Eh true, I mean how long did it take them to admit they knew pearl harbour would happen in advance and they still haven't admitted the CIA killed JFK..
They didn't know about Pearl Harbor in advance though. They had cracked the diplomatic code, which only made clear that something was going to happen.
Incompetence? Yes. Cui bono? Roosevelt. But did they know it beforehand? No.
As for the CIA killing JFK, it's not impossible, but the amount of evidence is not sufficient to make that conclusion. I'd say it's more likely that they are hiding the evidence for more ordinary reasons, like the fact that they just like to classify everything and don't want to be accountable to anyone. But that's just me.
It's one of those things I don't trust the government on, as we are talking about a war where the British used a dead body to trick the German's on a fake invasion route.
As for JFK, I think the fact the Soviets were panicking around even asking their intelligence service 'this wasn't us right?' To which their response was 'we know the shooter, but too unstable to use so avoided him' makes me think the CIA knew he had brief contact and thought 2 birds, 1 stone as JFK was a thorn in their side.
It's one of those things I don't trust the government on,
So one of those everything?
Cause the government is not to be trusted. However, there is no strong historical evidence saying anything other than what I just specified.
as we are talking about a war where the British used a dead body to trick the German's on a fake invasion route.
That's just ordinary. To be able to keep it secret for 80 years afterwards would take superhuman ability, particularly when people have been asking questions about it.
I think the fact the Soviets were panicking around even asking their intelligence service 'this wasn't us right?' To which their response was 'we know the shooter, but too unstable to use so avoided him' makes me think the CIA knew he had brief contact and thought 2 birds, 1 stone as JFK was a thorn in their side.
I'm not so sure. Considering that I don't like the CIA, it'll be very tempting to just say yes, so I'll have an argument against them - but I just haven't seen the evidence.
And to be fair, if they were involved, obviously they would do their best to hide the evidence. Which they do. But there can be other reasons why they try to hide the evidence.
As for JFK, I think the fact the Soviets were panicking around even asking their intelligence service 'this wasn't us right?' To which their response was 'we know the shooter, but too unstable to use so avoided him' makes me think the CIA knew he had brief contact and thought 2 birds, 1 stone as JFK was a thorn in their side.
Kruschev was probably shitting himself. I think the suspicion in the Kremlin was that it was the military that assassinated him, and was going to install Le May into power to start a war. To be honest, considering that nearly happened to Kruschev more than once, it's not an unreasonable suspicion. The fact that Oswold fucking worked for the KGB, and lived in Moscow for a time, means that if the US wanted to, they absolutely could have started WW3 with that information. There'd be no way to convince the US public that the Soviets weren't the perpetrators if the government came out and said: "a communist political activist, defector to the Soviet Union, and former KGB informant assassinated JFK."
It was only a few years since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his own military basically tried to start WW3 with Castro, without even warning him. Castro actually stated that his goal was to start WW3, and the militarists in Moscow were all about it. Kruschev nearly lost all control. He probably thought the same thing was happening in DC. He knew the military had been gunning for war basically since 1947, and he knew that the military assumed that the best way to prevent a large-scale nuclear exchange was to go pre-emptive. The military didn't know what Kruschev knew: that there was basically no chance of the USSR coming out the winner in a nuclear exchange because the US had basically more of everything, and the USSR was hiding it's nuclear weakness, going all the way back to the "Bomber Gap" days.
They didn't know about Pearl Harbor in advance though. They had cracked the diplomatic code, which only made clear that something was going to happen.
They knew, and if they didn't know, they were being wildly irresponsible.
FDR had been trying to provoke the Axis into getting into a war with the US for years. He started with Germany, intentionally violating war zones, and transporting military equipment; BUT the Germans saw that shit coming because Wilson used the Lusitania to get into WW1. (The Lusitania was also carrying weapons and violating a war zone restriction).
Not to mention, that FDR had ordered a US military ship to aggressively shadow and harass a IJN military ship until she was fired upon. The casualties were low, so that too wasn't enough to provoke the general public into a war effort, because the anti-war sentiment in the US was genuinely very strong.
