Car Insurance | Bad Credit Mortgages | Mortgage Calculator | Loans | Secured Loans
The Secret of Pearl Harbor: FDR's Role Exposed [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : The Secret of Pearl Harbor: FDR's Role Exposed


Warlady
05-27-2001, 09:22 AM
By: Justin Raimondo

The smoke barely had time to clear before a dark cloud of intrigue and suspicion formed around the circumstances leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. When the shock had worn off, questions began to be asked, at least by the most sober and realistic Americans: why had the US military been taken by surprise, and who, the Congress and the public wanted to know, was responsible?
John T. Flynn was one of the first to stand up to the war hysteria, defy the atmosphere of political intimidation, and start asking questions. Flynn was an old-style liberal journalist, a former columnist for The New Republic, author of God's Gold (1932), a best-selling book on the rise of the Rockefeller oil fortune, and also Men of Wealth: the Story of Twelve Significant Fortunes from the Renaissance to the Present Day (1941), who had been purged from the precincts of "respectable" journalism for his unrelenting opposition to US entry into World War II. Flynn labored mightily to avert that disaster, joining with others – conservatives, mostly, and nascent libertarians – in the antiwar America First Committee, writing, speaking, rallying and lobbying to stop FDR's drive to war.

In the wake of Pearl Harbor, the America First Committee disbanded, and the "isolationists" were driven practically underground, hounded by the government, driven out of politics and journalism, and in some cases prosecuted for "sedition." Flynn, however, would not be cowed. He wrote two scathing pamphlets, The Truth About Pearl Harbor (1944) and The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor (1945), that raised the question for the first time: did FDR have advance warning of the Pearl Harbor catastrophe? Flynn's answer was yes.

It is amazing how much he gleaned from contemporary accounts – in spite of the repressive wartime atmosphere that allowed the President to avoid a real investigation – and it's nothing short of astounding how he was able to cut like a searchlight through the cloud of obfuscating murk and get at the essential truth. As it was, given what we now know, his conclusions were fairly mild. Flynn makes the case that FDR had every reason to expect the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, that he ignored the advice of his generals, and that he deliberately bottled up the fleet there. He reveals that the Japanese code had been cracked, and that the diplomatic messages being sent back and forth between Tokyo and its various embassies had been intercepted by the British, delivered to the Americans, and decoded. But what he didn't know – couldn't know – was that much more than that had been intercepted. As revealed in Robert Stinnett's book, Day of Deceit, a whole series of military messages sent by Japanese commanders betrayed the day and the hour of the attack – and Stinnett shows that FDR had to have known this. Flynn couldn't have had access to the thousands of pages of documents – recently released under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act – that prove FDR's foreknowledge, and that of top figures in his administration. But Flynn saw the pattern of deception, fifty years ago, even if he couldn't have known the full extent of it. He is the father of Pearl Harbor revisionism, the first writer to collect the evidence and indict an American President for a heinous war crime – one committed against his own soldiers and sailors.


Click to read more (http://www.etherzone.com/raim060101.shtml)

ThomasMore
05-27-2001, 11:49 AM
For well-documented proof that the U.S. planned Pearl Harbor in advance, there is a book out entitled "Day of Infamy" by Robert Stinnett. Unfortunately, I have loaned the book out so I cannot give direct passages from it.

For a book which devastates liberal mythology, it was well received for its careful documentation even in the mainstream press. It resulted in Congressional hearings which helped clear the names of Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short.

The_Sonarman
05-27-2001, 03:36 PM
ThomasMore,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>It resulted in Congressional hearings which helped clear the names of Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the Navy to this day has not changed it's opinion that Admiral Kimmel was responsible, and negligent in his duties. I vaguely recall the last hearing the Kimmel family had was less than a year ago, and the Navy still is sticking it to the Admiral.

ThomasMore
05-27-2001, 07:26 PM
Let me see if I can back up what I am talking about. I will do a little digging and get back to you on this thread.

It was my understanding that Congress had ordered the restoration of Kimmel's and Short's ranks. Whether the Departments of the Navy and Army actually acted on those orders (and whether I can find them) remains another matter.

Incidentally, I erred on the title of the book. Robert Stinnett's book is entitled "Day of Deceit".

ThomasMore
05-27-2001, 07:59 PM
Sonar, I have found something for you on this. Unfortunately I haven't traced it to the original Congressional archives, but I found the results of the hearings reported on an internet site. I will continue to search for direct sourcing.

The Pearl Harbor Gazette (www.pacshiprev.com) quotes from identical amendments in both houses' 2001 Defense Authorization Bills the following (the quote is severely edited for length):

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>
1. Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel...had an excellent and unassailable record throughout his career in the United States Navy prior to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

2. Major General Walter C. Short...had an excellent and unassailable record throughout his career in the United States Army prior to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

3. Numerous investigations following the attack on Pearl Harbor have documented that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were not provided necessary and critical intelligence that was available, that foretold of war with Japan, that warned of imminent attack, including such essential communiqués as the Japanese Pearl Harbor Bomb Plot message of September 24, 1941, and the message sent to the Japanese Ambassador in the United States from December 6-7, 1941, known as the Fourteen-Part message.

...

7. On June 15, 1944, an investigation conducted at the direction of the Secretary of the Navy produced evidence, subsequently confirmed, that essential intelligence concerning Japanese intentions and war plans were available in Washington but was not shared with Admiral Kimmel.

8. On October 20, 1944, the Army...determined that Lieutenant General Short had not been kept "fully advised of the growing tenseness of the Japanese situation..."; detailed information and intelligence about Japanese intentions and war plans were available in "abundance" but were not shared with General Short's Hawaii command; and General Short was not provided "on the evening of December 6 and the early morning of December 7, the critical information indicating an almost immediate break with Japan, though there was ample time to have accomplished this".

9. The reports by both the Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation were kept secret, and Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short were denied their requests to defend themselves through trial by court-martial.

...

It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel performed his duties as Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses incurred by the United States in the attacks on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and other targets on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not a result of dereliction in the performance of those duties by the then Admiral Kimmel; and
(2) the late Major General Walter C. Short performed his duties as Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses incurred by the United States in the attacks on Hickam Army Air Field and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and other targets on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not a result of dereliction in the performance of those duties by then Lieutenant General Short.

The President is requested -

(A) to advance the late Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade of Admiral on the retired list of the Navy, and

(B) to advance the late Major General Walter C. Short to the grade of Lieutenant General on the retired list of the Army.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The full text is available at
http://www.pacshiprev.com/page28.html

Elsewhere I have read that President Clinton never acted on this "Sense of Congress".

**DONOTDELETE**
05-28-2001, 12:22 AM
FDR was a hypocrite and a traitor.Him becoming President was the downfall of this nation.