I was discussing the war with japan and how pearl harbour was a cheap shot at america and i never wondered why it happened. My brother told me that america was cutting the trade routs of japan or something and that japan had no choice to attack. America knew this so it could get involved in WWII becuase it said that it would never war again since WWI. They knew that an attack was going to happen just they didnt know where or when but they knew it was going to happen sooner or later. I say this because the Americans are always talking about how much of a tragety pearl harbour was, im not saying that America klnew this was going to happen at pearl harbour just that they knew japan would attack, can someone please add to this ? thank you.

go to google and type in Pearl Harbor conspiracy....it's actually believable, unlike the 9/11 conspiracies....and it actually makes sense

It still has a lot of flaws in it and i think the CT is a bunch of bull like most other ones. I still wonder why Japan declared war on the USA in the first place. They knew they couldn't invade the mainland USA but I guess they thought their "honor and nobility" would pull through and defeat the Navy.

Its scary isent it, WTC and pearl harbour have so much incommon. Is that all america does ?!? im not anti america but there is ALOT of Sh** going on.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
damb, the truth hurts.
what do you all think about this ?

Not really, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 have like, nothing in common. It's is unfair to say America was truely neutral before their declarations of war in 1941.
The U.S. placed an embargo on Japan by prohibiting exports of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan, due to Japan's takeover of northern French Indochina. The Japanese invasion of China and other South Pacific nations made the USA go against Japan.

To complete its full occupation of all South Pacific nations/South East Asian nations, Japan would have to eliminate the USA and they most likely thought attacking Pearl Harbor would take out a majority of the navy and demoralize the American populous from attacking their fleets and from defending many Island countries.

Japan didn't attack because it had to. Japan was at war before the attack on Pearl harbour. Japan was invading parts of China and southeast Asia and the attack was half expected. The Americans knew Japan was going to attack somewhere, but they expected something like the Phillipines, not Hawaii.

But why did they attack the U.S is another question. It could be that they thought the United States would be a threat to the Axis powers (which it was and after the attack on Pearl Harbour they joined the allies).

i see now, quite interesting.

The US government knew Japan was going to attack pearl harbor. The reason why they let it happen is because they needed a good reason to declare war and get involved in this mess. Most of the American people back than thought this wasn't their war and they didn't want to get involved.

Link?

Ok... that was the most uneducated thing I've heard in a while.

The US government knew a Japanese would happen sooner or later but they didn't know where. The US would have eventually declared war anyways, the Japanese were too agressive in the Pacific and with a near invasion of US territory in the South Pacific, America knew it would have to stop the advance of Japan and later the german advance on Europe. And the American people then were very supportive of the war.

"The US would have eventually declared war anyway" when they said that they wouldent get involved unless they were attacked first ? pearl harbor was better than going "lets was with japan !" coz there was a good reason.

It's the truth, the American people we're supportive but they we're not prepared to send in American soldiers to their death. If America would have waited longer to get involved it might have been to late and the course of WWII might have gone in a different direction.

Mostar allready provided a link and here's another one about the American public opinion during the war.

Cautious Crusade

You'd believe that they wouldn't get involved? You're look on it is very clouded then, the United States would never let Europe (mainly Britain) fall under a Nazi Empire, they have already seen the Nazis and some of their work in the US.



War then is not like war today. We were not worried about soldiers dying there, we were "invincible".

I suggest you read this book cautious crusade. It's about President Roosevelt's struggle with the American public opinion to wage war against Nazi Germany.

Editorial Review

America's view of Germany over the last 50 years has been affected by the outcome of the war and the horror of the concentration camps. Casey, a junior research fellow in politics at Trinity College, Oxford, asserts that the war with Germany was never overly popular with the American people and that during the prewar years of 1938-40, public opinion was very isolationist or almost pro-German. Numerous public figures during this time (including Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh) spoke in favor of Germany. President Roosevelt had to deal with public opinion and walk the "tightrope" of too much or too little involvement. Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the public was more inclined to support the war against Japan than the war against Germany. Roosevelt had to stay in touch with public opinion polls regarding the conduct of the war and, later, the question of the reorganization of the postwar world. Casey documents his position with numerous footnotes and an extensive bibliography. While numerous books have dealt with the propaganda issues of World War II, this enjoyable work is the first one to deal with public opinion polls and their influence on American foreign policy during the war.




It's not that long ago you know and I'm not sure where you're getting at but my point is the Americans didn't want to get involved in this war.

The only reason they didn't want to get into it was because of what WWI was like in Europe. Though I have to admit, suckering Germany into war by provoking a Japanese attack (would have come anyways) was needed.