Anyone who understood Japan knew full well that a war with the US was inevitable, and the Japanese certainly knew that they couldn't operate the way they were in the Pacific without provoking a war with the US. Hence why they chose a pre-emptive strike. They knew that they had no capacity to match the US's economic or military capability once it got going, and their only chance was a devastating first strike.
So one of the most heavily armed fleets Japan had ever set to anchor was assembling in Hittokapu Bay. The Americans had photographs of the fleet, it's composition, it's size, and then one day... poof! ... It was gone. All those carriers, and the US simply waited for it to re-appear. Didn't appear in China. Didn't appear in Guam. Didn't appear in Korea. Didn't appear in Indonesia. Didn't appear in Australia.
Gee? Now, where would one of the most heavily armed Japanese Strike Forces ever assembled have disappeared to all at once? If they can't be spotted after a few weeks, they must be in the "invisible ocean" where there's no land to launch patrol flights. But that's in the northern pacific! Japan's not at war with anybody out there! Why, the only thing within reach of that fleet would be the US base at Pearl Harbor where the entire Pacific Fleet is sitting idle and at anchor with relatively no protection, including our entire compliment of battleships and aircraft carri....
... oh ...
It's like saying, "this man with a gun and the balaclava isn't here to rob the bank, clearly he's just a 2nd Amendment advocate!"
Either the Roosevelt administration was criminally negligent to the point of needing to face criminal prosecution for the intelligence and military failures at Pearl Harbor (thank God for rare Japanese incompetence and stunning American luck, otherwise they might have actually had a chance at winning); or FDR knew about the attack and decided to just take it on the chin, assuming he wouldn't loose the entire pacific fleet, or that someone would have intercepted it on time. Wrong: again, in the 2nd bloodiest day in American history, we actually rolled 3 Natural 20's, and the Japs rolled a Natural 1.
As for JFK? Oswold shot him, that's actually super clear. LBJ just exploited the murder and turned it into a coup. There's a reason the biggest proponents of the JFK Assassination conspiracy theory are all former members of the Kennedy administration. When you read about what happened after the president died, it certainly looks like a coup. The focus on the shooting itself is actually classic deflection. Everyone's digging their heels into the initial crime scene, and not talking about the fucking fist fights that broke out in the White House when the VP staffers literally started throwing people out and taking their security clearances.
FDR had been trying to provoke the Axis into getting into a war with the US for years. He started with Germany, intentionally violating war zones, and transporting military equipment;
Correct. This is what made Germany (in WW2) conclude that America was a de facto belligerent and that declaring war would do no further harm to them.
Anyone who understood Japan knew full well that a war with the US was inevitable, and the Japanese certainly knew that they couldn't operate the way they were in the Pacific without provoking a war with the US. Hence why they chose a pre-emptive strike. They knew that they had no capacity to match the US's economic or military capability once it got going, and their only chance was a devastating first strike.
The US wasn't going to use aggression. That would have been politically impractical. It would just use economic sanctions in order to force Japan's hand. It's genius really. If you are the aggressor, your decision will always be second guessed. But if you trick the other side into attacking first, then you can paint yourself as innocence violated.
So one of the most heavily armed fleets Japan had ever set to anchor was assembling in Hittokapu Bay. The Americans had photographs of the fleet, it's composition, it's size, and then one day... poof! ... It was gone. All those carriers, and the US simply waited for it to re-appear. Didn't appear in China. Didn't appear in Guam. Didn't appear in Korea. Didn't appear in Indonesia. Didn't appear in Australia.
The Philippines were considered the most likely destination. In retrospect, Pearl Harbor may seem damn obvious, but hindsight is 20/20.
Either the Roosevelt administration was criminally negligent to the point of needing to face criminal prosecution for the intelligence and military failures at Pearl Harbor (thank God for rare Japanese incompetence and stunning American luck, otherwise they might have actually had a chance at winning);
Even the Japanese did not think that they had a chance to win. However, the oil embargo had made the situation so desperate that even a small chance was considered preferable to certain defeat.
