Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Fringe?

How bizarre is it that the Wiki article here states Prior Knowledge and in fact Prococations to cause the attack on US forces by the Japanese is called a "fringe theory?" The belief that FDR and Co. orchestrated (caused) a Japanese attack to allow the US to enter a politically unpopular War (WWII) not only is not "fringe" it is generally accepted at true by most any legitimate Historian still alive. Don't bother trying to improve this article by adding a section or anything else, because the powers that be at Wiki have this article just exactly how they want it. The main vandal to this article is Binksternet. This article is the definition of HOGWASH. Bugatti35racer (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"not only is not "fringe" it is generally accepted at true by most any legitimate Historian still alive" That is laughably untrue. This preposterous garbage is being advanced by clueless bozos, liars, & conspiracy loons. It frankly doesn't deserver a WP page, & only has one to keep this fiction off the page on the actual attack. "This article is the definition of HOGWASH." On that, we might agree, since the subject is just that. (I might also be offended you think so little of my own contempt for it.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: I think I disagree. After reading this article in its entirety, I came here to propose that this article be renamed to Advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. This article tell us that Roosevelt's administration was knowingly taking actions that had a significant probability of provoking a Japanese attack, and that "In late November 1941, both the U.S. Navy and Army sent explicit warnings of war with Japan to all Pacific commands." In other words, it seems the specifics were a surprise, but the fact of a Japanese attack was not. If you disagree, please edit this article to give me a different impression rather than discussing here.

As a secondary larger project, I suggest focusing this article on knowledge about the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor in particular and propose splitting off Japanese-American diplomacy prior to WWII to describe diplomatic decisions which led to the event, such as the McCollum memo, the Statements by high-ranking officials section, and the Hull note. Daask (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC) into Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor I think it's important to get this material out of an article with a "conspiracy theory" title since it casts doubt on what seems well supported. After reconsideration, I'm happy with the current article title. Daask (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

♠The thing is, the McCollum memo, in isolation, invites faulty interpretations, & if it's incorporated elsewhere, the same problem arises as led to the creation of this page in the first place. The Hull note, IMO, could be dealt with elsewhere.

♠Splitting off more than that may create problems. The original goal here is much like yours: show what the U.S. allegedly knew, & how. That requires more than a bit of context. Without reading both pages (& I haven't recently), I couldn't say how much of what's on this page is already covered on the Events page; I'd guess all the significant (& actually true) events are there.

♠So, is any splitting necessary? Is it desirable, given the focus of the page? Does it risk moving a debate on a patent fiction to pages where actual events aren't in question?

♠As for my editing the page, I'm careful to keep my biases off it. I've added some content about Stinnett & the mistaken interpretations, but I'm not confident I can be neutral beyond that. If you have doubts about the accuracy of the claims offered on the page, read the talk archive; they should put to rest your belief any of this junk is true.

♠Let me add one last thing. You're right, an attack by Japan was expected somewhere around this time. It's the notion FDR deliberately blinded the defenders at Pearl Harbor that's at the heart of the theory, & that is indefensible. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:07 & 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think myself and a few others started the framework for the wiki, and I'm happy its still here. Maybe when I get some time, I'd like to update it and add some missing information as some parts are kind of incomplete. After we debated Stinnett, Villa, Wilford etc. we wanted to get some of this information out there. Best... (Scottsle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4203:590:2D91:5B07:E6A5:1BBA (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It is legitimate to state that this artical has been hyjacked by persons in gross violation of Wikipedia policy which is to have a neutral viewpoint. Trekphiler’s argument above that historical documents like the Mccolumn memo invite “faulty interpretations” is in direct violation of wikipedia policy to be editorially neutral. We the editors do not get to decide which interpretations are “faulty”. Montestruc (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not legitimate, Montestruc. There is no requirement that Wikipedia give all points of view equal weight. On the contrary, it is Wikipedia policy that minority points of view receive less weight in proportion to how few their supporters are. Fringe views need receive no weight at all. Likewise, Wikipedia policy is that primary sources should not be cited unless the interpretation given to them is supported by reliable secondary sources, precisely because they are, as Trekphiler says, susceptible to faulty interpretation when taken out of context. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one saying the interpretations are faulty. I'm only the one pointing it out. And I never said the McCollum Memo invited them; I said, reading it in isolation does, which is how the conspiracy loons want to take it. Doing that, contrary to the historical record, ignores what FDR was doing, & what his & Winston's express goals were--not to mention ignoring McCollum's own expressed position on the falsehood of that interpretation. Allowing that kind of bad, indeed deceptive, reasoning, does a disservice to the casual reader. That is something no WP editor should countenance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggest that Trekphiler spend a little time reading WIkipedia policy on the subjects involved before he talks foolishly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Quoting:

