Did FDR let Pearl Harbor happen? Did * do the same?

[enid602]

Many historians feel that FDR purposely cut Japan off from oil supplies, and ignored countless diplomatic hints and intelligence reports in an effort to 'let' Pearl Harbor happen, thereby galvanizing a previously isolationist US public against the axis powers. Ironically, * has acted as the president who would undo all FDR-era legislation. To wit, his efforts with re: to Social Security. Nonetheless, I feel that * sees himself as a sort of anti-FDR, who is trying to lead America into what he sees as its destiny. Looking at *'s perceived role in this light, I find it much easier to see how he and his minions might permit something like 9/11.

[sendero]

1. Maybe..

.... but equating a country's military attack against another military target with what happened on 9-11 is not honest.

[Deep13]

2. No and I wouldn't put it past him.

[Ignacio Upton]

3. FDR had no reason to

All of the U.S. miltary plans in 1940-1941 called for fighting an offensive war against Germany and a defensive war against Japan if necessary. Roosevelt spent most of his time in the public talking about the European theater of war (Lend/Lease) and little about Japan. Also, if he wanted to take advantage of a small incident to go to war that would have generated enough public support to do so, there were a few incidents where U-Boats sank or fired at our ships in 1940-1941 (eg. the sinking of the USS Kearny.) If he wanted to LIHOP in order to enter the war, he had the opportunity to do so on the German front with incidents that someone like Woodrow Wilson would have used to get us into WWI (the issue of exchanges with German ships) and he didn't even see Japan as the primary threat, and considering that Hilter's forces were much strong than Japan's, that arguement has merit.

[mdmc]

5. I disagree.

I think that we had many european allies, but the other theater was our weakness. I think that we knew that the attack was coming, but couldn't fully deflect the attack without compromising our intelligence. Just like fisa.

[The Magistrate]

10. We Had No Allies, Sir, We Were Not Yet At War

We were providing assistance to England, of various sorts, though not yet to Soviet Russia. Our relations with Japan were quite hostile, owing both to its aggressive and brutal war in China, and its evident aim to take over the oriental colonies of France and Holland. If the intelligence services had correctly concluded from the information available to them Pearl ws the target, it would have been child's play to arrange a devestating recenption for the Japanese fleet, and no one would have thought anything more than that a military base was on proper alert.

[mdmc]

12. by that I mean that the nazis had enemies

the french, brits, and russians...

[Lostnote06]

25. Correct.....it was the brutality of the Japanese expansion

....directed toward the Chinese that moved FDR to cut off shipping lanes....the similarities to now and then rest once again upon natural resources ie: oil being the principle player.....did FDR betray his "class"?

[The Magistrate]

27. His Class, Sir

Often accused him of that very thing....

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Exactly.

A thwarted attack on Pearl, downing 200 of the 350 attacking planes, would have been just as effective an excuse for war as a successful attack that crippled our Pacific fleet.

You don't pick a fight with someone by handing them a loaded gun and asking them to shoot you in the head.

[enid602]

31. Tell that to *.

I think he's trying to do it again in Iran.

[Imagevision]

60. December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning 9-11 also a setup

December 7, 1941

As Americans honor those 2403 men, women, and children killed—and 1178 wounded—in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941, recently released government documents concerning that “surprise” raid compel us to revisit some troubling questions.

At issue is American foreknowledge of Japanese military plans to attack Hawaii by a submarine and carrier force 59 years ago. There are two questions at the top of the foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an “overt act of war” directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japan’s military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short so they would not interfere with the overt act.

Congress was specific in its finding against the 1941 White House: Kimmel and Short were cut off from the intelligence pipeline that located Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii. Then, after the successful Japanese raid, both commanders were relieved of their commands, blamed for failing to ward off the attack, and demoted in rank.

[reichstag911]

13. Au contraire.

Check out Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett. FDR absolutely backed Japan into a corner whereby they had to declare war on us.

