Conspiracy? on The History Channel : Irony

[RoyGBiv]

In case you've never heard this before, a conspiracy theory has long existed that claims FDR manufactured the United States' entry into WWII by deliberately ignoring information that signaled when and where the Japanese would strike the United States. My purpose is not to comment on this theory aside from saying I'm uncommitted to any position. My purpose is, however, to note the irony.

A lot of people, more and more in recent years it seems, put a lot of credence in this theory. It has in fact become mainstream enough now to have a serious program on the History Channel about it. There is clear evidence that supports it. How one interprets that evidence generally provides the division between whether it means FDR plotted to allow Pearl Harbor to be bombed without anyone outside his closest circle to know or whether he and other military officials, i.e. people who would have had access to the exact same information and likewise did not act upon it or see its significance, simply screwed up. The third possibility involves some combination of both these scenarios.

Meanwhile, back in the now, outside certain circles, theories about 9/11, the Presidential campaigns of 2000 and 2004, and, as a more direct comparison, how we came to be involved in a war in Iraq are painted by the MSM and some of the same historians and other scholars who support the FDR theory as the ravings of the lunatic fringe.

And of course we now have a pResident who has made it his goal to dismantle the FDR legacy.

Just thought I'd mention it.

[hootinholler]

1. They seem to have run quite a bit of nazi history over the last 4 years.

Hard to argue there aren't parallel viens to be mined today.

I won't argue either side to the FDR case. I do have some comments.

First, I want to point out that it was another soveriegn nation attacking a legitimate military target and not perviously CIA funded organization's next-generation operatives attacking what was essentially a collective of citzens of the world. Were I in FDRs position hell, I might have been late on warning PacFleet. We could sure use an FDR or Teddy now.

The problem with our current situation is that the country that got 'Pearl Harbored' is also the fascist. That in and of itself, is to me, mind boggling. I'm beginning to believe there's something to eugenics after all. Could it be that some bloodlines are simply corrupt in the pursuit of war profiteering, or, is it more likely that this is taught behavior passed on from generation to generation. Hmmm, nurture or nature, the age old question.

What is clear is that the Junta has control of the majority of our government. The only force I can think of capable of investigation all of this is the U.S. Marshals Office, but sadly they work for DOJ. I want a special committee with a team of untouchables drawn from and recruited into The U.S. Marshals Office. Let the chips fall where they may.

Can anyone point to a moment in history when the U.S. Federal Government was more corrupted? What about State governments?

-Hoot

OnEdit I was going to fix 'perviously' and then noticed it was Freudian and left it.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Corruption ...

With regard to a period in history when state governments were as corrupt as they are today, certainly periods exist with more overall corruption. The late 19th century springs immediately to mind as the one with the broadest scope of corruption across the board. Various eras had more or less localized levels of corruption.

Part of it, of course, depends on how we define corruption, and in that it is more difficult to find a federal government more corrupt than the current one. But we must also consider that corruption in the modern age is more visible, which, in another irony, is part of why its so readily ignored. When all our leaders are corrupt, it isn't remarkable anymore. We weren't necessarily less corrupt in previous eras; we just had better illusions.

It's amazing to me the ways in which the world and more importantly our perceptions of it have changed since the early 70's.

[hootinholler]

3. Ok, perhaps corruption was the wrong term...

I'm meaning the amount of control of one faction. That a small number of people have near total control of the Fed. Ignoring how it happened, when has this happened before?

-Hoot

[whistle]

4. That is total horse-shit being pushed by RW extremists/john....

...birch society types who won't rest until they have discredited every liberal politician that ever existed! I turned if off when the first commercial came on.

[onager]

7. Pfft! That old lie again?

...a conspiracy theory has long existed that claims FDR manufactured the United States' entry into WWII...

Yes, it's existed since Dec. 8, 1941, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary by everyone who was in a position to know.

Unfortunately, like most wingnut theories, it's easy to pick a few isolated events out of context and hammer on them to create the appearance of a conspiracy.

You could say that US intelligence had too much of some information (the broken Japanese diplomatic codes) and otherwise too little (they hadn't broken the operational naval codes, which might have given them the location of the Japanese attack fleet).