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. Montestruc (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not helpful. Trekphiler is right on point with his views. A great many aspects of this topic are fringe, and not to be presented as possible or factual. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

TYVM, sir.

For the record, my edits to the page itself are scrupulously neutral. I'm well aware of my biases. And if I drew serious criticism for POV edits, I would freely refrain from ever again editing the page proper. That does not mean I would cease to comment on content; talk pages aren't governed by NPOV. (If they were, this one alone would've seen me blocked long ago. :) ) Tom Parker ^{watch the shoes, buddy!} 08:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, your statement about being neutral is absolute complete and total nonsense.

It is simple historical fact, very well documented that Admiral J. O. Richardson in command of the US Fleet in the Pacific explicitly warned FDR that the most probable first move of the Japanese was an attack on Pearl Harbor. That was in early 1941, FDR sacked him over it.

Being an FDR sycophant and excuse maker is the epitome of not being neutral. Deliberate political supression of legitimate criticism of US politicians is totally against Wikipedia neutrality policy. Montestruc (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

♠Try reading what I actually wrote. My views on this aren't neutral; my editing of the page most assuredly is. This conspiracy theory is complete balderdash. It falls down on historical evidence of what FDR & Churchill were saying & doing, which is ignored by the conspiracy theorists. The theory also fabricates evidence & ignores common naval practise when it's inconvenient.

♠That Richardson expected an attack was not why he got fired; it was because he opposed moving the Pacific Fleet, after FDR had made up his mind. That Richardson would be right isn't something FDR could actually have known in 1941.

♠And if complete access to Purple would have allowed Short to defend Hawaii, & Kimmel to defend the Fleet, why didn't it work for MacArthur, who had it? That's another one the conspiracy theorists conveniently ignore.

♠If you really want to debate this nonsense, we should do it on my talk page, not here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Your editing of the page is not even slightly neutral. You act as if a progressive new deal democrat point of view is “neutral” which is ridiculous.

Richardson’s criticism and complaining that FDR’s policies were stupid was what got him fired.

Objectivly Richardson was right and FDR wrong, while you keep trying to supress facts that make FDR look like the fool, jackass, and charlatan he actually was.

It is a very well documented fact that FDR was warned by a professional naval officer that the Pearl Harbor raid was likely some 10 months in advance, yet you work to suppress any honest discussion that does not whitewash FDR.

You have no business editing wikipedia, you are just too biased.

I would be unsurprised if you draw a salary as an academic historian and do this on the side to suppress information that conflicts with your mealticket. I bet that is why you and your ilk refuse to use your own name and stand behind what you say.

Montestruc (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No I WILL NOT move this to another page. You being called out for your unprofessional bias and politically motivated vandalism ON THIS ARTICLE belongs ON THIS PAGE, where people who read this page can see it.

That is so damn typical of a progressive. Whitewash, obfuscate, lie like a rug on the floor. Dodge criticism, evade truth.

