WWII Conspricy Theories

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7689
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Sid Guttridge » 12 Sep 2020 08:53

Hi vanillanuns,

Ah, the classic, source- and evidence-free conspiracy theory classic, "Does the lady protest too much? It's not as if they would ever admit it anyway... "

One of my all time favourites, along with the related, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they"!

My personal feeling is that I wish we Brits were clever enough to fool the Americans so brilliantly.

But is it really likely that a country which throws up leaders of the intellect and breadth of knowledge of, say, Donald Trump, could ever be so fooled as to allow a foreign government to manipulate its political process? The very idea is so implausible as to be worthy of ridicule.

Cheers,

Sid.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4340
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by OpanaPointer » 12 Sep 2020 12:43

VanillaNuns wrote:
11 Sep 2020 23:05
RE: Pearl Harbor

There is another theory that it was Churchill and the British who intercepted information at Bletchley Park about the forthcoming Pearl Harbor attack but decided not to inform Roosevelt as they wanted the United States to enter the war as quickly as possible.

The British government even to this day have a webpage on their GCHQ (military intelligence and security) site debunking the myth.

https://www.gchq.gov.uk/information/did ... arl-harbor

Does the lady protest too much? It's not as if they would ever admit it anyway... :roll:
The plans for the initiation of the Great Pacific War were 82 pages long. You don't send that kind of thing by telegraphy. The plans included complex tables showing force allotments. You CAN'T send that by telegraphy.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7724
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 12 Sep 2020 21:40

From experience lots of mistakes creep in when transcribing radio messages, either voice or key. You absolutely don't want to send 82 page battle plans that way. Even simple standardized messages like a artillery call for fire were difficult enough to keep coherent & accurate.

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 12 Sep 2020 22:06

Futurist wrote:
09 Sep 2020 05:41
If this is actually true, can you really blame FDR? After all, I fear that Nazi Germany would not have been defeated without outright US military participation in WWII, and I wonder if FDR himself privately knew that.
Setting aside the need for US involvement in ETO as a condition for Allied victory there, how could FDR have guessed that Hitler would make what I consider the second-stupidest military decision he ever took?

And consider that we'd already been exchanging fire with U-boats for a few months prior to Pearl Harbor, acts that would likely end up in our ETO involvement anyway without allowing PacFleet's battleline to be disabled for a couple of years. The "shoot-on-sight" policy had already set up the prerequisites for our ETO involvement.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2654
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Futurist » 12 Sep 2020 22:09

ETO = European Theater ?

Also, just how much longer do you think that it would have taken the US to declare war on Nazi Germany without Pearl Harbor and Hitler's subsequent declaration of war against the US--which, BTW, FDR probably could not have predicted ahead of time?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7724
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 12 Sep 2020 23:57

Futurist wrote:
12 Sep 2020 22:09
ETO = European Theater ? ...
European Theatre of Operations, Mediterranean Theatre of Operations, Pacific Theatre of Operations. China Theatre of Operations. Cant recall any others like those. IIRC they originated with the US military circa 1942, but may have had a earlier origin.
Futurist wrote:
12 Sep 2020 22:09
Also, just how much longer do you think that it would have taken the US to declare war on Nazi Germany without Pearl Harbor and Hitler's subsequent declaration of war against the US--which, BTW, FDR probably could not have predicted ahead of time?
In the case of Germany, as early as March or April 1942. Lend Lease, full cooperation with the blockade of Germany, the Exclusion or Neutrality Zone, occupation of Iceland, planned entry of the US in Persia, ect... were incremental steps in boxing in Germany and using the US military and other power to reinforce the Brits against German attack. The naval war in the Atlantic was heating up & at any moment the Germans were going to figure out the USN was searching for and tracking German blockade runners and warships globally.