All the evidence indicates that FDR thought exactly what his military advisors predicted--that the Japanese would hit the Philippine Islands first. That's why the Philippines were reinforced, albeit belatedly, in late 1941.

Ironically, that's exactly what Admiral Yamamoto suggested. He told the Japanese high command that an attack on the Philipines would infuriate Americans, but an attack on Pearl Harbor would absolutely outrage them. To Americans, Yamamoto correctly noted, attacking Hawaii would be considered the same as an attack on the American mainland. (Yamamoto had lived in the U.S. and studied at Harvard.)

Yamamoto then made his famous prediction, that any Japanese attack needed to hit the US with such a psychological blow that Japan could go to Washington and dictate peace terms immediately.

Otherwise, Yamamoto predicted, he could "run wild for 6 months" but the war would turn against Japan once American industrial production ramped up.

It was almost exactly 6 months later, the summer of 1942, that Japan lost the two battles which started it down the road of defeat--Coral Sea and Midway.

[Neecy]

5. as as aside...

There was an odd note to this program ---

One of the two main advocates for the "FDR Knew" theory was identified as Richard Hill, who (we're told) holds a PhD from Georgetown, but unlike many of the other historians on the program it didn't list a current academic affiliation for him. Given his simmering Freeper-like hatred of FDR (accusing him of "high treason"), I wondered if perhaps his current affiliation is with, say, a think-tank such as AEI.

I just did a quick Google search on Mr. Hill, and there's almost NO record of this man - just a single site where several credible historians accuse him of duplicity during a recent seminar. That's it.

Now, since History Channel just gave this guy over half the program worth of face time, wouldn't you think they'd feature a well-known historian to argue the 'conspiracy' angle? This only thing this guy seems to be known for is an odd little book he wrote in 2002 with the title "Hitler Attacks Pearl Harbor: Why the United States Declared War on Germany". I wonder how much history we got from that segment, and how much was pure political propaganda. Unfortunately, the guy doesn't seem to leave many tracks, so it's hard to know.

[RoyGBiv]

9. Interesting ...

Thanks for that. He so irritated me that at some point I lost my ability to think straight. And I even think there is some shred of truth in the substance that backs the theory, regardless of whether the theory as presented holds any water. That guy was just a loon.

The History Channel, FWIW, is somewhat infamous for spotlighting "historians" who have credentials that, if they were displayed more clearly, might put into question their contributions. I was slapped in the face with this when I started seeing a guy I kinda knew on shows about the Civil War. A lot of people think of him as a historian because he's one of these people that had few professional obligations to tie him down and spent most of his time reading and studying. He knows a lot, but he's not the kind of academic that one would turn to for original analysis, that is, not The Authority on any specific subject.

There are a lot of these people out there. Hell, I'm one of a variety, but I don't go about passing myself off as an authority of record. Some people seek the fame more than the knowledge, and I think this Hill person was one of those.

[Neecy]

14. yep

I'd like to know a little more about the historians featured on the History Channel; this is, after all, the network that brought us a straight-faced segment on how LBJ murdered Kennedy.

The reason this smacked of propaganda was that Roosevelt was the most liberal president of the last century, and also the greatest war president of the century. In order to attack liberals as 'weak', they have to dismantle FDR's war record, or accuse him of 'high treason'.

I don't buy the FDR Knew theories. One would think that if he had pre-knowledge of the attack, he'd want to ensure that the first engagement of the war would be a repulsed attack instead of a devastating psychological defeat. From his service as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the first war, he developed a deep love for the Navy and it's really inconceivable that he'd allow a large portion of the fleet to be destroyed at anchor.

Granted, mistakes were made both in Washington and at Pearl - but the FDR Knew theory is far too simplistic to be believed, at least to me. It began as a way for the commanders in Hawaii to avoid responsibility, and was picked up by Roosevelt's opponents. I have yet to see a smoking gun.

[RoyGBiv]

21. There is no smoking gun ...

It was glossed over during the program as some sort of "common knowledge" factoid, but in reality is a highly constroversial statement. The smoking gun the FDR-haters think they have is that FDR saw each and every decrypted communications intercept received from the Japanese. IOW, they say he saw it all, so he had to know it all.

