Would Liberals Have Supported Roosevelt On Dec,7th.1941?

Here you are, enjoy.

With Britain busy fighting the war with Hitler, it was clear that the only country capable of stopping the japanese expansion in the pacific was the United states. Animosity intensified between the two nations when Japan was forced to seize resources in China due to the ever tightening US embargo which denied japan of vital materials.

In September 1940 Japan became partners with Germany and Italy in the Tripartite Pact, which pledged mutual assistance should the US enter the war.

President Roosevelt reacted by halting Japan`s importation of American petroleum which had provided 90% of Japan`s needs. On July 2, 1941 Japan entered Indochina, the nearest alternative source of fuel. Roosevelt reacted by freezing all Japanese assets in the United States. US participation in the war was inevitable.

Roosevelt had campaigned for a third term of office on the pretext of keeping the US out of the European war. In 1940 a gallop pole indicated that American public opinion was 83% against intervention.

There is an accepted idea amongst WW2 researchers that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbour was going to be attacked, these are the suspicious facts to which they point to:

During Pacific exercises in 1932 and 1938, and with Japanese military attaches closely observing. US Navy officers theoretically destroyed the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour both times.

Roosevelt ordered the Pacific Fleet moved to the exposed position at Pearl Harbour over the vigorous objections of Admiral James O. Richardson, who was replaced for refusing to issue the order.

Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and opther high level officials knew war was inevitable and that negotiations with Japan`s Kichiburo Nomura were hopeless since the broken Japanese code revealed that Nomura was instructed not to yeild to Hull`s harsh demands.

They also knew that a large Japanese task force, including Six aircraft carriers had dropped from sight after moving towards America.

This prompted US Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall. to send this oddly worded message to Pearl Harbour commanders on November 27, 1941," Hostile action possible at any moment. If hostilities cannot, repeat CANNOT, be avoided, the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not, repeat NOT, be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeapordize your defence " Despite this clear warning, with it`s accompanying suggestion not to attack any attackers, Pacific fleet ships remained at anchor and aircraft were bunched into clusters of " Sitting ducks" as "security" against saboteurs.

During the first week of December, Americans intercepted the Japanese diplomatic " Purple" code ordering their embassy in Washington to destroy all secret papers and prepare to evacuate.

On December 4 australian intelligence reported sighting the missing Japanese task force moving toward Pearl Harbour. Roopsevelt dismissed this as rumor begun by pro-war Republicans.

A British agent named Dusko Popov learned of Japan`s plans from German sources but his warnings to Washington were ignored.

Seperate warnings regarding a pending attack on Pearl Harbour, though varying as to a specific time came from Us ambassador to japan Joseph Grew; FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, senator Guy Gillete, Congressman Martin Dies, Brigadier general Elliot Thorpe in Java, and Colonel F.G.L. Weijerman, the Dutch military attache in Washington. Later, dutch naval officer, Captain Johan Ranneft, said sources in US intelligence told him on December 6 that the Japanese carriers were 400 miles northwest of Hawaii.

During investigations after the attack, Mashall and Navy Secretary Frank Knox both testified they could not recall their whereabouts the night of December 6. It was later revealed that they were both in the White House with Roosevelt.

Not one single US aircraft carrier was present when Pearl harbour was attacked.

On November 25, 1941, Secretary of War, Henry Stimson had a conversation with roosevelt, after which he wrote in his diary, " The question was how we should maneuver them into a position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. . . . It was desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone`s mind as to who were the aggressors."

The most damning indication yet of Roosevelt`s foreknowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbour came from the 1948 interrogation of Germany`s Gestapo chief, Heinrich Mueller. Mueller stated that on November 26, 1941, the Germans in holland intercepted a trans-atlantic telephone conversation between Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.

Churchill informed Roosevelt of the movements of the Japanese fleet and stated " i can assure you that their goal is the ( conversation broken) fleet at Pearl Harbour."

" This is monstrous," exclaimed Roosevelt. " Can you tell me. . . indicate. . . the nature of your intelligence?"

" reliable" answered Churchill, who mentioned agents within the Japanese military, as well as the broken code.

"The obvious implication is that the Japs are going to do a Port Arthur on us at Pearl Harbour. Do you concur?" asked Roosevelt. Churchill replied " I do indeed unless they add an attack on the Panama Canal to this vile business."

