The US' greatest gift to Canada?

[darkbeaver]

Quoting a source from a conspiracy theory site is not evidence. I stand by my original statement until you provide me with some actual historical evidence from a reliable source. The fact is that the historical record clearly shows that the US could have reacted to the Japanese attack had the military personnel at Pearl Harbor not been asleep at the switch and had the US military reacted properly to the numerous warning signs. There is no evidence that those who discovered the Japanese mini-sub or noted the approach of Japanese aircraft were in any way told not to report their discovery. Nor is there any evidence that information from US intelligence was deliberately ignored.

So far as the US carriers are concerned, one was delayed at sea by a storm and the others were delivering aircraft to shore up US defences in preparation for a possible war with Japan. No matter how much you believe in a conspiracy it is vary hard to manipulate the weather.

Finally, I note you have not attempted to challenge me over the military balance in the Pacific; probably because the numbers there are irrefutable.

I have time to waste but it's mine to waste on me so you provide me with a list of sources that you deem reliable otherwise we'll just have to rely on the entered and previously classified congressional material that you have already been steered to. The dogmatist will insist on the impossibility of fire while his ass is burning.

 

[Trotz]

America was admittedly more stable when the pariah elements of the Democrat Party could be written off as Communists, Soviet Spies, et al.

 

[Risus]

We have more to thank England for our "human rights" than the U.S ..

Hmmm, I thought the creator of the mess called the bill of rights was the idiot Trudeau...

 

[gopher]

America was admittedly more stable when the pariah elements of the Democrat Party could be written off as Communists, Soviet Spies, et al.

Not possible as it has always been the Republican elites who funded communism:

Who financed Lenin and Trotsky?

 

[Kreskin]

Public healthcare.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

We have more to thank England for our "human rights" than the U.S ..

So does the U.S., actually. The core of it, in British common law, is in the Magna Carta.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I thought you two were husband and wife for a while, lol...

We're working on a civil union.

I have time to waste but it's mine to waste on me so you provide me with a list of sources that you deem reliable otherwise we'll just have to rely on the entered and previously classified congressional material that you have already been steered to. The dogmatist will insist on the impossibility of fire while his ass is burning.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making the claim and should be willing to provide the evidence to support it. As for contrary evidence, read almost any history of the war and you will find nothing to support your claim. There are thousands of histories out there; many written by professional historians that say nothing about any conspiracy regarding Pearl Harbor. These learned professionals apparently did not find any real evidence regarding a conspiracy or they certainly would have included it in their books.

 

[petros]

These learned professionals apparently did not find any real evidence regarding a conspiracy or they certainly would have included it in their books.

Charles Callan Tansill who wrote: "Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941," published in 1952. Tansill argued that the President "deceitfully orchestrated a series of moves to bring a reluctant nation into war, creating circumstances in which U.S. entry became unavoidable. ​

Whether or not FDR knew Pearl Harbour was set for Dec 6 doesn't matter. After the embargoes he new damn well that they would attack the fleet eventually.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

We're working on a civil union.

VERY civil, specifically including no physical contact beyond a handshake and a pat on the back, unless we're playing football, in which case a light butt pat is allowed, but only after one of us has made a really good play. We are, after all, REAL MEN.

...the President "deceitfully orchestrated a series of moves to bring a reluctant nation into war, creating circumstances in which U.S. entry became unavoidable.
Whether or not FDR knew Pearl Harbour was set for Dec 6 doesn't matter. After the embargoes he new damn well that they would attack the fleet eventually.

It's common knowledge to any student of history that FDR wanted the US to enter the war, but whether or not he knew the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor (and there's no good evidence that he did) DOES matter. And it was December 7th, not the 6th.

