Reddit Reddit reviews Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor

We found 32 Reddit comments about Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
American History
United States History
U.S. State & Local History
Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor
Check price on Amazon

32 Reddit comments about Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor:

u/Cataclysm · 13 pointsr/reddit.com

>President Roosevelt was responsible for Pearl Harbor attack, knew about it in advance but didn't warn the Hawaiian commanders, because he wanted to sucker Hitler to declare war? -- That would easily find a mention in my list of worst conspiracy theories ever.

Actually this is very likely the case. This guy offers plenty of evidence to back it up: http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4489636-8060653?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179674151&sr=8-1

It's not a totally crazy conspiracy theory. Throughout history there have always been cases of leaders setting up, provoking or allowing attacks in order to convince the populace into supporting a war. It would be naive to think that that practice would have any reason to have stopped.

u/privatejoker · 10 pointsr/conspiracy

Always amuses me the similarities (in general) between Pearl harbor and 9/11 and how they were able to get away with the same thing 60+ years later.

If you're bored, grab Day of Deceit....great book on the PH conspiracy

u/globalism_sux · 8 pointsr/The_Donald

Yes. Read this book.

u/klyde · 6 pointsr/worldnews

We weren't taken by surprise at Pearl:

http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299

And the French were surprised by Hitler. They were well prepared for war sadly they were prepared for WWI

u/popcultreference · 5 pointsr/worldnews

People have argued that in fact Roosevelt engineered Pearl Harbor to specifically entice the Japanese into attacking because he knew it would make people demand involvement in the war. It sounds like a conspiracy theory but it's pretty documented.

https://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299

u/RKBA · 4 pointsr/worldnews

Exactly. Most people still think that FDR had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor for example [1]. Since no one reads anymore (especially history), everyone still thinks FDR had no prior knowledge of the attack and are blissfully unaware that in fact he intentionally provoked the attack.
-----------------
[1] "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" by Robert Stinnett

u/georedd · 3 pointsr/IAmA

"I wish our wars could all be as clear as WWII was- an almost good vs. evil type conflict"

Two things you should know about WW2 ( my father was in it so I know a few things becuase I have asked him).

  1. the media was completely controlled then so when the US was gearing up for war things were presented in a very clear fashion so it seemed then more clear cut- there was a movie censorship board which only allowed the official black and white depictions of war issues.

    2.Until that time it was not clear cut at all about whether or not the new forms of government known as "Fascist" were good or not.
    Time magazine made Hitler man of the year
    in 1939
    see it for yourself:

    http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html
    read the actual article here

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html

    and the whole world envied the rapid German economic recovery under his lead and many in the US openly wanted the US government to move toward a "streamlined" form of government with a stronger central leader to more quickly replicate the miracle of the German recovery from the economic ruin that gripped the world.

    There were many famous US supporters of Fascism.

    Charles Lindbergh for example openly said the US should move toward that type of government.

    So WW2 was NOT clear cut. It is only told to us that it was clear cut.
    You are judging by movies not reality.

    Never learn history by reading anything written after history.
    Read only the things written during the times to understand history. Today with internet archives of old newspapers it's easy.

    By the way I am merely relaying a historical fact and I in NO WAY support fascisms or Hitler etc etc. I just believe it is important for people considering war today to learn from how decisions were made in the past so mistakes are not repeated and successes are repeated. It's important to know it was NEVER CLEAR whether the US should enter WW2.

    In fact historical research has now proven conclusively FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen to motivate the country to get behind his decision to enter WW2.
    Best book on that which you would probably really be interested in reading is

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743201299?ie=UTF8&tag=reddit0e-20

    By the way many suspected FDR allowed Pearl harbor to happen to get us into the war AT THAT TIME. There were articles openly written about it just a week after Pearl Harbor happened.



u/peoplerate · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

If you're curious, I strongly recommend the above-mentioned book.

The author is a WWII vet who served on the same aircraft carrier as George Bush, and then went onto become a journalist and author.

He researched Pearl Harbor for decades, getting many first-hand testimonials, and a lot of key US gov't documents via Freedom of Information Act requests.