Roosevelt then said " I will have to consider the entire problem. . . A Japanese attack on us, which would result in war between-and certainly you as well-would certainly fulfill two of the most important requirements of our policy." Roosevelt speaks of absenting himself from the White house on some pretext, adding " What i don`t know, can`t hurt me and i cannot understand messages at a distance."

addressing the unlikely proposition that US Military officers would have knowingly allowed American units to be attacked, author Douglas explained, " The warning did not come to Roosevelt from below but on a parallel level and from a foreign intelligence source which was far better equiped to decode and translate the Japanese transmissions"

Foreknowledge of the Decmber 7 attack gives new meaning to Roosevelts words concerning " A date that will live on in infamy."

As you said 2400 killed, 1200 wounded, four battle ships sunk, three badly damaged and many other smaller vessels and hundreds of aircraft destroyed.

A special commission was appointed by Roosevelt to determine responsibility for the attack. The Roberts commission blamed dereliction of duty on Pearl Harbour commanders, Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter C. short, for the tragedy and then disbanded.

Incensed, the two officers sought a court martial to clear their names, which was mandated by congress in 1944. During the proceedings, internal investigations by both the Army and the Navy were shown to have fixed blame on the attack on marshall and other Washington chiefs. Kimmel was exonerated and Short recieved a light reprimand. Like the future warren Commission, the Roberts commission had operated under the presumption of guilt and had selectively chosen evidence to fit this bias. Furthermore, investigators concluded that if decoded messages had been forewarded to Kimmel in Hawaii they may have provided " the probable exact hour and date of the attack "

There is a 40 volume government report on the attack on Pearl Harbour, few Americans have heard of it, let alone viewed it`s contents.

Disturbing. In 60 years you will read the same about 9/11.

People who lost loved ones have my deepest sympathy.

Depending on what you mean by "liberal" I suppose they would. After all there was broad support among Americans of all political persuaisions when Bush went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

However when Bush decided to launch a $300 billion dollar military initiative into Iraq (a country that did not attack us) the nation then became divided.

So after Pearl Harbor I think so-called "liberals" would have supported the military action against Japan.

However if Roosevelt had followed Bush's strategy and attacked say Mexico after Pearl Harbor, they probably would have been less inclined to back him up.

So if

Liberals did support the liberal FDR on Dec 7, 1941. Most liberals also supported George W. Bush on Sep. 11, 2001. We also supported W. when he went into Afghanistan after our attackers. We just didn't support him when he gave up on bin Laden and Al Quaeda and went after Saddam and the Baathists. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and that has already been shown by the 911 commission.

There was a conservative who answered one of your other questions that DID blame FDR for the attack on Pearl Harbor. He is just as much representative of the conservative point of view as the few liberals who blame Bush for 911.

Would guys like you enlist??? Or would you apply for college deferrments or try to get in the air guard so you wouldnt have to serve overseas. Oh, no that isnt a liberal tactic that is the ultra rough and tough Dick Cheney and George Bush. Yeah but they are now reborn as tough guys willing to let anyone else do their fighting for them. It is always amusing how people claim liberals as soft but when compared with republicans and conservatives they surely serve their country in greater numbers. What about you how much time have you spent defending our country and its way of life??

No we wouldn't have, O Thoughtless One. We couldn't because we didn't know what he planned to do about that "day of infamy" until the next day. By the way - my father, as liberal as any man you ever met, and his brother both enlisted and served as artillerymen in the Pacific theatre. Dad came home with a purple heart and and a permanent disability. You wanna get smart with me about liberals some more, huh? You can have a knuckle sandwich bub - on the house!

between the further present day tries replaced into the "fairness doctrine" which may have compelled radio stations to air change viewpoints. Christian radio stations, confronted with the potential of attending to air anti-Christian messages, ought to have close down quite than adjust to the regulation. In a international the position Muslims are robotically murdering probability free human beings, Christians are nevertheless being villified through the left, curiously because of our stances on abortion and homosexuality. (Which, by the way, are a similar because the Muslim stances on those similar 2 themes, except that Muslims ought to execute each of the homosexuals.)

I would have, and acording to your view, I am a liberal.

We were atatcked. Same as 9-11. I completely supported going after Bin-Laden.

If you believe in this war so much, why don't you move to Iraq. Maybe you could help the people there, because it's not happening now.

Maybe you didn't notice this, but Franklin Roosevelt was a LIBERAL. Maybe the most famous LIBERAL ever. Thank him for winning WW2, for overcoming the Depression, for modifying Capitalism into a system that survived and delivered on its promise. LIBERAL is Good. Thank you for your question.

Sure. We would have supported going to war against the country that attacked us.

Do I really need to point out to you that Iraq did not attack the United States?

NOT TODAY's LIBERALS for SURE!

I am so glad they did not have a say in that war or we would all be communists (like they still want to be).