Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
Old 12-07-2007, 09:39 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Downthestretch55
Question:
I was told by a high school history teacher that on Dec 6, 1941, the entire US Pacific fleet was assembled in one place for only the first and ever time.
Coincidentally, negotiations with Japanese diplomats in Washington DC had "broken down".
The carriers left port (Pearl Harbor) that day, and the following morning, we know what happened, though warnings from spotters we ignored.
So...Did FDR set it up to get the USA into WWII? Like, "here's your shot, Japan, have at it."

ps: My father was an officer that served in the South Pacific as an engineer (building landing fields). Two purple hearts, malaria, jungle rot, and nightmares for many many years after.
He was one of the greatest generation. I miss him every day. He also shared this question, and said the only thing that spared the US from defeat in the Pacific was the Panama Canal.
i bet you could also find people who think the lusitania was given up to get us into world war 1. of course the truth there is that the sinking didn't get us in to the war to end all wars. we didn't enter world war one until almost a year after the lusitania tragedy, when it was found that germany was trying to get mexico to invade the u.s. after our defeat by our neighbors to the south, they would reclaim texas, new mexico, etc.

i have a tremendously hard time believing that fdr would sacrifice so much to get us into the war, a war which many already wanted us in. also, keep in mind that we were no superpower. yes, we had some ships lost, but the fleet then in no way compares to now. actually most ships were salvaged and put back into action fairly quickly; the attack wasn't quite as devestating as initially thought. of course the loss of life was significant. and we hadn't had an attack on our own soil since the civil war. but for anyone to suggest that the commander in chief, for whatever reason, would sacrifice his own troops to get us in battle is ludicrous in the least.
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.