The most famous document, perhaps, is the so-called McCollum memo. This was written by a mid-level Navy intelligence officer who, the son of an American diplomat, was raised in Japan. McCollum was the Naval liaison officer to the White House and met with FDR once a week or more.

The memo outlined 8 steps that the US would have to do in order to provoke the Japanese to attack the US. The book details those 8 steps and supports them with evidence.

The overall idea of provoking Japan to attack was due to the collapse of France in the spring of 1940. That shocked the world.

The US, being unsuccessful at provoking the Germans into responding to our sinking of German U-boats in the Atlantic, thus opted to provoke Japan into attacking and to use that event to enter the war in a united fashion to keep Europe from falling to the Nazis.

Edit: Typos, added link.

u/oafishbliss · 3 pointsr/911truth

If you read the book "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" and ponder the evidence presented in it, you'll be either more terrified or reassured that our government has done similar crimes before.

The book is definitely recommended. In short, it'll shed new light on both the "good war" and the way the US government practices realpolitik and propaganda.

u/galt1776 · 3 pointsr/politics

FDR goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. Read Robert Stinnett's "Day of Deceit". And it was only b/c of America's imperial policies that Hawaii and the Philippines were ultimately targeted by the Japanese.

u/ShiftSurfer · 2 pointsr/worldnews

You have obviously not read Day of Deceit by R. Stinnett because your statement was proven false back in '01. Seriously, look it up then read it.

The argument over this issue has been settled via FIOA requests of US government documents that prove, at the very least, foreknowledge.

u/SpartanTank · 2 pointsr/ConspiracyII

The truth about Pearl Harbor was already uncovered by Robert Stinnett, who discovered the McCollum Memo and also wrote an extensive book about it. People tried to defame him, but it's ultimately up to the reader/researcher to decide truth from falsehood.

u/stephinrazin · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

You should check out Day of Deceit

The review reads, "Historians have long debated whether President Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Using documents pried loose through the Freedom of Information Act during 17 years of research, Stinnett provides overwhelming evidence that FDR and his top advisers knew that Japanese warships were heading toward Hawaii. The heart of his argument is even more inflammatory: Stinnett argues that FDR, who desired to sway public opinion in support of U.S. entry into WWII, instigated a policy intended to provoke a Japanese attack. The plan was outlined in a U.S. Naval Intelligence secret strategy memo of October 1940; Roosevelt immediately began implementing its eight steps (which included deploying U.S. warships in Japanese territorial waters and imposing a total embargo intended to strangle Japan's economy), all of which, according to Stinnett, climaxed in the Japanese attack."

u/BattleChimp · 2 pointsr/AskReddit
u/LeaningMajority · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

As documented by this author's discovery of the so-called "McCollum memo" (and other research), after the fall of France, the US gov't had an actual policy of provoking Japan so we enter WWII against Germany via the German-Japanese alliance.

u/zonkeramos · 2 pointsr/worldpolitics

I haven't read Shirley's book, but it seems obsolete, given the evidence that Robert Stinnett uncovered.

In his book "Day of Deceit" Stinnett documents that the Roosevelt administration definitely knew of the attack before Dec. 7th, but more than that, had a policy to provoke Japan into attacking the US. Prior knowledge of the attack has been a theory for many years, and many people talked about it immediately after Pearl Harbor, but Stinnett unearthed much new evidence from the US gov't itself using Freedom of Information Act requests.

The most startling evidence is a US gov't document written by a Naval officer who proposed provoking Japan into attacking the US. This officer was in contact with FDR and the highest Navy admirals on a daily basis. The memo proposed 8 steps which would provoke Japan to attack the US, and the US gov't then enacted all 8 steps and Stinnett documents these.

Stinnett also offers evidence and testimony that the US gov't had broken the Japanese naval codes (the US gov't only claims to have broken Japanese diplomatic codes) before Pearl Harbor and not afterward like the US gov't and our history books claim.

Stinnett's theory is that with the fall of France in the spring of 1940, the US was shocked and feared that Britain might fall to Germany; the administration then enacted a policy of provoking Japan into attacking the US so that the US could enter the war in Europe in a "backdoor" fashion and have the country united in the war effort as a result of the attack.

Edit: Clarity.

u/samfaina · 2 pointsr/worldpolitics

It's more than that it "never stopped" -- the US callously broke the agreement it made with Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the east.

