WWII Conspricy Theories
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.
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.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.VanillaNuns wrote: ↑12 Sep 2020, 00:05RE: 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...
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.
- Thumpalumpacus
- Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 11:09
- Location: Hill Country, Tejas
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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?
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?
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑13 Sep 2020, 00:57European 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.
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.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑13 Sep 2020, 00:57
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.
*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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?OpanaPointer wrote: ↑13 Sep 2020, 13:52... 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.
*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
What do you think about this poll question and its results? :OpanaPointer wrote: ↑13 Sep 2020, 13:52I 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.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑13 Sep 2020, 00:57
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.
*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
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?
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
Not off the top of my head. I lost a lot of material when I was moved to St. Louis.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑14 Sep 2020, 04:20My 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?OpanaPointer wrote: ↑13 Sep 2020, 13:52... 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.
*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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?Futurist wrote: ↑14 Sep 2020, 04:24What do you think about this poll question and its results? :OpanaPointer wrote: ↑13 Sep 2020, 13:52I 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.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑13 Sep 2020, 00:57
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.
*http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
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?
The reason I put all polls related to the war online was to allow people to see the whole picture.
- T. A. Gardner
- Member
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
- Location: Arizona
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.
- Thumpalumpacus
- Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 11:09
- Location: Hill Country, Tejas
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
Yes.
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.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: WWII Conspricy Theories
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.
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.