Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by rcocean » 06 Jun 2021 04:04

Rcocean forgets :lol: No. Rcocean never mentioned Quezon. BTW, its been almost 80 years. Why can't you accept that FDR wanted us to go into war. Whether by hook or by crook? After all, don't you think it was grand that we got into WW 2? don't you agree with FDR getting us into WW2 was a great thing?

Why the squeamish attitude toward his methods? FDR certainly didn't foresee the attack on Pearl Harbor, but he wasn't any better than LBJ. Claire booth Luce stated "FDR lied us into war" . And he told Admiral Hart to "Create an incident". After all, FDR had already tried to create a war with Hitler in the Atlantic and couldn't get Hitler to escalate or the American Public to get OUTRAGED. why doubt he would the same thing in the Pacific?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11987
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by ljadw » 06 Jun 2021 06:53

rcocean wrote:
05 Jun 2021 23:43
The basic point is this:

Could FDR have Delayed or avoided war with Japan by negotiating a deal or lifting the embargo? And the answer is yes. Even if you believe war with Japan was inevitable, it made sense to agree to a three month "cooling off" period proposed by Japan, since we were desperately trying to reinforce our forces in the Pacific.

This is not correct
What FDR/US did or not did ,had nothing to do with PH.
The main reason for the war was China : the Japanese opinion was that China would fight as long it received/ hoped to receive help from the US and that the only way to force China to give up ,was to expel the US from the Western Pacific .
The embargo was only secondary . The IJN was able to fight without the US oil and was defeated ,but NOT because it did not have the US oil .
How long Japan could fight without the US oil,had nothing to do with the decision to go to war .
Other points : even without embargo,war was possible or likely : how long would Japan be able to pay for oil from the US or from the DEI and at the same time fighting in China ? What was the financial cost of the war in China ?
And, the embargo did not make war inevitable :Japan could withdraw from China or it could ignore the embargo and do as before . We know that BECAUSE of the war /wars , NOT because of the embargo,Japan's oil stocks were decreasing very fast .Now the question is :would they decrease also that fast without war with the US ?
And, if on December 1 1941 China had capitulated,meaning that Japan would consume less oil and need less oil,would they still attack PH and would they still need the oil of the DEI?
All we know is that the embargo was fruitless :Japan continued the war in China and started a new one .
If you receive less oil, the obvious solution is to consume less oil . Japan refused to consume less oil, it decided to consume more oil, by starting another war .

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4760
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by OpanaPointer » 06 Jun 2021 12:23

Yeah, not too bright.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by Takao » 06 Jun 2021 18:56

rcocean wrote:
06 Jun 2021 04:04
Rcocean forgets :lol: No. Rcocean never mentioned Quezon.
Quite odd that you failed to mention what is very germane to the topic. Cherry-picking your facts?

rcocean wrote:
06 Jun 2021 04:04
BTW, its been almost 80 years. Why can't you accept that FDR wanted us to go into war. Whether by hook or by crook?
Yes, FDR wanted to get us into a war with Germany...However, getting us into a war with Japan, does not get us into a war with Germany.

rcocean wrote:
06 Jun 2021 04:04
After all, don't you think it was grand that we got into WW 2? don't you agree with FDR getting us into WW2 was a great thing?
Last I looked Germany declared war on the US, that means Hitler, not FDR, got us into a war with Germany.

rcocean wrote:
06 Jun 2021 04:04
Why the squeamish attitude toward his methods?
We are not discussing FDR's methods for getting us into a war...We are discussing conspiracy theories.

rcocean wrote:
06 Jun 2021 04:04
FDR certainly didn't foresee the attack on Pearl Harbor, but he wasn't any better than LBJ.
Yep, LBJ never got us into a war either...I guess that is better.

rcocean wrote:
06 Jun 2021 04:04
Claire booth Luce stated "FDR lied us into war" .
I am shocked...Shocked that a Republican would be highly critical of a Democratic President. That such thing has never occurred before or since.
Oh wait, it happens all the time