In the so-called Cold War, the USSR surrendered. It withdrew from eastern Europe and allowed itself to be broken up into over a dozen different countries -- but the US gov't acted treacherously and has never ended US aggression against Russia.

The entire Cold War strategy of provoking Russia and encircling it with military bases continued. The US pushed NATO east, and it tore up the ABM treaty placing an anti-missile base in Poland using the laughable excuse that we did that "because of Iran." Clearly the US wants to negate Russia's nuclear deterrence.

Twice in one decade the US has funded the overthrow of Ukraine's -- the historic birthplace of all of Russia -- government, with this last coup d'etat being a blatant violent and bloody affair.

Is it any wonder Russia is responding? We certainly have tried hard enough to provoke them!

> "Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war." -- Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, 1944. The book "Day of Deceit" proves that the US carried out a deliberate, successful policy to provoke Japan into attacking the US so the US could enter WWII.

u/Ambiguously_Ironic · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

I guess it depends how deep down the proverbial rabbit hole you're willing to go. If you entertain the idea that the entire war was (at least partially) theater in order to justify extravagant military budgets and broad, sweeping societal/industrial changes, then it makes sense that nothing of strategic value was attacked by the Japanese. In a scenario like that, Japan and the US technically aren't "enemies" at all in the traditional sense. Japan would have been told what to bomb and how to bomb it so that nothing truly valuable was lost. The US would be willing to sack a few old battleships if they knew it could/would be used as the justification to enter the war and change the course of the country's and world's history forever (with the US at or near the top of the food chain, of course).

This is one of the only scenarios that makes any sense to me considering that nothing Japan did at Pearl Harbor really made sense from a military strategy perspective. They had every opportunity to do real damage to the US war effort by destroying a substantial amount of the Pacific fleet and infrastructure, and yet all they did was sink a few old battleships and "damage" some others. If you truly look at the alleged damage from Pearl Harbor compared to the amount of equipment, ships, infrastructure, etc. that was typically docked there, the level of Japan's failure is pretty unbelievable (literally).

It all reminds me a bit of how Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk or how Hitler allegedly canceled all weapons research for a couple years during the war because he thought he could "win with what he had". None of it makes any tactical sense whatsoever, despite how all the mainstream historians try to spin us.

> Do you have any good reads or docs on this?

Most of this is just the overall information I've gleaned from lots of different sources. It's basically my theory of WWII based on everything I've learned with my own speculations peppered in. I just see a lot of details and "facts" surrounding the war that make no sense at all except from the perspective that both sides were ultimately working together.

One more significant detail of that era that I think sheds some light as well: the BIS was crawling with Germans/Nazis all through the late 1930's and '40's - so basically the entire time the war was going on. There was a clause in the BIS charter saying it was immune from seizure, closure, and censure, regardless of what happened and even if its members were at war. Some of the members of the charter were First National of NY, Bank of England, Reichsbank, Bank of Italy, Bank of France, etc. Basically all of the major players and "enemies" of the war. The BIS funneled money to Germany throughout the war with the obvious consent of its member banks. Ultimately, as with everything else, it all comes back to money and power in the end imo.

If you want a book specifically about Pearl Harbor, this one is pretty decent.. The author of the book appears to be a spook and the book itself is likely a limited hangout in my opinion, but it's still a good entry-point and I think a lot of the evidence it compiles actually supports my theory that Pearl Harbor was one act in the Grand Play that is WWII, with Japan "in on it", despite that not being the author's intention.

u/mrnothere · 1 pointr/DepthHub

It wasn't exactly a false flag. Japan was trying to attack covertly, the U.S. happened to be able to intercept their encoded radio transmissions. There are numerous sources on the USA's knowing provocation but this book has some of the best examples of messages we intercepted that clearly described an attack on Pearl Harbor.

So, if FDR knows its going to happen, and conceals it, because he wants the American people to want revenge. Is that a false flag? I'm going to lump it in with one because it serves the same ends.

u/DocTomoe · 1 pointr/pics

> Everyone knows Germany attacked the USSR without provocation, to preemptively fuck up the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as you said. And preemptive knowledge of Pearl Harbor has never ever been established. You must cite something. It's basically the same old libel otherwise.