 

[petros]

[Memorandum for the Deputy Secretary of
Defense]​

A

DVANCEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL KIMMEL AND

​

M​

​

AJOR GENERAL SHORT

​

1. Responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster
should not fall solely on the shoulders
of Admiral Kimmel and General Short; it
should be broadly shared.
2. To say that responsibility is broadly
shared is not to absolve Admiral Kimmel and
General Short of accountability.
3. The official treatment of Admiral Kimmel
and General Short was substantively
temperate and procedurally proper.
There is not a compelling basis for advancing
either officer to a higher grade.
His nomination is subject to the advice and
consent of the Senate. A nominee’s errors
and indiscretions must be reported to the
Senate as adverse information.
In sum, I cannot conclude that Admiral
Kimmel and General Short were victims of
unfair official actions and thus I cannot conclude
that the official remedy of advancement
to the retired list in order. Admiral
Kimmel and General Short did not have all
the resources they felt necessary. Had they
been provided more intelligence and clearer
guidance, they might have understood their
situation more clearly and behaved differently.
Thus, responsibility for the magnitude
of the Pearl Harbor disaster must be
shared. But this is not a basis for contradicting
the conclusion, drawn consistently
over several investigations, that Admiral
Kimmel and General Short committed errors
of judgment. As commanders, they were accountable.
T​

​

HE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

​

Washington, DC, November 18, 1997.
Hon. S​

​

TROM THURMOND,

​

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
D​

​

EAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your

interest in exonerating the names of Admiral
Kimmel and General Short. In the years
since the fateful events at Pearl Harbor
there have been numerous formal investigations
of the events leading up to the attack,
including sharp debate over our state of
readiness at the time.
While Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness, Mr. Edwin Dorn conducted
a thorough review of this issue in
1995. He carefully considered the information
contained in nine previous formal investigations,
visited Pearl Harbor and personally
met with the Kimmel and Short families. His
conclusion was that responsibility for the
Pearl Harbor disaster must be broadly
shared, but that the record does not show
that advancement of Admiral Kimmel and
General Short on the retired list is warranted.
I appreciate the fact that the overwhelming
consensus of the organizations and
personnel mentioned in your letter recommend
exoneration of Admiral Kimmel and
General Short. Absent significant new information,
however, I do not believe it appropriate
to order another review of this matter.
Ed Dorn and I both agree that responsibility
for this tragic event in American history
must be broadly shared, yet I remain
confident in the findings that Admiral Kimmel
and General Short remain accountable
in their positions as leaders.
Sincerely,
B​

​

ILL COHEN.

​

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself
4 minutes.
I rise to address the Kimmel-Short
resolution which I and Senators B​

​

IDEN,

T​

​

HURMOND, and KENNEDY introduced to

redress a grave injustice that haunts us
from World War II.
That injustice was the scapegoating
of Admiral Kimmel and General Short
for the success of the disastrous Pearl
Harbor attack. This unjust
scapegoating was given unjust permanence
when these two officers were not
advanced on the retirement list to
their highest ranks of wartime command,
an honor that was given to every
other senior commander who served in
wartime positions above his regular
grade.
Our amendment is almost an exact
rewrite of Senate Joint Resolution 19,
that benefits from the support of 23 cosponsors.
It calls for the advancement
on the retirement lists of Kimmel and
Short to the grades of their highest
wartime commands—as was done for
every other officer eligible under the
Officer Personnel Act of 1947.
Such a statement by the Senate
would do much to remove the stigma of
blame that so unfairly burdens the reputation
of these two officers. It is a
correction consistent with our military
tradition of honor.
Allow me to review some key facts
about this issue.
First, it is a fact that Kimmel and
Short were the only two World War II
officers eligible under the Officer Personnel
Act of 1947 for advancement on
the retired list who were not granted
such advancement. No other officer or
official paid a price for their role in the
Pearl Harbor disaster. That fact alone
unfairly perpetuates the scapegoating
they endured for the remainder of their
lives.
Second, there have been no less than
nine official investigations on this
matter over the last five decades. They
include the 1944 Naval Court of Inquiry
which completely exonerated Admiral
Kimmel and the 1944 Army Pearl Harbor
Board who found considerable fault
in the War Department—General
Short’s superiors. These investigations
include that conducted by a 1991 Board
for the Correction of Military Records
which recommended General Short’s
advancement on the retired list.
I can think of few issues of this nature
that have been as extensively investigated
and studied as the Pearl
Harbor matter. Nor can I think of a series
of studies conducted over five decades
where conclusions have been so remarkably
consistent.
They include, first, the Hawaiian
commanders were not provided vital
intelligence they needed and that was
available in Washington prior to the
attack on Pearl Harbor.
Second, the disposition of forces in
Hawaii were proper and consistent with
the information made available to Admiral
Kimmel and General Short.
Third, these investigations found
that the handling of intelligence and
command responsibilities in Washington
were characterized by ineptitude,
limited coordination, ambiguous
language, and lack of clarification followup.
Fourth, these investigations found
that these failures and shortcomings of
the senior authorities in Washington
contributed significantly, if not predominantly,
to the success of the surprise
attack on Pearl Harbor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 4
minutes have expired.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the
floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator
from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I understand
under the previous order I have
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator
is correct.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have
the highest regard for Senator R​

