Conspiracy Talk Archive February 21 2012

 

Use our posting form to send us conpiracy talk.

21 Feb 2012 09:58:55
I read the other day, not sure if its true that America moved all its oldest warships and fleet to pearl harbour shortly before the attacks and the best most modern ships were moved well away, anyone have any more on this ?

Matt_RFC

They have admitted in the past knowing more about the attack coming than they let on at the time. The aircraft carriers had been moved away along with some newer destroyers


Hadn't senior officers been briefed about the distincy possibility of an attack, too?


Yeah just happened that the carriers were well away on patrol, both out at the same time which you would think would be strange. You'd imagine one on patrol and one in port as cover.

Of course you could argue the Army airfields should have provided the necessary air cover for the fleet, but got caught literally napping.

It is a good conspiracy theory but one that i doubt will ever get proven.

It certainly settled the argument that had raged for 20 years of carriers vs big battleships as the more necessary.

Although i am surprised that some of the posters on here have never claimed that the Japanese were totally innocent and that the Americans bombed their own fleet. {Ed001's Note - it is true that the US had a warning from the British prior to the event. Oh and the US were certainly far from innocent, though they never bombed their own ships, they did certainly have a part to play in the escalation of tensions with Japan. After all they invaded Hawaii because it was holding a referendum which looked likely to result in it becoming a part of Japan.}


Never knew that about the Hawaiian referendum. I always thought the yanks got in there before we did, after all on the state flag of Hawaii is the union flag.


Ed i was fishing a little there sorry.

Yes it is true that the British had warned them, and also US Intel themselves were expecting it through their own decripts. Think the film Tora covers that a bit.

Certain people at the head of the Navy and Army refused to believe the intel reports. Partly because certain of these people like Admiral King were notoriously anti English. And also there was an element of rascism involved, they couldn't believe that the "little yellow men" could pull off something as audacious as a strike at Hawaii.

Yes also true to an extent that the US pushed the Japanese into it with their sanctions on oil and other vital materials the sanctions came about largely to try and hinder Japanese plans. Parallels to today maybe?

The Japanese were always going to go to war, the question was who against and where.

The Imperial Japanese Army has been pushing throughout the 30's for an increase in China and a drive to the "Northern Resource Area" ie Siberia, howvever they got handed there ass on aplate by Zhukov in a series of skirmishes and Stalin got them to sign a non agression pact which really cheesed off Hitler and left the Russian East flank secure.

The Imperial Japanese Navy had argued that a war in China left them nothing to do with their shiny new fleet and has always been pushing for war in the pacific with Burma/ Vietnam/ Inida dangled as a carrot to the Army.

Then when war kicked off and Western Europe collapsed it left the Dutch and French colonies helpless and the British weakened. So the Navy pushed for the "Southern Resource Area2 and it was this agression that panicked the yanks and their only solution wa sanctions. This decided the Japanese especially after the British raid on taranto which shows that a carrier task force could attack and cripple an enemy fleet at anchor.

As is asid all the available intel pointed at this and whilst some high ups ignored it, some did take it seriously.

The question is did FDR? As i said the carriers just happened to both be out of port that day, which as i said was strange, it wouldn't fit normal operating procedure.

It is a very good conspiracy theory but i doubt it will get proven. Hypothetically its the American version of the Coventry dilemma. So i doubt they'll ever fully admit they knew it was coming and sacrificed American lives on battleship row. {Ed001's Note - exactly, it is not something that you want to admit to.}


Personally Ed i don't beileve in coincidence or in blind fate so i do think they were upto some shenanigans.

But who made the decision to save the carriers? The argument over carriers had been going on since Billy Mitchell in the 20's over which were better to have, a carrier fleet or the big gun battleship theory.

It was till going on in the IJN even after the attack on Pearl Harbor with them building the Musashi class.

So really who convinced FDR which was better to be saved the carriers or the battleships. {Ed001's Note - I would expect it was simply the cost that made the decision for them.}


Hey guys,

Just wanted to chip in, as i have done alot of theory work for a dissertation on naval combat theory and history.

The simple fact of the matter is that Battleships are all well and good if you know the other side is using a "fleet-in-being" theorem. However, due to the lack of power projection that a battleship affords it's task force compared to a carrier (At that point in time it took 1 aircraft with a luckly bomb landing to sink a warship)
So it would be more cost effective to get a carrier and 50 aircraft, than a task force of battleships etc.

Its all about risk. The close you get to the enemy the higher the risk to your warships. This is especially important for the pacific theatre due to the sheer distance involved, supply lines etc.

Sadly Force Projection > Line Warships. From my limited knowledge of US naval doctrine at the time- whenever they suspected something they would always recon "from arms reach" (i.e. use their carriers) and would only use their counter punch once they have sussed out "where/what" their enemy was doing.

To be honest in my mind- Pearl Harbour was critical to the development of either FP or FIB doctrines, as it had shown the stark reality of the damage a well constructed carrier force could do to a Battleship force. If that had not happened then it could have well been it would have swung the other way. But that we'll never know.

I'm not an expert, just giving my humble opinion :)

GunnerOxley


They just missed them despite the early warning protection sounds like something else more recently doesn't it