[The Magistrate]

19. That, Sir

Is very different from stating that foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack was in U.S. possession, and deliberately disregarded. The author you cite makes that claim, but fails badly to prove it.

As a matter of curiousity, do you think the atrocious war of imoerialist aggression conducted by Japan in China should have been allowed to continue without let or hinderance from any quarter?

[reichstag911]

35. Well, sir,...

...in reply to your query, "do you think the atrocious war of imperialist aggression conducted by Japan in China should have been allowed to continue without let or hinderance from any quarter?", I must respond in the negative, but that's not my call to make, is it? The American public was extremely isolationist, and it took a provocation on the order of the attack at Pearl to surmount that resistance to involvement. The German provocations cited in this thread were inadequate to the task, as the Germans knew and planned -- they wanted no war with the US and Britain (originally), remember. It didn't hurt that it was the "yellow peril" that attacked a racist and isolationist US. For the most part, my understanding is that Americans mostly considered it a European matter, and after WWI, did not wish to become entangled yet again in such a conflict.

[The Magistrate]

38. Actually, Sir

War with Japan over China was pretty popular, and agreement woth it could have been whipped up to high heat if an effective political machine had decided to do it, without much more than the frequently viewed contents of contemporary newsreels.

Throughout U.S. history, "freedom of the seas" has been the most potent traditional rallying cry to war, and the sinking of at least two U.S. naval vessels by Nazi submarines, while escorting U.S. merchant vessels, would, again, have sufficed if promoted properly, particulatly after war was already in train with someone else.

[reichstag911]

43. Well,...

...if that's the case, then why were those issues not forcefully marketed by FDR? "(I)f an effective political machine had decided to do it"; "if promoted properly"... If that's all it took, and FDR was a master politician, why does history indicate that it was not until Pearl that he had the requisite public support for involvement?

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. But there didn't need to be any funny business about Pearl

to get an American reaction.

The invasion of the Phillippines started the next day. The Phillippines was an American possession, with a large US military presence. So what would be gained by allowing a successful blow against the US fleet? The attack was on anyway.

Far more thousands died in the Phillippines. An entire army was lost. And it would have happened in any case, whether Hawaii was attacked or not. The damage to the fleet just made the assault on the Phillippines that much more successful.

As others have said, an attack on the Phillippines was not unexpected, though the timing of it was not probably known. And we could have fought a reasonably successful delaying fight in the Pacific if our fleet hadn't been decimated. So why would FDR set us up for the terrible defeats we suffered in the first six months of the Pacific war? If he wanted a fight, he would have had one without such devastating losses.

[Imagevision]

61. Try using the Freedom of informations act website enter Pearl Harbor

[Ignacio Upton]

21. Then why did every government plan call for a war with Germany

And fighting Japan on the DEFENSIVE if need be? Roosevelt was just doing what Churchill suggested in "keeping that Japanese dog quiet" meaning he did not want them to expand too quickly a pose a threat to American and British interests, but not an actual war. And as a I stated, the public was focused on Germany, and Roosevelt wanted to help out the British in the German threater first. There were also incidents of a much lesser scale than Pearl Harbor that took place with Germany that FDR could have used to whip up public support. He did anticipate a Japanese attack around the time of December 1941, but in somewhere like the Phillipines, not Hawaii.

[Twist_U_Up]

48. Of Course................

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:WGVcdhbaS2MJ:www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html+Chicago+Tribune,+August+19,1945+JAPS+ASKED+PEACE+IN+JAN.+ENVOYS+ON+WAY+--+TOKYO+Roosevelt+Ignored+M%27Arthur+Report+On+Nip+Proposals+By+Walter+Trohan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945

JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.

Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D.

The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures.

The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."