​

OTH,

our distinguished chairman of the Finance
Committee. One can tell by
looking at all the books on his desk
that he has done considerable research
in this area. I have not done similar research
in this area. But this is an issue
that I have followed for my period of
service in Congress, and I have followed
it in part because of an interest in it,
and in part because of my interest in
the efforts of Dr. Samuel Mudd to exonerate
his name from the role that he
is alleged to have played and in fact
was convicted of playing in the post-assassination
activities related to President
Lincoln.
But I have come to the floor today to
oppose this amendment because I
strongly object to Congress getting
into the business of rewriting history.
This is an old issue. There has been a
lot of talk over the years about Admiral
Kimmel and about General Short,
and about the facts in the wake of the
greatest military disaster in American
history at Pearl Harbor. And there is
no question about the fact that we
were asleep on December 7th of 1941.
There is no question about the fact
that Kimmel and Short had a great
shortcoming in that they did not talk
to each other and put together the information
they had. But there is probably
no question about the fact that in
the wake of that disaster, there was an
effort to put the blame on someone. It
is also true that subsequent studies
have concluded there was broad culpability.
But here is the point I want to make.
We have a Board for the Correction of
Military Records. We have an on-going
process within the Department of Defense
to reevaluate decisions that have
been made. This decision about Kimmel
and Short bubbled all the way up
to President Bush, who as you know,
was the youngest naval aviator in
American history in World War II.
President Bush decided to let contemporaries
be the judge of historical
events, and so he made the decision not
to override the decision of military
leaders at the time of Pearl Harbor.
We had another review that ended on
December 15th of 1995. That review was
headed by Under Secretary of Defense​

for Personnel and Readiness, Edwin S.

the rest here: Retrieve Pages

​

 

[TenPenny]

Hmmm, I thought the creator of the mess called the bill of rights was the idiot Trudeau...

Funny how those who like to blame Trudeau for everything don't actually know Canadian history. It was Dief who brought in our Bill of Rights in 1960.

 

[darkbeaver]

We're working on a civil union.




Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making the claim and should be willing to provide the evidence to support it. As for contrary evidence, read almost any history of the war and you will find nothing to support your claim. There are thousands of histories out there; many written by professional historians that say nothing about any conspiracy regarding Pearl Harbor. These learned professionals apparently did not find any real evidence regarding a conspiracy or they certainly would have included it in their books.

There are also hundreds of movies that make no mention of it as well and never has it been mentioned on any DEC 7th that I can remember, that makes no difference whatever as to the validity of the conspiracy verdict. If you believe in the mass produced histories then there is no point continuing our conversation. I think you believe that anything labeled history is history. I hate to break it to you but that isn't how it is. What is the job of a professional state sanctioned historian? Is it to accurately record history or is it to bolster and hide the conspirators who pay? If there was a Pearl conspiracy and it was successful what makes you think a loose end like convincing you of it's impossibility would not have been executed successfully? I gently suggest that most of what we think we know about history is a far different thing than the actual happenings.