rcocean wrote:
06 Jun 2021 04:04
And he told Admiral Hart to "Create an incident".
The message from Admiral Stark was
“PRESIDENT DIRECTS THAT THE FOLLOWING BE DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND WITHIN TWO DAYS IF POSSIBLE AFTER RECEIPT THIS DESPATCH. CHARTER THREE SMALL VESSELS TO FORM A QUOTE DEFENSIVE INFORMATION PATROL UNQUOTE. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY AS UNITED STATES MEN-OF-WAR ARE COMMAND BY A NAVAL OFFICER AND TO MOUNT A SMALL GUN AND ONE MACHINE GUN WOULD SUFFICE. FILIPINO CREWS MAY BE EMPLOYED WITH MINIMUM NAVAL RATINGS TO ACCOMPLISH PURPOSE WHICH IS TO OBSERVE AND REPORT BY RADIO JAPANESE MOVEMENTS IN THE WEST CHINA SEA AND GULF OF SIAM. ONE VESSEL TO BE STATIONED BETWEEN HAINAN AND HUE ONE VESSEL OFF THE INDO-CHINA COAST BETWEEN CAMRANH BAY AND CAPE ST. JACQUES AND ONE VESSEL OFF POINTE DE CAMAU. USE OF Isabel AUTHORIZED BY PRESIDENT AS ONE OF THREE VESSELS BUT NOT OTHER NAVAL VESSELS. REPORT MEASURES TAKEN TO CARRY OUT PRESIDENTS VIEWS. AT SAME TIME INFORM ME AS TO WHAT RECONNAISSANCE MEASURES ARE BEING REGULARLY PERFORMED AT SEA BY BOTH ARMY AND NAVY WHETHER BY AIR SURFACE VESSELS OR SUBMARINES AND YOUR OPINION AS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE LATTER MEASURES. TOP SECRET
Could you please point out where it says "create an incident"...I'll wait.
Oddly enough, Admiral Hart failed in his "order" to "create an incident". I wonder why he was not dismissed for failing to carry out his orders.

rcocean wrote:
06 Jun 2021 04:04
After all, FDR had already tried to create a war with Hitler in the Atlantic and couldn't get Hitler to escalate or the American Public to get OUTRAGED. why doubt he would the same thing in the Pacific?
Yep, and 23 sunk or damaged merchant ships, 1 sunk US destroyer, and 2 heavily damaged US destroyers did not get FDR his Declaration of War against Germany. Thus, I highly doubt that the loss of an ancient yacht and two small sailing schooners crewed mostly by Filipinos will get FDR a Declaration of War against Japan.

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 403
Joined: 16 Oct 2003 02:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by R Leonard » 06 Jun 2021 19:47

A tripwire. One might recall the Japanese use of medium to large fishing craft and whalers as outer patrollers of the home island. Made Doolittle have to launch early. These craft ordered by Stark to Hart could do no more than send a "here they come" message. Of course by the time they could do that everyone already knew . . . it's called an airplane.

Chuckx
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 16 Apr 2021 22:28
Location: Richmond, va

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by Chuckx » 07 Jun 2021 15:03

Yes, I have a substantial amount of evidence. Jack kept a large amount of his personal belongings from that time. He had a photographic memory as well. Later in life he was head of AT&T Plant Department and he went into great detail about controlling the President's telephone. He was in charge of the mobile AT&T crew that traveled ahead of the President. He also was the American representative for passing Signal System Six.

The obituary at the end of You Only Live Twice nearly mirrors his life. Ian Fleming must have visited Jack to obtain very personal details in order to refer to them in his novels. Only someone in position of his personal belongings would be able to see the connections. It is not only this one book, but nearly all of the Bond novels that reflect on Jack and his mission.

Richard Sorge's memoir as partially published in Shanghai Conspiracy mention a man that matches Jack's description. To this date, the man mentioned in that book has never been identified.

Jack also said he was sent for two reasons. One was to investigate the Kuril Islands. Of course this is where the mysterious events occurred on Matua Island, but it is also where they staged the Pearl Harbor attack.

The second reason he went was because AT&T Long Lines could not call Russia. This is confirmed in a 1941 Long Lines handbook that he kept. The only way for Roosevelt to call Moscow was for Jack to connect the call directly with the Soviet agents in Tokyo. I believe he could not transmit, but at the same time Roosevelt was likely not willing to have his voice smuggled through Berlin. Stalin's voice was smuggled west through Berlin where the phone number there is 007.

When Shanghai Conspiracy was published in Japan, they removed this mysterious person from the book.

I view his proof of working for the President of the United States and the proof that he is James Bond as proof of his assignment in Tokyo which he highly detailed.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4760
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by OpanaPointer » 07 Jun 2021 15:46

Your proof is unsupported by external sources. So at this point it's "just a story."
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Chuckx
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 16 Apr 2021 22:28
Location: Richmond, va

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by Chuckx » 07 Jun 2021 15:53

Supported by external sources Agnes Smedley, Ian Fleming, Richard Sorge, personal documents, Shanghai Conspiracy, The Case of Sorge, I can go on.

If you are looking for his military record of that time, yes it is missing, however I have a letter he wrote his dad in 1945 when he was drafted stating that he was curious as to how they were able to find his prior boot camp military record which was 1938 Fort Belvoir.

The CIA has still not released the files they have on Richard Sorge. If that is the only proof that you are willing to accept, then come out and say it.

Or if you do not have the patience to listen to a testimony and make a decision, then say that as well.