The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald shortly after the MacArthur communication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Besides, the common perception was that Japan was fully

engaged in its war in China, who they had been fighting for seven years already. They were facing a country of 600 million, that could, if mobilized effectively, put a 20 million man army in the field. Even if they were armed with no more than spears, that is a force to reckon with. The idea of opening hostilities with the Western powers before finishing with China was ludicrous.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Interesting thought

but I have to wonder how FDR could have prevented Pearl Harbor. We did not have the military might in 1941 to prevent the attack from happening. We might have been on greater alert that Sunday Morning and that might have resulted in less damage to our fleet but the attack would have happened and would have been reason enough to declare war. If the Pearl Harbor attack had not occurred no doubt the Japanese would eventually have done something else to get us involved. If FDR operated like bush he would have attacked Ecuador after the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor.

I see no comparison at all to bush and 9-11. His handlers at PNAC wanted a war and needed a reason to start one. He purposefully avoided warnings and longed for a war that he was advised would take no time at all and everything would be just peachykeen afterwards. bush is nothing more than a useful idiot for PNAC.

[EVDebs]

14. Day of Deceit by Bush friend Robert Stinnett says it was allowed...

knowing Pearl Harbor would be attacked, US intelligence knew in advance an attack was imminent. But makes you wonder about any preventive defenses Pearl had that could have been shored up.

[Zynx]

28. If we had somehow managed to thwart the Pearl Harbor attack, Germany

may not have declared war on us and we might have been stuck fighting Japan.

[EVDebs]

44. Lincoln and FDR artfully, skillfully, forced events naturally to take plac

while PNACers and the vulcans artlessly are bumbling and the blowback instead of creating a 'new American century' are creating quagimes and chaos instead. What was the plan again ?

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. Bush friend.

That automatically makes it suspect.

[The Magistrate]

18. Some Simple And Devestating Things Could Have Been Done, Sir

If it were actually known in any detail that the attack was on the way, the U.S. carrier squadron could have been placed in a position on a flank of the Japanese fleet, and launched its aircraft to attack after the Japanese had sent their's to Pearl. Its absence from Pearl would have drawn no especial notice by the limited Japanese ontelligence capability; in fact, it was out on manouvers, and departure for pre-arranged counter-attack would have looked no different than departure on manouvers. It is true that U.S. Navy pilots at that time were not particularly efficient, but attacking a fleet without air cover was shown by later events to be a pretty cut and dried exercise, and the Japanese would certainly have been bloodied.

[Zynx]

29. And if we had, Germany may not have declared war on us.

Think about the consequences of that for a moment.

[The Magistrate]

32. We Would Simply Have Declared War On Them, Sir

Once the thing is begun, the rage is easily spread, and war with Germany was a settled aspect of President Roosevelt's policy. There were plenty of pretexts in hand owing to conflicts between U.S. and Nazi naval units in the North Atlantic. Germany and Japan stood in an official relationship as allies: though it did have some practical holes, it was enough on its face for political action when blood is hot.

[Zynx]

36. It would have been much harder to pull off politically.

If you read FDR biographies you find that there was this great fear that we would be stuck fighting Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor and FDR was trying to figure out how we could justify fighting Germany, but luckily Hitler's madness helped us out.

[The Magistrate]

39. It Would Have Been Done, Sir

Amd your objection is predicated on the suggestion Hitler would not have declared war, in any case, and that is no certainty either. He was known for eagerly biting off more than he could chew....

[Zynx]

51. If he saw Japan beaten badly in a supposed sneak attack rather

than beat our fleet to a bloody pulp and seemingly prove us to be inept, I very much doubt that he would have declared war. It would have made no sense whatsoever. Declaring war on a seemingly battered and bruised America didn't seem to be very much of a problem at the time. Of course he was mistaken, but he never would have done so if it looked like the United States was going to roll over Japan easily.

Given the factors of uncertainty that we are talking about in either case, I think I can safely conclude that things turned out about as well as they could have. The risk that Germany might not have declared war on the United States is too terrible to contemplate.

