After Pearl Harbor everyone was sure the West Coast would be invaded

[JamesA1102]

But that never happened because it was never part of the Japanese war plan. Not because of any action that FDR took to keep the country safer.

So when someone claims that Bush kept us safer and they use the arguement that right after 9/11 everyone was sure we would get attacked again, remind them of Pearl Harbor.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. ?

[rufus dog]

2. the correlation is

In the 1942 there was concerned about a West Coast attack. Big blimp hangers still exist in NoCal and SoCal that were part of the defense to watch the Coast. There was never a Japanese attempt to hit the West Coast. What the OP is saying is there hasn't been an attempt to follow up 911 on U.S. soil, thus Bush claiming he is successful because of no attack is weak.

[Taverner]

3. OBL got everything he wanted

US out of Saudi Arabia? Check!
Economy tanks? Check!
Nation divided? Check!
Freedom shredded? Check!
US bogs itself in useless wars? Check!

[slackmaster]

4. You are mistaken - the Japanese bombed the west coast twice in 1942

http://www.historynet.com/japanese-bomb-the-continental-u-s-west-coast.htm

Japanese war planes were allegedly spotted near the coast of California on several occasions after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist9/aaf1.html

Anyone who is familiar with World War II knows about the approximately 9,000 balloon bombs the Japanese sent over the US. The program was generally considered a failure, but there were some civilians killed in Oregon in one incident.

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/balloon.html

[rvablue]

8. Really? Wow, never knew that. And another great post where I actually learned

some new facts!

Thanks!

[LanternWaste]

14. However I don't think that an invasion of the continent...

However I don't think that an invasion of the continent was part and parcel of their overall strategic war plan. I think their plan vis-a-vis the U.S. was merely to prevent the U.S. from interfering in their plans to dominate southeast Asia and the Pacific rim territories-- which I what I believe the OP was alluding to.

[JamesA1102]

17. True. But everyone here thought they were going to invade.

It is a reality vs. perception thing.

[JamesA1102]

15. Bombing is not an invasion nt

[slackmaster]

18. What do you normally do before you invade something?

You bomb it.

[JamesA1102]

20. Not all bombings are followed by invasion.

And as we found out after the war there was never any serious Japanese plan to invade the US.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Japan invaded Alaska.

I don't know about you, but I consider Alaska part of the West Coast.

[JamesA1102]

42. Weak comeback! nt

[county worker]

5. Japan's loss at the Battle of Midway was the main reason they never

attacked the west coast of the US. They did send bombs on balloons to Seattle and a sub attacked the Goviota coast just west of Santa Barbara hitting a oil storage tank.

They thought they could destroy the remaining US fleet at Midway and that would force the US to ask for peace rather than be attacked on the west coast. Without the pacific fleet there would be no stopping the Japanese navy from attacking our west coast.

They lost 4 carriers at Midway and never were a naval threat to us after that.

It wasn't FDR that kept us safe it was our forces in the Pacific.

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Yamamoto wouldn't have supported a West Coast invasion

Doesn't matter what the outcome of Midway. Yamamoto had spent far too much time in the US to have any delusions about the ability of Japan to conquer the US outright. He expected us to grow tired of the war long before we had pushed Japan back to it's pre-war boarders. And had it not been for our Island Hoping stratagy it probably would have succeded. The losses from an assault on Fortress Rabaul could of had disastrous effects on public opinion coming so early and far away from Japan.

[county worker]

13. well another interpretation!

[wyldwolf]

7. ya know, this is the second time I've seen this odd kind of reasoning in two days here

"It wasn't the president that did such and such, it was those under his command."

NEWSFLASH! IT WAS FDR!!!

[county worker]

12. Geez! excuse fucking me!

[Occam Bandage]

9. The fuck would they attack the West Coast for?

Their goal regarding the United States throughout the war was to destroy our sea power so they could capture and secure their empire without our ships getting in the way. If they had a clear shot to the West Coast, that means the US Pacific fleet was destroyed, and therefore they should be spending everything they've got on finishing off British presence in East Asia. And if the British presence is destroyed, then that means they've won, and they should be finishing off China (or, more likely, getting bogged down in an endless guerilla war) with their army as everything else goes towards fortifying and rebuilding the shattered cities of their empire.

[county worker]

11. strong reply!

[JamesA1102]

16. Right we learned that after the war.

But in late 1941/early '42 everyone here was afraid the Japanese were planning to invade the West Coast. But after the war we found out that was not the case.

[county worker]

30. There were blackout curtains and even a whole fake city built on top of the Boeing plant to fool

enemy bombers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. To destroy U.S. sea power.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

31. Yes, exactly, and San Diego would surely have been one of their prime targets

The length of Harbor Drive and several other areas of the city were covered with camoflage netting for much of the duration of the war. There were gun implacements on Point Loma, Otay Mountain, and the bluffs west of what is now the UCSD campus.

Los Angeles had batteries of guns capable of hitting ships as far as Santa Catalina Island.

[county worker]

36. Please don't upset our faux historians of DU with facts!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. San Diego, San Fransisco, L.A., Seattle with its aircraft production facilities.

Puget Sound was also lined with anti-ship guns. They wouldn't have had a prayer against Japanese guns.

Not that I think Japanese would have had any luck against torpedo and dive bombers.

The other big target would have been the Panama canal.

[Zynx]

23. FDR was as responsible for our military success in WWII as any president who has conducted a war

has been. They did want Hawaii, but their designs on the West Coast have always been ambiguous. I think they would have realized that was beyond their reach. The logistics of that are difficult.