This discussion stays here. Montestruc (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Put in strategic context, this is a mystery of no importance

I suggest amending the page to make clear that, even if the Pearl Harbor attack had not occurred, the attack on the Philippine Islands (a few hours after Pearl Harbor) would still have occurred, and that would have ensured war with the United States. The notion that thwarting the attack on Pearl Harbor (even if possible) would have prevented war with Japan, or made war less likely, is quite preposterous. The Japanese strategic plan required occupying the Dutch East Indies, for its oil, rubber, minerals, and foodstuffs. For access to the Dutch East Indies, securing the Philippine Islands was deemed essential. Pearl Harbor was a sideshow intended to hobble American response to this strategic plan, but was not an essential part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You really have completely missed the point, which is the faulty, ill-informed belief the attack was effectively engineered by FDR. And it was, indeed, essential: had the Pacific Fleet not been "hobbled" (in Japan's planning), the Southern Operation, & the barrier defense arising, would have been impossible. (That this would prove illusory was not foreseen by IJN planners, tho it should have been.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point at all. I was observing that there was no rational basis for FDR to do such a thing, since the Japanese strategic plan was fairly obvious, and would require an attack on the Philippines, which would ensure war with the U.S. anyway. Destruction of some antiquated battleships at Pearl Harbor achieved practically nothing, compared to the elimination of Allied air power in the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies (achieved by the 2:1 superiority of Japan in air power). Pearl Harbor was certainly not essential to the Japanese strategic plan, and the Philippine attack was contemporaneous with what happened at Pearl Harbor. I'm just saying that these conspiracy nuts have tunnel vision if they think that absent Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would not have been at war on December 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"the Japanese strategic plan was fairly obvious, and would require an attack on the Philippines, which would ensure war with the U.S. anyway." True. The conspiracy depends on FDR arranging that. And Japan wasn't going to attack the P.I. without attacking Hawaii. As already said, IJN believed it was necessary to eliminate the fleet at Pearl Harbor. More than that requires Japan to have a different strategic plan, or better foresight, which did not (would not) obtain. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Trekphiler’s notions of naval strategy are not really very sophisticated. Had Japan attacked south and utterly ignored Pearl Harbor and tried to lure the US Fleet into a fight in and arround the Philippines, the US Navy — had they been stupid enough to fall for it— would have lost far more ships and men in deeper waters where recovery was impossible. Japan by concentrating all her naval aircraft carriers (as was SOP for them) was vastly stronger than the 100/100/60 formula of the Washington treaty. Their fleet in the Pacific was far stronger than ours if concentrated as it was supposed to be, and used judiciously. Read Shattered Sword, read On the Tredmill to Pearl Harbor.

The Pearl Harbor attack almost did not happen, Yamamoto had to threaten to resign to get it approved.

Trekphiler you are really not very well educated on the subject. Montestruc (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Pearl Harbor attack almost did not happen, Yamamoto had to threaten to resign to get it approved." And the fact that this ploy was successful shows that, by late 1941, Yamamoto was the IJN. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

♠Montestruc really does need to get a clue about other editors' knowledge on this subject. Yamamoto had a hell of a time getting 6 carriers assigned to this mission, because IJA wanted carriers for the DEI op. The Hawaii strike nearly didn't get approved at all. The fact it did was heavily influenced by inter-service politics. (That's on the Pearl Harbor attack page page because I put it there, after reading Kaigun. Have you read it? I'd guess not.)

♠The notion Japan should "lure" the U.S. was IJN doctrine for decades, & the main reason they wanted the 70% treaty ratio: it would've given them local superiority. It's part of the reason Plan Orange abandoned "rescue" of the P.I. as impractical in 1935. (You can find that here; have you read Miller's book? I have.)