[yellowcanine]

6. No and * wasn't born until 1946 so it couldn't have been him either.

:evilgrin:

[The Magistrate]

7. Put Bluntly, Sir, No, He Did Not

Nor do any real historians, as opposed to several half-trained cranks, propogate the idea that he did.

What happened was what often happens, a misperception of the threat and an underestimation of the enemy. The fuel embargo was known and intended to be an unbearable provocation to Japan, and a hostile response was anticipated. Intelligence, including code-nreaking, was certainly aware a major naval effort was being under-taken in Japan, and to some degree even knew its timing. However, it was thought the target would be the Philipines. This calculation came from two basic flaws: first, an inertial faith that the long-held belief of Navy strategists that the Philipines would be the focus of a Pacific war from the outset must be true, and second, a reluctance to acknowledge the possibility of an effective long range carrier strike, and particularly that the Japanese would be capable of such a bold and innovative action. Thus, the expectation was the Japanese would strike the Philipines, with perhaps some "fifth column" sabotuer activity in Hawaii. Instructions were that the command in the Philipines should take no aggressive pre-emptive action, so that the onus of the first blow would fall on the Japanese; this was an important political consideration not only in the U.S. but in the Philipines themselves. When the Japanese fleet sortied and was lost track of, it was simply assumed the Philipines were the target and that Pearl was in no danger.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

50. A great historical analysis, sir. Thanks for that n/t

[Imagevision]

58. Magistrate> but "they" eenough to get the cariers out of pearl now didn't

they...FDR like Bush knew full well an attack was coming, just not the magnitude and was merely waiting for it to announce war against Japan and Germany, until Pearl, the US. had no bonafide business with war with Germany.

[The Magistrate]

62. Not Really, Sir

Exercises were routine, and scheduled by the local command, which by your scenario knew nothing of the impending attack. The aircrew om the carriers were pretty raw, and in many instances flying newly issued machines, so that operational training was most needful. The Navy command actually did not think very highly of its carrier force prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, and if they were going to save anything by subterfuge, would have saved the battleships.

[JackBeck]

8. Gore Vidal has written extensively on how FDR was aware that

an attack was coming. Off the top of my head, I think if you read "Perpetual War, For Perpetual Peace" you might find this argument inside.

[The Magistrate]

11. Vidal, Sir, Writes Extrensively On A Lot Of Things

It is a shame, actually, because he commenced as a pretty decent fiction writer, and in those days, made no pretense he was writing anything but fiction.

[enid602]

16. FDR

FDR lived in the Age of Totalitarianism (Russia, Germany, Portugal, Mexico, Italy, Argentina and Spain all had dictators), and I think he might have felt that drastic action would be needed to save democracy. Given our conduct in the war (nd the positive results that came of US figting in WWII), I think FDR can be forgiven if he had any role in 'tricking' us into WWII. The deadly results of our involvement in Iraq can only be attributed to *'s wisdom, intelligence and management style, or lack thereof.

[BillZBubb]

9. NO! FDR did not "let Pearl Harbor happen". That's RW bullshit.

The US had no direct intelligence about the Pearl Harbor attack prior to the event. Tensions with Japan were high and FDR knew war was a possibility. That is the extent of his knowledge up to Dec. 7. The US really expected the initial Japanese attack to be in the Phillipines. Hawaii was thought to be too far from Japan for them to mount any kind of serious attack at the outbreak of hostilities.

As for Bush*, I think incompetence, laziness, and lack of attention explain 9/11 more than any plot to allow it to happen.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BOSSHOG]

24. And I think its fair to say that

Japan wanted to go to war against us regardless of the result of Pearl Harbor. If that had not prodded us into war they would have done something else. If that's not true why did they attack in the first place? To weaken us up for future attacks.

[The Magistrate]

30. That Is Absolutely True, Sir

No serious student of Imperial Japanese policy in the early twentieth century would state otherwise. Imperial Japan, in essence, intended to replace all Western powers as the colonial overlord of East Asia.