Hmm. Let us think a bit here.
One. Prior to our entry into WWII, no one in the world knew what the production potential of the US was, except perhaps people such as Ford.
Yes, public opinion at the time was more isolationist than not. What was needed was the spark to solidify a pro-war stance. Pearl provided that spark. "Nobody attacks us and gets away with it!" And yes, there is evidence that FDR knew of the impending attack and did nothing to prevent it. Churchill was basically begging FDR to enter the war. (yah, I know the Brits think they won the war all by themselves, but stuff it. They didn't, nor could they have done so. Remember that the entire British army was cornered in France, and forced to retreat to the island.) Some at the time knew that if the US motivated the production facilities, there would be no power on earth that could compete with that one aspect (face it, US factories were second to none, and US natural resources were also second to none).
Did Churchill know he couldn't defeat Hitler without help? Ask yourself why he submitted to FDR's demand that Eisenhower would be the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe. The answer to that should be quite evident. Yah, I know all that elementary "history" likes to give other ideas, but that's all they are, is crackpot ideas. The only fear Hitler really had was FDR and the US, folks: read John Toland's definitive books on Hitler.
The Japanese thought that they could "persuade" the US not to enter the war if they destroyed the majority of the fleet ar Pearl. Unfortunately for them, they had no idea (save for a very few of them) that not only could the US kick butt in Europe, but it could do it in the Pacific theater also. Moreover, Japan had no idea that the US could replace warships as quickly as it did. Yes, our front lines would have been the west coast if the carriers were killed, but that wouldn't last long, obviously.
Remember also that Britain was asked to help in the Pacific, and they sent a few pathetic war-worn rusty hulks which the Japanese promptly sank.
Remember also that the Japanese made a couple attempts to invade the US. And they fired on our shores. And that really made us angry.
I suppose this is going to irritate some people, but let's face facts now. Britain would be speaking German without the US. Germany was firmly in control of Europe. Hitler was not only a nut, but he was predominantly idiotic as well: those cost him the war. Had it not been for the manpower of the USSR on the east front and the massive capacity and manpower of the US on the west, Germany would likely now be a superpower.

I got a feeling you don't like Britain but that aside noone is denying America won the war. Everyone knows this and thank you for enlightening us again about how great and powerfull America was but you did mention FDR knew about Pearl Harbor so I guess we agree on that.

Ok
there is a simple answer to first post Japan were planing good atack on Pearl becouse they thought they wold kill at least 80 % of Pacifik fleet, and carriers.
well carriers were on open sea by chance and it was pure luck that they was not there, they were on some delivery misions (rec. planes to several bases).
America thought that they were safe in harbor they had several airports around it, not so deeep sea in harbor and lots of protection, they thought that the best protection is becouse they were to far from Japan, and that they should notice any bigger fleet in time, they were teribly wrong.
America was so sure that they were safe that they even group thir ships, and they made them even easier tagets.

well few monhts after Pearl, America tried something similar with Doolittle Raid on Japan, 18 April 1942
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/...c-42/dooltl.htm

The Americans did help but it was mainly the British and Russians who won the war.

Cheap Shot! And dropping Two Nuclear warheads on innocent Japanese civilians wasn't?
I do not condone the attack on pearl harbour but it was a military installation as opposed to wiping out Two cities.

Come on!!!! Ameriac won the war!!!!!
What about the millions of russians and thousands of canadians, Australians, British, French, Polish and scandinavians...........to name a few!
Show some respect for the men and women from all the nations involved!

America made a hugh contribution to help win the war there is no denying that but to say they won it is truly narrow minded!

No country on its own won the war, we did it together, as allies and as friends (not including russia) there was a time when the french and americans and the british respected each other more. much unlike today, were everyone hates the french, everyone hates america, and most british I know, save for a few hand fulls of people have a low opinion of us.

actually most people like the french and most people like the british.

I was being a bit sarcastic. I know it's because of germany fighting a 2 front war against america, britain and their allies on the westfront and russia on the eastfront they we're defeated. But you gotta be honest, america has played a huge roll in this victory with the help of it's allies ofcourse.

America deserves as much honor and respect for help winning the war as the dutch underground, the french underground, england, canada, austraila, russia, etc.....

We all done it together 'brothers in Arms'

Incidently just for the record i visit Texas every year and i love it, the place is great and the people are some of the politest people in the world!
If more English could see this side of America there opinion would rocket up.

Some one said in here 911 and pearl harbour have nothing in common?

Ummm Actually they have alot in common.