As for JFK? Oswold shot him, that's actually super clear. LBJ just exploited the murder and turned it into a coup. There's a reason the biggest proponents of the JFK Assassination conspiracy theory are all former members of the Kennedy administration. When you read about what happened after the president died, it certainly looks like a coup. The focus on the shooting itself is actually classic deflection. Everyone's digging their heels into the initial crime scene, and not talking about the fucking fist fights that broke out in the White House when the VP staffers literally started throwing people out and taking their security clearances.
I would not be surprised, given LBJ's character (which is terrible for every politician, but he was a down and dirty streetfighter as well), I just haven't seen the evidence for it. In fact, any evidence. There are limits to cui bono.
The Philippines were considered the most likely destination. In retrospect, Pearl Harbor may seem damn obvious, but hindsight is 20/20.
I'm sticking with criminal negligence.
Even the Japanese did not think that they had a chance to win. However, the oil embargo had made the situation so desperate that even a small chance was considered preferable to certain defeat.
That's too pessimistic for the militarists. There were plenty of people who thought they could win in 1941, they just weren't everybody. Hell, there were still a lot of dangerous people who thought they could win in 1945.
Eh true, I mean how long did it take them to admit they knew pearl harbour would happen in advance and they still haven't admitted the CIA killed JFK..
They didn't know about Pearl Harbor in advance though. They had cracked the diplomatic code, which only made clear that something was going to happen.
Incompetence? Yes. Cui bono? Roosevelt. But did they know it beforehand? No.
As for the CIA killing JFK, it's not impossible, but the amount of evidence is not sufficient to make that conclusion. I'd say it's more likely that they are hiding the evidence for more ordinary reasons, like the fact that they just like to classify everything and don't want to be accountable to anyone. But that's just me.
It's one of those things I don't trust the government on, as we are talking about a war where the British used a dead body to trick the German's on a fake invasion route.
As for JFK, I think the fact the Soviets were panicking around even asking their intelligence service 'this wasn't us right?' To which their response was 'we know the shooter, but too unstable to use so avoided him' makes me think the CIA knew he had brief contact and thought 2 birds, 1 stone as JFK was a thorn in their side.
So one of those everything?
Cause the government is not to be trusted. However, there is no strong historical evidence saying anything other than what I just specified.
That's just ordinary. To be able to keep it secret for 80 years afterwards would take superhuman ability, particularly when people have been asking questions about it.
I'm not so sure. Considering that I don't like the CIA, it'll be very tempting to just say yes, so I'll have an argument against them - but I just haven't seen the evidence.
And to be fair, if they were involved, obviously they would do their best to hide the evidence. Which they do. But there can be other reasons why they try to hide the evidence.
I trust them to fuck things up, they're the main reason I live by the ethos 'hope for the best but plan for the worst'
Kruschev was probably shitting himself. I think the suspicion in the Kremlin was that it was the military that assassinated him, and was going to install Le May into power to start a war. To be honest, considering that nearly happened to Kruschev more than once, it's not an unreasonable suspicion. The fact that Oswold fucking worked for the KGB, and lived in Moscow for a time, means that if the US wanted to, they absolutely could have started WW3 with that information. There'd be no way to convince the US public that the Soviets weren't the perpetrators if the government came out and said: "a communist political activist, defector to the Soviet Union, and former KGB informant assassinated JFK."
It was only a few years since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his own military basically tried to start WW3 with Castro, without even warning him. Castro actually stated that his goal was to start WW3, and the militarists in Moscow were all about it. Kruschev nearly lost all control. He probably thought the same thing was happening in DC. He knew the military had been gunning for war basically since 1947, and he knew that the military assumed that the best way to prevent a large-scale nuclear exchange was to go pre-emptive. The military didn't know what Kruschev knew: that there was basically no chance of the USSR coming out the winner in a nuclear exchange because the US had basically more of everything, and the USSR was hiding it's nuclear weakness, going all the way back to the "Bomber Gap" days.