[bryant69]

15. Many nutballs believe

that FDR let pearl harbor happened. Those poeple are fucking morons.

Serious historians don't.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. No, but the repubs believe he did,

and that justifies, in their tiny little minds, what they have done in following that imaginary precedent.

[enid602]

33. FDR vs *

That is exactly my point. The Republicans compain for years that FDR had too much power, and tricked us into war. How ironic that their own poster child is doing the same. The only difference is, FDR's war was just, he had a plan and contracts were subject to bids. He financed the war with bonds, and I don't think he gave out too many tax cuts to the rich at this point.

[Virginia Dare]

23. My rule of thumb...

--Who benefits the most? You usually find your answer there.

[MadHound]

34. FDR played his cards very close to his chest,

And I don't think that we will ever know for sure whether he allowed Pearl Harbor to happen or not. What is known is that early in 1941, FDR had his advisors draw up an eight point plan that would force Japan into a corner that they couldn't get out of without attacking us. Supposedly that plan was scrapped and thrown away. But it is interesting to not that just a few months later, each and every one of those eight points wound up being carried out:shrug:

As far as Bush goes, yes, I firmly believe that he either allowed, or caused 911 to happen. Too many oddities, too many coincidences, too many loose ends, too many questions that aren't being answered. However I doubt that we'll ever find out the truth of the matter. I think that the best we can hope for is what happened with the Kennedy assasination. The conspiracy theorists were mocked and ridiculed, but in the end the US government was forced to admit, years after the fact, that the Kennedy assasination was indeed the result of a conspiracy. Sadly, 911 will also follow the same track, being that right after the Kennedy assasination was declared to be a conspiracy, there was absolutely no follow up done on it even until this day.

[enid602]

42. *

The truth behind either PH or 9/11 would be interesting, but not as important as the huge implications of our involvement in WWII and Iraq. Leadership, planning, diplomacy, fiscal retraint: these are the things that separate great men from mediocre ones. Poor *, despite all his advantages, he's destined to go down with Judas, Benedict Arnold and Mussolini.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JPZenger]

45. Wrong Wrong Wrong

FDR loved the Navy. He would never have purposefully set up the Pacific Fleet for a major defeat. The mishandling and delays in intelligence that led to the lack of warning about Pearl Harbor is well-documented.

Remember that the reason why the US had an oil embargo upon the Japanese was because the Japanese were massacuring huge numbers of Chinese civilians. We were trying to pressure Japan into cutting back their aggression.

The US believed that if the Japanese attacked US territory, they would attack the Phillipines. That was fine because many people in Washington hated MacArthur, who was in charge of Phillipines military forces. MacArthur actually had an advance warning between when word came to him that Pearl Harbor was attacked and when the Japanese attacked his bases. His Air Corps general wanted to lauch an immediate attack on the Japanese bases on Taiwan before the planes from those bases attacked. For some still-unexplained reason, MacArthur did not give the order.

Many US war planners did not think the Japanese had the capability of attacking Hawaii. Also, they thought that torpedoes would not work in the shallow water of Pearl Harbor. Unfortuately, the Japanese managed to master that technology.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

49. Although I don't consider you for a second to be associated with the IHR

...it is perhaps unwise to link to IHR judging by their controversial viewpoints on the second world war.

[LanternWaste]

47. I gotta reject the premise of many "historians"

I gotta reject the premise of many "historians". U.S. diplomacy re: Japan was naive and full of hubris. That was the problem. U.S. diplomats believed that coercive diplomacy could and would work to get Japan out of China (a knee-jerk reaction to Chamberlain's failure at maintaining peace in Europe). IN the final days prior to Pearl, the U.S. army was already seriously reinforcing it's pacific bases where they thought the Japanese would strike IF they did strike. The Philippines, Guam & Wake were all given upgrades and as much reinforcement as could be allowed without dipping into the army's forces earmarked for the much more feared German threat. Pearl? Too far away from the home islands to be considered "in threat".

