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 » 07 Jun 2021 19:08

My point with LBJ is that he did not get us into a war, as Congress never issued a Declaration of War,
Yes. "war" what is "war"? Its all so gray and fuzzy. Why, we could spend all day talking about the word "war" and what it means. Its impossible to take any of this seriously. Take care.

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 19:47

rcocean wrote:
07 Jun 2021 19:08
My point with LBJ is that he did not get us into a war, as Congress never issued a Declaration of War,
Yes. "war" what is "war"? Its all so gray and fuzzy. Why, we could spend all day talking about the word "war" and what it means. Its impossible to take any of this seriously. Take care.
That's ok...I have never taken the back door to war conspiracy theory seriously. Nor the Republican "FDR lied us into war".

Toodles.

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 20:23

At any rate, it would seem that the only level proof you may need is an actual admission from the CIA.

What I have is an eye witness testimony from a verifiable one of the most trusted men in United States history.

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 22:16

Chuckx wrote:
07 Jun 2021 20:23
At any rate, it would seem that the only level proof you may need is an actual admission from the CIA.

What I have is an eye witness testimony from a verifiable one of the most trusted men in United States history.
A statement from Ian Fleming would do. As there are at least a number in the high-teens of real life inspirations, and a few more fictious ones.

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 » 08 Jun 2021 16:07

Ian Fleming said that all of his stories have a basis in reality and 007 is an amalgam of real agents. I can cite him specifically if need. I don't mind doing that.

When you take that into consideration and then attempt to understand what he is saying, the puzzle pieces come together. Of course, Jack's story is a massive missing puzzle piece. It is his story of smuggling a phone call through Europe that then pieces together where 007 comes from.

I am certainly aware of the monumental challenge it is to convince someone that Jack is the James Bond. I can of course present information supporting that he operated the President's telephone when the President traveled. (C&P was responsible when the President was in the White House) But if we can momentarily skip the presentation of his credentials, I will present his case for James Bond.

The obituary in You Only Live Twice presents that James was born Scottish in 1921 and his parents died at age 11 and he went to the countryside to live with his aunt. He went into the service in 1938 and then graduated from an academy in 1941. Jack was born in 1920, parents had Scottish surnames and were Presbyterian (the religion of Scotland), his parents divorced at age eleven and he went to the countryside to live with his aunt. He first served at Fort Belvoir in 1938 and graduated from Virginia Tech in 1941. He kept his slip from VT giving him leave in the spring of 1941 so that he could go to Rockefeller Center to work with the British Security Coordination. This was the office that Ian Fleming frequented. He kept a letter his dad wrote him after the divorce at that time for when he went to the countryside and verbally said it was his aunt.

The example continue. For example he kept his stainless steel dentures. Ian Fleming writes about stainless steel dentures in The Spy Who Loved Me. They are used in Japan and ultimately they are the inspiration to the character of Jaws in the series.

Another example is that I have proof that he worked on the AT&T Project Offices. The book Dr. No describes the villains lair as being identical to an AT&T project office and the main office is just like that of one of the largest corporations in America. That would be AT&T.

Ian Fleming visited New York in April 1962 and told the New Yorker that he was visiting the main operative in all of his novels. Jack said the same British Secret Service agent that he worked with in 1941 came to visit him at his home in New York in the 1960's. Despite Ian saying he was visiting the main operative, no one has identified the person he was visiting.

The novels repeatedly relay back to experiences Jack had. The obituary, perhaps not alone, is a substantial indicator. All of this is above and beyond the fact that his story was more or less his last dying breath.

Lastly, of course his name was James.

He was sent to investigate something happening in the Kuril Islands and he knew of a base there. That would be Matua. The Ainu were relocated away from the islands in 1941. John Batchelor the missionary to the Ainu left that year as he knew war was coming.

When you read You Only Live Twice you begin to see how it is a story about Matua Island. The indigenous people in the novel come from the same ancestry as the Ainu, which by the way was recognized as being Aryan. The Germans had demanded the Japanese recognize them as being a part of the master race. The name of the nearby island, Black Island, is the same as the first island of the Kuril. Matua Island is near identical.

The other novels continue to support the story. But the most important aspect to the story is that we had contact with the Sorge ring and Roosevelt worked with the British to send in a secret agent to work with the Sorge ring.

This was the beginning of the CIA. Of course they were called the COI at this time. After Pearl Harbor they were called the OSS and then eventually after being disbanded and reorganized they were called the CIA.