[county worker]

29. FDR let his commanders make the decisions. That is a very well known fact.

Admiral Nimitz was responsible for the Battle of Midway. The Pentagon felt that the Japanese were planning to attack Pear Harbor again or possibly the West Coast. Nimitz made the decision to go to Midway and not stay in Pearl.

[Zynx]

38. FDR, however, was a very shrewd personnel manager.

Eisenhower, Nimitz, and Marshall were all plucked from deep within the ranks of the military. FDR of course did not make battlefield decisions. However, he did put in place a massive naval building program late in the 1930s. That naval building program is responsible for our new battleships and carriers as well as aircraft designs that were the product of other military programs that were put in place far in advance of WWII.

His logistical management of the war was second to none as well. The fact is that we conducted that war nearly as well as it could have possibly been conducted.

[county worker]

40. Yes you are right. A lot of what the US did in building up the Navy was

a result of the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and some say that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Solon]

10. The thing that saved the US was location...

With oceans between us and the Axis powers, a large industrial capacity that was out of striking range of their airforces, not to mention them having few allies in our hemisphere, and none that were close enough to be in striking distance, both Germany and Japan were never planning to invade or occupy the United States. Logistically it was impossible, they were hoping to knock the US out of the war long enough to fortify their own positions and gains, but never to actually conquer the US.

[Zynx]

24. Even if Japan was due north of us they didn't have the capability.

They were a significantly less capable military power than Germany was.

[neverforget]

43. You are correct. They also didn't have the sealift capacity to transport

and supply the tens of thousands of troops to occupy Hawaii let alone anything on the West Coast.

[AllentownJake]

22. FDR called people to serve, sacrifice and buy war bonds

Amazing what a person who gets it can do.

He even made up fake sacrifices that did nothing so that people would feel apart of the effort who couldn't otherwise.

[riverdale]

26. fake sacrifices

What?

[AllentownJake]

27. Do you really think saving string and turning it into the government helped the war effort?

It was done so the country stayed engaged.

Imagine what Bush could have done if he said Recycling was the Patriotic thing to do after 9-11. It would have nothing to do with the terrorist acts but it would have been good for the planet.

[slackmaster]

33. People donating scrap metal and meat drippings helped the war effort

So did gasoline rationing. Everyone was engaged in many ways.

[AllentownJake]

34. Somethings helped and were necessary

There were things that were asked for purely propoganda reasons.

Somethings were asked just because it was the right thing to do and habbits in this country needed to be changed.

I.E. Bush was handed a golden opportunity to change this country for the better...he encouraged us to run up our debt and we are now facing a possible global depression. He did the exact opposite of what anyone other than a sociopath would ask the country to do.

[riverdale]

44. interesting take

I am not doubting what you are saying. It's just a little piece of history I hadn't thought much about. I know they saved scrap metal, even bacon fat. String, no idea. DO you know where I can find a list of items people were supposed to donate during WWII? I don't know exactly what to google for that. I did find some intersting articles looking for it though.

" Port Richmond, Philadelphia neighborhood movie theaters helped the war cause by providing free admission to those who donated scrap metal to the war effort during WWII. Patrons had to donate a specified amount of scrap which was weighed and piled in front of the Clearfield Theater to gain free admittance to specified monthly shows. "

[Zomby Woof]

25. it was also the premise of a bad Spielberg comedy

[Enthusiast]

28. If you want an accurate

portrayal of the events of 1941 just watch the movie 1941, very accurate.

[IsItJustMe]

32. W didn't save us from shit. It's an absurd arguement for most thinking people.

[slackmaster]

35. That was a reasonable assumption under the circumstances at the time

Your comparison fails.

[Igel]

37. But you can't finish the analogy.

That's the problem with your reasoning: You don't know enough to finish the analogy.

During WWII, we thought that the strategic plans did or could include an invasion--if not to occupy, then at least to distract and to cause us to fall back, wounded enough to sue for peace. Was it wrong? Sure.

How do we know? Because we talked to people that were in charge of plans, we had access to archives and records. We have a good idea of what the plans were on the Japanese side, not because of intelligence, which may be partial, or logic, or politically induced necessity, but because we have facts. Might more information come to light? Sure, there could be a box with all the invasion plans sitting under the bed of a low-ranking officer entrusted with them after the war, just awaiting discover. Probably not.

In 2001 ff. we thought that AQ's plan included or could include another serious attack on the US or US interests--if not to occupy, then at least to distract and to cause us to fall back, wounded enough to sue for peace. Was it wrong? Dunno. Ne mogu znat', as a Russian would say in this situation--I can't know. I can think, suspect, surmise, assume, propose, entertain the hypothesis that, believe, have faith that, or even fear. But 'know'? Nope.

Do you have access to all the necessary files and information to say that this wasn't part of the plan? Have you quizzed Zawahri and bin Ladin, and others in his network? Enough so that you know what their plans were for 9/12/01 to the present, and for the future until they're beaten and can no longer present any challenge?

If so, may I suggest you contact Obama immediately. Until then you'r arguing from silence: You're saying that since we know that they haven't attacked us, it's obvious their plans didn't include attacking us--or we'd have heard about it, including all the details. I don't think that's necessarily true.

[JamesA1102]

41. In 7 years since 9/11 we have not uncovered one

credible plot by AQ to attack us again. So there is not enough info to conclude that Bush kept us any safer. Just the fact that we haven't been attacked again is not evidence enough.