Three months prior to Pearl, Roosevelt & Churchill (plus Donovan and some other intelligence types) were discussing the possible entry of America into the war. Different global scenarios were discussed and it was agreed upon that a war in the Pacific was a "the wrong war in the wrong place & at the wrong time" (Roosevelt's words). (Source- Roosevelt's Secret War, can't remember name of author at this time, but I'm sure a google search would find it).

I have a difficult time believing that Roosevelt, Marshall, Arnold, Main, et.al for saw that Pearl would result in one of Hitler's most boneheaded moves ever: declaration of war on the U.S., let alone be able to keep a secret like that under wraps with the concurrent dislike of Roosevelt by many major newspapers (heck, they couldn't keep Purple a secret from American newspapers and it was only the pride of the Japanese intelligence dept.'s that kept Purple going rather than changing to another code as Yamamato insisted)

On a like course, I don't believe Bush LIHOP or MIHOP, I think he was/is just a simple fool in king's clothing surrounded by the naivete and hubris of his cabinet. * simply see's himself as "Jesus Christ light".

Edited: for clarity

[enid602]

52. *

Maybe * just THOUGHT that FDR LIHOPPed Pearl Harbor, and that gave him inspiration.

[4freethinking]

53. When it comes to WWII

on many issues things are not as cut and dry as we want them to be. It requires a lot of digging(i.e. reading). For example was Dunkirk an act of mercy or was it logistically impossible for the Germans to finish off the BEF? (Just want to use it as an example. Not to detract from the topic but to make my point)

[The Magistrate]

64. The Panzers Were Pretty Near The End Of Their Tether, Sir

And Goering wanted to stage a demonstration of air power.

Compressing that beach-head would not have been an easy exercise in any case. The power of German armor lay in manouver, and in such a frontal attack there would have been no scope for it. Contrary to impressions left by later equipment, German tanks in that period were very flimsily armored and poorly provisioned for dealing with anti-tank guns, while the English anti-tank pieces, literally hundreds of which were eventually abandoned on the beach, were quite capable of wrecking German tanks out to a thousand yards.

[4freethinking]

67. Infrantry in combination with armor

would have been able to overcome the anti-guns. Anti-guns shot they reveal their position drawing German infantry machine gun fire. Panzer grenadiers move forward towards the anti-tank guns to put them in grenade range while the anti-tank guns are being suppressed by tanks in combination infantry machine gun fire. Add mortar or artillery fire to the equation the anti-tank guns would have been overcome in no time. When the anti-tank guns are overcome the BEF and French forces are naked. One of the reasons why BEF and French forces were overwhelmed all over France(exceptions like Stonne and other places), superior tactics. I don't think Dunkirk would have been any different.The only factor would have been the time it would take for the Germans to re-supply for the attack which could have been done if more resources were devoted to it. You don't have to put your tanks forward in such a situation and expose them to anti-tank gun fire when you can use your infantry. The tanks(gun,bow and turret machine guns) in turn can be used to suppress enemy infantry that are supporting/protecting the anti-tank guns. A frontal attack may put the BEF and French forces at an advantage. So long as they remain engaged a good portion of their forces are not evacuating. There comes a point where German forces will be reinforced while the BEF and French forces will not. Time is on the German's side in such a scenario.How this would play out tactically around Dunkirk? Who knows. At this point the BEF and French forces were demoralized. If such a battle were to take place a total and complete break down of moral and order would have been possible after a given period of time and if a considerable number of casualities were sustained.