♠You'll notice, I make no comment about the sensibility of attacking Pearl Harbor. However, contrary to Montestruc's opinion, hitting a fleet at anchor is a great deal easier than at sea, even if losses in deep water would be greater (a fact Nimitz & Rochefort both expressly acknowledged, tho the conspiracy nuts seem not to comprehend). What he fails to grasp, evidently, is the IJN goal: preventing USN interference. "Luring" Kimmel's carriers amounts to exactly the opposite, so it's not only counterproductive, it's stupid. It would also have been a complete failure, because IJN "attrition" was so derisively ineffective, as demonstrated time after time in IJN prewar exercises--yet IJN refused to change strategies... (This one I can't cite offhand.)

♠I might also add, Nagumo managed to miss the crucial targets, thanks in part to desperately deficient IJN target planning, & to an IJN strategic view that was so defective it's hard to believe. The expectation of a short war was completely wrong, but Japan was incapable of understanding the scale of the difference between fighting geographically limited wars against politically weak enemies (Russia & China) and fighting a true blue water war against a politically stable, unified enemy. She learned the hard way. (You can find that in Kaigun, too, IIRC; some of it is in Barrirer and the Javelin, too.) The attack didn't even target the critical targets that the U.S. used to win the war, from the Navy Yard to the Sub Base to the old Admin Building, because IJN expected a short war, & got it wrong... (You can find some of that in Silent Victory, which I first read when I was 11, & some of it in B&J, which I first read when I was about 12--which is now 40yrs ago.)

♠I'll admit, I haven't yet read Shattered Sword or On the Treadmill; I've been distracted by other things for awhile, now. I do know this subject rather well, even so. What I'm now seeing is a thinly-veiled effort to undermine my credibility. Don't. I'm willing to bet I can cite sources you've never heard of. I'll confess, my recall isn't always perfect--but I don't (always) have them in front of me, & I'm not really inclined to go dig 'em out just to answer critics who self-evidently don't know what they're talking about or think they know more than they do. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Trekphiler (why do all these supposedly supporters of “honest history” seem to need to use handles that have no relation to who they are?, while I and some others use our right name and stand behind what we say, , ?) wrote “hitting a fleet at anchor is a great deal easier than at sea, even if losses in deep water would be greater (a fact Nimitz & Rochefort both expressly acknowledged, tho the conspiracy nuts”

Going directly into pajoratives. So very classy, so very adult. The epitome of neutrality.

Yes indeed it is easier to “hit” a fleet trapped in a shallow harbor as pointed out by Admiral J. O. Richardson to president Roosevelt, where he clearly and explicitly explained to FDR in person at a meeting in the White House about 10 months before Pearl Harbor. FDR sacked Richardson for it.

I pointed out clearly that intervetion by the USN Pacific fleet in support of the Phillippines was unlikely, as it would have been stupid. The IJN would have most likely won such an engagement in late 1941 early 1942 had Pearl Harbor not happened. On the other hand, IJN would not be short on fuel, nor need to worry about that as they had fuel depos in Formosa, while on the Pearl Harbor raid some IJN units were at extreme range and short on fuel.

In any case, what is going on here are persons with progressive political inclinations blatently censoring anyone critical of their heros, especially pointing out serious lapses in judgement by FDR, that are well documented.

Basically Trekphiler is attacking any criticism of FDR as “crackpot” or whatever the pajorative of the day he wishes to use.

Trekphiler is explicitly getting very emotional in unreasoned defense of FDR from quite legitimate criticism.

Admiral Richardson explicitly warned FDR that his policy of moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor was dangerous personally in a White House meeting about 10 months before Pearl Harbor.

Read “On the Tredmill to Pearl Harbor” hell read the wikipedia bio of Admiral Richardson. Montestruc (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

♠You just aren't paying attention at all, are you? I never once said I was neutral on this topic. In fact, if you'd bothered to notice, you'd see, I expressly said I wasn't. If you'd bothered to read any of the archived comments, you'd also know already I consider anybody to believes this fiction a nut. I have no patience for the willful ignorance involved.