The 12/7/1941 Pearl Harbor Attack bears many superficial parallels with the 9/11/01 attack on Manhattan and Washington D.C. In both cases around 3000 Americans were killed in a devastating sneak attack against undefended targets. In both cases the sitting president used the attack to commit the nation to a war, a commitment that would have been almost impossible without the attack.

In both cases those at the top of the military chain of command knew of the attack in advance, and allowed it to proceed.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, the Roosevelt administration ignored increasing signs that a surprise attack somewhere in the Pacific was imminent. And now we find, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration did the same thing.

If the US Government could have the capability of knowing or even orchestrating such a catastrophic event like the pearl harbor incident what makes you so sure they can not do the same thing with 911?

I mean you only have to look at Operation Northwood in the early 1960's, which the plans included the possible assassination of Cuban migrs, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

hmmmm something to think about.....


Cheers

BZRK

regardless of the reasons for going to war, these people need to be taken down, as they did in WWII

That is why it happened, United States stopped trading oil i think. Also japan wanted to occupy more pacific Islands, so if the Japeneese atack US, japan would have more time to take over other islands.

Here Here !

okay thanks people, i got all the info i need.

Yeah, the fully manned battleships and cruisers in Pearl Harbor were undefended... The troops were asleep onboard the vessels when the attack commenced on the harbor. A few minutes later, heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft turrets were armed but only shot down a few of many Japanese bombers.



Um... No, the government knew of AN attack, but they did not know where. San Fransico was the most likely place to be attacked by US intelligence. When the message to attack Pearl Harbor was intercepted and recieved in Hawaii, they were a few hours too late.

Communications were good back then, but not THAT good.



Only if you like linking 1 or 2 smililarities poorly together.

so things havent changed that much at all, same sh** diffrent century

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html

I like that website you posted from.

Pearl Harbor was nessasary to get the public's support to go to war. 9/11 was nessasary to get the public's support to go to war. In fact, it was in Bush's best interest to let 9/11 happen and not stop it.

The thing is that America was not neutral before 9/11. The CIA were attempting to have the Taliban accept the new oil pipeline through there country. They didn't accept. The plans to invade Afganistan were on Bush's desk before 9/11. They also planned on invading Iraq before 9/11. 9/11 provided an oppurtunity to carry out those plans. 9/11 was a blessing. Without it there would be no progress made towards the new world order.

"There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this (9-11) disaster to carry out ... a new world order."
--Gary Hart, at a televised meting organized by the CFR in Washington, D.C. Sept 14.

Everyone should read the whole article you posted.

“A New Pearl Harbor”
Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was “a new Pearl Harbor.” Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true.

By John Pilger
New Statesman
December 16, 2002

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, it said, was “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the “new Pearl Harbor”, described as “the opportunity of ages”. The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and “think-tanks” were established to avenge the American “defeat” in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a “peace dividend” following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush’s “thinkers” is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about “total war”, I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America’s “war on terror”. “No stages,” he said. “This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan’s education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC’s seminal report, Rebuilding America’s Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could “fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”. This has happened. It said the United States should develop “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons and make “star wars” a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

As for Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”, these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,” it says, “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” How has this grand strategy been implemented? A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism”. Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that “public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible”. Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele’s estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.

Time and again, 11 September is described as an “opportunity”. In last April’s New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush’s most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them “to think about ‘how do you capitalise on these opportunities’”, which she compared with those of “1945 to 1947”: the start of the cold war. Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states “if necessary”. Under cover of propaganda about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This “super-intelligence support activity” will bring together the “CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception”. According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require “counter-attack” by the United States on countries “harbouring the terrorists”.

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution. You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: “the prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position”.

“Our position” is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair’s “Iraq dossier” and Jack Straw’s inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to “explain”). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.

This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists’ dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.

The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of modern imperial domination, but how “bad” Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America’s international death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html

Just brezing through this, Stalingrad guy should get some history lessons. Your comic books are out of date. Sgt. Rock is fiction.

You should think before you speak, I'm actually educated on the subject. Why do you think my bloody screen name is Stalingrad?

..... and who the hell is Sgt. Rock?



Wow... it just says Pearl Harbor is like 9/11 an in vice versa, nothing else. (facts about pearl harbor? 0.)

BTW: The website is cool if you can actually go through the bs. It's about 7:1 bs to fact.



It wasn't that necessary actually. It helped a lot and brought America into a war that they would have entered eventually though. See, during the time period wars were very clear: Good vs Evil, there were usually no political thinking in people back then: We are the goods guys, the government is good and what not and for the most part they were right (for their time period). So just declaring war, (considering the axis forces were taking over country after country, trading goods after trading goods), wouldn't have been a problem for US citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and thanks people for ignoring more than half the thread. You have to make assumptions and sh*t like that, why don't you just read the whole damn thing before you babble on like an uneducated fool.