All that was ramping up the tensions to the breaking point. Among the US voters & general leadership there was a growing awareness that neutrality & isolation were not working. The burst of prosperity from European industry/governments of 1939-1941 had hit its peak. The banks and Congress knew that influx of war cash had ceased. Even if the Brits/USSR won it would take years and the economic prospects for Europe in that case did not look good. While dupes like Ford or Dupont thought the could do business with a Facist Europe, it was increasingly clear that a Facist victory would be even worse economically. Traditionally about 60% of US exports of raw materials and finished goods went to Europe. That had dropped off dramatically and was still falling. It did not really matter who eventually won. A isolated US with no voice in the post war world would definitely be a looser.

Water the polls showed folks ere starting see that the sooner the war ended & in the US favor the better for the US. Economically and politically the US was best off in the world of 1890-1914. A return to those conditions, or at least those of the 1920s was desirable from the US PoV. & that was not going to happen if the outcome of the war was left to others nations.

So the question before Congress and the voters was transitioning from staying out of the war, to how soon to get in & get it over with.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3246
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Richard Anderson » 13 Sep 2020 07:08

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
12 Sep 2020 23:57
Futurist wrote:
12 Sep 2020 22:09
ETO = European Theater ? ...
European Theatre of Operations, Mediterranean Theatre of Operations, Pacific Theatre of Operations. China Theatre of Operations. Cant recall any others like those. IIRC they originated with the US military circa 1942, but may have had a earlier origin.
It was the ETOUSA, European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army and was under the cognizance of the War Department. The other U.S. Army theater commands were the North Africa Theater of Operations, U.S. Army or NATOUSA (which led some British staff officers on a merry chase as they tried to track down the town of Natousa in Tunisia) and the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, U.S. Army or MTOUSA, which was the successor to NATOUSA.

Technically, there was no Pacific "Theater of Operations". It was the Pacific Ocean Areas or POA, divided into the Central and North Pacific Areas, under the CNO, the Southwest Pacific Areas or SWPA, under MacArthur, and the China-Burma-India area or CBI, under Stilwell.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4340
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by OpanaPointer » 13 Sep 2020 12:52

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
12 Sep 2020 23:57

So the question before Congress and the voters was transitioning from staying out of the war, to how soon to get in & get it over with.
I did a semester in Grad School at Purdue on this question. I focused on two schools, Purdue and Indiana U., and reviewed articles on the war in their campus papers, along with Op-Ed and Letters to the Editor. Purdue has been largely conservative and IU liberal, so I got both sides of the arguments. They followed the trends shown in the Gallup Polls*. At one point in Oct. 1941, a Purdue frat announced they had invited the German Consul in Chicago to address a meeting they were going to have. They had to run for cover as students reacted with no small amount of fury. :lol:

*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7724
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 14 Sep 2020 03:20

OpanaPointer wrote:
13 Sep 2020 12:52
... At one point in Oct. 1941, a Purdue frat announced they had invited the German Consul in Chicago to address a meeting they were going to have. They had to run for cover as students reacted with no small amount of fury. :lol:

*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
My father had departed for active service the previous summer. Or he might have been among the punishers of that frat. Do you recall which one it was?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2654
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Futurist » 14 Sep 2020 03:24

OpanaPointer wrote:
13 Sep 2020 12:52
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
12 Sep 2020 23:57

So the question before Congress and the voters was transitioning from staying out of the war, to how soon to get in & get it over with.
I did a semester in Grad School at Purdue on this question. I focused on two schools, Purdue and Indiana U., and reviewed articles on the war in their campus papers, along with Op-Ed and Letters to the Editor. Purdue has been largely conservative and IU liberal, so I got both sides of the arguments. They followed the trends shown in the Gallup Polls*. At one point in Oct. 1941, a Purdue frat announced they had invited the German Consul in Chicago to address a meeting they were going to have. They had to run for cover as students reacted with no small amount of fury. :lol:

*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
What do you think about this poll question and its results? :

306 THE GALLUP POLL

NOVEMBER 22

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 11/7-12/41

Survey #252-K Question #11

It has been suggested that Congress pass a resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and Germany. Would you favor or oppose such a resolution at this time?