♠If the "luring" was such a brilliant idea I can't see it, how do you explain Yamamoto not being able to, since the attack was his idea, not mine? (Oh, wait, he had FDR's help, didn't he? So it didn't matter if it was idiotic, I guess.)

♠"FDR sacked Richardson for it." As I've already said, that's not why. Pay attention. Richardson's objections to basing at Pearl did not begin & end with the putative hazard to the Fleet. Besides which, FDR's objective for doing it, which Richardson apparently failed to grasp, was entirely in line with FDR's previous actions. The idea was to deter Japan. It backfired. If you genuinely believe FDR meant to use the Fleet as bait, why didn't he move heavy fleet units to Manila, where the first attack was (in DC) widely expected to fall? IF the conspiracy is true, that would've been far more effective, wouldn't it? Yet that's not what happened, is it? Why not?

♠"serious lapses in judgement by FDR, that are well documented" If you want to argue for FDR & others being aware of the hazard of Pearl Harbor, you should be going back to Mitchell around 1925; he was, AFAIK, the first to point it out. You should also note Fleet Problem XIII. (Ever heard of either? I'll wager not.) You then need to account for how shallow the harbor is, which led to a belief the anchored ships were immune from torpedo attacks. You then need to understand the USN believed IJN incapable of mounting two major operations at once, and they'd already detected a task force bound for Malaya. And you have to understand DC (rightly) expected the first blow to fall on the Philippines; the Luzon Strait was, after all, the chokepoint for sea lanes to the DEI. And you have to recall IJN signal deception put the carriers in Home Waters (no matter what Stinnett thinks). In short, they were wrong. It happens. Get over it.

♠"defense of FDR from quite legitimate criticism" Legitimate? Don't be ridiculous. That notorious master of strategic mistakes Adolph Hitler, his very self, had concluded any war between the U.S. & Japan would benefit Germany. McCollum, of the infamous 8-point memo, had similarly concluded this, before he ever sent that particular missive. So, there are exactly two ways the "conspiracy" make sense: FDR is stupid, or FDR is a Nazi. Which do you believe?

♠"attacking any criticism of FDR as 'crackpot'" Not any, just this one, because it runs contrary to all the available, actual evidence. It is crackpot & deserves to be called crackpot. It deserves to be called outright fiction.

♠I notice the claim of my ignorance has fallen by the wayside, in favor of a claim of bias based on some notional relationship. That's fairly typical of the conspirators: any time you see yourself losing the argument, change the subject.

♠As for my handle, I have news for you. I picked it long before you came along & decided I had something to hide. (I might consider that insinuation a personal attack, if I was concerned about insinuations from the likes of you.) And I've made no secret whatever of my views on the subject, which have nothing to do with my notional position. Are you suggesting I'ma actually a descendant of FDR? I wish! I could claim Teddy, too! And Eleanor! Kermit T. Delano ^{red phone me!} 08:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You actions as an editor MUST remain neutral and have a neutral voice. They arn’t that is abundantly clear. You treat new deal democratic progressive propaganda as if it were truth etched in stone by the hand of god.

You don’t have a Pacific fleet, you don’t have a proper instrument to project American political interests in the Pacific rim. FDR almost got our fleet wiped out by him moving the main base in easy reach of the IJN in late 1940. We were lucky the carriers were at sea.

Your “news” evades the issue. You hide your identity behind a false name. You do not stand behind what you do, no one can check to see what your personal or political or financial biases might be.

It is white washing, refusing to be honest. Montestruc (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You are violating wp:agf and coming very close to violating wp:personal. You do not know that User:Trekphiler is a New Deal progressive or even a Democrat. You are dismissing the historical consensus as Democratic progaganda. You are engaging in flaming ad hominems.

FWIW, I agree with User:Trekphiler in spite of the fact that I know something about the Pacific War, regard the New Deal as a disaster, I have never been a Democrat, and Kent G. Budge is my actual name. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

♠"You actions as an editor MUST remain neutral and have a neutral voice." My edits on the page itself have been scrupulously neutral. I've been very careful about that, because I know my bias on this issue makes it very likely they won't be. I invite anybody to examine the page history. My remarks on this page, as you should already know, aren't bound by the same requirement.

