisor, small school) about my concerns with my professor. He recommended that I contact the head of the social sciences department with them. I did so, and received word back that I am evidently not the only student who had reported their concerns to the department over this particular professor, and that they were debating whether or not to start an investigation into his teaching methods and coursework. Excellent work, even if nothing comes of it. You have at least put the fear of god in the man to either change his ways or get out. Nice work. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2019 9:42:30 GMT -6
Just an interesting episode in the Pearl Harbor event. In July 1940 PM Churchill suggested to the US that they exchange coding machines. The British would provide us with Enigma we would provide them a purple machine to decode Japanese diplomatic messages. This is a vital piece of equipment in the story of Pearl Harbor. It was the decoding of the diplomatic fourteen-part message about burning the code books and machines that gave Washington the heads up about Japanese future actions.
Unfortunately, we delivered to Bletchley Park two machines, both of which were supposed to go to Pearl Harbor. The British reneged, and never gave us the Enigma machines. So, Pearl Harbor went without the vital Purple machines they should have had. With those two machines, they would not have had to be waiting for Washington to send them a warning, they would have had the warning on their own, and taken the appropriate defensive step.
Now, why not ask for the devices? Well, Richmond Kelly Turner, who was Director of Naval Intelligence, was a terrible man to deal with, and Kimmel was not happy to ask. So, he did not ask for them. The Pearl Harbor story is complex, but this part of the story is vital. The British have never acknowledged their actions in fooling us.
I put this episode up here not only to inform but to make a point. In many actions that are failures, the events leading up to the failure can be complex. Here are just some of the mistakes made prior to the Pearl Harbor debacle.
1. Walter Short changed the SOP for alert status from Alert Level 1 being air attack to it being sabotage. He never informed Washington so when he notified them of his new alert status, they assumed it was air attack. That SOP change was not transmitted to Washington until four months later.
2. The radars sent to Pearl Harbor were supposed to be the first line of defense, on line for 24 hours a day. Short placed them in a training mode of four hours a day. This was a cardinal mistake. He even stated during the investigation that "he had been wrong".
3. One officer, Col. Dusenberry, had received the fourteen part of the Wind Code Messages, but put them into the safe, and went home. He never considered how important that message was. His career was over after that.
4. Due to concern's about a possible mole in Pa Watson's office in the White House, the fourteen part message, so vital was never conveyed to the President. He never knew that we had received the trigger message and that that message meant that the Japanese were going to end relations and attack. We knew it would be at the Philippines and Pearl Harbor, we just did not know when.
5. One last bit. Roosevelt had been the Secretary of the Navy and loved his ships. Would he risk them and allow them to be destroyed just to start a war. Does that make any real sense. No, it actually does not.
6. There should have been extensive joint planning between the Navy and Army about defenses of Pearl Harbor and actions taken went the appropriate warnings were received. There were none.
7 Torpedo nets should have been deployed when ships were in the harbor, SOP, but they were not due to Kimmel.
8. In an interview with Captain Layton, he stated Navy regulation prohibited the sharing of cryptographic information with another service. This was blatantly not true. The agreement established for the defense of Pearl Harbor was centered around the SHARING of information of that sort with the other side because the defense of Pearl Harbor and Fleet was a co-operative job of both services. They were supposed to share all intelligence material between the two. He continued with more lies and this alerted Clausen, an experienced criminal lawyer from San Francisco. His boss, Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, was also an experienced lawyer from New York. It's really hard to feed these two men lies without them detecting it and Clausen had sworn statements from other officers to the contrary. This type of attitude continued even after the war. No conspiracy, just officers trying to hide their mistakes and save their careers.
The list goes on and one.
Historians have to use deductive reasoning in their conclusions about actions and history. Many times it is done without complete information due to security reasons. This is exactly what happened after Pearl Harbor. There was only one man who knew all the secrets, Henry Clausen. He had been given the task, with all the decoded documents of interrogating all those involved in Pearl Harbor debacle. He traveled around the world to perform that mission and was never allowed until over 20 years later to reveal what he had learned and prepare conclusions
There was no conspiracy, just plain peacetime stupidity and lack of cooperation between the Army and Navy, which for some time continued into the war, until it was corrected and the two forces came together destroy Japans will to fight.
