# Incorrect Assumptions **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 7, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-assumptions/605404 "2011-12-07T19:25:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zatdrawkcab](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/9fc348/32.png) [@Zatdrawkcab](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zatdrawkcab)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-assumptions/605404/1 "2011-12-07T19:25:51Z")
In your support of your belief that the U.S. leadership was not aware prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, you mentioned several inadeqacies or assumptions. First, you state that there was simply no way of knowing where the Japanese would attack and any military planner would say you’re dead wrong; the only significant U.S. military strength in the Pacific was at Pearl Harbor and looking at the sheer scope of the theater only one attack makes sense (it is litterally a no-brainer). Second, the reason for the specific timed appointment of the presentation of the declaration of war by the Japanese ambassador was so they would declare war just prior to the attack. The fact they were late in providing the declaration allowed the President (in his famous speech) to state we were attacked “without warning” and one has to wonder why the delay occurred (records show there to be what some would say a purposeful delay by the U.S. representative). Finally, your assertion that aircraft carriers were not the main crux of naval operations until the battle of Midway is patently false. The U.S. Navy had changed it’s concept of operations several years prior (upon delivery of the carriers to each fleet). The old concept of battleships being the center (the flag ship) of a naval group had been changed to the carrier with the battleships providing cover/protection along with the new destroyers they had already been planning on replacing the battleships with; battleships were kept only because their gun lengths were capable of providing better on-shore support for the island-hopping campaign that was planned. The simple fact that not one carrier was within striking distance of Pearl Harbor (they were running manuevers) speaks volumes. The other fact that only the oldest of the battleships were moored in the harbor also speaks volumes. The information you also do not take into context is the national sentiment prior to the attack was majorally one of staying out of the war; also the reason why we had to adopt the lend/lease program with our eventual allies (9 months prior to the attack). The fact that we were ginning up our industrial base to a level that far exceeded the stated allowances or expectations of the lend-lease program brings into question whether or not our leadership knew it was an eventuality we would be part of the war…they just needed a reason. Now, with all this being said, do I think our government can ever admit to this, no, I know they can’t as the American people are generally too liberal to believe war was the right thing for our country. The truth is, without the economic boost the war caused, not to mention the world-scoping political gains we realized by the end of the war, our country would not be the leader we are today. Finally, I am not saying the government ‘sacrificed’ the lives lost at Pearl Harbor, as the military is supposed to be prepared to respond to attacks so I don’t think they believed the attack would be as successful as it turned out to be. I believe even our enemy (at the time) echoed this with the famous quotation by Admiral Yamamoto of them “waking a sleeping giant” after receiving the initial battle damage reports. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-assumptions/605404/2 "2011-12-07T20:00:34Z")
Emoclew, **Zatdrawkcab**! As is customary for this forum, could you please provide a link to the column you are referring to? ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-assumptions/605404/3 "2011-12-07T20:44:31Z")
[?siht ekil naem uoY](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-advance-about-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor-yet-say-nothing) ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-assumptions/605404/4 "2011-12-07T20:57:55Z")
So… they let it happen, which was a _good_ thing, but we’re too liberal to admit it. That pretty much it? ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-assumptions/605404/5 "2011-12-07T22:43:20Z")
> [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > In your support of your belief that the U.S. leadership was not aware prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, you mentioned several inadeqacies or assumptions. First, you state that there was simply no way of knowing where the Japanese would attack and any military planner would say you’re dead wrong; the only significant U.S. military strength in the Pacific was at Pearl Harbor and looking at the sheer scope of the theater only one attack makes sense (it is litterally a no-brainer). Incorrect. To begin with there was no assurance that Japanese would attack to US at all. The natural resources they needed were in SE Asia. Furthermore the US had significant forcesin the Philippines, astride the Japanese line of march toward SE Asia. Taking the PI and unfortified Guam and Saipan would have forced the US Pacific fleet into a hazardous 4000-mile voyage against a power with a larger Pacific navy and also possessing air bases covering most of the route. > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > Second, the reason for the specific timed appointment of the presentation of the declaration of war by the Japanese ambassador was so they would declare war just prior to the attack. The fact they were late in providing the declaration allowed the President (in his famous speech) to state we were attacked “without warning” and one has to wonder why the delay occurred (records show there to be what some would say a purposeful delay by the U.S. representative). Incorrect. The Japanese ambassador did not present a declaration of war, nor did it even break diplomatic relations; it only cut off further negotiation. > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > Finally, your assertion that aircraft carriers were not the main crux of naval operations until the battle of Midway is patently false. The U.S. Navy had changed it’s concept of operations several years prior (upon delivery of the carriers to each fleet). The old concept of battleships being the center (the flag ship) of a naval group had been changed to the carrier with the battleships providing cover/protection As of 12/6/41 US naval opinion was divided on the question of whether battleships or carriers would be most decisive. Subsequent US operations were carrier- focused for the simple reason that the every Pacific Fleet battleship was put out of action by the Pearl Harbor attack. Midway confirmed the AC as the new queen of the seas since the Japanese fleet included its strongest battleship, and the US had none. Also, no surface vessels even sighted the enemey. > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > along with the new destroyers they had already been planning on replacing the battleships with; Incorrect. The US had 10 battleships under construction as of 12/7/41 (all commissioned by 1944), so destroyers were not meant to replace them, and did not replace them. > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > battleships were kept only because their gun lengths were capable of providing better on-shore support for the island-hopping campaign that was planned. Incorrect. Numerous US battleships fired in anger at enemy surface vessels. See especially the Guadalcanal And Philippine campaigns. > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > The simple fact that not one carrier was within striking distance of Pearl Harbor (they were running manuevers) speaks volumes. Incorrect. It speaks one sentence: _Lexington_ was delivering planes to Midway. _Saratoga_ was on the West Coast completing overhaul, and _Enterprise_ was returning from delivering aircraft to Wake Island- all normal duty. > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > The other fact that only the oldest of the battleships were moored in the harbor also speaks volumes. Incorrect. 4/5 of the US Navy’s youngest battleships were at Pearl Harbor: _West Virginia, Maryland, California_ and _Tennesee_. > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > The information you also do not take into context is the national sentiment prior to the attack was majorally one of staying out of the war; also the reason why we had to adopt the lend/lease program with our eventual allies (9 months prior to the attack). This is common knowledge, So what? > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > The fact that we were ginning up our industrial base to a level that far exceeded the stated allowances or expectations of the lend-lease program brings into question whether or not our leadership knew it was an eventuality we would be part of the war…they just needed a reason. Japan, Germany and Italy had between them been committing serial homicidal aggression since 1931, and war had been raging non-stop and growing in extent since 1937, with every sign the Axis was winning in 12/41. With so much danger in the world rearmament was imperative. > [@Zatdrawkcab](#): > > Now, with all this being said… Since you points of departure have been falsified there is no need to comment on the rest.