They knew, and if they didn't know, they were being wildly irresponsible.
FDR had been trying to provoke the Axis into getting into a war with the US for years. He started with Germany, intentionally violating war zones, and transporting military equipment; BUT the Germans saw that shit coming because Wilson used the Lusitania to get into WW1. (The Lusitania was also carrying weapons and violating a war zone restriction).
Not to mention, that FDR had ordered a US military ship to aggressively shadow and harass a IJN military ship until she was fired upon. The casualties were low, so that too wasn't enough to provoke the general public into a war effort, because the anti-war sentiment in the US was genuinely very strong.
Anyone who understood Japan knew full well that a war with the US was inevitable, and the Japanese certainly knew that they couldn't operate the way they were in the Pacific without provoking a war with the US. Hence why they chose a pre-emptive strike. They knew that they had no capacity to match the US's economic or military capability once it got going, and their only chance was a devastating first strike.
So one of the most heavily armed fleets Japan had ever set to anchor was assembling in Hittokapu Bay. The Americans had photographs of the fleet, it's composition, it's size, and then one day... poof! ... It was gone. All those carriers, and the US simply waited for it to re-appear. Didn't appear in China. Didn't appear in Guam. Didn't appear in Korea. Didn't appear in Indonesia. Didn't appear in Australia.
Gee? Now, where would one of the most heavily armed Japanese Strike Forces ever assembled have disappeared to all at once? If they can't be spotted after a few weeks, they must be in the "invisible ocean" where there's no land to launch patrol flights. But that's in the northern pacific! Japan's not at war with anybody out there! Why, the only thing within reach of that fleet would be the US base at Pearl Harbor where the entire Pacific Fleet is sitting idle and at anchor with relatively no protection, including our entire compliment of battleships and aircraft carri....
... oh ...
It's like saying, "this man with a gun and the balaclava isn't here to rob the bank, clearly he's just a 2nd Amendment advocate!"
Either the Roosevelt administration was criminally negligent to the point of needing to face criminal prosecution for the intelligence and military failures at Pearl Harbor (thank God for rare Japanese incompetence and stunning American luck, otherwise they might have actually had a chance at winning); or FDR knew about the attack and decided to just take it on the chin, assuming he wouldn't loose the entire pacific fleet, or that someone would have intercepted it on time. Wrong: again, in the 2nd bloodiest day in American history, we actually rolled 3 Natural 20's, and the Japs rolled a Natural 1.
As for JFK? Oswold shot him, that's actually super clear. LBJ just exploited the murder and turned it into a coup. There's a reason the biggest proponents of the JFK Assassination conspiracy theory are all former members of the Kennedy administration. When you read about what happened after the president died, it certainly looks like a coup. The focus on the shooting itself is actually classic deflection. Everyone's digging their heels into the initial crime scene, and not talking about the fucking fist fights that broke out in the White House when the VP staffers literally started throwing people out and taking their security clearances.
Correct. This is what made Germany (in WW2) conclude that America was a de facto belligerent and that declaring war would do no further harm to them.
The US wasn't going to use aggression. That would have been politically impractical. It would just use economic sanctions in order to force Japan's hand. It's genius really. If you are the aggressor, your decision will always be second guessed. But if you trick the other side into attacking first, then you can paint yourself as innocence violated.
The Philippines were considered the most likely destination. In retrospect, Pearl Harbor may seem damn obvious, but hindsight is 20/20.
Even the Japanese did not think that they had a chance to win. However, the oil embargo had made the situation so desperate that even a small chance was considered preferable to certain defeat.
I would not be surprised, given LBJ's character (which is terrible for every politician, but he was a down and dirty streetfighter as well), I just haven't seen the evidence for it. In fact, any evidence. There are limits to cui bono.
I'm sticking with criminal negligence.
That's too pessimistic for the militarists. There were plenty of people who thought they could win in 1941, they just weren't everybody. Hell, there were still a lot of dangerous people who thought they could win in 1945.