Obviously Jack has further stories of working with the CIA.

I will cut this post short. The stories can go on for perhaps hundreds of pages with ample corroborating statements to history.

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 03 Oct 2008 20:06

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

Post by LineDoggie » 08 Jun 2021 17:48

ljadw wrote:
06 Jun 2021 06:53


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 .
IIRC it wasn't just a US Embargo on Oil- Airplanes, Parts, Machine tools, and Aviation Gasoline, Steel, Iron, Scrap metal.- the DEI's and Britain followed, and the US seized ALL Japanese assets in the USA. that is a serious knife to the Japanese Militarists throat.
Thats some 80% plus of its OIL needs

IJA seizes Indochina from Vichy in an attempt to control rubber supply in the region Hitting the west and to forward position Japanese Military units

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... %E2%80%9D/
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

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

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

Post by rcocean » 08 Jun 2021 19:36

Here are some quotes to show how those DAMN REPUBLICANS Were lying about FDR. Like others I want my history DEMOCRATIC! :lol:
1. "The Democratic platform adopted in Chicago, in 1940, stated: "We will not participate in foreign wars, and we will not send our army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack."

2."On September 11, 1940, in Washington, D.C., the President said: "I hate war, now more than ever. I have one supreme determination—to do all that I can to keep war away from these shores for all time. I stand, with my party, and outside of my party as President of all the people, on the platform, the wording that was adopted in Chicago less than two months ago. It said: 'We will not participate in foreign wars, and we will not send our army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack.'"

3. "On October 23, 1940, in Philadelphia, the President again said: "We are arming ourselves not for any foreign war. We are arming ourselves not for any purpose of conquest or intervention in foreign disputes. I repeat again that I stand on the platform of our party: 'We will not send our army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack.'"

4. "On October 30, 1940, in Boston, Mass., the President said: "And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores. The purpose of our defense is defense."

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 » 08 Jun 2021 22:15

rcocean wrote:
08 Jun 2021 19:36
Here are some quotes to show how those DAMN REPUBLICANS Were lying about FDR. Like others I want my history DEMOCRATIC! :lol:
1. "The Democratic platform adopted in Chicago, in 1940, stated: "We will not participate in foreign wars, and we will not send our army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack."

2."On September 11, 1940, in Washington, D.C., the President said: "I hate war, now more than ever. I have one supreme determination—to do all that I can to keep war away from these shores for all time. I stand, with my party, and outside of my party as President of all the people, on the platform, the wording that was adopted in Chicago less than two months ago. It said: 'We will not participate in foreign wars, and we will not send our army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack.'"

3. "On October 23, 1940, in Philadelphia, the President again said: "We are arming ourselves not for any foreign war. We are arming ourselves not for any purpose of conquest or intervention in foreign disputes. I repeat again that I stand on the platform of our party: 'We will not send our army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack.'"

4. "On October 30, 1940, in Boston, Mass., the President said: "And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores. The purpose of our defense is defense."
You know...There was something that happened on December 7, 1941...I wish I could remember what it was.

Then there was December 11, 1941. Germany declared war on yet another nation...I forget which though.

Suddenly, however, for the US, "foreign" wars were no longer "foreign."

Perhaps, FDR did lie, and there was no attack on Pearl Harbor...It was all an elaborately staged production. And, perhaps Germany never did declare war on the US, but it was the evil FDR and the media lying to the US public.

Perhaps...But I doubt it.

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

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

Post by ljadw » 12 Jun 2021 06:45

LineDoggie wrote:
08 Jun 2021 17:48
ljadw wrote:
06 Jun 2021 06:53


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 .
IIRC it wasn't just a US Embargo on Oil- Airplanes, Parts, Machine tools, and Aviation Gasoline, Steel, Iron, Scrap metal.- the DEI's and Britain followed, and the US seized ALL Japanese assets in the USA. that is a serious knife to the Japanese Militarists throat.
Thats some 80% plus of its OIL needs

IJA seizes Indochina from Vichy in an attempt to control rubber supply in the region Hitting the west and to forward position Japanese Military units

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... %E2%80%9D/
Not 80 % of its (pre war ) oil needs ,but of its ( pre war ) oil imports .There is a difference between imports/production and needs and consumption .
And, Japan did not seize Indochina in 1941 to control rubber supply,but forced Vichy to admit Japanese air/naval bases which has as mission to prevent Western supplies from going to China .