Revisionism can be interesting provided you do some extra homework to ensure that the documents are adequate for the conclusions. To this day, there are still vital bits of cryptanalysis used prior to Pearl Harbor that will never be revealed because they are still used although codes are far more complex.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on Apr 12, 2019 22:40:43 GMT -6
That was my first thought to. "Ok, so a conspiracy theory is a"primary source for the required reading. Boot a great sign." Write what the prof wants, get your credit, and then get on with your life. Preferably with legit history. That is probably a good idea... in his position. But when do you stand your ground and make your point? I had the same issue during the Vietnam war with my college professors. I did not agree with their summations and I wrote what I believed to be the truth. Time proved me correct. It depends on the integrity of the professor. Back when I was young and dumber I wrote a paper on the Death Penalty {Criminal Justice class}. The professor gave us his thoughts on the matter before he gave us the assignment. Even though Mr Clopton's feelings on the matter were diametrically opposed to mine and what I wrote, he still had the honor and integrity to give me an A on the paper. But this was back in 1981. Given the divisiveness of today's politics I would not rely on the honor and integrity of anyone with an opposing viewpoint till I knew them well. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2019 22:45:26 GMT -6
That is probably a good idea... in his position. But when do you stand your ground and make your point? I had the same issue during the Vietnam war with my college professors. I did not agree with their summations and I wrote what I believed to be the truth. Time proved me correct. It depends on the integrity of the professor. Back when I was young and dumber I wrote a paper on the Death Penalty {Criminal Justice class}. The professor gave us his thoughts on the matter before he gave us the assignment. Even though Mr Clopton's feelings on the matter were diametrically opposed to mine and what I wrote, he still had the honor and integrity to give me an A on the paper. But this was back in 1981. Given the divisiveness of today's politics I would not rely on the honor and integrity of anyone with an opposing viewpoint till I knew them well. I hate to say this, but you are entirely correct. Times have changed and so have the professors and the complete education system. Let's hope that we can make a change at some point to rectify this. It would do us all and the country a lot of good. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 13, 2019 10:57:19 GMT -6
What changes to the overall structure of our military system both In Pearl Harbor and Washington, might have prevented the debacle at Pearl Harbor? Well, here are some of my thoughts, not in any priority.
1. One overall commander in Pearl Harbor. He would be a Naval admiral in charge of the whole Pacific Fleet. He would have had the fourteenth Naval District under his command, Army, Army Air Force and Naval Intelligence. He would have only been responsible to a Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President.
2. Leave the battleships and their escorts in Long Beach, San Diego and San Francisco. They were not needed in Pearl Harbor, too slow to do any real good and we did not have enough facilities like repair docks to work on these ships.
3. All intelligence gathering would be under the Joint Chiefs, it would answer to them.
4. The most important item would be to create a Joint Chiefs of Staff and they would run everything including deployments answerable only to the President of US.
5. Install and operate an island wide radar network, with phone connections to a fighter direction center with a British officer to help train the officers and men occupying the direction center.
6. Twenty-four-hour PBY, 180-degree reconnaissance flights out to 600 miles with 10-degree surveillance web. This would have required about eighteen PBY’s per surveillance flight, with two of these flights per day augmented by B-17 bombers.
7. All fighters would be dispersed to auxiliary air fields on a rotating basis. They would be connected by radio to the fighter direction center. All flight leaving or headed towards Pearl Harbor would be registered and tracked.
8 Increase destroyer and ASW patrols which would provide contact information to the main fighter direction center. This center would be the hub of all surveillance both in the air and at sea for the islands.