♠"You treat new deal democratic progressive propaganda as if it were truth etched in stone by the hand of god." No, I don't. I treat the historical record with greater respect that revisionist fiction. So should you. (So should they.) Calling the historical record "progressive propaganda" is so preposterous, I hardly know what to say to it. Do you genuinely believe 70yr of historiography is all whitewash?

♠"FDR almost got our fleet wiped out by him moving the main base in easy reach of the IJN in late 1940. We were lucky the carriers were at sea." With that, I agree. As I've already said, the move was a mistake. That does not make it a conspiracy to arrange the attack by Japan. What part of that don't you understand?

♠"You hide your identity behind a false name." So? My biases aren't unclear. As i've repeatedly said, I make no secret of them. As for my politics, they make no difference. I'd think the same about this if I were Progressive or Libertarian; Neo-Nazi, perhaps not. My views are governed by the record & the facts; it appears yours aren't.

♠And yet again, you've chosen to change the subject & refuse to deal with the argument, by making it about me & not about the facts. If you have actual evidence, why don't you present it? If not, why don't you just go away?

♠For the record, M. Budge & I do probably disagree on everything else, except (possibly) gun control, & maybe even on that (I'm further right on it than the NRA). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:37, 21:45, 21:49 & 21:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why unreliable source of "Influence of Soviet agents"

@Binksternet

For this edit. I think this argument is self-consistent, and there are enough reliable sources at the footnote of referred webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellozeronet (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed your addition because it was based on an unreliable blog post at discerninghistory.com, which is a self-published website by a Christian minister who re-interprets history. If you have a better source, please bring it forward. Binksternet (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Taman Turbinton Taman Turbinton is a student at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and is excavating this season at the site of Gezer. This is his second article with Discerning History.

http://discerninghistory.com/about/

Shows clearly that Mr Turbinton, the author of the article

Binksternet erased reference to, is not at all as Binksternet mendaciously claimed, “self-publishing”

The publishers of the website are Mr. Dan Horn, Mr. Joshua Horn, and Mr. Erik Woodard.

The religious affiliations of the author or publisher or editors of the site are utterly IRRELEVANT, and Binksternet referencing their religious affiliation only goes to show bigotry on the part of Binksternet.

The article Binksternet removed has 37 separate references articles. I have examined several of them all are real well-founded academic sources, all were on point in Terbinton’s work.

These include:

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300061833/secret-world-american-communism

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-lives-of-agnes-smedley-9780195141894?cc=us&lang=en&

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40402938?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.amazon.com/Venona-Secrets-Definitive-Espionage-Classics/dp/1621572951

It is becoming increasingly clear that Binksternet is a religious bigot, has nothing but disrespect for the Wikipedia organization and is in fact should be seen as a malicious politically motivated vandal. Montestruc (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are noted. Ad hominem is a desperate strategy, used when nothing better is at hand. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks? “Ad Hominem” OMG I demonstrate beyond any question whatever that Binksternet misrepresented facts (saying the referenced article was “self-published” when it obviously not as the site has numerous authors, the author of this article IS NOT the editor or publisher.

You lied. That is not “Ad Homiem” it is Binksternet engaging in politically motivated vandalism of wikipedia articles. It is Binksternet deliberatly and maliciously misrepresenting facts on a wikipedia article.

You should be banned.

  Montestruc (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You've been framed!

Going back over some past comments, I came across a suggestion the debate should be framed by how & why it originated (a proposal IMO the page could really benefit from). It made me wonder: did this all start as an effort to undermine FDR's social agenda? By discrediting him, did opponents intend to discredit things like Social Security by extension? Is there any evidence either way? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This article is not about history, nor is it the purpose of Wikipedia to debunk nonsense. This article should be viewed, and framed, as historiography.

