Did FDR know Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor?

[cawacko]

I was in a cab this afternoon and the driver just starts talking... goes on about how it took years to expand Santa Monica Blvd in L.A. I just commented if you're in a hurry don't count on the government.

Then he goes on to Pearl Harbor and how FDR knew of the attack because we had broken all the Japanesse codes etc. and it was beneficial to us financially so we (the U.S.) allowed the attack to happen.

Then the guy rails on LBJ for all the stock he owned in war companies. I guess this guy fought in Vietnam and said he got in trouble for questioning his superior for why we were even there and his sister was big in anti-war movement in U.S. and she sent him some Communist writings among other anti-war articles, info. that he dispearsed to others and got in trouble for.

Then we arrived at the destination as he started laying into Bush and Cheney for Iraq.

I'm sure if Desh was in the car she would have gotten out the second this guy spoke slander against FDR. Well I went from thinking this guy was some small government conservative/libertarian to believing he is really on the left.

I've read about FDR and allowing Pearl Harbor attack theory before. Does it carry any weight or is it pretty much a fringe conspiracy theory?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It's no secret that FDR wanted war with Japan and he did all he could to incite it. It wouldn't suprise me if he had a message delivered to Yamamoto inviting the bombing.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm in the middle of WW2 by Winston-Churchill. He had a lot of correspondence with the President and spent two weeks at the White House prior to Pearl Harbor. Churchill and his entire staff were completely shocked that the Japanese attacked the US like that.

 

[Epicurus]

I was in a cab this afternoon and the driver just starts talking... goes on about how it took years to expand Santa Monica Blvd in L.A. I just commented if you're in a hurry don't count on the government.

Then he goes on to Pearl Harbor and how FDR knew of the attack because we had broken all the Japanesse codes etc. and it was beneficial to us financially so we (the U.S.) allowed the attack to happen.

Then the guy rails on LBJ for all the stock he owned in war companies. I guess this guy fought in Vietnam and said he got in trouble for questioning his superior for why we were even there and his sister was big in anti-war movement in U.S. and she sent him some Communist writings among other anti-war articles, info. that he dispearsed to others and got in trouble for.

Then we arrived at the destination as he started laying into Bush and Cheney for Iraq.

I'm sure if Desh was in the car she would have gotten out the second this guy spoke slander against FDR. Well I went from thinking this guy was some small government conservative/libertarian to believing he is really on the left.

I've read about FDR and allowing Pearl Harbor attack theory before. Does it carry any weight or is it pretty much a fringe conspiracy theory?

There are a few variations on that particular conspiracy. The one you heard says that we broke the code, but FDR simply moved the aircraft carriers and allowed the attack to happen. Another claims we captured a Japanese mini-sub with a range of under 200 miles in the Pacific near Hawaii, so the government must have been aware that it came from a larger ship nearby.

Anyone who reads my posts knows that I detest FDR and think he caused our nation irreparable harm through his massive expansion of the federal government. But as much I would love to have another attack against FDR, this doesn't seem to hold water with me. Americans were certainly initially reluctant to engage in the war, that much is indisputable. There was a mainstream and very powerful anti-war movement in the period, personified by leaders like Gerald Nye and Gerald Smith, and they certainly presented an obstacle to war. It is also indicated from FDR's own writings that he sought to bring America into the war much earlier than Pearl Harbor.

The chief problem with this theory is, in my opinion, the motive. The motive usually ascribed is FDR's desire to increase American support for involvement in the war. The issue, however, is that Americans would have rallied for war whether or not the Japanese attack was detected ahead of time. If FDR was in possession of inteligence that proved a planned Japanese surprise attack, then there is absolutely no reason he should choose to bury it and letting the attack happen.

That's my opinion anyway. The theory has always interested me, though. It's hard to tell how legitimate it is. I'm not aware of any reputable historian who espouses it.

 

[cawacko]

There are a few variations on that particular conspiracy. The one you heard says that we broke the code, but FDR simply moved the aircraft carriers and allowed the attack to happen. Another claims we captured a Japanese mini-sub with a range of under 200 miles in the Pacific near Hawaii, so the government must have been aware that it came from a larger ship nearby.

Anyone who reads my posts knows that I detest FDR and think he caused our nation irreparable harm through his massive expansion of the federal government. But as much I would love to have another attack against FDR, this doesn't seem to hold water with me. Americans were certainly initially reluctant to engage in the war, that much is indisputable. There was a mainstream and very powerful anti-war movement in the period, personified by leaders like Gerald Nye and Gerald Smith, and they certainly presented an obstacle to war. It is also indicated from FDR's own writings that he sought to bring America into the war much earlier than Pearl Harbor.

The chief problem with this theory is, in my opinion, the motive. The motive usually ascribed is FDR's desire to increase American support for involvement in the war. The issue, however, is that Americans would have rallied for war whether or not the Japanese attack was detected ahead of time. If FDR was in possession of inteligence that proved a planned Japanese surprise attack, then there is absolutely no reason he should choose to bury it and letting the attack happen.

That's my opinion anyway. The theory has always interested me, though. It's hard to tell how legitimate it is. I'm not aware of any reputable historian who espouses it.

Interesting thanks. This guy was in the 'they moved the aircraft carriers' camp.

 

[Epicurus]

Also cawacko, I bet if you asked desh she you would be surprised by her lack of enthusiasm for LBJ. I'm just generalizing here, but a lot of her type (Baby Boomer liberals) absolutely hated LBJ and saw him as the reason for Vietnam continuing years after it should have.

An equally partisan liberal from a later generation would give you a glowing eulogy of Johnson, because he has been revived into favor by later liberals because of his Great Society programs. It's mostly the boomer generation of liberals that were indoctrinated with that particular view of LBJ. Later liberals have decided that his implementation of the Great Society programs outweighed his escalation in Vietnam.

 

[cawacko]

Also cawacko, I bet if you asked desh she you would be surprised by her lack of enthusiasm for LBJ. I'm just generalizing here, but a lot of her type (Baby Boomer liberals) absolutely hated LBJ and saw him as the reason for Vietnam continuing years after it should have.

An equally partisan liberal from a later generation would give you a glowing eulogy of Johnson, because he has been revived into favor by later liberals because of his Great Society programs. It's mostly the boomer generation of liberals that were indoctrinated with that particular view of LBJ. Later liberals have decided that his implementation of the Great Society programs outweighed his escalation in Vietnam.

I remember Cypress having several having several discussions with Darla about that on here. He was saying (besides the Vietnam blunder) that LBJ was great for domestic America and he loved his programs just like you described.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Like all conspiracies, it will be based on evidence that can in no way be proven. It will sound convincing but be utterly baseless. It shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Also cawacko, I bet if you asked desh she you would be surprised by her lack of enthusiasm for LBJ. I'm just generalizing here, but a lot of her type (Baby Boomer liberals) absolutely hated LBJ and saw him as the reason for Vietnam continuing years after it should have.

An equally partisan liberal from a later generation would give you a glowing eulogy of Johnson, because he has been revived into favor by later liberals because of his Great Society programs. It's mostly the boomer generation of liberals that were indoctrinated with that particular view of LBJ. Later liberals have decided that his implementation of the Great Society programs outweighed his escalation in Vietnam.

Meh.

LBJ was great on civil rights. It was surprising to have a Texas Democrat get so into it.

But he didn't go nearly far enough with the Great Society. And of course, there's Vietnam.