Nothing in my list was new or not discussed. The idea of the Joint Chiefs of Staff comes directly from the German General Staff which was highly successful. The radar network, fighter direction center and dispersed fighters are all directly related to the British system for the Battle of Britain. Long range patrols were already implemented but needed to be expanded. The combined intelligence effort would be a product of the Joint Chiefs. The overall commander idea was used in the Southwest Pacific with Halsey and South Pacific with General MacArthur. The idea of leaving the battleships in their home ports on the West Coast was Kimmel's predecessor, Admiral Richardson's idea and he presented vehemently to FDR and lost his job over it. Nothing new here, just a matter of doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on Apr 13, 2019 17:00:57 GMT -6
US forces have a long history of being unprepared for war but quickly learning. We also have a tendency to have to learn painful mistakes ourselves. Even when told we are wrong in the first place. Much like me as a teenager come to think of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 13, 2019 17:26:10 GMT -6
US forces have a long history of being unprepared for war but quickly learning. We also have a tendency to have to learn painful mistakes ourselves. Even when told we are wrong in the first place. Much like me as a teenager come to think of it. This is a product of our democratic, isolationist system. In the late 1930's the isolationist, reactionaries in the Congress did not want to increase the number of divisions in the Army or pass the draft law. They wanted to oust FDR, and of course failed. However, the lack of funding was not a real factor, in my opinion, in the ideas that I set forth. They would not have cost much to implement and might have prevented what happened at Pearl Harbor. The attitude of many in Congress was the FDR was trying to get us into the war and those sentiments are still with us today. |
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on Apr 13, 2019 19:13:32 GMT -6
It is fairly easy to come to the conclusion that FDR did in fact want us in the war...the one in Europe anyway. I don't have a crystal ball to look into his mind but my amateurish reading of history tends to make me believe he did. However, there is nothing that I've read to make me believe he wanted the Pearl Harbor attack or knowingly left them to be sacrificed or any of the other theories verging on {or crossing the line} of utter fantasy/conspiracy.
As to funding, I will leave it to others who have more depth in the history of the time period. I do note that Isolationism was prevalent at the time {and before} and a large military capable of projecting power would be inconsistent with an isolationist thought process.
The various war games that had Pearl Harbor attacked and the attack on Taranto should have given enough information to foresee the events that unfolded. Back to the unprepared and having to learn painful mistakes. I am not learned enough, but wouldn't all the higher level admirals be "battleship" admirals who lacked understanding of the capabilities of air power {and they would not be that far behind the times}? This can surely lead to complacency.
The lack of torpedo nets is damning. I cannot understand how that fell through the cracks. Lacking any viable excuse {which I have not read up on}, this alone should be enough to convict Kimmel of dereliction.
Your ideas would have made a difference. Look at how many of them were implemented after the attack? I don't think the U.S. military was ready for them before the attack. Having to learn painful lessons again.
I do think that the oil embargo was guaranteed to lead to war but I do not think US leaders thought it would. What I've read is that Japan had a years worth of oil reserves. Other sources about their invasion of the DEI {or SRA} indicate it would or could take up to six months to secure their objectives. Going to war in Nov or Dec seems ensured to me {hindsight} This does not make America at fault for the war. Japan chose to go to war. The military was in charge of their government at that time and their loss of power if they capitulated to US demands ensured war. I doubt many people who grew up in a democratic government could conceive of or believe the state of Japanese politics at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2019 10:14:23 GMT -6
... The lack of torpedo nets is damning. I cannot understand how that fell through the cracks. Lacking any viable excuse {which I have not read up on}, this alone should be enough to convict Kimmel of dereliction. ... First, let’s address the issue of the torpedo nets and why they were not deployed. Admiral Kimmel, being a battleship admiral, was very aware that his ships were vulnerable to torpedoes. Kimmel was responsible for the safety of his fleet but not Pearl Harbor. He was aware, and so stated that an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible. However, he was more focused on preparing a plan to lure the Japanese fleet into a Jutland style contest in the Central Pacific. The CNO in early 1941 had said that the shallow depth of the water precluded torpedo attacks and hence there was no need for nets. I will leave you with these two documents from the Office of Chief of Naval Operations. www.researcheratlarge.com/Pacific/PearlHarbor/Feb_15_1941TorpedoMemo.htmlwww.researcheratlarge.com/Pacific/PearlHarbor/Feb_17_1941TorpedoMemo.htmlThis tells me that the attitude that the depth of water at Pearl Harbor and its configuration eliminated the need for torpedo nets was Navy wide. The order not to deploy nets came from Kimmel’s predecessors, Richardson, and Kimmel never rescinded it. However, we know that one year earlier, at Taranto, the depth of water issue was overcome with wooden fins installed on the tail of the torpedo. So, would the deployment of torpedo nets have caused the Japanese plan some issues. Of course, it would have. They were monitoring their deployment for months. They had a plan to bomb the nets if they were deployed. This would have slowed down the torpedo attacks and given our fleet time to get all its guns into action and possibly get Army fighters into the air to deal with the slow-moving torpedo bombers. I am certain that the attack might have turned out different. But I believe that whether they were deployed or not, the attack would have moved forward. I am going to address your other statements in another post. Thanks for your patience. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2019 11:36:33 GMT -6