Sure, propaganda is a weapon both sides can wield. I'm more knowlegable in the latter field, so I will constrain myself to that one:

About the Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743201299/ (I would also like to include the diary of the US ambassador to Japan between 1932 and '45, Grey, but it has been out of print for a few years). There is tons of incidental proof, however, such as the order to build an 100 carrier two-ocean navy in September 1940, or the fact that to this date not all japanese decrypted messages have been released to the public record because they are considered a threat to "national security".

Disclaimer: I have majored in Japanese cultural studies and political sciences.

> NATO was designed to militarily defeat the USSR. That's gone and many Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO. I agree NATO doesn't know what NATO's purpose is, but NATO's original purpose is long gone.

NATOs purpose is to stand together if "troops, an aircraft or a ship of one or more of the undersigned nations gets attacked by a third party in the Mediterrean, the Atlantic Ocean north of the tropic of Capricorn or on its own territory." This purpose stands till today. This was not the case in both Bosnia nor Libya.

> I'm not saying Germany isn't still a part of NATO, just it's not still a great part of NATO.

And we are more than proud of not taking part in every military the US wants.

>> If the Libyan people are not strong enough to get rid of their leadership by themselves, what right do we have to interfere?

> I think this is irrelevant to the discussion but NATO is close to arming them and I'm sure it won't be Germany.

It is a sad day when we as a pact were to arm one kind insurgents against a dictatorship (Libya) while other very similar insurgents are ignored (Bahrain) or seen as terrorists (Palestine). It says something about our morality, don't you think?

>> It is likely that Gadhaffi will survive this episode, and we really don't want to be the target of libyan-sponsored state terrorism. Lockerbie anyone?

> this is your weakest argument. If your greatest defense against state-sponsored terrorism is to plea "not me, the other guy!" then I'm at a loss.

My point is you don't troll an aggressive dog. Europe has lived in peace with Gadhaffi for years, that guy even was more than helpful sometimes. No need to get bitten.

>> Excuse me for not honoring the heroes in the Golden Armors the US troops were back then, according to your thesis. The US, however, pledged MAD not for the sake of Germans, but for the sake of Britain, which would have fallen without a continental stronghold. The NATO plans for Germany were to transform it into a nuclear wasteland as soon as the first soviet tank touched our territory. We were to be destroyed by our American friends, not saved.

> Well you're absolutely right, there. No more germans. It's a shame, cause I love Spaten.

Eh, come on, Augustiner is way better. Ever tried their Maximator?

> I understand you're probably german, but you mean affect now. Germany is probably the most vital member of the EU, but now you've got France on your back. They're tired and they want to stop for wine a lot.

Trust me, France is not concerning us. We see other EU members to be a bigger problem, such as - for instance - Portugal. France will do whatever it takes as long as we subsidize their farmers.

u/hotxbun · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

As WWII naval veteran and journalist Robert Stinnett made abundantly clear, using much new evidence ranging from US gov't documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests to personal interviews, in his book Day of Deceit, we do not know the full details about Pearl Harbor and the US entry into WWII.

We openly opposed Japan, sending US pilots to China to fight against Japan (the Flying Tigers), moving the US Pacific Fleet from SF to Pearl Harbor, using economic sanctions to strangle Japan, and more.

After the fall of France in the Spring of 1940 the US was shocked that Britain faced Germany alone and sought to enter the war.

As the McCollum memo, unearthed by Stinnett, clearly illustrated, the US sought to deliberately provoke Japan into attacking the US, to use the German-Japanese treaty as a way of entering the war against Germany.

The provocations the US took were calculated to make Japan attack -- and they worked. Japan attacked and the rest, so they say, is history.

Any history of WWII is not is complete without reading and pondering the evidence presented by Stinnett in his book Day of Deceit.

u/carrierfive · 1 pointr/AmericanHistory

There is so much wrong with this article it'd take a book to explain it.

But wait, one journalist/author who served on the same WWII aircraft carrier as former president George Bush, and who has researched Pearl Harbor for decades, did write a book to explain it.

