Ambassador Grew sent Pearl Harbor attack warning

Oddly enough, I'd probably believe the Peruvian Ambassador's Chinese cook over the defunct Journal of Historical Review!!! Which if I'm not mistaken is one of the sources he did use.

 

I didn't give a source. This was to commemorate Pearl Harbor Day, look at
the date.

 

The CT prize is something you created along with your partner in crime
R Leonard. I'm not getting a lot of that from elsewhere, just you two.

The name callings seem to stem from frustration and an unwillingness to
comprehend, the big cover-up. That took place after the Pearl Harbor
disaster.

I also noticed you used to teach history. I kinda figured this might be the case, because I was taught the same biased history, in college.

Clearly, this has been a problem on college campuses all over the USA!

 

DogFather, Please cease in these false accusations of name calling. It simply hasn't happened. I didn't even find anyone actually calling you a conspiracy theorist, only pointing out your posts fit into that dogma. Suck it up, and move on to your next point please.

 

So a non event is due to their (or perhaps our is better) inability to comprehend another non event.

 

I don't care if you are a CT or not. You keep making claims of this, that, or the other would have, could have, or should have, caused Tom, Dick, or Harry to take this action, these actions, or those actions. I keep asking you to prove your claims. Alas, you do not, you simply move on to your next fantasy.

 

What else would you call "CT prize". In general, my posts have suggested that there was sufficient knowledge, among navalists of the time, that basing the fleet at PH, was dangerous and not a good idea. So much so,
that after the disaster happened, a cover-up ensued. A cover-up, disigned to protect FDR and his admin and other high ranking military and
civilian leaders in Washington DC.

I do not see this as dogma. Rather it's what happened after the PH disaster.

 

Indeed they have suggested that. The rebuttles have rather conclusivly refuted that notion though.

??? The only case for a coverup is based on the assumption that the conspiracy theory is correct. IE none at all.

You don't see it as dogma yet you see it as dogma. I understand ... I think.

 

No conspiracy is necessary for a cover-up. Any time something goes really
wrong, people seek to protect themselves and avoid if possible, blame landing on them, our their organization or agency. The Pearl Harbor disaster was no different.

 

Actually a successful cover-up pretty much requires a conspiracy. However the PH inquiries were pretty thorough from what I've read. If they were part of the "cover up" then the conspiracy was massive. If they weren't then there was no effective "cover up". However there was so much material and detail in the PH investigations that it would have been almost impossible not to generate far too many contraditions if it was a "cover up". The conclusions lacking any real proof to the contrary is that there was no conspiracy or cover up. That makes your contined insistence on the existance of these a matter of believe (ie dogma) rather than logic and fact.

 

Yes, my mistake, "embargo" is what I meant to say.

We've obviously read the warnings to Short & Kimmel in the weeks & months before the attack, at least IMO that should be enough to trigger a state of readiness.

 

As the last one in late November did, each man responded to the war warnings in different manners however since their responsibilties were far different. Short took his war warning as meaning prepare to defend the islands (since that was the Army's job), and since over 1/3 of the population were of Japanese decent he made efforts to combat sabotage as his first priority. When he relayed these plans back to Washington he wasn't told he was doing the wrong thing, in fact he was praised. He (Short) attempted to place his new radar units on the most advantageous vantage points, but was stymied by the US Forest Service and private property ownership who wouldn't give him permission.

Kimmel on the other hand had just brought the fleet back into harbor after a two week training cruise and was replenishing his fuel, ammunition, and other stores preparing for a "fleet war" which meant offensive, not defensive planning. Still, he rotated the leaves and liberties (starboard/port side) so that each ship was never completely un-manned, AA weapons were manned around the clock with the men sleeping on the guns, and ammo was NOT locked in storage lockers except in some instances.

I posted a complete list of what each man did on a different section here some place. Pearl Harbor was far from the "lazy" baseball tossing Sunday morning depicted in movies and stuff. I'll try and find it if you are interested.

 

OpanaPointer,
Where may I find such a study? Have you read my article? I would be most pleased to send it to you.
Regards,
Tom Kimmel