 

[CDNBear]

There are also hundreds of movies that make no mention of it as well and never has it been mentioned on any DEC 7th that I can remember, that makes no difference whatever as to the validity of the conspiracy verdict. If you believe in the mass produced histories then there is no point continuing our conversation. I think you believe that anything labeled history is history. I hate to break it to you but that isn't how it is. What is the job of a professional state sanctioned historian? Is it to accurately record history or is it to bolster and hide the conspirators who pay? If there was a Pearl conspiracy and it was successful what makes you think a loose end like convincing you of it's impossibility would not have been executed successfully? I gently suggest that most of what we think we know about history is a far different thing than the actual happenings.

Ya, that paranoid and delusional post could be considered somewhat true, if it weren't for countless historical documents and publications, that it obviously ignores. That expose the US's atrocities. Raging from its treatment of Natives, the mentally ill of the early 1900's, actions during WWII, interference in South American politics, and so on.

The facts of the matter, simply don't support that kind of stupid.

 

[eh1eh]

Funny how those who like to blame Trudeau for everything don't actually know Canadian history. It was Dief who brought in our Bill of Rights in 1960.

Yes. But didn't PET actually give us a constitution? Such as it is.

 

[Bar Sinister]

There are also hundreds of movies that make no mention of it as well and never has it been mentioned on any DEC 7th that I can remember, that makes no difference whatever as to the validity of the conspiracy verdict. If you believe in the mass produced histories then there is no point continuing our conversation. I think you believe that anything labeled history is history. I hate to break it to you but that isn't how it is. What is the job of a professional state sanctioned historian? Is it to accurately record history or is it to bolster and hide the conspirators who pay? If there was a Pearl conspiracy and it was successful what makes you think a loose end like convincing you of it's impossibility would not have been executed successfully? I gently suggest that most of what we think we know about history is a far different thing than the actual happenings.

Sorry you think that way, but you are talking through your hat. I have read literally hundreds of books and articles on World War II and watched an equal number of documentaries without coming across anything support your viewpoint. You might not agree with me, but you are going to have to come up with something better to convince me that a conspiracy theory site is a valid source.

As for my beliefs - no I don't believe everything labeled history is history, If I did I would give your post more credibility. As for professional historians covering up some Pearl Harbor conspiracy you don't seem to understand how historians work. Any real historian would jump at the chance to expose a coverup such as you have suggested. It is the job of professional historians to sort through a mass of historical evidence and then draw logical conclusions based on the evidence, not simply make something up to sell books. The fact that no credible historian in the last 70 years supports your premise probably means that it has little or no merit.

You may not know this, but the theory that Roosevelt deliberately set up the Pacific fleet as a target for the Japanese in order to pull the USA into the war was put forth almost immediately after the attack and investigated thoroughly by many historians following the war. They found no credible evidence that such was the case and no new evidence has surfaced to support it.

 

[boats2010]

Well the one thing for sure, there is no free lunch. Having an economic power such as the usa is good and bad. I forget which president said, " we don’t have to invade your country, we will just ruin your economy “. Then the softwood lumber deal where even though the courts said Canada was entitled to be paid Canada simply was not paid the 1 billion that was owed. The USA will always get their way. Its nice we have all the TV and media, we are close to markets such as California. I have met some of the nicest and most genuine people that I have ever met while traveling down the west coast. It’s the business and politics that spoil the brew. I think if the media was honest many of the us citizens would be appalled in what is going on, but the media is the media.
To summarize, its to ones advantage to live next to a giant, until the giant decides he wants what you have and takes it. Then it’s not so nice.

 

[ironsides]

Nothing has changed between Canada and the U.S. in over 70+ years. Canadian lumber has been sold to the U.S. for as long as I can remember, I don't see any major changes in the future. Loggers do make money from it.

 

[boats2010]

You missed my point. Usa had tacken delivery of the lumber, when it came time to pay usa said no. Canada took them to court where canada won.Agian when it came time to pay it was no. The end ruslt was out of 5 billion worth of lumber the usa would only pay for 4 and that was that. My point is big powers such as the usa push their weight around and countrys like Canada have to take it. So when the opening comment is" gifts to Canada" I would like to point out that along with the gifts is the other side to living beside a giant.

 

[BaalsTears]

America is in retreat everywhere on earth. America has no choice but to become very close to Canada.

 

[Unforgiven]

Is it the boob job?