The two fundamental problems are these:

1) It would have been impossible for any single man to see each and every decrypted intercept and get any concrete meaning out of them before the fact, in part because the decrypts were usually fragmented -- words here and there that could mean another of things depending on the words in between and whether the message may have been part of a diversion.

2) *If* FDR saw each and every decrypt, he saw them after others did, and none of those others came to the conclusion that the critics charge FDR should have made.

Well, there's a third problem: All things are clear in hindsight, which these "historians" have forgotten, probably intentionally.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. This is NOTHING BUT Right Wing B.S to smear FDR!

FDR saved this country from Hitler!!! Remember that!

[Djinn]

19. not Hitler

the Japanese army perhaps but Hitler had no plans to occupy the US, he was a mass murderer and a meglomaniac but he wasn't stupid

[chicagiana]

28. Actually ... he DID ...

A sequel to "Mein Kaumpf" has been brought out. The story was that it was given to the publisher for review, but Hitler decided not to publish it because it revealed his "game plan".

Essentially, Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world. And he perceived that he must do it quickly or else the US would eventually gather the strength to destroy him. Same goes for the Soviet Union. And this explains his seemingly tragic decision to open an Eastern front before he'd finished with Enland. Stalin was gathering his strength in the East.

As far as occupation goes ... Hitler relied on local facist sympathizers to do his dirty work. And I dare say he would have found eager allies here in the United States. Those are the very same allies that helped fund him (DuPont, Prescott Bush).

[banana republican]

8. The difference is that FDR was right in what he did

e.g. Auschwitz et al.

* has yet to demonstrate that he had done anything right.

[onager]

11. If you really want to get mad...

...read Thomas Fleming's The New Dealers' War. Fleming is a "real" historian with a lot of books and TV documentaries in his resume. For one, the PBS series on The American Revolution.

Fleming takes a LOT of care to point out that he was raised in a Democratic household with a picture of FDR hanging on the wall.

The book is (strictly in my opinion) a pretty vicious attack on FDR as a wartime leader.

One thing that Fleming harps on is Roosevelt's absolute insistence that Germany and Japan "unconditionally surrender." Fleming produces reams of complaints from military leaders, like Eisenhower and the modest, retiring MacArthur, that the demand for unconditional surrender often hobbled them in negotiating with the enemy.

What Fleming never mentions, IIRC, is the reasoning behind that demand. The First World War ended with an armistice, not a surrender. So it was easy for Hitler to insist that "Germany was never defeated on the battlefield, but was stabbed in the back at home," etc. etc.

FDR was determined that the Second World War wouldn't end with that particular escape hatch available to any future Hitlers. This time, the belligerents were going to surrender unconditionally with the whole world as a witness to their absolute defeat.

[baldguy]

10. Will we have to wait 60 yrs for a show

about Bush's complicity in the 9/11 attacks? I hope not.

[The Magistrate]

12. The Only Reason This Verges On Mainstream, Sir

Is because reactionary rightist revisionists wish to discredit President Roosevelt as much as possible. Unfortunately, they receive some small assistance nowadays from a few on the left, who wish to discredit the very idea of a necessary war, or to find some precedent for other views of current events. The current prominence of this view of Pearl Harbor owes nothing to facts....

[linazelle]

13. What you said....my sentiments exactly n/t

[RoyGBiv]

17. Finding Precedent

"...they receive some small assistance nowadays from a few on the left, who wish to ... find some precedent for other views of current events."

What does this mean, exactly?

[Djinn]

20. that means nasty bad lefties

who discredit the real decent proper lefties.

there is actually quite a bit of evidence to suggest that FDR had some forewarning - not saying this is what I beleive I honestly don't care to much either way, but that doesn't mean that FDR taking the US to war was a bad thing, the Japanese DID bomb Pearl Harbour they DID attack so therefore there's no problem going to war.

The US didn't go to war because of the concentration camps just like the Brits didn't, Japan was threatening US "possessions" in the Pacific, so they went to war.

You can beleive ALL of the above and still respect and admire FDR.