It is fairly easy to come to the conclusion that FDR did in fact want us in the war...the one in Europe anyway. I don't have a crystal ball to look into his mind but my amateurish reading of history tends to make me believe he did. However, there is nothing that I've read to make me believe he wanted the Pearl Harbor attack or knowingly left them to be sacrificed or any of the other theories verging on {or crossing the line} of utter fantasy/conspiracy. ……. FDR and his cabinet were progressive, internationalist. They understood that the world had moved to globalization and that you had to protect the interests of your trading partners like Great Britain, France, China and other nations from imperialists like the Nazi’s, Fascists and the Imperial Japan. You just could not sit by and wait until it was too late. He and his staff monitored the events since 1932 with Hitler and Mussolini and understood the direction they were headed. The loss of France put them into a position of having to protect their last European Ally; Great Britain. I don’t think he wanted war, because he could see what the last World War had done to economies, but he was realistic. He had to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. In the case of Japan, he had to protect our trading in interests in the Far East along with helping Australia to protect itself, plus protect the Hawaiian Islands. FDR did not want war, but was far more realistic than the reactionary, isolationist who were still living in the 19th Century. Times had changed and so our foreign policy had to adapt to this. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2019 13:47:08 GMT -6
…. I do think that the oil embargo was guaranteed to lead to war but I do not think US leaders thought it would. What I've read is that Japan had a years worth of oil reserves. Other sources about their invasion of the DEI {or SRA} indicate it would or could take up to six months to secure their objectives. Going to war in Nov or Dec seems ensured to me {hindsight} This does not make America at fault for the war. Japan chose to go to war. The military was in charge of their government at that time and their loss of power if they capitulated to US demands ensured war. I doubt many people who grew up in a democratic government could conceive of or believe the state of Japanese politics at the time. The US began to be aware of Japan’s economic and financial problems during the Teddy Roosevelt administration especially after the 1905 victory over Russia. This would give the Japanese a door to China. The US wanted an open-door policy with China and championed independence for her. Japan wanted to dominate Asia. The beginnings of embargoes to all nations at war began in 1935 with the Neutrality act. Another extension was passed in 1937. Both embargoes weapons and ammunition supplies to such nations. Japan did not invade China until 1937 so it wasn’t until after this period that FDR and his cabinet began to take measures to stop further incursions. The story is very complex, and I will refer you to this excellent book by Edward S. Miller “Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor.” I will simply say that the story leading up to the oil embargo was not as clear cut as it seemed. The final straw was when Japan invaded southern Indochina. This blatant aggression forced he administration to halt all oil sales to the Japanese. We could not allow the Japanese increased their stored fuel in case of a war. During the initial stages of the War in the Pacific, the Midway operation consumed one full years’ worth of oil and put the Japanese in severe bind for it. The only location for oil was now Borneo and the cracking plants had been disabled severely before being occupied by the Japanese. This was the main reason the main fleet base was at Singapore. It was close to the oil depots in Borneo. The lack of tankers; 80% of the oil she purchased from the U.S. was transported by U. S. tankers; and the failure to develop convoying and escorts severely limited Japanese combat operations for the rest of the war. The oil embargo was a complete success and should be given the credit it was due. Did the oil embargo lead to war? Not really, with the war in China bankrupting the country and using up their resources, the oil embargo was simply the straw the broke the camel's back. They had an alternative. Leave China, return her to independence and move out of Indochina. We would not have embargoed the oil on those terms. Japanese aggression and their bushido code forced them to continue until it was over for them. Fight or die was their motto. Well, so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on Apr 14, 2019 13:53:21 GMT -6
Thank you for the links. I was aware of the depth issues and that they had been overcome at Taranto. I had not done any further readings as I am at best an amateur when it comes to history.
Perhaps my word choice of "wanting" to get into the war was poor. Perhaps knowing that he needed to get into the war would have been better. I don't think he wanted war, but knew it was inevitable and necessary {I failed to make that distinction}. I also agree this was the best general course given the circumstances. Dealing with a victorious Hitler would have been a nightmare.
As far as patience goes, I have re-learned that as I sit on the lanai of a ninth floor of a rented Condo looking out over the Pacific just north of Lahaina {I go back the real world in 2 days}. And thank you for your patience. I'm not an expert by any means. I know just enough to read a book and catch {what I believe} to be errors.
|
|