[The Magistrate]

68. It May Work Like That In Texts, Sir

If you examine events in the actual campaign, you will see that on most occassions of attack against prepared postitions that battle drill broke down badly in 1940. Getting the infantry into grenade range, as you suggest, is tantamount to carrying the position, and must be pressed in the face of defending infanry and heavy weapons fire. The Germans were not miracle workers. Their successes in France in 1940 owed to speed of strategic manouver, and superior tactics of motorized forces in mobile engagement, which forced a pace the Allied generals were unable to cope with, and spread unsettling panic among infantry forces knowing or fearing they had been by-passed by armored spear-heads. Once the confusion sown by extraordinary mobility is dissapated by the clear requirement to concentrate against a particular point, matters become, and in that campaign invariably became, quite different. That the position would probably have been reduced eventually is likely, but the cost of it to the forces employed in the task would certainly have been severe, and probably not worth the effort in the long run. The morale equation works both ways: men who have no avenue of retreat are often infused with a courage of desperation, while men who have hitherto enjoyed a run of easy and near bloodless success can become quite skittish when subjected to serious casualties.

[4freethinking]

69. It may be how the propagana was written

and also what what we want to believe what the actual situation was at Dunkirk. A large amount of propaganda still survives. Your not looking at other factors in involved in that situation. It's not just German infantrymen coming into grenade range. It's not just them on the battlefield. Your ignoring the other part of my argument. The Germans had other elements that would have been used. As they go forward to assault the position they will have other units supporting them. If any anti-tank gun fires it reveals itself drawing all kinds of fire. Mortar men start throwing rounds down their tubes, MG 34's start blazing away. If the units that are supporting the assault are close to the anti-guns or enemy units protecting them the more effect their fire will be. Tanks in position not to be exposed to anti-tank fire(buildings, terrain as cover) suppressing defending enemy units and supporting the assault. Tanks only reveal themselves to the position only after it has been determined that the position is under effective suppressive fire or if it has been taken. More than likely the Germans would have had forward observers for their artillery making their assault that much more effective not to mention Stukas. I'm not saying such an assault would not be without casualties. The morale at that time was not on side of BEF and French forces. German morale at the time of Dunkirk would have been good enough to carry out an assault. BEF and French morale against an assault at Dunkirk would grow more questionable as time went on. The BEF and French forces may have been able to put up a spirited fight but against a full blown assault the question would have been for how long? Time would have been against them because they are no longer or hardly being supplied.

[The Magistrate]

70. We Will Never Settle This, Sir

"In war, only what is simple can succeed."

"Murphy was an optimist."

[4freethinking]

71. I have seen your posts before about the conflict in 1940

Magistrate and they are very knowledgeable.

This was a very interesting conversation.

[The Magistrate]

72. Thank You, Sir

A pleasure to make your acquaintance!

Our disagreement certainly does not seem to rest on an inequality of knowledge, but rather on different readings of the human imponderables, and the rates at which the tendency toward chaos and muddle operates.

"The side with the plainest uniforms wins."

[WinkyDink]

54. I question your term "many". This is a pernicious accusation,

and as such I'd like to see the names of the reputable historians who agree with this premise.

THEN, I would consider it.

Oh, and Gore Vidal, bless his maverick heart, doesn't qualify.

[Imagevision]

59. historians? - Just read the freedom of informations act on Pearl Harbor

[Imagevision]

57. Simply Google Pearl Harbor Freedom of information act - the answer is yes

FDR was at least as guilty as Bush for knowing before 12/7/41 that the shit was about to hit the fan and deliberately sent them a snail nail of warnings instead of the common wire service at that time.

[The Magistrate]

63. Most Of Those People Are Not Historians, Sir

They are rightist cranks: there is a difference.

Appeal to "Google" on matters like this is tantamount to confession of bankruptcy.

[bobbieinok]

65. RW constantly said FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen

I heard this all the time growing up in the 40s and 50s. It was one of the many attempts (so I felt and feel today) to demonize FDR. I find it very difficult to believe this really happened and is not just more of an 'anti FDR and all his works' campaign.

[enid602]

66. FDR

As I said above, FDR lived in an age of dictators and despots, and I think he might have rationalized a little trickery if he felt that world democracy was threatened. I don't mean to demean him; he is one of my heros. I consider him an anti-Bush.