Favor.............................. 26%

Oppose.............................63

No opinion......................... 11

Do you think that the largely "Oppose" responses were simply due to the timing being perceived as being wrong for the US entering World War II?

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4340
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by OpanaPointer » 14 Sep 2020 10:36

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
14 Sep 2020 03:20
OpanaPointer wrote:
13 Sep 2020 12:52
... At one point in Oct. 1941, a Purdue frat announced they had invited the German Consul in Chicago to address a meeting they were going to have. They had to run for cover as students reacted with no small amount of fury. :lol:

*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
My father had departed for active service the previous summer. Or he might have been among the punishers of that frat. Do you recall which one it was?
Not off the top of my head. I lost a lot of material when I was moved to St. Louis.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4340
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by OpanaPointer » 14 Sep 2020 10:38

Futurist wrote:
14 Sep 2020 03:24
OpanaPointer wrote:
13 Sep 2020 12:52
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
12 Sep 2020 23:57

So the question before Congress and the voters was transitioning from staying out of the war, to how soon to get in & get it over with.
I did a semester in Grad School at Purdue on this question. I focused on two schools, Purdue and Indiana U., and reviewed articles on the war in their campus papers, along with Op-Ed and Letters to the Editor. Purdue has been largely conservative and IU liberal, so I got both sides of the arguments. They followed the trends shown in the Gallup Polls*. At one point in Oct. 1941, a Purdue frat announced they had invited the German Consul in Chicago to address a meeting they were going to have. They had to run for cover as students reacted with no small amount of fury. :lol:

*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
What do you think about this poll question and its results? :

306 THE GALLUP POLL

NOVEMBER 22

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 11/7-12/41

Survey #252-K Question #11

It has been suggested that Congress pass a resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and Germany. Would you favor or oppose such a resolution at this time?

Favor.............................. 26%

Oppose.............................63

No opinion......................... 11

Do you think that the largely "Oppose" responses were simply due to the timing being perceived as being wrong for the US entering World War II?
No rational person wants to go to war. Did you look at the ones that show that a majority of Americans realized we would have to got war?

The reason I put all polls related to the war online was to allow people to see the whole picture.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by T. A. Gardner » 14 Sep 2020 15:28

But, at the same time most Americans were polling that they thought war with Germany was inevitable. So, I don't think the correct question is whether the US should go to war or not by itself. It appears overall that Americans were largely resigned to ending up in a war with Germany but not wanting one. This would indicate that the Germans would have to cause an incident serious enough for the US to go to war over, and that was going to happen at some point in the increasing hot U-boat campaign.

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 14 Sep 2020 15:34

Futurist wrote:
12 Sep 2020 22:09
ETO = European Theater ?
Yes.
Futurist wrote:
12 Sep 2020 22:09
Also, just how much longer do you think that it would have taken the US to declare war on Nazi Germany without Pearl Harbor and Hitler's subsequent declaration of war against the US--which, BTW, FDR probably could not have predicted ahead of time?
I don't know. But it's not me making any extraordinary claim that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen in the Pacific so that America could get into the European war. My guess is that Germany would have declared war on America in 1942, but not if that interfered with Barbarossa. I don't think America would have declared war.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7724
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: WWII Conspricy Theories

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 14 Sep 2020 19:56

Digressing from the PH sub thread, I'm sure it will be here later.

The Philadelphia Experiment is a relatively minor one. Lets imagine for a moment that in the 1980s the documentation for a failed US experiment is outed. A bizarre experiment that killed the crew of a destroyer of similar sized ship. At this point I'm more interested in the consequences. Particularly if the outting touches on some otherwise uninvestigated aspect of physics. This was a era when there was a lot of organized opposition to things like nuclear power, the Strategic Defense Intitative. People like Senator Proxmire were working hard to shut down government sponsored research.

Any thoughts.

Return to “What if”