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 » 12 Jun 2021 07:33

LineDoggie wrote:
08 Jun 2021 17:48
.. and the US seized ALL Japanese assets in the USA. that is a serious knife to the Japanese Militarists throat.
The US froze Japanese funds in US banks. They had to show what they needed the funds for before they were released, and a paper trail was kept.
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 » 12 Jun 2021 17:07

Duplicate post
Last edited by rcocean on 12 Jun 2021 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Post by rcocean » 12 Jun 2021 17:45

From the National Interest: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... -155801 [
For a start, Hart thought that sending out a “defensive information patrol” would “consume effort we could ill spare from more valuable objectives.” Intelligence on the Japanese invasion force massing on Hainan Island and in Vichy-controlled French Indochina (Vietnam) was already available from several sources, having in fact been the principal reason for Washington’s war-warning message to all U.S. Pacific commands on November 27. A key source was his own Navy Patrol Wing 10. On November 25, tipped off by a rumor from Hong Kong, Hart had surreptitiously initiated aerial surveillance of Camranh Bay, on the central Vietnam coast, using a couple of Consolidated PBY Catalina flying boats and had personally written and dispatched the first report the same day. Then, on November 30, Admiral Stark, with presidential approval, ordered him to do what he had already been doing on his own authority for five days.

The December 1, 1941, order’s excruciatingly specific detail, extraordinary as it was inappropriate to a fleet commander, also perplexed Hart. Why did the president specify surface reconnaissance? Hart had flatly stated in his November 25 report that the situation most clearly required air observation because high land makes examination from ships both difficult and slow. Also, picket ships would run greater risk than aircraft. As it was, one of his Catalinas had barely escaped from closing Japanese fighters by dodging into cloud.

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 » 12 Jun 2021 18:15

Surface recon can linger, and operate at night. Don't know if that was his thinking or not but the logic is there. As things escalated (without an attack on US territory) air recon could have been added.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

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 » 12 Jun 2021 18:16

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 » 12 Jun 2021 22:27

Another good reference:https://www.americanheritage.com/strang ... lanikai#7
The War Cabinet, totally unaware of the Pearl Harbor attack force, met at noon to discuss the major Japanese expedition now heading south off Indochina. As usual, Stimson recorded the gist of the proceedings; it was the opinion of everyone that “if this expedition was allowed to get around the southern point of Indochina and to go off and land in the Gulf of Siam … it would be a terrific blow at all of the three Powers, Britain at Singapore, the Netherlands, and ourselves in the Philippines. It was the consensus of everybody that this must not be allowed .… that if the Japanese got into the Isthmus of Kra, the British would fight. It was also agreed that if the British fought, we would have to fight.”


So, FDR had already committed us to war against Japan, whether they attacked USA forces or not. And on Page 7, the conclusion:
Why then the ISABEL … BUT NOT OTHER NAVAL VESSELS ”—Only ships that did not look like Naval vessels? Why those “ MINIMUM ” tokens of a Naval vessel that “ WOULD SUFFICE ”? Why Filipino crewmen when F.D.R. knew that Hart had seven thousand U.S. seamen to draw on? Neither Morison nor any of the many witnesses questioned on the subject before the congressional investigating committee provided any satisfactory answers. And as for silence, it is far more eloquent than words.

In May, 1952, Rear Admiral John B. Heffernan, director of Naval History, asked Admiral Hart to review Morison’s book and offer corrections. Included in the latter was one on the footnote covering the “three small ships” episode: “Footnote 20 should be rewritten to accord with facts or be entirely omitted; it is not a piece of history of which to be proud.”

One spring day in 1970 I was having a prelunch sherry with Admirals Harry Hill and Thomas Hart. “I once had the unpleasant requirement to send this young man on what looked like a one-way mission,” Hart told Hill in explanation of our past association. Then he recounted Lanikai’s narrow escape from the dragon’s mouth. “Would you tell Admiral Hill if you think we were set up to bait an incident, a casus belli?” I asked him.

“Yes, I think you were bait!” said Admiral Hart. “And I could prove it. But I won’t. And don’t you try it, either!”

We are trying, Admiral Hart. And in remembrance of your near clairvoyance in foreseeing the shape of coming events in the Far East, we can only hope that in looking down from an old sailor's snug retreat you will approve of setting the record straight.

Return to “USA 1919-1945”