My recollection is that Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories got their start with Admiral Robert Theobald. Theobald was the kind of man who always had to be the cleverest person in the room. For example, he was in command of Northern Pacific Force during the battle of Midway, and accomplished nothing because his fleet was badly out of position. It was badly out of position because the intelligence he was given had the Japanese doing something that made no sense, and Theobald decided to defend against a Japanese move that did make sense. Turns out the Japanese did, in fact, have a nonsensical plan. Eventually Nimitz and King had had it with Theobald and he was shuffled to a shore command for the rest of the war. The need to be cleverer than everyone else is a big part of conspiracy theorizing, and Theobald very likely had a grudge against Washington, with FDR as top man being an obvious target for his bitterness. I doubt FDR's social program had much of anything to do with it.

More generally, the Pearl Harbor disaster was deeply humiliating, and humiliated people tend to latch on to sinister explanations in preference to human incompetence or bad luck.

But that does not mean that folks wanting to discredit FDR generally would not have seen an opportunity here and taken it. Or, in the case of Stinnett, he was a former Navy man who felt the humiliation, and was also a writer for a conservative think tank critical of the growth of government. So political views may have reinforced an existing willingness to believe a conspiracy theory.

I think the biggest problem we're going to have with this is finding reliable secondary sources on the historiography. It's much easier to find reliable secondary sources debunking the theory itself, which causes the article to naturally drift in that direction. It's also easier to defend a debunking of the facts as NPOV than to defend a historiographical analysis as NPOV. Too bad. Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

UK files

In it, the 252 group dealing with the Japanese situation in 1941 is open, save for the omission of Section 5, dealing with events from November 1941 through March 1942, and is marked with official finality as "closed for 75 years."[129] - from the look of it, this comes from a 1981/1982 book which may explain the wording which seems to suggest me 75 years is still a long time away. Yet it's now 2019 and it's obviously been 75 years since 1942, so has section that was kept secret now been made public? Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Statements by high ranking officials: Stinson

I removed some (possibly) factual editorializing about Stinson's statement, to the effect of what Stinson didn't include in his statement—almost certainly not from the reference which documents the statement. Nearly miraculously, this was written about 8 years by a very recently banned sockpuppeteer. Tapered (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References without page numbers

Quite a few references refer to an author/book without giving the page number or section! See references: 8,9,10,12,14,18, 19,20,21,23,25,46,47,53,59,71,80,81,82,85,123,135. Several references do refer to a range of pages or a section, which I think is reasonable (eg Refs 115,120). Sometimes complicated by more than one edition of a book e.g. hardback and paperback, possibly with different page numbering. And I wonder which authors ("often" cited) cite "Roll T-175" at the National Archives (see Forgeries). Hugo999 (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Sorge

I have removed the following passage:

Sorge was a german-born Soviet spy who was executed in Japan. Before his execution in early 1942 Dr. Sorge made a complete word confession of his activities to his Japanese captors. The confession was forwarded to the Pentagon in Washington by General MacArthur. The following is a extract from Mr. O’Donnell’s article in the New York Daily News of May 7. 1951:

When the spy’s confession was sent here, somebody in the Pentagon deleted from the original the damning statement by Sorge that he had informed the Kremlin in October, 1941, that the Japs intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days and that he had received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington – Roosevelt, Marshall, Adm. Stark, et al – had been advised of the Japanese intentions. There is no record that this information was acknowledged here. But the (Japanese) police documents make it clear that Stalin & Co. had this accurate information and passed it back to us in return for our information about the impending attack by Germany on Russia.