That author not only dug up key evidence from the federal government via Freedom of Information Act requests, but he also personally interviewed WWII cryptographers who said the US did break the Japanese Navy's code (something the US gov't said was not done until after Pearl Harbor).

Needless to say, there's more to this story than this article, which has a NSA historian as its key source.

> "Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war." -- Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, 1944.

u/GooseGooseDucky · 1 pointr/politics

> You seem to be implying that the US government is behind the attacks on mosques.

No, again, I don't know.

But what I'm saying is that such a course of action would not be beyond the US gov't. It is a blatant fact that the US Pentagon -- at the highest levels of our military! -- proposed to fake attacks in "Operation Northwoods" to start a war on Cuba. Thankfully, JFK's administration shot down such an idea, but the Pentagon still kept working on it.

And journalist Robert Stinnett, a WWII Navy veteran who served on the same aircraft carrier as George H.W. Bush, has uncovered multiple sources of evidence that the US gov't, again at the highest levels, had a deliberate policy of provoking Japan into attacking the US in the Pacific to start WWII. Stinnett wrote a book on this called "Day of Deceit". In it he claims FDR's administration planned this after France fell as a desperate way to enter the war with the support of the American people, as a backdoor way of declaring war on Germany through the tri-partite alliance between Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Since 1941 some have claimed that FDR "let Pearl Harbor happen" but there has been only iffy evidence to support such a claim. But Stinnett not only uses first-hand interviews with WWII vets, but also used FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests to uncover additional material, including an 8-point plan written by a US Navy intelligence officer who saw FDR on a near-daily basis and was born in Japan, a memo that was routed to high military brass and proposed 8 specific points to cause Japan to attack the US. The US then carried out all 8 points.

Whether Japan was deliberately provoked into attacking or not -- that is a question open to your own interpretation of the facts.

u/cancerous_176 · 1 pointr/Documentaries

Gulf of Tonkin 1967: McNamara knew it was a mistake before LBJ used it as an excuse to escalate. Daniel Ellsberg’s firsthand account from inside the Pentagon: http://www.pbs.org/pov/mostdangerousman/excerpt-ellsberg-memoir/2/
(Gareth Porter says Mac kept the truth from LBJ: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/05/how-lbj-was-deceived-on-gulf-of-tonkin/ )

Cold War’s End 1988-1991: CIA so busy lying about Soviet power under Casey and Gates, they missed the USSR’s fall. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21487-no-tears-for-the-real-robert-gates

Iraq War I: 1990-1991: Lied about Iraqi preparations to invade Saudi, Iraqi forces murdering babies https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html

Kosovo: 1999: Lied about 100,000 Albanian Muslims slaughtered by Serbs
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/18/balkans3

Afghanistan: 2001: Lied that Taliban wouldn’t give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Iraq War II 2003: Lied that Iraq was making WMD, including nuclear weapons, was allied with al Qaeda https://medium.com/dan-sanchez-blog/16-articles-that-expose-how-they-lied-us-into-war-in-iraq-bedf2e47c0bc

Somalia 2006: The Islamic Courts Union government was not truly in league with al Qaeda as claimed https://www.thenation.com/article/blowback-somalia/

Libya 2011: Lied that there was an impending genocide in Eastern Libya https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/

Syria 2013: No Slam Dunk on al Qaeda false-flag sarin attack, they finally admit much later
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/10/neocons-red-faced-over-red-line/

Iraq War III 2014: Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar did not need rescuing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2014/08/13/5fdd3358-2301-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html?utm_term=.b2834d3b716b

Yemen 2015: Not really bad intel, but notably knew war would be “long, bloody and indecisive,” launched it anyway, just to “placate the Saudis.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-us.html

—Hasn’t led to war yet, but they’ve been lying for years about Iran’s intent and actions to make nuclear weapons, which never existed. https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338 https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/16/when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-nukes/ CIA did finally admit this was so in 2007 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/20071203_release.pdf

Older phony casus belli:

1812: Impressment of sailors was the excuse when the Democrats really just wanted to seize Canada. https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/06/19/1812-the-war-partys-first-success/

1846: Mexico: U.S. invaded, called it defense from the Mexicans https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions

1861: Civil War: Keeping Ft. Sumpter open after South Carolina secession was a provocation. (Everyone’s got a different opinion about this one.)