(the flame wasn't really necessary but I just needed to post it along with my words).

Of course the US made a large contribution to the war effort, along with the other countries mentioned earlier. But I think Hollywood has given many people the false impression that the Americans virtually won the war single-handedly - one might call it the "John Wayne" syndrome. With the natural inclination of movie producers to make films that feature Americans in battle, largely to maximize profits from the huge US market, it's understandable that many people aren't aware of the incredible contributions made by all the other nations around the world.

The contribution each country made has to take into account the incredible sacrifices made by the people who payed the ultimate price - their lives - to defend their freedoms. The link below is a list of casualties by country...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World...ties_by_country

Instead of saying "this country" or "that country" did more to "win" the war, I think every single country did everything they could, and gave everything they had, as a group, so that all of us could live our lives in freedom today.

As for "winning" - the only ones who ever "win" in a war are the financiers and corporations involved in selling weapons and the other war-related industries. Everyone else, the 99.99% of us, all lose. Some lose everything - home, family and friends. Some lose relatively less than that. But I wouldn't really say that any country (or countries) "wins".

"You should think before you speak, I'm actually educated on the subject. Why do you think my bloody screen name is Stalingrad?

Yea, I'm sure you are. And what does stalingrad have to do with Pearl?

..... and who the hell is Sgt. Rock?'

"actually educated" and you don't know?

I am educated and i dont read or listen that name in my life. It was a propaganda comic character?

I want to hear from "educated Stalin" first Mekorig. I e-mail with a guy down in Argentina. (from another forum) Very educated,about 22 I beleiive. A Nationallist. South America has a lot of great Nationalist people down there. They WILL come together.Argentina,Brazil,Bolivia etc. I understand how you all have your differences. But you can unite,to a point where it is beneficial to all. And by all means try not to let our (U.S.A. )corrupt administration influence you. You may not agree with me,but, it is just the way I see it.

So you think that just because some US politics are corrupt as every country has corrupt politics, Pearl Harbor was the US governments doing? What does then have to do with now? They were totally different times.



You do know Stalingrad was the place of the greatest battle in WW2 right? I know my theaters of world war 2 and what happened there, and who was involved.



I'm sorry, I don't read comic books. (Even " Our Army At War" later known as "Sgt. Rock")

------------------------------------------------------

And how did this turn into a chat about unitation of South America? How is this relevant to the subject at hand?

What?, you are babbling on about nonsense, don't turn into troll.

Ok, Sarge.

Nice to see you haven't made an ass of yourself and took the time to explain your opinions and ideas.

Stalin, The rest on here may be in awe of you. As for me..... You'r posts are rather empty. You are text book follower.And if It is not an inconvience, post an exclusive thread about WW2.Pearl Harbor, Nazi's, Japonese or what ever. I will try to keep up with ya 'sarge'. I only gradgeated HS.

Not really... but ok.



Lol, you want to talk about empty posts? Just read a few of your recent ones. In this thread we were talking about Pearl Harbor and questioning whether the US knew where, when, and how the attack was going to happen. I provided info on the whole subject. This is what we do in a forum.



This isn't a WW2 forum, only a ww2 topic.



I'm only a Freshman in highschool (soon to be in 10th grade)...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

What?, read the whole thread, or atleast the first couple pages before you post please.

They attack the US for one reason, Commerce. The Japanse felt threatened by th US presence in the Far East, specially in the Philippines. Japan felt America is in a position to do much influence in the Far East and felt their major source of commerce threathened.

"I'm only a Freshman in highschool (soon to be in 10th grade)..."

Kinda shows my point. Even if your 60. Same attitude. Like the Swastika in forest, meeting place for skinheads? or whatever you said. Good lord. Stalin(grad) and your cute little mex. with the mex flag are enough to convince me of your knowledge(or lack of) and priorities. Pick a good subject ,ok? Sarge.

So basically you have nothing to say in your defense except "I am right and you are wrong?".

And the German government did worry about the Swastika forest becomming a place of pilgrimage or meeting for neo-nazis, if was just one of many factors why they cut down the trees. The German government is paranoid about all things Nazi and Nazi related.



Tap dancing around the subject. You criticize me because of my avatar? It's just a parody of the Linux penguin. I'm not even Mexican (just a pinch of puerto rican). It seems you are becomming a troll, no point of posting, you just do it for the hell of it. You are just babbling on about things you are not even willing to explain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't forget, age is irrelevant.