Chuckx
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 16 Apr 2021 22:28
Location: Richmond, va

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by Chuckx » 07 Jun 2021 16:11

In June 1941 Jack was sent to Tokyo via the Siberian Rail. They took him to see the front at the battle of Kalkin Gol. He recalls seeing the carnage there. Then he was taken to Vladivostok to be flown to Tokyo. He mission was a "no go" at that time and he was hurried back to the United States where he arrived in Philadelphia on June 23.

He was sent again in the fall of 1941. He was flown into Moscow and then took the Siberian Rail to Vladivostok and then flew to Tokyo.

There he was mostly alone, but he worked with a man that was capable of working on cars. That would be Max Klausen. It was the book Shanghai Conspiracy where Sorge was interrogated about a man that matched Jack's description and whether or not he saw this man working with Max. Max was the radio man for the Sorge ring.

The phone call originated in Hawaii and ended in Hawaii. The only way they knew the call had been connected was that a second phone in the room in Hawaii rang.

The call went from Jack to Max and then across the Siberian rail phone line. Then it went to a fake Russian company in Sweden then down and across Europe where it would have gone through Berlin. It was transmitted to England and then to New York, Rockefeller Center, then to the AT&T Long Lines Building and then to DC and then of course over to Hawaii.

The call was most likely conducted in early October as Jack was arrested in October. It was early October that Stalin granted his country freedom of religion and on October 13 Roosevelt announced that he brokered a deal with Stalin, weapons for freedom of religion.

Jack's mother was an intelligent woman and sent a birthday card to Jack on October 15 to the cover story location in Fredericksburg VA, a hotel. Jack was dirt poor and didn't have a reason to be at that hotel. Then both his mother and grandmother sent a Christmas card to their own address to Jack. The only reason for doing this is to provide evidence later on of an act and there would be no reason for a poor family to send themselves a Christmas card and pay for the postage. The Birthday card also had a mysterious coded message from his mother about returning.

His story goes into more depth of course. He talked about while working at Rockefeller Center wire tapping most of the foreign consulates in lower Manhattan. He also talked about getting beat up at a crowded event in New York and being sent to the hospital. These two events are discussed in the recent book by Hemming, Agents of Influence.

He went to the White House and recalls that British Agents were given sole control of the White House code room and made use of the connection to Tokyo.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4760
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by OpanaPointer » 07 Jun 2021 16:36

Chuckx wrote:
07 Jun 2021 15:53
Supported by external sources Agnes Smedley, Ian Fleming, Richard Sorge, personal documents, Shanghai Conspiracy, The Case of Sorge, I can go on.

If you are looking for his military record of that time, yes it is missing, however I have a letter he wrote his dad in 1945 when he was drafted stating that he was curious as to how they were able to find his prior boot camp military record which was 1938 Fort Belvoir.

The CIA has still not released the files they have on Richard Sorge. If that is the only proof that you are willing to accept, then come out and say it.

Or if you do not have the patience to listen to a testimony and make a decision, then say that as well.
We're working on different levels of evidence here.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by rcocean » 07 Jun 2021 17:08

From Louis Morton's "Japan's Decision for War". Page 114

On November 5, 1941 The Imperial Conference agreed to make two more proposals to the United States.
The first, Proposal A, was an amendment to the latest Japanese proposal and provided for a withdrawal from China and French Indochina, when and if a peace treaty was signed with Chiang Kai-shek. In certain areas in China, to be specified in the treaty, Japanese troops would remain for a "suitable period," vaguely and informally stated to be about twenty-five years. Further, the Japanese Government would interpret its obligations under the Tripartite Pact independently of the other Axis Powers. Lastly, Japan would agree not to discriminate in trade, provided all other nations did the same. In his instructions to Nomura, Foreign Minister Togo emphasized that while other matters could be compromised in his negotiations with the United States, Japan could not yield on the question of China.

In Proposal B, to be made if the first was rejected, no mention was made of the Tripartite Pact or the removal of Japanese troops from China. Japan would withdraw her troops from southern Indochina immediately and from the northern part of that country only after the negotiation of a peace treaty with Chiang Kai-shek, or after the conclusion of a "just peace" in the Pacific. In return, the United States was to agree not to interfere in the negotiations with China, and to co-operate with Japan in the acquisition and exploitation of natural resources in the Netherlands Indies. Finally, the United States was to resume commercial relations with Japan, and to provide that nation with oil.
IOW, Japan was willing remain at peace with the USA in return for Oil

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by rcocean » 07 Jun 2021 17:14

Mr takao, there's no point in responding to you since when cutting and pasting my post, you've made it seem to be something that its not. chopping up paragraphs into little bits causes them to lose their context and meaning. For example, you make it seem that I was asserting that LBJ didn't "Foresee the Vietnam war" like FDR didn't forsee Pearl Harbor. Which of course, is not what I wrote or meant at all.