1620-Current: Indian wars: Paid Napolean for the land. God says we can. And they started it anyway. http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/unit3/indians.html

1898: Spain: Remember the Maine was an accidental fire which spread to the magazine. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Maine.1898.pdf

1898: Philippines: Must Christianize these Catholics. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/blackboard/mckinley.html

WWI: Lusitania was a deliberate provocation, Zimmerman telegram threat of German-Mexican invasion of U.S. Southwest was a ridiculous joke. https://www.amazon.com/Lusitania-Colin-Simpson/dp/0582127076 https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann

WWII: Pearl Harbor: FDR Knew. https://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299

Korea: Syngman Ree’s forces’ provocations preceded Northern invasion https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

u/conspirobot · 1 pointr/conspiro

privatejoker: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

Always amuses me the similarities (in general) between Pearl harbor and 9/11 and how they were able to get away with the same thing 60+ years later.

If you're bored, grab Day of Deceit....great book on the PH conspiracy

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/worldnews

Maybe not entrapped but we did instigate. This is true.

Book: http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299

Brief blog post I found: http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/explosive-truth-about-pearl-harbor-the-story-the-rest-of-the-media-wont-tell/

Should be titled "Japanese general brings back unpleasant past"

u/Aswas · 1 pointr/conspiracy

This beat it to it

[Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor](http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299 "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor")

u/InterOuter · 1 pointr/worldpolitics

Wise Japanese diplomats and people on Obama's team will remember that the US actively and deliberately manipulated, maneuvered and provoked Japan into attacking the US at Pearl Harbor, as was proven in the book Day of Deceit.

Given the costs of that war to Japan, it is highly likely they've learned some valuable lessons from the US' strategy of starting that war...

> "Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war." -- Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, 1944.

u/IntnsRed · 1 pointr/worldpolitics

That's speculative theory, of course. What we know is what happened.

But to project, it depends on whether we deliberately provoked Japan into attacking the US or not.

Some people -- like this author and journalist, and WWII vet who served on the same aircraft carrier as President George H.W. Bush -- claim that after trying to provoke Germany into declaring war on us by sinking German subs in the Atlantic in int'l waters, we enacted a plan to enter WWII via the "back door:" the German-Japanese alliance.

That author uncovered a US document via Freedom of Info Act request which outlined steps for the US to provoke Japan into attacking us, and the book details the fact that we carried out those steps. One -- moving Pacific Fleet HQ from well-equipped San Francisco to the isolated, vulnerable backwater port of Pearl Harbor in our colony/territory of Hawaii, was so controversial that the Pacific Fleet commander resigned in protest over the move.

The logic goes that the US was so shocked (as was the world) at the lightning fast defeat of France, then the world's 2nd largest global empire, that the US felt compelled to enter the war. But FDR wanted to enter the war with the country united (it wasn't during WWI) so he felt he needed to be attacked -- thus the secret policy.

The author also claims, based on first-hand testimony by WWII cryptographers, that we had broken the Japanese naval code before Pearl Harbor (the US gov't claims we only broke it afterwards). That would've given us knowledge of the Japanese attack, and allowed us to move our aircraft carriers and new ships out of Pearl Harbor leaving only old, mostly obsolete ships to be attacked -- exactly what happened.

While this seems nuts to us today, in the 1940s it wasn't (see quote below). In fact, a Hawaiian newspaper ran a front page story the week before Pearl Harbor which said Japan was about to attack Hawaii.

If you subscribe to that theory, we entered WWII unjustly without cause, just like we did WWI.

> "Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war." -- Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, 1944. The book "Day of Deceit" documents that the US carried out a deliberate, successful policy to provoke Japan into attacking the US so the US could enter WWII.

u/Malizulu · -4 pointsr/history
u/kinglothar89 · -6 pointsr/politics

Pearl Harbor attacks were a setup. Highly recommend reading this: http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299. The only reason they actually entered the war was to expand the military complex. As a result (due to the high level of taxation at the time) many social programs were implemented that put people to work and improved the quality of life in America. WWII put America "on top of the world" because of strategic military and economic planning...and since then, their politicians have engaged in endless war because they believe that is the only way to remain "on top of the world."