[RoyGBiv]

22. Agreed n/t

[linazelle]

15. The Cons are like kids who cry "he hit me first" when they get caught

punching their kid brother--always blaming somebody or something else. They've aired other programs, one recently in January about how Kennedy stole the 1963 election, and they continue to punch us all in the gut with their thievery but ignore their own wrongdoing. Should they ever be called on the carpet, they'll have the "precedents" they are now trying to set firmly instilled in the sheeples' heads for support and "proof" that they aren't that bad--they aren't the "only ones" who were wrong.

[Dude_CalmDown]

16. The History Channel has no credibility at all in my book. None.

Any channel that can spend so much time talking about Nazi Germany without ever discussing how Germany was able to become Nazi Germany has no credibility with me. Any channel that can dedicate hours & hours talking about Saddam Hussein without ever bothering to mention who it was that put him in power and supported/propped up/held his hand through all of his atrocities is a channel that is nothing but (ironically enough) exactly what they call themselves - programming.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Absolutely ...

They sell "pop" history: stories that are interesting about the past. They show almost no analysis, and I have yet to see a show that really gets into causation of any historical event or chain of events that isn't like the "Conspiracy?" show about FDR.

[onager]

24. A sign of the times?

It seems like, 4 or 5 years ago, I was recording some excellent stuff from The History Channel.

There was a great 4-hr documentary on the Holocaust that really delved into the reasons behind it and the complicity in Nazi satellites like Latvia and Hungary. There was "Blood Upon The Snow," about the war between Russia and Nazi Germany. And if I'm not confusing my channels (a possibility), an outstanding multi-part documentary about the Great Depression.

Have they just succumbed to The Fog Of Bu$hism recently? ;-)

What I really hate about The History Channel is their running non-sensical woo-woo shows about aliens building the Pyramids and such.
To a casual viewer, this sort of garbage might have the same credibility as any other History Channel show.

I spent the month of January in Egypt. They REALLY hate that "aliens built the Pyramids" idea. As one smart young Egyptian guy told me, the aliens must have had some fairly primitive technology themselves, since the learning curve for building Egyptian pyramids was about 800 years.

[RoyGBiv]

25. You're thinking of PBS ...

At least that's where _Blood Upon the Snow_ came from. (This was excellent, btw.) The series I recall about the Great Depression that was actually good was produced for PBS as well.

And, I will say that I do remember some more respectable offerings from THC in years past, and History International has some decent programming. But, it's all still rather amateurish in its scope. It doesn't go much beyond what you'd get from reading a short compilation narrative.

[KelleyKramer]

26. History Intl is the last one worth your time, just barely

In the last several years all the educational type channels have turned to garbage.

The Discovery channel may as well be the serial killers channel. Learning channel started showing ER operations and 'Cops'? Sheesh!
A&E is showing reality shows about mob wives and one with a WWF bounty hunter.

History channel went downhill too, History International is barely worth even keeping cable. Discovery Science is decent, but the other 100 or so channels are now all nothing but garbage.

Its a damn shame what these 5 or 6 corporations have done to our entire media.

[RoyGBiv]

27. It's frustrating ...

I happened across some news blurb the other day attacking PBS as well. The critics were saying that as a "public" broadcasting network, the programming should reflect America's "innate" conservative sensibilities and offer more conservative oriented programming.

I didn't watch long. I don't think the television screen could have handled what I was wanting to throw at it.

[KelleyKramer]

23. The Bush family was involved in all those wars

Bush's grandfather was helping Hitler before and during WWII.

Poppy started Desert Storm

And Idiot Boy started the Iraq war.

Actually a lot of the heirs to the American industrial titans who helped Hitler are now major players in the Iraq take-over.

If you study up on it, its interesting to see how a relative small group of families and corporations are common to all these wars.

Of course, you will NEVER see anything about ANY of that on the History Channel.

[moondust]

29. Not believable.

Even if you want to believe the wingnuts, there were far better and easier ways to start that war than allowing massive carnage and destruction of your fighting ability. That's crazy.

Just send the fleet out to meet them on the high seas and if they don't open fire then you do. Tell the world you intercepted their messages and knew their intentions. Or claim that they fired first.

Or stage a Gulf of Tonkin incident. Certainly no need to waste the whole fleet.