Anyway, I have no desire for this sort of rhetorical or emotional "Debate". Adios.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by Takao » 07 Jun 2021 17:45

rcocean wrote:
07 Jun 2021 17:14
Mr takao, there's no point in responding to you since when cutting and pasting my post, you've made it seem to be something that its not. chopping up paragraphs into little bits causes them to lose their context and meaning. For example, you make it seem that I was asserting that LBJ didn't "Foresee the Vietnam war" like FDR didn't forsee Pearl Harbor. Which of course, is not what I wrote or meant at all.

Anyway, I have no desire for this sort of rhetorical or emotional "Debate". Adios.
I have addressed each and every point you tried to make.

The text of your quotes is exactly what you wrote.
If their context & meaning is not what you intended, that is not my fault. You wrote what you wrote.

My point with LBJ is that he did not get us into a war, as Congress never issued a Declaration of War, FDR did get a Declaration of War, albeit against Japan with the attack on PH. He never got a Declaration of War against Germany, but Adolph Hitler solved that problem.

I also note that you have not addressed how the loss of 3 small vessels will get a DoW against Japan, while far greater shipping losses in the Atlantic did not get a DoW against Germany.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by Takao » 07 Jun 2021 17:56

rcocean wrote:
07 Jun 2021 17:08
From Louis Morton's "Japan's Decision for War". Page 114

On November 5, 1941 The Imperial Conference agreed to make two more proposals to the United States.
The first, Proposal A, was an amendment to the latest Japanese proposal and provided for a withdrawal from China and French Indochina, when and if a peace treaty was signed with Chiang Kai-shek. In certain areas in China, to be specified in the treaty, Japanese troops would remain for a "suitable period," vaguely and informally stated to be about twenty-five years. Further, the Japanese Government would interpret its obligations under the Tripartite Pact independently of the other Axis Powers. Lastly, Japan would agree not to discriminate in trade, provided all other nations did the same. In his instructions to Nomura, Foreign Minister Togo emphasized that while other matters could be compromised in his negotiations with the United States, Japan could not yield on the question of China.

In Proposal B, to be made if the first was rejected, no mention was made of the Tripartite Pact or the removal of Japanese troops from China. Japan would withdraw her troops from southern Indochina immediately and from the northern part of that country only after the negotiation of a peace treaty with Chiang Kai-shek, or after the conclusion of a "just peace" in the Pacific. In return, the United States was to agree not to interfere in the negotiations with China, and to co-operate with Japan in the acquisition and exploitation of natural resources in the Netherlands Indies. Finally, the United States was to resume commercial relations with Japan, and to provide that nation with oil.
IOW, Japan was willing remain at peace with the USA in return for Oil
Basically, Proposal A is "Give us what we want" and Proposal B is "Give us what we want." There were few concessions made that would entice the US to agree to the Japanese proposals. Not to mention that the few concessions the Japanese did make were vague and open-ended.

Given that the Japanese were giving up little to gain much, and the US was giving up much to gain little, is it any wonder that the US turned them down

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4760
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Backdoor to war theory - do you believe it?

Post by OpanaPointer » 07 Jun 2021 18:11

rcocean wrote:
07 Jun 2021 17:08
From Louis Morton's "Japan's Decision for War". Page 114

On November 5, 1941 The Imperial Conference agreed to make two more proposals to the United States.
The first, Proposal A, was an amendment to the latest Japanese proposal and provided for a withdrawal from China and French Indochina, when and if a peace treaty was signed with Chiang Kai-shek. In certain areas in China, to be specified in the treaty, Japanese troops would remain for a "suitable period," vaguely and informally stated to be about twenty-five years. Further, the Japanese Government would interpret its obligations under the Tripartite Pact independently of the other Axis Powers. Lastly, Japan would agree not to discriminate in trade, provided all other nations did the same. In his instructions to Nomura, Foreign Minister Togo emphasized that while other matters could be compromised in his negotiations with the United States, Japan could not yield on the question of China.

In Proposal B, to be made if the first was rejected, no mention was made of the Tripartite Pact or the removal of Japanese troops from China. Japan would withdraw her troops from southern Indochina immediately and from the northern part of that country only after the negotiation of a peace treaty with Chiang Kai-shek, or after the conclusion of a "just peace" in the Pacific. In return, the United States was to agree not to interfere in the negotiations with China, and to co-operate with Japan in the acquisition and exploitation of natural resources in the Netherlands Indies. Finally, the United States was to resume commercial relations with Japan, and to provide that nation with oil.
IOW, Japan was willing remain at peace with the USA in return for Oil
And they would continue killing and raping China, something the US public was growing very disturbed about. Your underlined part was simply a demand that the US no longer support China and allow Japan to take control of the NEI oil fields. This was a ludicrous offer on Japan's part.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Return to “USA 1919-1945”