References

Kent G. Budge initially removed this material with the explanation: "A speech in the Congressional Record from 1981 is neither a primary source, nor neutral, nor reliable." Bornetjbo restored it with the explanation: "if this page is about a conspiracy theory doesn't it look obvious the sources providing information about the conspiracy are going to be fringe ipso facto?". I have removed it again. Fringe theories can be mentioned to the extent they are discussed in reliable sources. Otherwise, there would be free reign to include every conspiracist blog with a pet theory and no way to make a determination which fringe theories are notable enough for inclusion. Are there reliable independent sources that discuss Theobald's views of Sorge or reliable independent sources that discuss the Mr. O’Donnell report? - Location (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The following quote has been removed multiple times for many "different" reasons, looks like an attempt to shut it down. Read this especially page 53,54 and 55 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2383135?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents Bornetjbo (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorists believe Sorge who was a german-born Soviet spy was involved indirectly. He was executed in Japan. Before his execution in early 1942 Dr. Sorge made a complete word confession of his activities to his Japanese captors.The confession was forwarded to the Pentagon in Washington by General MacArthur. The following is a extract from Mr. O’Donnell’s article in the New York Daily News of May 7. 1951:

When the spy’s confession was sent here, somebody in the Pentagon deleted from the original the damning statement by Sorge that he had informed the Kremlin in October, 1941, that the Japs intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days and that he had received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington – Roosevelt, Marshall, Adm. Stark, et al – had been advised of the Japanese intentions. There is no record that this information was acknowledged here. But the (Japanese) police documents make it clear that Stalin & Co. had this accurate information and passed it back to us in return for our information about the impending attack by Germany on Russia.

"

There are many other sources confirming Sorge warned USA or wanted to warn or knew about Japan plan 1) AN INSTANCE OF TREASON: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring. By Chalmers Johnson. 278 pp. Stanford, California. 2) Shanghai Conspiracy: The Sorge Spy Ring. By Major GeneralCharles A. Willoughby. Preface by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. New York: Dutton, 1952. 320. - Der Fall Sorge (The Sorge Case). By Hans-Otto Meissner. München: Wilhelm Andermann Verlag, 1955. 346. 3) Target Tokyo: The Story of the Sorge Spy Ring by Gordon W. Prange, Donald M. Goldstein, Katherine V. Dillon 4) Major Charles A. Willoughby asked if the russians did indeed know in advance of the proposed attack on Pearl Harbor, he testified in congress: "Yes, they did get the information." Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/Vol35.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornetjbo (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Kramer's brainwave?

is there any context for this? there is a reference to a "brainwave" without context:

In fact, when the final part of the "14-Part Message" (also called the "one o'clock message") crossed Kramer's desk, he cross-referenced the time (per usual practice, not the brainwave often portrayed) Nappy~enwiki (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

bias, missing people and missing angles

why are those who advocate the advanced knowledge position reduced to "writers of history" in the lede, as opposed to historians, and why is that list in the lede shortened to individuals who the system would surely prefer you ignore in general (Barnes), rather than individuals who are even mentioned in the article itself, like Thomas Fleming?

Also, why does this article not include any mention of the Chicago Tribune investigation PRIOR to Pearl Harbor? Even the Hilo Tribune Herald report just a week prior to Pear Harbor, stating that "JAPAN MAY STRIKE OVER WEEKEND", which is even INCLUDED AS AN IMAGE FOR THE ARTICLE, is not discussed. Any reason for this?

I suppose it is just a coincidence that all of these omissions and obscurations align in a way to uphold the orthodox view - the view that, somehow, when a submarine attacks a neutral country near a harbor where a fleet is stationed, it is perfectly normal and standard procedure for nobody to be put on notice, or be alerted, and no funny business is going on at all. Who writes these articles, and why are you misleading the people? KYSluegenpresse (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The newspapers were warning of a possible Japanese attack in the South Pacific, not Hawaii. That's why we don't really discuss the announcement. Just about everybody at the time thought that Hawaii was far too strong for Japan to attack.

People such as Stinnett who push for a conspiracy theory about this topic are always making critically important mistakes in their research, ignoring facts that disprove their position. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)