Pearl Harbor - 75th Anniversary

[Ayahuasca]

Rovinghawk said:

Vanin said:

Has the conspiracy theory been debunked or do some still believe that it was allowed to happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance...

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

I remember hearing about 'Pearl Harbour' weather- a nasty nip in the air.

I got banned for that!

[Northern Munkee]

Ayahuasca said:

Rovinghawk said:

Vanin said:

Has the conspiracy theory been debunked or do some still believe that it was allowed to happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance...

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

I remember hearing about 'Pearl Harbour' weather- a nasty nip in the air.

I got banned for that!

As to debunking, the documentary constructed a narrative that did indeed support enough intelligence in advance, admittedly short notice, for a much better organised defence of the attack and could've been repulsed, what I felt it debunked was FDR and particularly WSC had conspired to sacrifice US Pacific fleet to get the US into the war. It exonerated Kimmel and shifted the heap of blame on to his boss, head of the Navy Admiral Stark in Washington for failing to act on crucial intel available 6hrs before the attack, but as in all disasters, it is never just one failing, when General Marshall saw the same intel 90mins before the attack, his radio room staff first couldn't read his handwriting, then atmospheric conditions meant they couldn't contact Pearl, so sent it by telegram, not even Priority, that arrived with Kimmel 8hrs after the attack. Stark took "i do not recall Senator" about his actions/inactions whether that is indication of complicity in a conspiracy with FDR/WSC I doubt, that he was their inside man. It is more likely arrogance and/or particularly incompetence, of course to give Stark a defence the programme didn't show how much fog of war/incomplete information had been passed to him, that might suggest this was just one more warning amongst many. But that's 20/20 hindsight.

Midget sub doc after it on e4 was interesting and the Jutland doc was also very interesting.

[Jimbeaux]

FourWheelDrift said:

Jimbeaux said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Jimbeaux said:

IIRC, I saw it stated once that "live action" battle scenes from WWI were either training exercises or reenacted for film because of various limitations. Any truth to that? The filming of the aftermath of battles and interviews are certainly plentiful.

Most of the over the top/men advancing films were setup but there was a TV programme on over here a little while ago that found proof that one advance of soldiers across no mans land during the Somme offensive was real. Even finding the spot from which the cameraman had stood and the area he took, regiment and men who served.

I have found a clip of it, ignore the first 22 seconds as those bits have been made up after, it's the clip of the hill later, soldiers are moving right to left.

Sorry it's not a bigger size, from 23 seconds on - http://www.britishpathe.com/video/british-tommies

"Genuine Somme battle footage: General view of battlefield with soldiers in trench or dugout. Men are seen running across the field. Some fall, wounded. (Note: Action is clearer in HD)"

Good stuff. Thanks for posting this FWD.

found the TV programme, here it is it's in 8 parts - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgPcko8XLKE&in...

Forensic lip reader too (forget they did that) to give voices to the silent films.

And thanks once again.

[Jimbeaux]

Northern Munkee said:

Ayahuasca said:

Rovinghawk said:

Vanin said:

Has the conspiracy theory been debunked or do some still believe that it was allowed to happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance...

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

I remember hearing about 'Pearl Harbour' weather- a nasty nip in the air.

I got banned for that!

As to debunking, the documentary constructed a narrative that did indeed support enough intelligence in advance, admittedly short notice, for a much better organised defence of the attack and could've been repulsed, what I felt it debunked was FDR and particularly WSC had conspired to sacrifice US Pacific fleet to get the US into the war. It exonerated Kimmel and shifted the heap of blame on to his boss, head of the Navy Admiral Stark in Washington for failing to act on crucial intel available 6hrs before the attack, but as in all disasters, it is never just one failing, when General Marshall saw the same intel 90mins before the attack, his radio room staff first couldn't read his handwriting, then atmospheric conditions meant they couldn't contact Pearl, so sent it by telegram, not even Priority, that arrived with Kimmel 8hrs after the attack. Stark took "i do not recall Senator" about his actions/inactions whether that is indication of complicity in a conspiracy with FDR/WSC I doubt, that he was their inside man. It is more likely arrogance and/or particularly incompetence, of course to give Stark a defence the programme didn't show how much fog of war/incomplete information had been passed to him, that might suggest this was just one more warning amongst many. But that's 20/20 hindsight.

Midget sub doc after it on e4 was interesting and the Jutland doc was also very interesting.

One of the things that helps the conspiracy stay afloat was that all of the carriers just happened to not be in PH when the attack occurred.

[XCP]

So if Roosevelt and/or Churchill had known about the attack in advance they could have warned those about to be attacked. The Japanese would have attacked anyway and the US would have declared war. What advantage would there have been in holding back on giving the warning?

[MBBlat]

Jimbeaux said:

One of the things that helps the conspiracy stay afloat was that all of the carriers just happened to not be in PH when the attack occurred.

Except that at the time the carriers pre-eminence at sea wasn't recognised, and the battleship was still seen as the key asset. At the time carriers were still seen as supporting assets, used for scouting and harassing enemy ships. Their detractors could rightly point out that no battleship had been sunk by airpower alone - that changed with PoW/Repulse, sunk by land based planes, confirmed by Coral Sea and set in stone by Midway, all of which lay in the future.

[Jimbeaux]

MBBlat said:

Jimbeaux said:

One of the things that helps the conspiracy stay afloat was that all of the carriers just happened to not be in PH when the attack occurred.

Except that at the time the carriers pre-eminence at sea wasn't recognised, and the battleship was still seen as the key asset. At the time carriers were still seen as supporting assets, used for scouting and harassing enemy ships. Their detractors could rightly point out that no battleship had been sunk by airpower alone - that changed with PoW/Repulse, sunk by land based planes, confirmed by Coral Sea and set in stone by Midway, all of which lay in the future.

Good point there. Ah Nidway. My first movie in "Sensoround"! Carriers battled one another without ever seeing one another.